Pages:
Author

Topic: Why do Christians hate Atheists? - page 6. (Read 7430 times)

sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
February 16, 2016, 09:48:16 AM
Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

He did repost those things for the n'teenth time. It must be true. I mean, he wouldn't repeat himself if it wasn't, would he?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 252
February 16, 2016, 09:47:06 AM
EDIT: Btw, your video is simply some joker talking about some things he seems to believe. No proof is offered for or against Darwinism.

You clearly did not watch the video... please stop pretending you did... I believe the bible says you are not supposed to lie, correct?

I never said it offered proof for or against Darwinism... I said he details exactly how Christians twist the words of Darwin to imply something that Darwin did not intend

I expect that everybody twists something sometime. What does that have to do with anything that we were discussing?

Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

If you can't figure out how it works, look at some of my previous posts where I explain it.

To recap, the existence of God is scientific law.

Smiley



Not sure the quote is true, but it suits well the moment.
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 529
February 16, 2016, 09:30:44 AM
EDIT: Btw, your video is simply some joker talking about some things he seems to believe. No proof is offered for or against Darwinism.

You clearly did not watch the video... please stop pretending you did... I believe the bible says you are not supposed to lie, correct?

I never said it offered proof for or against Darwinism... I said he details exactly how Christians twist the words of Darwin to imply something that Darwin did not intend

I expect that everybody twists something sometime. What does that have to do with anything that we were discussing?

Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

If you can't figure out how it works, look at some of my previous posts where I explain it.

To recap, the existence of God is scientific law.

Smiley

It's not because you post it again and again that it's true...
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 09:58:42 PM
Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

No matter how many times you state this nonsense, it will never make it true

If you actually want to convince someone that you are correct, you must elaborate with supporting evidence, sources, examples, etc... otherwise you are simply a troll repeating bullshit that you pulled out of your ass

I don't particularly care that you are convinced of anything. It's a whole lot easier for me to not spend time explaining things. I did it for your benefit and for the benefit of others who read it.

Thanks for letting me know that you don't like the truth, at least in some ways.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 12, 2016, 07:40:44 PM
Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

No matter how many times you state this nonsense, it will never make it true

If you actually want to convince someone that you are correct, you must elaborate with supporting evidence, sources, examples, etc... otherwise you are simply a troll repeating bullshit that you pulled out of your ass
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 07:39:01 PM
EDIT: Btw, your video is simply some joker talking about some things he seems to believe. No proof is offered for or against Darwinism.

You clearly did not watch the video... please stop pretending you did... I believe the bible says you are not supposed to lie, correct?

I never said it offered proof for or against Darwinism... I said he details exactly how Christians twist the words of Darwin to imply something that Darwin did not intend

I expect that everybody twists something sometime. What does that have to do with anything that we were discussing?

Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

If you can't figure out how it works, look at some of my previous posts where I explain it.

To recap, the existence of God is scientific law.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 12, 2016, 07:34:00 PM
EDIT: Btw, your video is simply some joker talking about some things he seems to believe. No proof is offered for or against Darwinism.

You clearly did not watch the video... please stop pretending you did... I believe the bible says you are not supposed to lie, correct?

I never said it offered proof for or against Darwinism... I said he details exactly how Christians twist the words of Darwin to imply something that Darwin did not intend

Specifically, Christians will quote:
Quote
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree

But they always neglect to put the quote in context...
Quote
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 07:25:35 PM

Or you could watch videos from people who actually understand what they are talking about...

For example, AronRa (Texas state director for American Atheists) posted this video just 9 hours ago... detailing exactly how Christians twist the words of Charles Darwin to suit their own agenda:
Correcting Darwin's Critics

Hey, man. The scientific laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy aren't twisted by believers in God. They are twisted by the atheists.


If you bothered to watch the video you are responding to, you would see exactly what I am referring to... this is proven fact, not speculation like everything you post

Universal cause and effect throws Darwin right out the window. Why? Cause and effect allows no random. No random completely destroys Darwin, because the only way things can happen Darwin's way, is if there is randomness.

The only reason probability exists is to fill the gaps of human weakness. People can't measure everything. So, to help them with their measurements, they have developed a thing called probability. In reality, probability does not exist.

