Happy Atheist Forum

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

I think you should go look up the definition of a strawman argument.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

I think you should go look up the definition of a strawman argument.

Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument" but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

I think the following quote shows where most evolutionists are coming from:

Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald,
‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation… When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!’

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument"

That would be why I told you to look it up.  Hint, you built one in your previous post.

Quotebut the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

Well, there is the third option that you are more than willing to apply to the higher power, that the natural state of things, the only way it could happen is for that higher power to exist.  This is an option for the universe too...maybe the natural state of things is for something to exist.  The 'higher power' could be a result of chance too...so I don't really see what your issue is with chance.

I prefer "I dont know" it's much more honest than pretending to have special knowledge related to the origins of the universe.

QuoteI think the following quote shows where most evolutionists are coming from:

I thought you were talking about the origins of the universe...that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument" but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

We don't care about the basic point because its a straw man argument.  Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.

Quote from: "Ignorant Christian"I think the following quote shows where most evolutionists are coming from:

*** Some quote from some non-biologist who has no understanding of evolution***

Before you reject evolution why don't you actually look at it.  From your posts it is obvious that you have no understanding of evolution and are just agreeing with whatever your pastor or priest is telling you.  There is an evolution for dummies book (not trying to be mean here i'm trying to be helpful) that is an excellent book for beginners who know little or nothing about evolution.  

Evolution is not a difficult concept to grasp.  Live evolved for billions of years through small changes ... the useful changes stuck around and the useless ones died off.  Natural selection is the opposite of random chance.  See isn't that simple?

Forget straw-man argument-look up Solid State Theory.

Hello, and welcome to the Happy Atheist Forum, Happy Christian.

 

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

I'll forgo the sarcasm about the brilliant and original attempt at a definition of atheism.

 

Quote from: "url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism]Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary[/url]"]
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Instead I'd like to take a look at what you've written here, in the light of my understanding of current thinking on the subjects of cosmology and biology:

 

Quote from: "Happy Christian"...in the beginning...

It's pretty clear that our universe, as we understand it, had a beginning, yes.  There are several theories about the origin of that beginning, but we don't now, and may possibly never will, know for sure what the "cause," if there was one, is.  You of course are welcome to say that "God did it."  There is no proof of this, however, so just like any other theory without proof, your idea remains just that.  Prove in a falsifiable way that God created the universe, and you will become quite famous.  Until then, your attempt to ridicule the simple admission that we don't know the answer to the question of the origin of the universe is ill founded and absurd.

 

Quote from: "Happy Christian"...there was nothing and nothing happened to it.

There may be some theories of cosmology that more or less agree with this, but they are not any more valid than other theories that are in competition with them.  To say that this is how all cosmologists (or atheists) view this question is to display your ignorance of the subject.

 

Quote from: "Happy Christian"As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason...

Here, you introduce the term "magically."  This has no basis at all.  There is no theory of scientific cosmology which uses magic.  In fact the one place where you will find magic is in theistic creation myths.  The term "exploded" is incorrect, according to current understanding, as well.  There seems to have been a very rapid expansion, but it was quite different than what we would understand by the word "explosion."  Also, there's a definite difference between "nothing" and a singularity, which is thought to be the beginning of this universe.

 

Quote from: "Happy Christian"...a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

More magic?  Where did you get this idea?  Atheism repudiates magic.  If an atheist doesn't know exactly how something happened, then they'll say so.  You will search in vain for an atheist who believes that there is any such thing as magic.  The mechanisms of life's progression from cells to complex organisms are fairly well understood.  The element of chance is indeed a part of that progression, but it's only a small part of what we know to have happened.  What is not currently known is exactly how life first originated.  The subject is being actively investigated, however, and it's reasonable to expect that eventually there will be a good falsifiable theory that explains it.

If you don't mind, Happy Christian, I'd like to ask you a question.  Why did you join this forum?

Quote from: "Happy Christian"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

I think you should go look up the definition of a strawman argument.

Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument" but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

Now it's time to look up "false dichotomy".

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

WELL DONE!!! YOU READ THE POSTER!!!!!

Moving on, to your quote.

QuoteOne has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation… When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!

