An atheist is intrinsically dishonest just like fire is intrinsically hot.
An atheist starts his search for truth on the platform that life comes from muddy puddles and our grandparents are monkeys and that is a dishonest beginning.
When any person observes the world they cannot help themselves from witnessing design in everything they see - and even looking through a microscope an honest person will observe design function and purpose in everything……..it is impossible not to see.
The cosmos is balanced and structured and atheist tells us it all comes from an explosion and everything is randomly coming about by chance.
Why are these strange creatures called atheists so blind to the anthropic creation.
They dishonestly say that their science informs them of their findings - but their atheistic science does no such thing.
They fudge their figures and force their assumptions and conclusions against what is truly observable.
Atheists enjoy argument because they simply apply dishonesty in their discussions assuring that they are never defeated.
But atheists are defeated even before they begin to speak - but being dishonest they just reject all evidence, common sense, authority, rational discussion and observable truth.
Atheists are very proud of their monkey teachings and they give each other certificates in learning called Phd,s
To delude the lay persons these atheistic science persons create complicated scientific language to hide the fact that they are simply teaching monkey philosophy and also the philosophy that life comes from muddy puddles..
They have to make their explanations complicated to hide the fact that they are speaking nonsense.
But honest persons do not accept what these fools are presenting - well because they are honest.
Originally posted by DasaThat's because we're all lying, cheating, dishonest, meat eating, foolish, biased, fault finding, Michael Cremo rejecting rascals :]
An atheist is intrinsically dishonest just like fire is intrinsically hot.
An atheist starts his search for truth on the platform that life comes from muddy puddles and our grandparents are monkeys and that is a dishonest beginning.
When any person observes the world they cannot help themselves from witnessing design in everything they see - and even looking ...[text shortened]... But honest persons do not accept what these fools are presenting - well because they are honest.
Originally posted by DasaYou are certifiably insane.
An atheist is intrinsically dishonest just like fire is intrinsically hot.
An atheist starts his search for truth on the platform that life comes from muddy puddles and our grandparents are monkeys and that is a dishonest beginning.
When any person observes the world they cannot help themselves from witnessing design in everything they see - and even looking ...[text shortened]... But honest persons do not accept what these fools are presenting - well because they are honest.
Whackjob
Originally posted by nook7Wait for it...........
You are certifiably insane.
Whackjob
Nook wants to tell us all how life comes from a muddy puddle.
After the lightning bolt struck the puddle - life jumped out and it was so hungry that another lightning bolt struck another puddle and then we had cauliflowers and potatoes.
Not to speak of apples, oranges, pears, mangoes, strawberries, wheat, barley, corn, lentils, olives, spinach, and so on and so on and so on and on.
Is this how it happened Nook.?????
How did it happen that there was so much nice healthy food to feed all this life?.....random chance.
Originally posted by DasaAgreed, you are a whackjob.
Wait for it...........
Nook wants to tell us all how life comes from a muddy puddle.
After the lightning bolt struck the puddle - life jumped out and it was so hungry that another lightning bolt struck another puddle and then we had cauliflowers and potatoes.
Not to speak of apples, oranges, pears, mangoes, strawberries, wheat, barley, corn, lentils, o ...[text shortened]... did it happen that there was so much nice healthy food to feed all this life?.....random chance.
Atheists do not believe that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Much as I don't think Dasa's posts really deserve to be responded to, Dasa brings up some common misconceptions
about Atheism, Atheists, and Science...
As well as forcing the English language to do and mean things it was never intended to.
First, Atheism is not inherently a belief system.
Atheism has been defined many different ways, but the most useful, and I think most used by those who would wear the label, Is simple.
If you answer the question 'do you believe in god/god's/insert deity of choice here?' with the answer 'no' then you are an atheist.
Note that you could also be an agnostic, if you answer the question, 'is there a god/god's/ect?' with 'I don't know'.
There is also a thing often called 'strong atheism' where you state that you either believe, or know, god does not exist.
The first of these [two strong atheism positions], may still be compatible with agnosticism, where you say, 'I don't believe god exists,
but I don't know for sure', (my position) or something similar.
Claiming you 'know' god doesn't exist however definitely removes the agnostic label.
Strong atheism, unlike strait/regular/plain atheism does have a burden of proof, as it is a positive belief, rather than a lack of one.
People may have the position of being an atheist for many reasons, some, particularly those from highly non-theistic society's
may never have really thought about it (which isn't particularly rigourus, but is no more or less so than those brought up in
a religion who have never really thought about it. In the case of atheism I suspect it isn't particularly common).
Others, I suspect the majority, would have considered the question [carefully] at some point, and typically, will hold the position because
they aim to only hold positions and beliefs that are 'true', and can be backed up by evidence.
[or at the very least apply this standard to religious positions, not all atheists will reject the supernatural entirely, and you don't
have to to hold this label, but the significant majority, will I suspect, reject the rest of spirituality for the same reasons as they
reject the existence of god]
Thus atheism, in its most intellectually rigourus form, has as its 'platform' simply the desire to justify all beliefs with evidence and
reason.
As you can see, Evolution does not feature [and is not required] as even part of atheism's rational basis.
Atheists can, and do, have beliefs. But the label of atheist doesn't tell you what they are.
You can be an atheist, agnostic, rationalist, materialist, liberal, capitalist, secular humanist... for example (for reference, NOT necessarily
my personal belief set).
In that list, the atheist and agnostic are the least informative and mostly redundant labels.
Evolution is a theory of Science. It has nothing to do with religion, or atheism.
