Great Atheist Bomb Drops!

[Batavia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikt8R_q0tBs

Interesting video with different atheists.

[ixulescu]

Atheism is basic imbecility.

Moral truths cannot be discovered by science, they come from tradition (science operates in a different domain). Moral truths are consecrated so that they are preserved.

Morals are necessary in every day life. This is why, when atheism abolishes religion, the only thing that happens is that the moral void is replaced with dumber and more fanatical cults like wokism, morbid obsession with ecology and animal rights etc.

[Ford]

Atheism is basic imbecility.

Moral truths cannot be discovered by science, they come from tradition (science operates in a different domain). Moral truths are consecrated so that they are preserved.

Morals are necessary in every day life. This is why, when atheism abolishes religion, the only thing that happens is that the moral void is replaced with dumber and more fanatical cults like wokism, morbid obsession with ecology and animal rights etc.

Your argument makes no sense and funny you're even implying that atheism produces dumber "cults" as if people as a collective are not mere retards in all cases despite their "moral" compass.
Also funny how such a religious person can be so arrogant.

[Aldaris]

Atheism is basic imbecility.

Moral truths cannot be discovered by science, they come from tradition (science operates in a different domain). Moral truths are consecrated so that they are preserved.

Morals are necessary in every day life. This is why, when atheism abolishes religion, the only thing that happens is that the moral void is replaced with dumber and more fanatical cults like wokism, morbid obsession with ecology and animal rights etc.

Moral thruths come from evolution. That's why they are universal in a way. Yes, they do exist and there is a well-understood reason why. The existence of a deity is irrelevant for that though, One can be a decent man either way.

[Loki]

Atheism is dumb. Sorry to be so blunt, but it really is. There's no better description of it. Utterly devoid of intelligence and understanding, and reason.

[Loki]

Moral thruths come from evolution. That's why they are universal in a way. Yes, they do exist and there is a well-understood reason why. The existence of a deity is irrelevant for that though, One can be a decent man either way.

Evolution doesn't exist. At least, not Darwinian evolution of one kind of species into another kind. Zero evidence for it. It's all by blind faith that people believe in evolution.

There is no moral truth/absolute for the atheist, if he is honest with himself. There cannot be.

[Loki]

Your argument makes no sense and funny you're even implying that atheism produces dumber "cults" as if people as a collective are not mere retards in all cases despite their "moral" compass.
Also funny how such a religious person can be so arrogant.

Atheism produces a collection of utter retards who think themselves geniuses. It's perhaps the greatest self-deception under the sun!

[ixulescu]

Moral thruths come from evolution. That's why they are universal in a way. Yes, they do exist and there is a well-understood reason why. The existence of a deity is irrelevant for that though, One can be a decent man either way.

Not all religions are theistic. I would agree that moral truths are evolved from social life. But they are NOT the result of reason/reasoning. This is the snake oil "new atheists" used to sell: we don't need religions, we have science now. Statements like this are beyond dumb. Dumb is also the hope that moral quandaries and conflicts can be settled though reasoning alone. It can't done - reason, logic, science, are all very limited instruments, that cannot model the complexity of human life.

The video starts with Asimov exemplifying this stupid stance: " ... it assumes that human beings have no feeling of what is right and wrong.":picard2: It took humans literally hundreds of thousands of years to agree for instance that slavery is not good. Asimov makes a comment from the stance of a culturally Christian man, oblivious to the fact that Christian morals are the results of an extremely long evolution of moral traditions. I love the man, but his atheistic position is not what I remember him for.

[ixulescu]

Your argument makes no sense and funny you're even implying that atheism produces dumber "cults" as if people as a collective are not mere retards in all cases despite their "moral" compass.
Also funny how such a religious person can be so arrogant.

I love some of the people in that video despite the stupid shit they're uttering :lol:

[catgeorge]

If they don't want to put Jesus Christ in their heart it's their loss.

Rebels of Christianity and their inanity is a-plenty. Christianity protects the soul and the church heals it.

If you believe humans have a soul then tenets of Christianity is the only answer. Atheism is nonsense.

[Aldaris]

Evolution doesn't exist. At least, not Darwinian evolution of one kind of species into another kind. Zero evidence for it. It's all by blind faith that people believe in evolution.

Zero evidence you say? Go claim your Nobel Price then. The whole biology is based on that very fact and you receive no less if you claim otherwise and can hold your beliefs before the editors.

Not only we observed speciation in nature, but we did that in a lab aswell. And they are not biased. They will pick on the every point you say they would think isn't correct. Since they have more money by doing so. If your theory is going to be proven, congrats, not one managed to do so in a few hundred years.


There is no moral truth/absolute for the atheist, if he is honest with himself. There cannot be.

I am an atheist. We would nevertheless agree on some things and disagree on the other ones. I have no agenda in this regard. There cannot be. If you pursue truth and not dogmas.

[Aldaris]

Not all religions are theistic. I would agree that moral truths are evolved from social life. But they are NOT the result of reason/reasoning. This is the snake oil "new atheists" used to sell: we don't need religions, we have science now. Statements like this are beyond dumb. Dumb is also the hope that moral quandaries and conflicts can be settled though reasoning alone. It can't done - reason, logic, science, are all very limited instruments, that cannot model the complexity of human life.

Let me jump to the point. They are absolutely not based on reasoning on logic, because that's not how we work most of the time. The notion that we are logical creatures is laughable - we have evolved on the plains of Africa to sustain ourselves for the most part, not to anything else. With that came a lot ot of superstitions, which later evolved into religions as we kinda know them today.

[Wanderer]

Zero evidence you say? Go claim your Nobel Price then. The whole biology is based on that very fact and you receive no less if you claim otherwise and can hold your beliefs before the editors.

Not only we observed speciation in nature, but we did that in a lab aswell. And they are not biased. They will pick on the every point you say they would think isn't correct. Since they have more money by doing so. If your theory is going to be proven, congrats, not one managed to do so in a few hundred years.



I am an atheist. We would nevertheless agree on some things and disagree on the other ones. I have no agenda in this regard. There cannot be. If you pursue truth and not dogmas.