This, as Squid rightly pointed out is a false dichotomy (clicking all the way over to wiki seems hard for you, so I will tell you that a false dichotomy is defined as presenting only two resolutions to a problem or question, when in fact, there may be more). There are also, other, insidious, snide, sneaky little things about this manipulative and obviously agenda laden soundbite that rankle me. The use of the term spontaneous generation, which is indeed a thoroughly disproved concept, foremost amongst my annoyances. Your chap (who went to Harvard, that must make him a paragon of virtue and truth, while simultaneously educating him in the finer points of syllogistic logic and abiogenic biology, right?) neglects to mention, that this particular hypothesis, posits that should one leave grain lying in a pot for days, then mice will spring forth from it, and that logs, when left in the sun, will transmute into crocodiles. This fanciful nonsense is indeed rubbish, and by equating abiogenesis, the modern, developing field of science, with this superstitious and fantastical twaddle, he reveals himself as a disingenuous and deceptive charlatan.

All modern abiogensis theories rely on life originating in tiny, simple, almost mechanical processes and agents, formed through the natural action of organic chemicals and their reactions. No one makes such brash, magical claims about something, which is clearly arrant tosh (except of course, the bible   ). This is the third way, the way of reason.

See? This is why I don't come into this forum.

To quote a very good linguist: "We haven't thought that about transformational grammar in years! Get with the program, man, if you need a ride, we'll give it to you, just come into the next century."

transformational grammar == Origin.

Hello, Happy Christian. Welome to the forum.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that...

I'm going to have to stop you right there. The "a" in "atheism" is derived from the Greek to mean "no, absence of, without, lack of, not". Atheism does not describe an active belief but a passive disbelief. An atheist is one that disbelieves or is unconvinced of the existence of god or gods. Nothing more. Everything else, the science, the logic, the Dawkins... those come after atheism.

In order to be atheist you are not required to understand or accept evolution. In order to be atheist you're not required to understand the big bang or the singularity. In order to be atheist you don't even have to believe that dinosaurs existed. The one and only thing you need to be an atheist is disbelief in god or gods. That's it.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.?  

Awesome.

Before you reject evolution why don't you actually look at it.  From your posts it is obvious that you have no understanding of evolution and are just agreeing with whatever your pastor or priest is telling you.  There is an evolution for dummies book (not trying to be mean here i'm trying to be helpful) that is an excellent book for beginners who know little or nothing about evolution.  

Thanks for the advice but to be honest you're about as far from the truth as it could possibly be. I have an IQ of 151, a degree in astrophysics (albeit a long time ago!!) and my wife is college lecturer with a degree in general biology and a doctorate in biochemistry. Far from me simply agreeing with what my pastor says I insist on thinking for myself which is actually how I became a Christian in the first place. I wont give you the full story its too long but my doubts began when I read the excellent book, "The Facts of Life - Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton. A particularly good book as Richard Milton at the time was not a Christian or Theist of any type but described himself as agnostic. I've read numerous other books on the subject since then (Christian and Atheist) and to be truthful the more I read the more convinced I become that neither the origin of the universe or life itself is anywhere near being explained by science and belief in God is more logical and fulfilling. As you so kindly recommended that I read "Evolution for Dummies" let me recommend one for you, "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.?  

Awesome.

Well it would be awesome if it actually had something to do with Christianity instead of sounding like the plot from a bad b-movie! As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

Quote from: "Happy Christian"As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

Don't try to pretend like you have an IQ of 151 then use the above poor logic.  Hint of the problem by example:  All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.

First, thank you Happy Christian, for telling us a little about yourself.  It's helpful to know something about the person one is talking with.  If you care to, you can read my  post in the Introductions section of this forum.  It was the second post I made here.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Well it would be awesome if it actually had something to do with Christianity...

I think that the blurb LoneMateria quotes actually is more applicable to Christianity than yours is to atheism.  I'm a tad disappointed that a luminary who boasts an IQ of 151 would introduce himself with such an inaccurate and feeble jibe.  If you had come up with it yourself, I suppose there might be at least the excuse of originality.  Do you happen to be the author of that infamous blurb?

 

Quote from: "Happy Christian"As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

This, coming from one who prides himself on logic, is once again a little disappointing.  Much too simplistic, as well as being an error of generalization.  Some Buddhists are atheist.  Indeed there are some who feel that Buddhism is more of a philosophical approach to life than a religion.  On the other hand, as you may or may not know, there are several schools of Buddhism which have a whole pantheon, and do qualify under any definition of religion.  The fact is, however, that even a purely atheist form of Buddhism could be rightly considered as a religion.  From the Merriam-Webster definition of religion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion), part 1b(2): "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance."  (Emphasis mine.)
 