As there is no evidence, or experiment that can test for or verify god, and testable prediction that can be made by any hypothesis
that invokes god as an explanation.... God and religion do not feature in science. (other than objects of study for people studying the
workings of humans and human societies)
The fact that science can provide a solid explanation for the existence and diversity of life is a blow for religion, and I am sure has
caused many people to question their faiths (which is why it is hated and singled out by the religious so much) but even if evolution
had not been discovered and we did not have an explanation for how life came about. That still would not mean that the only, or
most reasonable explanation for life and our existence would be god.
God is inherently the least likely and least reasonable explanation for anything.
And it would still require proving, to be justified as a positive belief.
Again, evolution is an aid to those arguing against theism... but it isn't the root basis for atheism, without which it all comes tumbling
down.
As for the rest of Dasa's ramblings...
He makes many statements without any evidence or justification.
Claiming he speaks for an authority.
Religions all have at their root a belief in authority of one kind or another. Be it some holy book (purporting to be the word of god or his prophets),
or the teachings of people high in the churches hierarchy (who are (purport to be) better in tune with the word of god and his teachings).
This is the tyranny of religion, unquestionable authority.
Both science and Atheism are, in part (that is not all they are), rejections of authority and tyranny.
They both require positions and beliefs to be justified with observation, evidence and reason.
Any position held by science that is shown to be wrong is changed or thrown out, this is how science constantly gets better.
If you believe in an unquestionable authority, and that authority is wrong, (like saying the sun goes around the earth) then
you are stuck. You can't progress beyond that mistake because the authority wont let you.
Dasa also makes many, many, straw men, claiming things never said by any scientist, and then poring scorn on them, with no understanding.
This is, as has been said many times, what dishonesty Actually means.
I apologise If I have feed the beast.
But I feel that in this case dasa has been making untrue claims that many others believe, and need correcting.
Note: to save space, where I say 'god' please read as god/god's/insert deity here/ect. I am not singling out monotheism specifically, but simply
saying god saves a lot of typing.
EDIT: edits in italics.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Dasa" How did it happen that there was so much nice healthy food to feed all this life?.....random chance. "
Wait for it...........
Nook wants to tell us all how life comes from a muddy puddle.
After the lightning bolt struck the puddle - life jumped out and it was so hungry that another lightning bolt struck another puddle and then we had cauliflowers and potatoes.
Not to speak of apples, oranges, pears, mangoes, strawberries, wheat, barley, corn, lentils, o ...[text shortened]... did it happen that there was so much nice healthy food to feed all this life?.....random chance.
Modern day plants mainly eat and construct themselves out of Carbon dioxide.... A highly complicated foodstuff that
couldn't possibly be created without intelligent design.... (btw your sarcasm detector probably just exploded)
Very simple lifeforms found today in environments similar to those found on the early earth eat some 'foodstuffs' that
we would consider extremely toxic, and can be very basic in molecular form.
Nobody is claiming complex life suddenly materialised in some unbelievably complex single event like a tornado sweeping
through your house and tidying it up. That is absurd.
What we claim happened is that very very simple life forms developed from a soup of already present, and easily formed,
known to be found almost everywhere, building blocks.
These very simple life forms then evolved over Billions of years into the complex life you see around you today.
Calling evolution random chance is to miss out the most important and salient details of it... it involves an element of random
chance, but that is but one element of how it works.
You are perpetually creating straw man arguments, they just demonstrate that you don't understand what your talking about.
And/or that you don't care.
I personally wouldn't call you a whackjob... More of a fruitcake....
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Dasa
An atheist is intrinsically dishonest just like fire is intrinsically hot.
An atheist starts his search for truth on the platform that life comes from muddy puddles and our grandparents are monkeys and that is a dishonest beginning.
When any person observes the world they cannot help themselves from witnessing design in everything they see - and even looking ...[text shortened]... But honest persons do not accept what these fools are presenting - well because they are honest.
An atheist is intrinsically dishonest just like fire is intrinsically hot.
An interesting analogy. Fire is not intrinsically hot, we sense it as hot but the heat is the result of infrared energy released by rapid oxidation of, mostly and usually, the carbon contained in the burning material; energy that impinges on our nerves.
So you call the atheist intrinsically dishonest, whereas all he is doing is releasing hot air that gets on your nerves. 😀
Originally posted by Dasai am hard pressed to find a single honest sentence here. i guess i shouldn't be surprised, this coming from dasa.
An atheist is intrinsically dishonest just like fire is intrinsically hot.
An atheist starts his search for truth on the platform that life comes from muddy puddles and our grandparents are monkeys and that is a dishonest beginning.
When any person observes the world they cannot help themselves from witnessing design in everything they see - and even looking ...[text shortened]... But honest persons do not accept what these fools are presenting - well because they are honest.
Originally posted by DasaSo tell us oh masterful one, how live started and developed on our planet.
Wait for it...........
Nook wants to tell us all how life comes from a muddy puddle.
After the lightning bolt struck the puddle - life jumped out and it was so hungry that another lightning bolt struck another puddle and then we had cauliflowers and potatoes.
Not to speak of apples, oranges, pears, mangoes, strawberries, wheat, barley, corn, lentils, o ...[text shortened]... did it happen that there was so much nice healthy food to feed all this life?.....random chance.
Originally posted by NickstenNot "easy". Long and tedious story AND if we really knew the details then I suspect we would have more peace in the world.
It's easy, God created man, read the Bible, it's all in there...seriously.
So: "created", what do you mean by this? Do you mean he clicked his fingers and man and the world began?
"It's all in there", no it's not.
"God" here can best be taken as a metaphor ,that's if this is your serious contention.
(I'm trying to work with you here)
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are not yet qualified to ask that question.
So tell us oh masterful one, how live started and developed on our planet.
While you cannot or refuse to understand that animal slaughter is sinful and should not be supported - then you will remain unqualified to ask questions about the higher order of spiritual creation.
These questions are reserved for honest persons.
So I will stay with the basics as regards to yourself.