Everything that exists, exists precisely according to whatever causal laws and actions made them exist. This is standard science. The probability of quantum, and Darwinism, shows that both of them belong to a virtual world.

Both exist. They exist virtually, not in reality.

Smiley

EDIT: Btw, your video is simply some joker talking about some things he seems to believe. No proof is offered for or against Darwinism.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 12, 2016, 07:00:15 PM

Or you could watch videos from people who actually understand what they are talking about...

For example, AronRa (Texas state director for American Atheists) posted this video just 9 hours ago... detailing exactly how Christians twist the words of Charles Darwin to suit their own agenda:
Correcting Darwin's Critics

Hey, man. The scientific laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy aren't twisted by believers in God. They are twisted by the atheists.


If you bothered to watch the video you are responding to, you would see exactly what I am referring to... this is proven fact, not speculation like everything you post
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 06:54:19 PM
Yes, it is kinda sad that the churches didn't explain the answers clearly. But would the atheists have accepted the answers if the Christians had them?

Now days you can Google search for Christian points on lots of scientific questions. One of the easiest places to go to see that atheism is wrong, scientifically, is to watch the Illustra videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/IllustraMedia.


Or you could watch videos from people who actually understand what they are talking about...

For example, AronRa (Texas state director for American Atheists) posted this video just 9 hours ago... detailing exactly how Christians twist the words of Charles Darwin to suit their own agenda:
Correcting Darwin's Critics

Hey, man. The scientific laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy aren't twisted by believers in God. They are twisted by the atheists.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 12, 2016, 06:47:48 PM
Yes, it is kinda sad that the churches didn't explain the answers clearly. But would the atheists have accepted the answers if the Christians had them?

Now days you can Google search for Christian points on lots of scientific questions. One of the easiest places to go to see that atheism is wrong, scientifically, is to watch the Illustra videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/IllustraMedia.


Or you could watch videos from people who actually understand what they are talking about...

For example, AronRa (Texas state director for American Atheists) posted this video just 9 hours ago... detailing exactly how Christians twist the words of Charles Darwin to suit their own agenda:
Correcting Darwin's Critics

He also has a continuing series on Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

Another fun series of his, Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God, utterly annihilates the best 'proof of God' that Christians can think up...

If that ain't enough, he also does science education videos, like Intro to Photosynthesis and Organelles and Homeostasis
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 06:39:04 PM
As an atheist from a christian school, i think it's because the perspective do not jive and both parties are sometimes judgmental to each. And if i ask christians they always answer it with blank reasons.

Yes, it is kinda sad that the churches didn't explain the answers clearly. But would the atheists have accepted the answers if the Christians had them?

Now days you can Google search for Christian points on lots of scientific questions. One of the easiest places to go to see that atheism is wrong, scientifically, is to watch the Illustra videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/IllustraMedia.

Smiley
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
February 12, 2016, 06:20:13 PM
As an atheist from a christian school, i think it's because the perspective do not jive and both parties are sometimes judgmental to each. And if i ask christians they always answer it with blank reasons.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 05:47:35 PM
...

Cause and effect are not something that control Him. They are simply used by Him. He is outside of them.

Cool

And the proof of that is where?  I'm waiting...

Just show us mathematically or empirically (good luck with that one) that God is outside of the "cause and effect".

You are just pulling these assertions straight out of your ass, aren't you?

PS. Please don't say it is in the Bible...Or that some smart psychic told you.



I explained it already. You ignored it. Why should I explain it again?

However, it isn't that important. Why not? Because nobody has the answer to where the Big Bang came from. Lots of ideas, maybe. Nothing except speculation. However, that's all that could exist regarding where the Big Bang came from. Because the Big Bang is simply some silly speculation in its entirety.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 12, 2016, 01:15:47 PM
...
Cause and effect are not something that control Him. They are simply used by Him. He is outside of them.


And the proof of that is where?  I'm waiting...

Just show us mathematically or empirically (good luck with that one) that God is outside of the "cause and effect".

You are just pulling these assertions straight out of your ass, aren't you?

PS. Please don't say it is in the Bible...Or that some smart psychic told you.

Too funny... I accused BADecker of pulling assertions, "straight out of his ass", within 2 minutes of your post (in another thread)


...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/
Quote
Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.