 Atheism itself however, does not qualify as a religion under any definition you may choose.  By some tortured reading of current definitions of religion, I suppose one might (incorrectly) construe atheism  to be a religion.  And though I suppose one could construct a definition of religion that would include atheism, one might be hard put to get the rest of the world to agree with such a definition.

Finally, I would respectfully ask you once again, Happy Christian; why did you come to this forum?  I won't ask again, and if you prefer not to say, that's just fine.  I'm merely curious.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Happy Christian"As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

Don't try to pretend like you have an IQ of 151 then use the above poor logic.  Hint of the problem by example:  All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.

Try reading the news whitney!!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

Quote from: "Happy Christian"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Happy Christian"As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

Don't try to pretend like you have an IQ of 151 then use the above poor logic.  Hint of the problem by example:  All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.

Try reading the news whitney!!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

Nice dodge, but your previous logic is still faulty.  

However the decision of one state court doesn't change the definition of a word; esp. not internationally.

Not to mention that I didn't say I took exception to atheism being a religion....It would be a huge stretch of what the word religion is intended to describe since atheist is a lack of belief rather than a belief in something.  But, whatever, it does make it easier to argue our rights under separation of church and state.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Thanks for the advice but to be honest you're about as far from the truth as it could possibly be.

Really can you define Genetic Drift, or do you know what species Lucy is, or what a Phenotype is, o what Phylogenetics is?  If you need to do a google search then you proved my point.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"I have an IQ of 151, a degree in astrophysics (albeit a long time ago!!) and my wife is college lecturer with a degree in general biology and a doctorate in biochemistry.

So because you have a 151 IQ (which I don't believe but lets say for the sake of argument you do) and an astrophysics degree (again I don't believe it but I will grant it to you for the sake of argument) and because your WIFE has a biology degree and a biochemistry degree that makes you an expert in evolution?  Because of those things you apparently have the credentials to be a "expert" in this field along with any other you choose am I right?  What a poor argument and this is the crappy arguments I see anti-evolution theists use all the time.  Because you have a degree with a long name or someone else does doesn't make you or them an expert on that subject unless they hold a real degree in that field of study.  Also because you have said degree you (or they) try to pass it off as the person with this degree is infallible on this subject.  Um... no it doesn't work like that sorry.

By the way for someone with a 151 IQ it sure took you a while to figure out the quote feature.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Far from me simply agreeing with what my pastor says I insist on thinking for myself which is actually how I became a Christian in the first place. I wont give you the full story its too long but my doubts began when I read the excellent book, "The Facts of Life - Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton.

That doesn't tell me much and that doesn't tell me how you thought for yourself.  And when I look up Richard Milton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_(author)#cite_note-7) his profile ruins any possible credit he had with me when I see words like, advocates Homeopathy.  However the quote from an actual biologist on that book makes me laugh:

The Facts of Life was reviewed by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, who described it as "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand"

Anyway reading his wiki page makes Milton a fucking joke.  I really hope you didn't build your belief on this foundation.  If you did you obviously aren't using your supposedly superior brain you are trying to brag about.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"A particularly good book as Richard Milton at the time was not a Christian or Theist of any type but described himself as agnostic.

I guess thats better then what Christians today do to sell books.  They are Christians but say they were atheists to sell books.  ^_^

QuoteI've read numerous other books on the subject since then (Christian and Atheist) and to be truthful the more I read the more convinced I become that neither the origin of the universe or life itself is anywhere near being explained by science and belief in God is more logical and fulfilling.

Science doesn't claim to explain everything or that it will be able to explain everything.  You gotta remember our science has only been around for a few hundred years and religion has had thousands of years to spread its lies.  God is by no means more logical but I will admit it will make you feel better if you are insecure.  I'm sorry an all powerful deity magically bringing himself into existence to create a universe for humans that is 99.9% uninhabitable for them is crazy every day of the week.  Its simpler then trying to understand what is really going on.  Its always simpler to say magic man did it then to really look at evolution, genetics, modern medicine (oh yeah that's right we wouldn't have modern medicine if we didn't understand evolution ... guess your pastor forgot to include that one) and so on.  

I always like bringing up medicine when I talk about evolution because germs evolve so treatments always change.  Why do you suppose that fetuses in the womb grow hair all over their body and then shed it before they are born?  Or why we have an appendix, a useless organ that all it does is explode and kill people or it does nothing and sits there?