No one has ever observed macro-evolution. It's totally asinine to believe that slime came alive over time to produce all the life we see today. Things do bring forth after their kind, as the Bible says. But that's not exactly the same idea as "species." There's variation within kinds, but no one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog, etc.

[catgeorge]

Sorry evolutionists but we are not reptiles - we did not descend from reptiles, we are human beings.

[KirillMazur]

Many do not think that the heyday of science suspiciously coincided with the Renaissance (of Antiquity) and the denial of Christianity. And the more religion there is in the society, the less science in the society. Therefore, it is so bad with science among Muslims, and Orthodox countries lag behind Protestant and even Catholic countries in development.

Russia was saved in this regard not only by the non-acceptance of Christianity at a deep level, but as the official structure of the ROC preserved the 300-year lag in the development of the social structure in the Russian Empire, which in fact led to the revolution, when for the survival of our civilization it was necessary to harshly overturn the system and hide the brake (ROC) under the skirting board. Only in this way did we manage to catch up, and somewhere overtake the advanced countries. Now this brake is being imposed on us again.

BUT, something very backbone have been lost.

From my point of view of an agnostic, not all 10 Commandments are unequivocally the basis for morality, out of the first four, three can be easily circumvented - well, why should I honor the Sabbath day, am I Jew or what?

Nevertheless, as an agnostic, I can well accept the version that God took Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to heaven right in the process of writing the strongest part of his strongest piece of music (and one of the strongest in its impression on the listener), because he went too far, revealing with his talent what may be too early to reveal or did not need to be done at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9hL78g3Sj8&t=72s

I would venture to say that 1) atheists cannot write such music. 2) atheism, with all due respect to the achievements of science, essentially "killed" art and literature. Such music, or artists of the level of "The Last Supper" by Leonardo, will no longer exist. Until the dominance of atheism is replaced by something else.
Atheists have nothing so powerful and huge that they could sing in chorus and play such music about.

For example, we have only the Victory in 1945 left. But this kind of music (Mozart) will not suit it. Yes, and the fate of all Victories is the same: they go back into the depths of the centuries and cool down, becoming, albeit respected, but calmly perceived gray-haired antiquity.
So first was Christ, then was Gagarin (~XX century). There was such a conjuncture. Not in spite of, but thanks to it. And so all this powerful wave degenerated into foam drying up on the shore. And this foam has no prospects, except how it will be washed away by a new wave.

[Batavia]

Atheism is dumb. Sorry to be so blunt, but it really is. There's no better description of it. Utterly devoid of intelligence and understanding, and reason.

Science is based on facts; religion on the other hand is pure belief - I don´t think that believing in something even if its not proofed is bad, but its just speculation.

[Ford]

Ironic how people on a forum that discusses genetics is filled with people that lack the most elementary knowledge of genetics and biology.

[Ford]

Atheism produces a collection of utter retards who think themselves geniuses. It's perhaps the greatest self-deception under the sun!

As opposed to religious zealots?

[Dick]

Ironic how people on a forum that discusses genetics is filled with people that lack the most elementary knowledge of genetics and biology.

Darwinian theory is not capable of explaining everything. There are significant holes that are glossed over and ignored for the sake of scientific orthodoxy. Evolution does not explain the fact that we have 23 sets of chromosomes. For example the 2nd fused chromosome. Using Occam's razor we did not evolve into our current form but were "genetically engineered" to this forum as a species or "Adam" and "Eve" were actually siblings/twins born with the same genetic mutation and we all descend from an inbred couple but then again, Darwin did marry his first cousin. Read Lloyd Pye's book "the intervention theory". It will make you question many of the fundamental theories that are often taken for proven fact and this idea of those fundamental theories as being settled science is a common theme in the modern world that is marinated in the ScIeNcE worshipper method.

[renaissance12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikt8R_q0tBs

Interesting video with different atheists.


Terence Tao interview Italian newspaper... sep 21 2021..

Ma lei crede in Dio?

Terence Tao...«Un’entità creatrice penso ci sia stata, però poi non ha avuto parte attiva nell’evoluzione».

But do you believe in Dio?

Terence Tao ... "I think there was a creative entity, but then it did not have an active part in the evolution".

[WhatsGoingOnBigGuy]

Moral thruths come from evolution. That's why they are universal in a way. Yes, they do exist and there is a well-understood reason why. The existence of a deity is irrelevant for that though, One can be a decent man either way.

There is no such thing as morality or moral truth without God. In a godless nihilist reality everything considered to be popularly "moral" would simply be a rule of arbitrary human construction, not a metaphysical constant. Without God even murder is not inherently wrong and the decision as to whether or not it would be prohibited in society would essentially come down to popular opinion. We have temporal laws against these things because our ancestors who drafted them were informed by God's law and implemented them to reflect it.

A "decent man" to a nihilist is a completely arbitrary descriptor that can mean something different in a million different settings.

[Insuperable]

You call that a bomb? I had most of these thoughts when I was a borderline atheist, at 17 years old. Buaaha.

[Aldaris]

No one has ever observed macro-evolution.

What counts as micro/macro-evolution is as shady as it gets in the first place, but two points there. You can't expect to observe something like a fish turning into an amphibian in your or anyone else's lifetime, because that process takes more time than that. But a crucial thing is that just because we can't directly observe something doesn't mean we don't have enough evidence to prove it beyond the reasonable doubt.


It's totally asinine to believe that slime came alive over time to produce all the life we see today.

Man, it's a bit more complex than that. :-) No actual biologist would ever phrase it like this. It's just a childish simplification which is easy to attack. Otherwise known as a strawman.


Things do bring forth after their kind, as the Bible says. But that's not exactly the same idea as "species." There's variation within kinds, but no one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog, etc.

If we ever saw something like that, that would actually poke a huge hole in the evolution theory, not the other way around - once a 'thing' is within a clade, it's there forever. We're eukaryotes, mammals, great apes, etc. Same goes for everything else. Now define what's a 'kind'.

[Valkyrion]

Atheism is basic imbecility.

Atheism is awkward term, because it contains root of Greek word "Theos" for god in itself what unintentionally can look as implying that atheists are ones that fight against some divine entities and religion, while atheism is practically simply rejection of believing in statements that have no valid empirical proofs.