I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists...

If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your ass


How do you do your research if not via Google?  I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong?

Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 11:54:52 AM
...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.



These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

Smiley

You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics?

Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask!

The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence.

Smiley

LOL!

Ok how do you interprete the fact that we got all those similarities with Chimpanze?

When you look at the fossil record, there are even more, that are extinct today. Yet none of them is a crossover. Each of them are distinct in their DNA, with no DNA showing both of them. In fact, when you try adding DNA from one group to another, the added DNA is gradually "weeded out" of their system in their descendents. This is another great evidence for the fact that God made all the various kinds of plants and animals to be their own distinct species.

Smiley

Wtf are you even talking about?

That's totally wrong! DNA is deeply shared between species! We even have 45% of DNA of common with a banana ><

You have missed some of what we have been saying cross-thread. Sameness in DNA is more like 97%. But the parts that distinctly determine a species, never cross over to another species.

However, this talk about DNA is going away from much of what we were originally talking about... that it is frustration with atheist stupidity that Christians mostly have. It only looks like hate.

Smiley

Yeah frustration of atheist even if YOU'RE the one talking about it in the first place...

And that's dumb of saying that what is nto common... Is not common....

That's obvious! The parts of DNA that are unique of one specie are... Unique for one specie!

Here is your logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Hey, thanks man. I am not going to look up your site, because I don't really want to get into an argument about DNA and such.

Smiley

This website is not about DNA but about all the logical falacies that your explanations contain... You should look it up...

The thing that I am right about is that science proves that God exists, through cause and effect, combined with a complex universe, combined with universal entropy.

Smiley

It would be true, if you wouldn't be completely wrong about entropy cause you absolutely don't understand what is entropy, and if you were not wrong with cause and consequences too!


Okay. You don't like the fact that entropy is the gradual dispersing and diffusing of the complexity in the universe, into simplicity. I can understand that you don't like it.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 11:52:14 AM
...
Some people suggest that neanderthals are simply very aged humans. Since our understanding of the age of the earth is really only theoretical, we don't really know when neanderthals walked the earth. Since evolution flow is entirely theoretical, there is really no clarity that we had a common ancestry with either neanderthals or chimpanzees. More than likely neanderthals were a form of early human before some of the genetics died out of people.

See http://www.jackcuozzo.com/.

Smiley

So much nonsense in your post that I don't even know were to begin.

Neanderthals were one of the human subspecies within the same genus (Homo) as Homo Sapiens.

What do you mean age of earth is theoretical?  You mean it is an estimation. The fact is that is is approx. 4.5 Billion years old.

Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

There is no evolution flow, I think you mean evolutionary tree.  It is not theoretical, it is backed by data and archaeological artifacts.

Neanderthals lived in small bands of 50-150 people who knew each other very well.  Homo Sapiens invented myths which helped to organize into larger bands.  Having common myth or God allowed for co-operation between strangers. Gods/Myths united strangers behind a common goal (to serve the same God for example) So their bands were larger, few thousand by some accounts.

Neanderthals were killed off by Sapiens.  They were no match to a large number of smart, small ape bands.  Some Neanderthals cross bread with Sapiens as the two subspecies met.  That is why some of us have more Neanderthal DNA and features than others. (This guy kinda looks like one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Valuev)

 I suggest you think before you post.  This is not your church where you can spout any nonsense you like.
 

You are wrong about evolution. The fact of universal cause and effect shows that everything is pre-programmed by Something. This changes how you and science generally understand evolution entirely.

Cool

And what is the cause of God then? Go to the end of your reasonning!

When you build a garage, you aren't in the blueprint of the thing.

God built the universe. He isn't in the blueprint.

Cause and effect are not something that control Him. They are simply used by Him. He is outside of them.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
February 12, 2016, 11:49:31 AM
...

When you look at the fossil record, there are even more, that are extinct today. Yet none of them is a crossover. Each of them are distinct in their DNA, with no DNA showing both of them. In fact, when you try adding DNA from one group to another, the added DNA is gradually "weeded out" of their system in their descendents. This is another great evidence for the fact that God made all the various kinds of plants and animals to be their own distinct species.

Smiley

We carry between 3-6% of Neanderthal DNA.  Case closed.