Quote from: "Happy Christian"As you so kindly recommended that I read "Evolution for Dummies" let me recommend one for you, "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

Its a good informative book thats why I recommended it.  I've seen quite a bit by Lee Strobel and I can tell you right now that book will be full of crap.  I've heard Lee's arguments for a creator (not nearly as funny as Ray Comfort's banana ... nor as ironic in its ignorance) before and I was unimpressed then and I doubt I will be now.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Thanks for the advice but to be honest you're about as far from the truth as it could possibly be.

You've not demonstrated a working knowledge of evolution with what you've posted so far. Can you blame members of an atheist forum, that gets plenty of AnswersInGenesis trolls every week, for being skeptical? In your first post, you mistook atheism as a belief in the big bang and biological evolution, instead of its actual meaning (which I posted above).

Quote from: "Happy Christian"I have an IQ of 151,

Your IQ is 107. Whitney, LoneMateria, Recusant, Squid, SSY, and karadan are all between about 130 and 145. Mine is around 135ish. Renegnicat' the smartest of all, not getting involved in this train wreck. There are maybe a few thousand people on the planet with IQs above 150, and I'm afraid you're not one of them. Oddly enough, most people with higher IQs are able to figure out that the IQ test is a horrible way to measure overall intelligence.

Still, a round of applause for the rest of us for all being very bright to gifted.  

Quote from: "Squid"Now it's time to look up "false dichotomy".

Just link him over to http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ and have him give us a call when he's done reading.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Well it would be awesome if it actually had something to do with Christianity

You sir have a keen sense of irony. Also, degree in Astro? Where from?

QuoteWhy do you suppose that fetuses in the womb grow hair all over their body and then shed it before they are born?

Could you cite this LoneMateria? I have had a and could not find it, and asked one of my medic friends (lots of embryology courses) and he had never heard of it. I am of course not doubting you, but I have always been curious about this after hearing it from Hitchens, and it fits well with the tail we grow and lose, but would obviously like a citation.

Edit; found it  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/07 ... naked_ape/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/07/the_odd_body_nearly_naked_ape/) , My search fu is weak.

While we're editing, Will, I thought there would be more people over 145 than that, the CIVIQ high IQ society accept people over 145, which they say is the top 0.13%, or 7.8 Million people, are we using different tests? Is there a standard one used for this purpose?

Hi to all,

newly registerd, first post. English is my second language, so I apologize in advance for all the errors I'll make.

Many years ago I made an IQ-Test that gave me 105 "points". No reason for suicide, but not that much either. Then, some years later, came a turn for the better. I made a second Test with 115 this time. So in summery I have an IQ of 220!!! Quite bright, huh?

(And maybe that's the technic to get so high IQs as sometimes claimed by people who are obviously not that smart.)

---

Quote from: "Recusant"Atheism repudiates magic.  If an atheist doesn't know exactly how something happened, then they'll say so.  You will search in vain for an atheist who believes that there is any such thing as magic.

I disagree on that. Atheism is the lack of believe in a god or gods, but not the lack of believe in any supernatural nonsense. And so you'll find all sorts of moderate or simply crazy believes in various supernatural powers - astrology, vampires, witches, magic of any sort, kind-of-holy-or-whatever-energy ... you name it ..., though no believe in a god or gods. And if atheists don't know how something happened, they say so, or find excuses, or stumble around, or make up something, or think to know without research and are stupidily wrong ... you name it ..., but wouldn't come up with a god or gods to explain stuff. Atheists are no uniform beings beside the, well, Atheism.

Quote from: "Justme"Many years ago I made an IQ-Test that gave me 105 "points". No reason for suicide, but not that much either. Then, some years later, came a turn for the better. I made a second Test with 115 this time. So in summery I have an IQ of 220!!! Quite bright, huh?

(And maybe that's the technic to get so high IQs as sometimes claimed by people who are obviously not that smart.)

 

(Welcome to HAF)

This whole thread is like on The Discovery Channel when they air those fights between Spiders and Scorpions.

You should read the thread started by "YoungBlackSmart", the chap who estimated he had an IQ of 200 or thereabouts, now that was a fun thread. When reading about people like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong), it puts into perspective just how insane he was.