Moral truths cannot be discovered by science, they come from tradition (science operates in a different domain). Moral truths are consecrated so that they are preserved.

Moral truths come from sense of empathy and basic common sense. I don't know what I should say if one claims to need priests or scientific graphs to be able to know what's good and what's not.


Morals are necessary in every day life. This is why, when atheism abolishes religion, the only thing that happens is that the moral void is replaced with dumber and more fanatical cults like wokism, morbid obsession with ecology and animal rights etc.

That's directly connected with what I typed above. Caring for other beings and future of next generations if we talk about ecological issues is not only matter of politics, but about empathy we suppose to have as highly conscious beings we believe we are.

[Aldaris]

There is no such thing as morality or moral truth without God. In a godless nihilist reality everything considered to be popularly "moral" would simply be a rule of arbitrary human construction, not a metaphysical constant. Without God even murder is not inherently wrong and the decision as to whether or not it would be prohibited in society would essentially come down to popular opinion. We have temporal laws against these things because our ancestors who drafted them were informed by God's law and implemented them to reflect it.

A "decent man" to a nihilist is a completely arbitrary descriptor that can mean something different in a million different settings.

Gonna keep it brief. If someone hurts me or my loved ones, I'm going to be angry and react in accord. It has nothing to do whether their actions were 'wrong' in some sense that it was written in the fabric of spacetime. :-) Yeah, there is nothing like some ultimate morality, but there's no difference with the consequences. Do you think me, you, or anyone else would care about some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo if that happened? Philosophy is nice, but don't overdose with that and get real.

[Loki]

Zero evidence you say? Go claim your Nobel Price then.

There is no way the scientific establishment would applaud you with such a reward for destroying their fallacies! :lol:

[Loki]

This video is very revealing. YouTube actually deleted the original, because it was too embarrassing for the atheistic professor ... I see the most embarrassing parts have been edited out at the end. But it is nevertheless still revealing of how pathetic atheism is, and how much it has deceived people who THINK they are smart!

In the original view, the atheist professor on the thumbnail image lost his temper in a childish way when it was evident that he was contradicting himself, and that he was talking implausible nonsense. He realised his own stupidity in that moment, it was painful to watch actually.

There is so basis in fact for Darwinian evolution. It's purely based on blind faith.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_W9VtzJ0A

[Universe]

edit : double post

[Universe]

According to the theory of evolution, advantegous traits get passed down to the next generation.
Okay. So how did the first flying animals came to existance? Evolution supposedly builds up animals little by little, that means among the ancestors of flying animals there were many many generations that had weak and useless limbs (that later supposedly turned into wings). Why did the genes responsible for those useless semi-wings spread if the "wings" didn't provide advantage? (there were many generations that couldn't fly)
There are flightless birds like Emus and ostriches, but their wings are degenerated. According to mainstream science they have ancestors that could fly. So saying "but emus can't fly either" doesn't answer my question. Why was having a useless limb that was a half-wing half-arm an evolutionary advantage?

Note: I'm not an evolution denier, just playing the devil's advocate here. (I'm not a huge "fanboy" of either side, but I believe evolution more than creationism).

Also: how could african monkeys accidentally sail to South America? (That's what evolutionists claim - this is how they explain the existance of monkeys in South America).

[Insuperable]

According to the theory of evolution, advantegous traits get passed down to the next generation.
Okay. So how did the first flying animals came to existance? Evolution supposedly builds up animals little by little, that means among the ancestors of flying animals there were many many generations that had weak and useless limbs (that later supposedly turned into wings). Why did the genes responsible for those useless wings spread if the wings didn't provide advantage? (there were many generations that couldn't fly)

Note: I'm not an evolution denier, just playing the devil's advocate here. (I'm not a huge "fanboy" of either side, but I believe evolution more than creationism).

Advantageous traits passing down has the most to do with a natural selection.

According to theory all living beings came from single cell organisms. Having a single cell, hence no brain, it had no consciousness. It couldn't hunt for food to feed, it couldn't know it's hungry. It fed and evolved simply due to chemical and physical stimulus from the environment and 'luck' obviously.

Theistic evolution proponents will say that evolution was a guided process and atheistic evolution proponents will say it was just so, it's nature, it's science.

And of course, then there is a question how single cell organisms, DNA, RNA or whatever formed out of cosmic soup leading to similar discussions.

[Universe]

Advantageous traits passing down has the most to do with a natural selection.
But why did natural selection favor useless stuff that I explained above? It shouldn't be the case.
In the case of flightless birds (like Emu) it's not really useless because they have ancestors that flew.

[Ford]

According to the theory of evolution, advantegous traits get passed down to the next generation.
Okay. So how did the first flying animals came to existance? Evolution supposedly builds up animals little by little, that means among the ancestors of flying animals there were many many generations that had weak and useless limbs (that later supposedly turned into wings). Why did the genes responsible for those useless semi-wings spread if the "wings" didn't provide advantage? (there were many generations that couldn't fly)
There are flightless birds like Emus and ostriches, but their wings are degenerated. According to mainstream science they have ancestors that could fly. So saying "but emus can't fly either" doesn't answer my question. Why was having a useless limb that was a half-wing half-arm an evolutionary advantage?

Note: I'm not an evolution denier, just playing the devil's advocate here. (I'm not a huge "fanboy" of either side, but I believe evolution more than creationism).

Also: how could african monkeys accidentally sail to South America? (That's what evolutionists claim - this is how they explain the existance of monkeys in South America).

Advantageous traits are not inherently passed down to the next generation but species with advantageous traits run a larger chance of surviving and reproducing. However, there might just aswell be useless traits left in certain species for various reasons; such as it plays no important role in the actual selection, for one. So even if the Emu's ancestor used to fly, its descendants lost that trait because it was either not an important factor in its propagation or if the animal maybe developed some sexual selection or whatever. So the useless limb is there not because it's advantageous, but because it wasn't relevant and couldn't just disappear on its own.

[Ford]

This also poses a more relevant question: why would an omnipotent being create creatures with worthless traits for no apparent reason?