If you really interested in learning about human history,  I strongly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8



Well, this isn't entirely correct. First of all, all life on earth has about 97% of the same DNA just to be alive. Perhaps we have 3-6% of the remainder that we match Neanderthals in. But probably it is only 3-6% of the remainder that we are different in. In other words, we are virtually very like neanderthals.

Some people suggest that neanderthals are simply very aged humans. Since our understanding of the age of the earth is really only theoretical, we don't really know when neanderthals walked the earth. Since evolution flow is entirely theoretical, there is really no clarity that we had a common ancestry with either neanderthals or chimpanzees. More than likely neanderthals were a form of early human before some of the genetics died out of people.

See http://www.jackcuozzo.com/.

Smiley

Oh so carbon datation is also theoritical now?

Funny how everything proving you wrong becomes a theory and is not proven while the entire scientific community considers it proven ^^

Carbon dating is a fact. The results from using it are inconclusive. You can see this by how many times it is wrong... way off by miles and thousands of years in some cases.

If you want to believe as truth, something that has been proven incorrect time after time, you have yourself a neat little religion going there, and your faith in it is almost as strong as your ignorance about it.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 12, 2016, 05:51:39 AM
...

When you look at the fossil record, there are even more, that are extinct today. Yet none of them is a crossover. Each of them are distinct in their DNA, with no DNA showing both of them. In fact, when you try adding DNA from one group to another, the added DNA is gradually "weeded out" of their system in their descendents. This is another great evidence for the fact that God made all the various kinds of plants and animals to be their own distinct species.

Smiley

We carry between 3-6% of Neanderthal DNA.  Case closed.

If you really interested in learning about human history,  I strongly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8



Well, this isn't entirely correct. First of all, all life on earth has about 97% of the same DNA just to be alive. Perhaps we have 3-6% of the remainder that we match Neanderthals in. But probably it is only 3-6% of the remainder that we are different in. In other words, we are virtually very like neanderthals.

Some people suggest that neanderthals are simply very aged humans. Since our understanding of the age of the earth is really only theoretical, we don't really know when neanderthals walked the earth. Since evolution flow is entirely theoretical, there is really no clarity that we had a common ancestry with either neanderthals or chimpanzees. More than likely neanderthals were a form of early human before some of the genetics died out of people.

See http://www.jackcuozzo.com/.

Smiley

Oh so carbon datation is also theoritical now?

Funny how everything proving you wrong becomes a theory and is not proven while the entire scientific community considers it proven ^^
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
February 12, 2016, 05:14:14 AM
...
Some people suggest that neanderthals are simply very aged humans. Since our understanding of the age of the earth is really only theoretical, we don't really know when neanderthals walked the earth. Since evolution flow is entirely theoretical, there is really no clarity that we had a common ancestry with either neanderthals or chimpanzees. More than likely neanderthals were a form of early human before some of the genetics died out of people.

See http://www.jackcuozzo.com/.

Smiley

So much nonsense in your post that I don't even know were to begin.

Neanderthals were one of the human subspecies within the same genus (Homo) as Homo Sapiens.

What do you mean age of earth is theoretical?  You mean it is an estimation. The fact is that is is approx. 4.5 Billion years old.

Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

There is no evolution flow, I think you mean evolutionary tree.  It is not theoretical, it is backed by data and archaeological artifacts.

Neanderthals lived in small bands of 50-150 people who knew each other very well.  Homo Sapiens invented myths which helped to organize into larger bands.  Having common myth or God allowed for co-operation between strangers. Gods/Myths united strangers behind a common goal (to serve the same God for example) So their bands were larger, few thousand by some accounts.

Neanderthals were killed off by Sapiens.  They were no match to a large number of smart, small ape bands.  Some Neanderthals cross bread with Sapiens as the two subspecies met.  That is why some of us have more Neanderthal DNA and features than others. (This guy kinda looks like one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Valuev)

 I suggest you think before you post.  This is not your church where you can spout any nonsense you like.
 

You are wrong about evolution. The fact of universal cause and effect shows that everything is pre-programmed by Something. This changes how you and science generally understand evolution entirely.

Cool

And what is the cause of God then? Go to the end of your reasonning!
Pages:
Jump to: