Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
JETZEN

Hi Noob Here

Recommended Posts

i'm searching for any evidence of divine creation....can anyone help me?

thank you in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm searching for any evidence of divine creation....can anyone help me?

thank you in advance.

54284[/snapback]

Hi Jetzen

 

There isn't any.

 

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of Nessie to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

 

But searches using the latest techniques have proved fruitless. None of the photos or eye witness acoounts can be verified. And such a creature doesn't fit well with scientists' understanding of how the world works.

 

I suppose that if Nessie wanted to go public, she could easily do so. Until then she remains an enigma.

 

At the moment I'd bet my house that nessie doesn't exist, but who knows? I've been wrong before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

Hi Jetzen

 

There isn't any.

 

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the "origin of life being a happy chemical accident" other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of "Piltdown Man" to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

 

But searches using the latest techniques have proved fruitless. None of the photos or eye witness acoounts can be verified. And such a creature doesn't fit well with scientists' understanding of how the world works.

 

I suppose that if "Lucy" wanted to go public, she could easily do so. Until then she remains an enigma.

 

At the moment I'd bet my house that "Lucy" doesn't exist, but who knows? I've been wrong before.

54286[/snapback]

Great post. I couldn't agree more. :blink:

 

 

Okay all kidding aside and welcome to JETZEN.

 

 

Also , falcone, I sent you a private message some time ago, did you get it ? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jetzen

 

There isn't any.

 

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of Nessie to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

 

But searches using the latest techniques have proved fruitless. None of the photos or eye witness acoounts can be verified. And such a creature doesn't fit well with scientists' understanding of how the world works.

 

I suppose that if Nessie wanted to go public, she could easily do so. Until then she remains an enigma.

 

At the moment I'd bet my house that nessie doesn't exist, but who knows? I've been wrong before.

54286[/snapback]

Can you list five observable, retestable processes of evolution out of the 100s claimed? Just 5. No one has been able to do it yet, so let's see if you can.

 

Also Falcone, I guess with your post you are showing that you have become tired of this forum? Saying what you said to a new member here, I guess you are trying to run them off? Because if you really believed all of what you said, then that would make you a moron for wasting your time debating it.

 

And don't get mad. I just gave you a taste of what it's like to have what you believe called the loch ness monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Falcone, I guess with your post you are showing that you have become tired of this forum? Saying what you said to a new member here, I guess you are trying to run them off? Because if you really believed all of what you said, then that would make you a moron for wasting your time debating it.

54288[/snapback]

Isn't the bolded a direct violation of the 'Strictly Enforced Rules' here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you list five observable, retestable processes of evolution out of the 100s claimed? Just 5. No one has been able to do it yet, so let's see if you can.

Sorry, I'm not an expert on evolution. So, without Googling it, no.

 

Also Falcone, I guess with your post you are showing that you have become tired of this forum? Saying what you said to a new member here, I guess you are trying to run them off?

Fair point, as I re-read my post with creationists specs on, I can see why you might interpret it that way. There was no sinister intent.

 

Because if you really believed all of what you said, then that would make you a moron for wasting your time debating it.

 

And don't get mad. I just gave you a taste of what it's like to have what you believe called the loch ness monster.

54288[/snapback]

I was using an analogy to try and put forward an (or at least, my) atheistic viewpoint. I find believers often find it hard to appreciate what non-belief is like. Using fictional constructs like Nessie sometimes helps. I didn't call what you believe the Loch Ness monster. I'm sorry you misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jetzen

 

There isn't any.

 

Nor is there evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster other than some photos that may or may not have doctored, and some eye witnesses who may or may not have been drunk. Time helps perpetuate the myth though, and parents in the highlands of Scotland tell tales of Nessie to their children, thus keeping the legend alive.

 

 

there must be some evidence of divine creation

 

here's QE1 holding a pet...i think it might be a baby nessie

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there must be some evidence of divine creation

 

here's QE1 holding a pet...i think it might be a baby nessie

 

Posted Image

54303[/snapback]

Nice. I'm sold! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jetzen

 

There isn't any.