[SouthDutch7991]

I don't think there's any sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe without God, or something that "God" would be a very apt term for. It just doesn't satisfy, logically there's something missing. There's just way too much to be a coincidence, to me.

[JosephK]

I don't think there's any sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe without God, or something that "God" would be a very apt term for. It just doesn't satisfy, logically there's something missing. There's just way too much to be a coincidence, to me.

Yeah but if we had a sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe with God, then we'd have to wonder how to explain God's existence.

[Universe]

Yeah but if we had a sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe with God, then we'd have to wonder how to explain God's existence.
Yeah, I thought about this as well. If god created everything, then how did god come into existence?

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Religion in general is a bunch of bullshit and stories made up to cope with life's hardships.

[Valkyrion]

I don't think there's any sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe without God, or something that "God" would be a very apt term for. It just doesn't satisfy, logically there's something missing. There's just way too much to be a coincidence, to me.

Concepts of certain creative cosmic energy that brought spark of creation and intelligent design are maybe partially acceptable views from logical stand-point, but believing in mainstream concept of allegedly all-good, all-knowing and all-mighty divine entity like concepts of biggest world religions is beyond absurdity.

Fundamentally speaking, just solely believing as mental conception is irrational and self-delusional in it's core. Tragedy is that now in 21st century some people deny clearly visible scientifically proven facts, while in the same time they believe in supernatural beings none ever saw.

[Loki]

Science is based on facts; religion on the other hand is pure belief - I don´t think that believing in something even if its not proofed is bad, but its just speculation.

Well then evolution is not science, because it's not based on facts but on beliefs.

And science is not everything. Science is pretty much the same as magic. It's an occult knowledge and practice.

You must realise that this physical dimension that you currently experience is not all there is. There are higher dimensions, like the spiritual where you can fellowship with God. And that is not temporary or time bound, but eternal and actually the source of everything physical you see.

[Loki]

Religion in general is a bunch of bullshit and stories made up to cope with life's hardships.

You have much to learn my friend...what you said here is incredibly ignorant and totally false.

[Loki]

This also poses a more relevant question: why would an omnipotent being create creatures with worthless traits for no apparent reason?
Worthless according to who, you? You don't know squat and things have purposes that you will never know about. That doesn't mean it has no purpose, only that you don't know what it is.

[JosephK]

You have much to learn my friend...what you said here is incredibly ignorant and totally false.

But you're both right. Science, especially nowadays, is as much a Faith as almost any religion. The "facts" are as inaccessible to the average person as are any mystical phenomena. The difference is who you trust as authoritative.

[Aldaris]

There is no way the scientific establishment would applaud you with such a reward for destroying their fallacies! :lol:

This is what would happen if anyone sent a pdf effectively disproving evolution. The editors would just want to ravage that and call it a day as quickly as possible at first, since they've seen such attempts many times before and nobody managed to do so. Then they would realize they can't really do that. And as the participants on the project that turned the entire paradigm upside down, they would each get a grant such that they can buy a hotel in Magaluf and a tenure at whatever university they'd choose. Science isn't about maintaining the established old rules, but about breaking them when it's possible.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

You have much to learn my friend...what you said here is incredibly ignorant and totally false.

This thread in a nutshell

https://i.imgur.com/uDC2xCZ.gif

[JosephK]

Zero evidence you say? Go claim your Nobel Price then. The whole biology is based on that very fact and you receive no less if you claim otherwise and can hold your beliefs before the editors.

Not only we observed speciation in nature, but we did that in a lab aswell. And they are not biased. They will pick on the every point you say they would think isn't correct. Since they have more money by doing so. If your theory is going to be proven, congrats, not one managed to do so in a few hundred years.



I am an atheist. We would nevertheless agree on some things and disagree on the other ones. I have no agenda in this regard. There cannot be. If you pursue truth and not dogmas.

But that's the problem: the average person who accepts evolution as the driving force of life (vs. God) is basing his belief on as much faith--without proof--as a religious person. We evolutionary biologists and anthropologists may, personally, have "evidence", but the typical person does not, and simply believes it.

[Wanderer]

But that's the problem: the average person who accepts evolution as the driving force of life (vs. God) is basing his belief on as much faith--without proof--as a religious person. We evolutionary biologists and anthropologists may, personally, have "evidence", but the typical person does not, and simply believes it.

You have zero evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. It never happened. It cannot possibly happen, as molecules do not form living systems.

[JosephK]

You have zero evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. It never happened. It cannot possibly happen, as molecules do not form living systems.

An odd thing to say, considering that if/when God created us, he very clearly used molecules.

[Wanderer]

An odd thing to say, considering that if/when God created us, he very clearly used molecules.

I think you know what I meant. Molecules do not form living systems on their own.

[Loki]

This is what would happen if anyone sent a pdf effectively disproving evolution. The editors would just want to ravage that and call it a day as quickly as possible at first, since they've seen such attempts many times before and nobody managed to do so. Then they would realize they can't really do that. And as the participants on the project that turned the entire paradigm upside down, they would each get a grant such that they can buy a hotel in Magaluf and a tenure at whatever university they'd choose. Science isn't about maintaining the established old rules, but about breaking them when it's possible.

In theory it is supposed to work in that way, but in reality most modern academics are a bunch of PC hypocrites and cowards. 99% of them wouldn't do something that would endanger their career. They wouldn't upset the applecart just for the sake of "truth". And we're seeing this cowardly attitudes more and more, it is after all how modern universities groom the students to be!

[Wanderer]

In theory it is supposed to work in that way, but in reality most modern academics are a bunch of PC hypocrites and cowards. 99% of them wouldn't do something that would endanger their career. They wouldn't upset the applecart just for the sake of "truth". And we're seeing this cowardly attitudes more and more, it is after all how modern universities groom the students to be!

Evolutionists have to come up with all manner of excuses for how the world can be old. We find dinosaur soft tissue and red blood cells, which could not have lasted 65 million years. Evolutionists have to come up with recusing devices for this. They have to come up with rescuing devices for the fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast, and could not be much older than the Bible's timeframe. They have to come up with rescuing devices for how, for example, Jupiter's moon Io has 100 times the volcanic activity of earth--when, if it were 4.6 billion years old, it could be old, cold, and dead and shouldn't have active volcanoes at all. Their proposed mechanisms (tidal friction) do not generate the amount of heat required for such an observation.

[JosephK]

In theory it is supposed to work in that way, but in reality most modern academics are a bunch of PC hypocrites and cowards. 99% of them wouldn't do something that would endanger their career. They wouldn't upset the applecart just for the sake of "truth". And we're seeing this cowardly attitudes more and more, it is after all how modern universities groom the students to be!

That's all too true, unfortunately.

But in fact, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised at how many biologists, scientists, etc, are actually faithful Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, whatever. Believing in and understanding "evolution" and utilizing it within the realm of science does not preclude personal religiosity.

[Insuperable]

Yeah but if we had a sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe with God, then we'd have to wonder how to explain God's existence.


Yeah, I thought about this as well. If god created everything, then how did god come into existence?

The definition of God is that God is uncaused and timeless. God never came into existence. God simply was and is. I don't understand why is that so hard to understand.

Let's put God aside. Can we not through our basic reasoning come up with two basic scenarios regarding our existence or basically the Universe. Can we say that the Universe or any medium the Universe came from is either

1. Timeless
or
2. Came into the existence after infinite regress

Regarding the first case, why would the uncaused Universe be any less mind boggling than uncaused God? It's just that in one case we have a timeless non-consciousness that simply always was and is and in another case we have a timeless intelligence that simply always was and is.

Regarding the second, from the aspects of philosophy, infinite regress is even less 'likely' than having a single uncaused progenitor. Even if we scientifically prove the second scenario with 100% certainty why would that scenario be any less mind boggling than having a timeless creator or having a timeless Universe which simply always was and is?

[JosephK]

The definition of God is that God is uncaused and timeless. God never came into existence. God simply was and is. I don't understand why is that so hard to understand.

Let's put God aside. Can we not through our basic reasoning come up with two basic scenarios regarding our existence or basically the Universe. Can we say that the Universe or any medium the Universe came from is either

1. Timeless
or
2. Came into the existence after infinite regress

Regarding the first case, why would the uncaused Universe be any less mind boggling than uncaused God? It's just that in one case we have a timeless non-consciousness that simply always was and is and in another case we have a timeless intelligence that simply always was and is.

Regarding the second, from the aspects of philosophy, infinite regress is even less 'likely' than having a single uncaused progenitor. Even if we scientifically prove the second scenario with 100% certainty why would that scenario be any less mind boggling than having a timeless creator or having a timeless Universe which simply always was and is?

But the real point is that we will never know.

[JosephK]

That's all too true, unfortunately.

But in fact, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised at how many biologists, scientists, etc, are actually faithful Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, whatever. Believing in and understanding "evolution" and utilizing it within the realm of science does not preclude personal religiosity.

I should also add that the existence of God or His creation of the universe does not mean that evolution does not work as we understand it. The concept of evolution does not invalidate the idea of an ultimate Creator.
Remember the founder of modern genetics was a monk.

[Insuperable]

But the real point is that we will never know.

No shit. That is more or less obvious. I was just referring to who created God type opinions.

[JosephK]

No shit. That is more or less obvious. I was just referring to who created God type opinions.

But those aren't things you can argue. At least evolutionists have something to back them up.

[Insuperable]

But those aren't things you can argue. At least evolutionists have something to back them up.

Hooooleee... Nobody mentioned evolution. Evolution can be put aside.

[Wanderer]

This is a great video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qx0doX8eXE

[Loki]

That's all too true, unfortunately.

But in fact, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised at how many biologists, scientists, etc, are actually faithful Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, whatever. Believing in and understanding "evolution" and utilizing it within the realm of science does not preclude personal religiosity.

Yes indeed there are such people, because hypocrites and cowards exist and are among us. I just wouldn't use the word "faithful" to describe them. You must understand that not everyone who calls himself a "Christian" is a true believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the original sense of the meaning.

There is a type of watered down "faith" that is not good for anything, and will be judged on the day when Jesus returns in all his glory. Then he will be ashamed of those who were ashamed of him and his words.

[Loki]

But the real point is that we will never know.

Yes we will! :) One day everything will be revealed.

[catgeorge]

A true scientist will look at all corners of science including history, archaeology etc. Not only biology, chemistry and what not.

Science proves Jesus existed and his teaching from several different apostles existed.

[Aldaris]

In theory it is supposed to work in that way, but in reality most modern academics are a bunch of PC hypocrites and cowards. 99% of them wouldn't do something that would endanger their career. They wouldn't upset the applecart just for the sake of "truth". And we're seeing this cowardly attitudes more and more, it is after all how modern universities groom the students to be!

Nice that you mention it, thanks man.

You are describing social 'scientists' who avoid adressing topics that SJWs consider as controversial, because they would be targeted by journalists who would misrepresent what they say for a purpose of shock value. That's a one category of them. The other one is of those who already have their agenda and abuse their academic authority to push it, despite having anything, really.

Women studies and other crap like that falls into both categories.

In biology, which is not a social science, things are a bit different. But nonetheless there exists a similar thing aswell, just not in the way you seem to think so, in fact it's the opposite. Evolutionary biologists are well aware that their field doesn't make some particular groups happy, which makes them feel 'bounded' like the SJW ones.

The dishonest biologists are exactly the ones who are not able to openly state that evolution is a fact, in order to be respectful to your folk, not the other way around.

In a way, creationists are the SJWs of biology.

[Loki]

In biology, which is not a social science, things are a bit different. But nonetheless there exists a similar thing aswell, just not in the way you seem to think so, in fact it's the opposite. Evolutionary biologists are well aware that their field doesn't make some particular groups happy, which makes them feel 'bounded' like the SJW ones.

The dishonest biologists are exactly the ones who are not able to openly state that evolution is a fact, in order to be respectful to your folk, not the other way around.

In a way, creationists are the SJWs of biology.

Hmm.. that's not the prevailing state of matters in the West, as far as I can see. Perhaps where you live things are different. Creationists are shunned or mocked everywhere in academic circles in the US and Western Europe -- and that includes biology.