Quote from: "SSY"

QuoteWhy do you suppose that fetuses in the womb grow hair all over their body and then shed it before they are born?

Could you cite this LoneMateria? I have had a lol or it was covered in one of Dawkin's books that I mentioned.

I did a search too to look for this and its difficult information to find.  Your search fu wasn't bad ... either that or mine sucked too

Quote from: "SSY"You should read the thread started by "YoungBlackSmart", the chap who estimated he had an IQ of 200 or thereabouts,

When I saw Happy Christian post his IQ, the first thing I did was make sure it wasn't YoungBlackSmart's sock puppet (well, I looked for an IP match, any idiot can figure out how to use a proxie).

Quote from: "Justme"

Quote from: "Recusant"Atheism repudiates magic. If an atheist doesn't know exactly how something happened, then they'll say so. You will search in vain for an atheist who believes that there is any such thing as magic.

I disagree on that. Atheism is the lack of believe in a god or gods, but not the lack of believe in any supernatural nonsense.

Hello and welcome, Justme. :sigh:

Quote from: "Happy Christian"

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.?  

Awesome.

Well it would be awesome if it actually had something to do with Christianity instead of sounding like the plot from a bad b-movie! As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

The reason i said it was awesome was because LoneMateria trivialised christianity the same way you trivialised atheism. It was beautifully incongruous, i thought.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "SSY"You should read the thread started by "YoungBlackSmart", the chap who estimated he had an IQ of 200 or thereabouts,

When I saw Happy Christian post his IQ, the first thing I did was make sure it wasn't YoungBlackSmart's sock puppet (well, I looked for an IP match, any idiot can figure out how to use a proxie).

I thought that too.

Quite frankly I think there is an inverse correlation between the speed with which someone brings up his IQ in a conversation and the actual IQ. Certainly that seems to be the correlation between actual intelligence and boasted intelligence - rational thought and boasted rational thought.

Quote from: "Will"Renegnicat' the smartest of all, not getting involved in this train wreck.

Aww... Thank you.  

When incredibly frustrated combined with someone being condescending I sometimes bring up my IQ, then of course I facepalm that I did such a thing and wonder if I convinced someone I was a douche. I've taken several IQ tests in the past couple of years and they would always range wildly, the lowest one was 138 while the highest was 164, now I don't know if I have an IQ of 138 or 164 but what I do know is that the tests does tend to leave one wondering the validity of these tests, is there some sort of standard that these tests have to adhere to?  I would imagine they don't and that would explain the wide range and I know people who seem more intelligent than I do and have taken IQ tests in the past and scored much lower than I. Then again I tend to give the impression that i'm a loon(which I am I guess) and the whole stoner appearance doesn't help either.

Listen, Happy Christian:
There is a question, like 'how did it all begin?'
You can't answer it, so you decide it must have been done by a creator, for whose existence there is no other evidence.
You have now not solved the problem but made it greater, since we now have to explain the creator.
This simple principle was already well known to the ancient Greeks.  When we mention it to christians, their only way out is to claim that we can never understand god - he just IS.
To any ratonal person this is a pathetic cop-out.

(EDIT)  Oops!  This reply has ended up in the wrong part of the topic! Apologies.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

Okay, you do not understand the big bang theory at all and I think you should take the time to really research it before you try and discuss it. Heck, there are even youtube videos that will accurately explain the big bang theory in an easy to understand manner.

Quote from: "Happy Christian"wont give you the full story its too long but my doubts began when I read the excellent book, "The Facts of Life - Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton. A particularly good book as Richard Milton at the time was not a Christian or Theist of any type but described himself as agnostic.

Richard Milton?!  

No wonder you reject evolution if you're reading Milton's insane writings, he's has no business writing criticism about any scientific subject.  You should really take the time to read research in published journals instead of Milton's junk.

BTW, tossing around IQ scores and earned degrees does not an argument make my friend...the proof is in the pudding, so give us some pudding...

Quote from: "Happy Christian"Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

There was no beginning or actual nothing... Firstly you can't state nothing as a thing of existence without contradicting your own statement.. Thus, you don't seem to even understand what it is that you are trying to state... So I will prove you wrong on this in a very simple way...

Existence simply exists because non-existence can not be a person, place or thing of existence itself without negating it's own definition and converting itself into existence... Non-existence states that itself does not exist... Nothing can not be a thing or a something either.. Nothing also states that itself does not exist as a person, place, or thing...  These terms that you are using are only descriptive words to describe something that is missing from the big picture that you expect to be there or to describe an impossible....

