The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 01:27 PM)RASCAL Wrote: I'm a betting man Beaker. And I'll bet you are to. So I am going to give you 50% toward your not believing in God, But, you also must, as well as the atheists, give me my 50% toward believing in God and his word! 50% are GREAT odds anywhere and anyone would be glad to take them. Kinda like flipping a coin for heads or tails. But, when you die, what if YOU are wrong?

So believing just in case to make sure I don't go to hell would be genuine, so-called "saving faith"? Doubtful.

The fact is that the odds really aren't 50/50, at least with respect to the Christian deity. The odds are very much against his existence, for the following reasons (and by no means is this an exhaustive list):

1. The universe that exists does not reflect perfect, conscious design. In an enormous universe, we find billions of dead stars, junk planets, wide swaths of lifelessness that have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Out of all these planets, it currently appears that there's just this one little tiny blue sphere where this thing called "life" happens. Why all this worthless material on the side? This does not reflect a perfect designer.

2. The Judeo-Christian creation story directly contradicts all known evidence, and all new evidence continues to contradict it.

3. The traits attributed to your god are often contradictory and inexplicable.

4. Entire portions of history within the book that describes your god are absolutely incorrect. Example: The god who led millions of Hebrew slaves out of the ancient Egyptian empire does not exist, because there were never millions of Hebrew slaves that left the ancient Egyptian empire.

5. The ideas of God reflected in the Bible often seem inconsistent with the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity, but seem entirely consistent with the possible beliefs of a superstitious, patriarchal, primitive group of people at war with their neighbors.


I could go on and on. But 50/50 is giving your beliefs too much credit. I am not willing to meet you half way when you simply don't have that much evidence going for you.

[Rotobeast]

(08-04-2015, 03:33 PM)Beaker Wrote: Then a loving god would understand my choices while alive and welcome me with open arms. Especially since he created me and knew when he did so what choices I would make.

Actually, I'm fairly certain He will.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 03:48 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Actually,  I'm fairly certain He will.

Universalist?

[Rotobeast]

(08-04-2015, 03:50 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Universalist?

I guess I am, somewhat.
I don't think other religions are completely wrong and I think it's rather vain to say we have something so powerful completely figured out.

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 01:27 PM)RASCAL Wrote: I'm a betting man Beaker. And I'll bet you are to. So I am going to give you 50% toward your not believing in God, But, you also must, as well as the atheists, give me my 50% toward believing in God and his word! 50% are GREAT odds anywhere and anyone would be glad to take them. Kinda like flipping a coin for heads or tails. But, when you die, what if YOU are wrong?

How do you figure 50/50?  There are literally hundreds of different religions, and way less than half the people on earth are Christians.

If the only thing that makes you religious is covering your ass then you need to start following a bunch of differntr religions because based on the numbers your odds are way less than 50/50.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 03:28 PM)Beaker Wrote: So the only evidence you have for how life reached its current complexity and diversity is the end result? Then why don't you just hold up any piece of complex machinery and say god did it? Here's a light bulb, it came this way, god made it. I do get to decide how it works when it comes to presenting and evaluating evidence....and that is not how it works.

I think you're kinda proving my point here. I will say the machine and the light bulb had to be created. Using your logic you will assert the machine evolved from something far less complex (perhaps a rock) through a series of random actions.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you're kinda proving my point here. I will say the machine and the light bulb had to be created. Using your logic you will assert the machine evolved from something far less complex (perhaps a rock) through a series of random actions.

Just to remind you (again): you don't understand natural selection whatsoever.

[Devils Advocate]

Can anyone provide proof of speciation?

Can anyone explain why/how ***** Sapiens appear outta nowhere 200,000 -- 250,000 years ago. All other *****'s are account for before and after man's arrival.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 06:35 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Can anyone provide proof of speciation?

Yes, I can.

But before I do, my question is, what's the point? Will you amend your beliefs accordingly or just move the goal posts to hold onto your creationist mythology?

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 06:34 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Just to remind you (again): you don't understand natural selection whatsoever.

Thanks for the reminder; I'll make the correction.

You think a rock can become a complex machine through Natural Selection.

Is that better?

[Devils Advocate]

(08-04-2015, 06:38 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Yes, I can.

But before I do, my question is, what's the point? Will you amend your beliefs accordingly or just move the goal posts to hold onto your creationist mythology?

Lol. my believes need no 'amending'. You see, I have no beliefs. I am not a non believer or believer, not athiest, not agnostic, not religious, not spiritual, not christian, Muslim, or Hindu. I am smart enough to know that man isn't smart enough to have all the answers. 


So please do provide your proof. I'm curious to see what you have. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2015, 01:27 PM)RASCAL Wrote: I'm a betting man Beaker. And I'll bet you are to. So I am going to give you 50% toward your not believing in God, But, you also must, as well as the atheists, give me my 50% toward believing in God and his word! 50% are GREAT odds anywhere and anyone would be glad to take them. Kinda like flipping a coin for heads or tails. But, when you die, what if YOU are wrong?

What if you're wrong about Zeus, Odin, Brahma, Buddha, Confucius, the Tao, Muhammad, Quetzalcoatl, Anu, Dagda, the Horned God, Ra, Jupiter, Amaterasu, Itzamm, Zenu?

Oops, I meant Xenu. But, I won't be surprised if there was a God named Zenu.

Don't you think you should be audited before you die? You know . . . just in case.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the reminder; I'll make the correction.

You think a rock can become a complex machine through Natural Selection.

Is that better?

That does a better job of definitely identifying you as a Kent Hovind follower, yes.

Sadly, it does nothing to improve your level of ignorance.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 06:50 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Lol. my believes need no 'amending'. You see, I have no beliefs. I am not a non believer or believer, not athiest, not agnostic, not religious, not spiritual, not christian, Muslim, or Hindu. I am smart enough to know that man isn't smart enough to have all the answers. 


So please do provide your proof. I'm curious to see what you have. 

Sure thing. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2015, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you're kinda proving my point here. I will say the machine and the light bulb had to be created. Using your logic you will assert the machine evolved from something far less complex (perhaps a rock) through a series of random actions.

You keep stating everything had to come from something, but refuse to apply the same standard to your own belief. Why?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 07:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You keep stating everything had to come from something, but refuse to apply the same standard to your own belief. Why?

Because that is the reason the God belief exists at all. "I don't understand some stuff, so I will believe some miraculous force did it to feel better about what I don't know".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2015, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the reminder; I'll make the correction.

You think a rock can become a complex machine through Natural Selection.

Is that better?

LMFAO

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 07:13 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: That does a better job of definitely identifying you as a Kent Hovind follower, yes.

Sadly, it does nothing to improve your level of ignorance.

Well we all can't improve our level of ignorance.

I've often heard turning a debate into an ad hominem spat is an indicator of a high level of ignorance.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 07:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You keep stating everything had to come from something, but refuse to apply the same standard to your own belief. Why?

I don't know how else to say it. There always had to be something. God didn't come from anything. He is uncreated.

I have already shown where a good deal of people that believe in evolution also believe in a supreme being or a divine creator.

What am I refusing? What do you think always has been?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2015, 07:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know how else to say it. There always had to be something. God didn't come from anything. He is uncreated.

I have already shown where a good deal of people that believe in evolution also believe in a supreme being or a divine creator.

What am I refusing? What do you think always has been?

How do you know god didn't come from anything and he is uncreated?