[catgeorge]

There is no scientific evidedence of Jesus existing, although quite a lot of historical evidence. Not that it would have been an argument against evolution, so I don't really see your point.

History and Literature is a science so there is scientific evidence of Jesus Christ existing and apostles spreading the word at the same time in different parts of the world.

[catgeorge]

Trying to bring science into conflict with Christianity you will fail every single time.

[RenaRyuguu]

It's not healthy to be a complete atheist. Better to believe in something yeah

[Batavia]

Evolution doesn't exist. At least, not Darwinian evolution of one kind of species into another kind. Zero evidence for it. It's all by blind faith that people believe in evolution.

There is no moral truth/absolute for the atheist, if he is honest with himself. There cannot be.

And how did the human races in your opinion, evolve then?
Evolution is a fact and its well proven; even though we don´t know everything yet (some things we might never find out).

[catgeorge]

We did not descend from snakes and lizards - this is the work of Satan embedded into your soul and you can not shake it out and the serpent is a representation of evil which good has slain.

Human Beings did not spring from evil. We are loving, communal, intelligent, caring beings. There are obviously out liars but they have failed to embrace the love of God.

[Universe]

And how did the human races in your opinion, evolve then?
Evolution is a fact and its well proven; even though we don´t know everything yet (some things we might never find out).
I don't understand how 3 sons of Noah (Japhet, Ham and Shem) could explain diversity of Humanity.
It could, if humanity had only 3 distinct races. Humanity is much more diverse and nuanced than that. Also, how can a father and mother create 3 sons of 3 different races?
Japhet is supposed to be progenitor of Indo-Europeans, Ham is supposed to be progenitor of MENA people and Shem is supposedly the forefather of Black people. What about native americans, aboriginal australians etc? At the time middleasterners/europeans had no idea Aboriginal Australians and Native Americans existed, so they didn't need a story to explain their existence.

[Universe]

We did not descend from snakes and lizards - this is the work of Satan embedded into your soul and you can not shake it out and the serpent is a representation of evil which good has slain.
Human Beings did not spring from evil. We are loving, communal, intelligent, caring beings. There are obviously out liars but they have failed to embrace the love of God.
There are illogical things in the Bible if we take it literally. According to the bible God separated lightness(day) from darkness(night) on the first day. On 4th day god created the sun and the moon. Before sun was created how did god separate day from night? On 3th day plants were created, but there was no sun yet. How could plants survive without sunlight?
Book of genesis also describes moon as a source of light, even though it doesn't emit any light, it just reflects sun's light.
In another verse it is written that
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon all the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
Even though some seeds are poisonous. Modern science have shown that even seemingly innocent seeds like wheat are poisonous for people with gluten intolerance. Why did god make some people die of the food he created for their feeding?
Health experts who analyze human diet through an evolutionary lens argue wheat causes problems for many people because humans as a species didn't consume it in large quantities for 99% of our history so we aren't adapted to it. (According to "mainstream science" our genus is 2-3 million years old, but we weren't wheat eaters prior to that either, agriculture/wheat consumption on the other hand is not more than 10k years old)

If earth is only 6k years old - as the bible says - why did god create mastodons, mammoths, glyptodons, eurasian and north american lions, smilodons, Paraceratherium, Eruasian wooly rinoceros and tons of different dinosaur species? Only to have them go extinct a couple of years later after they were created? If these many species didn't go extinct in a couple of years after their creation, then I should be able to find them in written records. Writing already existed in 3,000 BC and earth was created in 4,000 BC according to bible)

[catgeorge]

There are illogical things in the Bible if we take it literally. According to the bible God separated lightness(day) from darkness(night) on the first day. On 4th day god created the sun and the moon. Before sun was created how did god separate day from night? On 3th day plants were created, but there was no sun yet. How could plants survive without sunlight?
Book of genesis also describes moon as a source of light, even though it doesn't emit any light, it just reflects sun's light.
In another verse it is written that
Even though some seeds are poisonous. Modern science have shown that even seemingly innocent seeds like wheat are poisonous for people with gluten intolerance. Why did god make some people die of the food he created for their feeding?
Health experts who analyze human diet through an evolutionary lens argue wheat causes problems for many people because humans as a species didn't consume it in large quantities for 99% of our history so we aren't adapted to it. (According to "mainstream science" our genus is 2-3 million years old, but we weren't wheat eaters prior to that either, agriculture/wheat consumption on the other hand is not more than 10k years old)

If earth is only 6k years old - as the bible says - why did god create mastodons, mammoths, glyptodons, eurasian and north american lions, smilodons, Paraceratherium, Eruasian wooly rinoceros and tons of different dinosaur species? Only to have them go extinct a couple of years later after they were created? If these many species didn't go extinct in a couple of years after their creation, then I should be able to find them in written records. Writing already existed in 3,000 BC and earth was created in 4,000 BC according to bible)

There is absolutely nothing illogical in the bible. The bible is poetry, first hand accounts and parables that reflect human nature when it comes to the human soul.

[Loki]

There are illogical things in the Bible if we take it literally. According to the bible God separated lightness(day) from darkness(night) on the first day. On 4th day god created the sun and the moon. Before sun was created how did god separate day from night? On 3th day plants were created, but there was no sun yet. How could plants survive without sunlight?
Book of genesis also describes moon as a source of light, even though it doesn't emit any light, it just reflects sun's light.
In another verse it is written that
Even though some seeds are poisonous. Modern science have shown that even seemingly innocent seeds like wheat are poisonous for people with gluten intolerance. Why did god make some people die of the food he created for their feeding?
Health experts who analyze human diet through an evolutionary lens argue wheat causes problems for many people because humans as a species didn't consume it in large quantities for 99% of our history so we aren't adapted to it. (According to "mainstream science" our genus is 2-3 million years old, but we weren't wheat eaters prior to that either, agriculture/wheat consumption on the other hand is not more than 10k years old)

If earth is only 6k years old - as the bible says - why did god create mastodons, mammoths, glyptodons, eurasian and north american lions, smilodons, Paraceratherium, Eruasian wooly rinoceros and tons of different dinosaur species? Only to have them go extinct a couple of years later after they were created? If these many species didn't go extinct in a couple of years after their creation, then I should be able to find them in written records. Writing already existed in 3,000 BC and earth was created in 4,000 BC according to bible)

You don't know anything about the Bible. Instead of talking nonsense about it and derailing threads, I suggest you actually go read and study it. It might just change your life!