Existence = everything and anything without a "nothing" in the literal sense of a person, place, or thing of existence.. Existence is also anywhere and any place of existence without a place of non-existence... Non-existence can not literally be a place of existence... Sorry... Existence is the Universal Set... All things must have a place of existence and be in existence... All things must be comprised of the substance of existence itself... No GOD or Mind can create the container to its self or place of it's own existence...

So there never was "Nothing" even if it were empty space.. I suggest you read up on Quantum Electromagnetic Physics...

And the other common mistake by creationists.. The Universe or the Big Bang are not the answers to existence either... They are mere subsets of existence and within existence.. The big bang happened in existence at a particular point in existence... The universe does not stretch the entire infinite span of existence either... Hence your universe is still contained in a void much larger than it.. It's also contained in at least 4 infinite dimensional planes... Hence there is no such thing as a -1 dimensional plane... That is simply impossible... Something can not be -1 dimensional.. It can only be 0 dimensional or the the base of existence... the 0 dimensional plane of existence is what you perceive as "Nothing" , "Void", or "empty space"... It's not literally nothing... It's simply a unquantifiable something better known as a base of existence to where all other dimensional planes expand from... It's a loop to where if you tried to go through the O dimensional plane you would end right back at the 1 dimensional plane of existence... Thus non-existence is impossible...

Quantum Electromagnetic physics pretty much describes the interaction of looping of energy between the 0dimensional plane and the 1 dimensional plane and up... It's like a bank of borrowed energy to where the energy must quickly be returned... Hence a force of flowing energy to where anti-particles and particles are born.... These particles collide and destroy each other creating a bi-product that made the substance from which our universe was created from...

And on the GOD theory.A GOD can not represent a Universal set of all sets....If you state GOD is existence and we are all inside GOD then we are all apart of GOD and GOD himself... You would thus be made from the substance of GOD... And then you fail to describe what part of GOD do you reside in... Hence you can not be inside of what is existence and not be made from the substance of that existence.. You are thus not an individual of a free agent because in that respect you are GOD... At best you become an appendage of said Deity...And this would still be false because if GOD is infinite and represents the Universal set it wouldn't actually have a defined shape or appendage..It would be an infinite mind and thus It would still be a false existence or a solipsist existence... And you fail to explain said gods own containment for it's own mind and how he has created that container and all the subsets of his own mind.... It would still require reverse creationism for the GOD to create the container to his mind and the container still defies the need for the mind to be existing itself... Hence even the mind of a GOD still can not be the answer to existence or the creator of existence...


Basically to believe a GOD is existence, you would also be forced into believing in Solipsism... Thus you are of GOD's own imagining...A false existence.. If you believe a God is IN existence then you have to self admit that a GOD needs a place of existence and a container to it's own existence to which it can neither create or destroy.. It would be reliant on it and in need of it... And thus not the answer to existence..

I wasn't paying attention to this thread, otherwise I would have posted a link to THIS (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2324) earlier.

Gotta love debating creationists. As one once put it: That would look great on your CV; not so good on mine.

If a creator is simpler than the big bang [for example] you would still have to explain the creator. If you can explain your God in less than two words for me to know everything about Him you win.

Quote from: "leonswan2000"If a creator is simpler than the big bang [for example] you would still have to explain the creator. If you can explain your God in less than two words for me to know everything about Him you win.

Violent, unpredictable.

Quote from: "leonswan2000"If a creator is simpler than the big bang [for example] you would still have to explain the creator. If you can explain your God in less than two words for me to know everything about Him you win.

Actually it would have to be less than 1 word.. It wouldn't even be capable of the first pixel of the letter G... And it wouldn't contain the entire sum knowledge of existence since it can't even formulate the letter G..

Basically, A religious believer would needs to prove that Intelligence before knowledge is possible... The ability to apply knowledge before the existence of knowledge just so one can create something, or even know of it's own existence... It's self admitting to the need of a base of inquiry that itself can not create... You can not create your own self identity, self awareness,place of existence. or base of knowledge.. It like trying to state that an Microsoft Windows 7 can write the code from which its written from before it's self exists.. And it's also stating that Windows 7 could magically create the hardrive (its place of containment) so it can have a place of existence...

People that believe in a GOD believe in reverse creationism.. It's pathetically laughable logic..