[Creoda]

Debating Christianity vs Atheism has to be the one of the most pointless things in the world.

The agnostic master race watches on with contempt.

[Wanderer]

Debating Christianity vs Atheism has to be the one of the most pointless things in the world.

The agnostic master race watches on with contempt.

Agnostics are just atheists; there is no practical difference. They are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic is someone who "doesn't know" whether God exists, which overlaps with "weak" atheism. A "strong" atheist is someone who claims to know that God does not exist. There are very few "strong" atheists, because this is something they don't actually know, and is not a position that can be defended.

There are many lines of evidence from which it is possible to know that God exists. One of my favorites is consciousness. Supposing it were possible for us to build a man from the physical elements of the world, in much the same way a computer or robot is built, there is still no way make a creation of man actually have conscious experiences. You can have a collection of cells that can walk and talk, but not actually feel anything. It's possible to infer that there is a property of mind in the universe. But what caused that? Our consciousness is not eternal, but came into existence in time. Therefore, there must be a single, uncaused First Cause, which did not begin existing in time because He created time. And that He can create both the mind and body testifies to His supreme and eternal power.

[JamesBond007]

Agnostics are just atheists; there is no practical difference. They are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic is someone who "doesn't know" whether God exists, which overlaps with "weak" atheism. A "strong" atheist is someone who claims to know that God does not exist. There are very few "strong" atheists, because this is something they don't actually know, and is not a position that can be defended.

There are many lines of evidence from which it is possible to know that God exists. One of my favorites is consciousness. Supposing it were possible for us to build a man from the physical elements of the world, in much the same way a computer or robot is built, there is still no way make a creation of man actually have conscious experiences. You can have a collection of cells that can walk and talk, but not actually feel anything. It's possible to infer that there is a property of mind in the universe. But what caused that? Our consciousness is not eternal, but came into existence in time. Therefore, there must be a single, uncaused First Cause, which did not begin existing in time because He created time. And that He can create both the mind and body testifies to His supreme and eternal power.

There is a difference between agnostics and atheists mostly that angostics weak/wimp/pussy fence-sitters compared to atheists.

[Creoda]

There is a difference between agnostics and atheists mostly that angostics weak/wimp/pussy fence-sitters compared to atheists.
No. Agnostics are the only people mature and conscious enough to recognise that the eternal is unknowable, beyond anyone's possible comprehension. Atheists and the Religious are basically two sides of the same coin: believers, people who are arrogant enough to claim with certainty what they don't know, either because they can't handle the spiritual void or they can't handle the idea of not having the answers, usually smug know-it-all's with a superiority complex in the case of atheists. For religious people who claim to have been 'touched by god' in some way then fair enough, that is their experience and it's not for me to doubt (or believe), but otherwise....

[Creoda]

Agnostics are just atheists; there is no practical difference. They are not mutually exclusive. An agnostic is someone who "doesn't know" whether God exists, which overlaps with "weak" atheism. A "strong" atheist is someone who claims to know that God does not exist. There are very few "strong" atheists, because this is something they don't actually know, and is not a position that can be defended.

There are many lines of evidence from which it is possible to know that God exists. One of my favorites is consciousness. Supposing it were possible for us to build a man from the physical elements of the world, in much the same way a computer or robot is built, there is still no way make a creation of man actually have conscious experiences. You can have a collection of cells that can walk and talk, but not actually feel anything. It's possible to infer that there is a property of mind in the universe. But what caused that? Our consciousness is not eternal, but came into existence in time. Therefore, there must be a single, uncaused First Cause, which did not begin existing in time because He created time. And that He can create both the mind and body testifies to His supreme and eternal power.
I am an agnostic deist. I believe in some form of creation, or 'god' if you will, for logical reasons, but beyond that there is nothing to say. And not much to ponder, an exercise in futility.

[Loki]

And how did the human races in your opinion, evolve then?
Evolution is a fact and its well proven; even though we don´t know everything yet (some things we might never find out).

Human races developed by selective inbreeding in isolation, which caused certain genetic characterists (that were already present in the original ancestors of all human groups) selectively came to the fore. In the same way that we now have different breeds of dogs, who look very different today but all came from the same dog ancestors (wolves etc). But they were all canids and were created canids by God. They were never dolphins or snakes or birds.

No, macro Darwinian evolution is not a fact, and has never been observed in science. You should check it out... they've been lying to you.

God created everything, all the different kinds of animals, and humans as the crown of creation. Unfortunately humans sinned and were separated from their original glory they had with God. All this will be restored one day, and spiritually can already be restored when you get born again of the Holy Spirit through the blood of Jesus. Many people can testify of that, including myself.

[Loki]

I am an agnostic deist. I believe in some form of creation, or 'god' if you will, for logical reasons, but beyond that there is nothing to say. And not much to ponder, an exercise in futility.

Well actually God has made himself known to the world, by coming in the form of a human being 2000 years ago. That was the most important event in human history since creation. Even our modern calendar starts from the birth of Jesus (although he was likely born between 4BC and 2BC in reality) -- and label what was before him "BC" (Before Christ). And with the advent of the internet, everyone in the world can now hear and know about Jesus Christ, which is perhaps another reason why Christianity is seeing such an explosive growth in previously unreached areas of Asia.

[Hektor12]

Human races developed by selective inbreeding in isolation, which caused certain genetic characterists (that were already present in the original ancestors of all human groups) selectively came to the fore. In the same way that we now have different breeds of dogs, who look very different today but all came from the same dog ancestors (wolves etc). But they were all canids and were created canids by God. They were never dolphins or snakes or birds.Whats your explanation for our tailbone?

[Insuperable]

No. Agnostics are the only people mature and conscious enough to recognise that the eternal is unknowable, beyond anyone's possible comprehension. Atheists and the Religious are basically two sides of the same coin: believers, people who are arrogant enough to claim with certainty what they don't know, either because they can't handle the spiritual void or they can't handle the idea of not having the answers, usually smug know-it-all's with a superiority complex in the case of atheists. For religious people who claim to have been 'touched by god' in some way then fair enough, that is their experience and it's not for me to doubt (or believe), but otherwise....

I am Christian or believer if you like. I don't claim anything with certainty hence the name believer or the word faith. Also, in my case and I reckon in case of many people it has nothing to do with not being able to handle a spiritual void or the idea of not having the answer. That is just your opinion.

Those that claim to know with certainty are either atheists in the true sense of the word and religious fanatics or whatever is the word used to describe them. Most other people should be either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.

[Loki]

Whats your explanation for our tailbone?

Aha! Interesting that you mention it ... it's not a tailbone at all! :) I saw a program yesterday that talked about this bone feature, it's an important feature of the spine where muscles etc are anchored on, it has a definite purpose in the body.

Every part of the body has a purpose. For example, people for long thought the appendix didn't have any purpose, but it turns out it's actually plays an important role in the human immune system.

[zebruh]

https://youtu.be/17lkdqoLt44

[Loki]

No. Agnostics are the only people mature and conscious enough to recognise that the eternal is unknowable, beyond anyone's possible comprehension. Atheists and the Religious are basically two sides of the same coin: believers, people who are arrogant enough to claim with certainty what they don't know, either because they can't handle the spiritual void or they can't handle the idea of not having the answers, usually smug know-it-all's with a superiority complex in the case of atheists. For religious people who claim to have been 'touched by god' in some way then fair enough, that is their experience and it's not for me to doubt (or believe), but otherwise....

As a Christian, and a believer in God, there are certain things that I "know", and quite obviously there are many things I DON'T know yet. But I know that one day, everything will be releaved when we are with God and will see Jesus face to face and we will be able to know the answers to all the difficult questions.

To know God in this world, and having been born again of the Spirit, and having a relationship with God, doesn't mean you automatically know everything. But there are certain things which we (well, I can only speak for myself) know for sure, and that is for example that God does exist, that he is real, and that there is a purpose for everything in life. Knowing this is really great, and knowing that there is much to look forward to in the future. Also the fact that I do not fear death at all, because I know it's only a transition, and that real "death" as some imagine it, doesn't exist.

[zebruh]

Aha! Interesting that you mention it ... it's not a tailbone at all! :) I saw a program yesterday that talked about this bone feature, it's an important feature of the spine where muscles etc are anchored on, it has a definite purpose in the body.

Every part of the body has a purpose. For example, people for long thought the appendix didn't have any purpose, but it turns out it's actually plays an important role in the human immune system.How come snakes don't have legs?
Why do crabs have esko skeletons unlike fish and sharks?

[Loki]

How come snakes don't have legs?
Why do crabs have esko skeletons unlike fish and sharks?

I don't know, I'll ask Jesus when I see him :)

[Creoda]

I am Christian or believer if you like. I don't claim anything with certainty hence the name believer or the word faith. Also, in my case and I reckon in case of many people it has nothing to do with not being able to handle a spiritual void or the idea of not having the answer. That is just your opinion.

Those that claim to know with certainty are either atheists in the true sense of the word and religious fanatics or whatever is the word used to describe them. Most other people should be either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.
Sorry, I'd had a few when I took JB007's bait there and was OTT. I don't wish to judge the motivations of Christians, or even atheists, both of whom I can sympathise with and have their reasons beyond my flippant characterisation.

[Hektor12]

Every part of the body has a purpose.Whats the purpose of my nipples?

[Teutone]

I need to look up more into intelligent design.

Evolution makes no real sense.

[Loki]

Whats the purpose of my nipples?

For me to twist them if you're disobedient!

[Roy]

Many do not think that the heyday of science suspiciously coincided with the Renaissance (of Antiquity) and the denial of Christianity. And the more religion there is in the society, the less science in the society. Therefore, it is so bad with science among Muslims, and Orthodox countries lag behind Protestant and even Catholic countries in development.

Russia was saved in this regard not only by the non-acceptance of Christianity at a deep level, but as the official structure of the ROC preserved the 300-year lag in the development of the social structure in the Russian Empire, which in fact led to the revolution, when for the survival of our civilization it was necessary to harshly overturn the system and hide the brake (ROC) under the skirting board. Only in this way did we manage to catch up, and somewhere overtake the advanced countries. Now this brake is being imposed on us again.

BUT, something very backbone have been lost.

From my point of view of an agnostic, not all 10 Commandments are unequivocally the basis for morality, out of the first four, three can be easily circumvented - well, why should I honor the Sabbath day, am I Jew or what?

Nevertheless, as an agnostic, I can well accept the version that God took Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to heaven right in the process of writing the strongest part of his strongest piece of music (and one of the strongest in its impression on the listener), because he went too far, revealing with his talent what may be too early to reveal or did not need to be done at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9hL78g3Sj8&t=72s

I would venture to say that 1) atheists cannot write such music. 2) atheism, with all due respect to the achievements of science, essentially "killed" art and literature. Such music, or artists of the level of "The Last Supper" by Leonardo, will no longer exist. Until the dominance of atheism is replaced by something else.
Atheists have nothing so powerful and huge that they could sing in chorus and play such music about.

For example, we have only the Victory in 1945 left. But this kind of music (Mozart) will not suit it. Yes, and the fate of all Victories is the same: they go back into the depths of the centuries and cool down, becoming, albeit respected, but calmly perceived gray-haired antiquity.
So first was Christ, then was Gagarin (~XX century). There was such a conjuncture. Not in spite of, but thanks to it. And so all this powerful wave degenerated into foam drying up on the shore. And this foam has no prospects, except how it will be washed away by a new wave.

I don't think Da Vinci himself was particularly religious, he could have even been an atheist.

He was gay too.

[KirillMazur]

I don't think Da Vinci himself was particularly religious, he could have even been an atheist.

He was gay too.
The case when a person can be called a respected gay, and not a dirty fag:).

[Batavia]

I don't believe in god, but admit that faith gives strength to many people.
Some people need religion; it gives them meaning.
But the church has far too much influence in my opinion.