54286[/snapback]

Is there evidence for atheism then Falcone?

 

In other words; what valid and empirical evidence does atheism have for the universe's origin, and life in general?

 

Cannot the same answer "There isn't any" be posited as the answer? Therefore, cannot atheism be equated to the Loch Ness Monster as well?

 

Of course, it's not hard to predict how you will interpret the answer with your evo specs on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delphiki

Is there evidence for atheism then Falcone?

54310[/snapback]

 

I think Falcone, being an atheist, would be proof of atheism.

 

Now if you mean to say "is there evidence that god doesn't exist?" That's a different story. This is what's called shifting burden of proof. Since saying "god exists" is a positive, this it the element which would need to be proven. I've used the example somewhere already but:

 

"I believe there is a candy-striped moose on the far side of the moon casting happiness spells on everyone. You can't prove it doesn't exists, therefore it exists."

 

That's an example of misplaced burden of proof. In this example, it would be the one who says the moose exists that would have something to prove.

 

"I have seen pictures from the Apollo missions that show no moose on the far side of the moon. You have yet to prove the moose exists, until then, the moose does not exist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Falcone, being an atheist, would be proof of atheism.

54311[/snapback]

If atheism were a religion, then you would be correct. We all place our faith in one thing or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delphiki

If atheism were a religion, then you would be correct. We all place our faith in one thing or another.

54312[/snapback]

Interesting. Is this assumption based on your own experience in having faith in something?

 

Also, I'm not sure whether atheism being a religion would prove its existence as a form of demographic. Atheism is basically not having a belief or religion. People are atheists, therefore atheism exists. It's not difficult to grasp.

 

People who eat apples are apple-eaters. Apple-eating is not a religion. Apple-eating still exists, though. How is that?

 

I would venture to say that there are a lot of things - habits, beliefs, cultures, fads, philosophies, diets, etc, that are not religions, but have words for them, and also exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is basically not having a belief or religion. 

54314[/snapback]

Atheism is basically not believing in a deity. Therefore atheists believe there is no deity. Hence atheists have faith that there is no deity.

 

Faith is faith, regardless of who or what you place it in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

Atheism is basically not believing in a deity. Therefore atheists believe there is no deity. Hence atheists have faith that there is no deity.

 

Faith is faith, regardless of who or what you place it in...

54320[/snapback]

Well here are some definitions of religion I've pulled of the Net.

 

RELIGION

 

The term "religion" refers both to the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

 

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

 

 

Hmmmmm, seems to cover all the bases for everyone here registered. Even the bible acknowleges that a person can make anyone or anyTHING their god, even their belly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess to put this in prospective.

 

Falcone, Why are you an A-theist and not also a A-loch ness monster also? It's because you truly believe Loch ness monster does not exist, but God? So you know it would be silly, as you guys imply in your own words, to be against the Loch ness monster. But not God, even though you just put God on the same level as Loch ness?

 

So basically you just proved you know God exist, and is not on the same level as Loch ness monster or you would have to admit that you spend a bunch of time and money (cost of your internet) debating something that you say is like the Loch ness monster. I find that ironic.

 

So you don't have the same faith that God does not exist like you have that the Loch ness monster don't exist?

 

So even by your comment, my faith is justified because even you cannot deny God. So the reason the word atheist exists is because all atheist know God exists. Because how can you be against what is not there? That would be stupid.

 

And then you might ask: Which god? Considering that 98% of all atheist are against the Christian God, and do not debate against any other god on any other forum. By your own actions, again you guys prove what you claim does not exist, actually does exist. Or you would have to admit to spending so much time and money going after something as stupid as the Loch ness monster. So which is it?

 

So all of the effort you guys put into this thread making fun of a belief, you actually prove it by your own actions. Otherwise you have to admit to something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

54321[/snapback]

Yes, quite correct. Even if that purpose is nothing, by nothing, to nothing. It's still a belief in nothingness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

i'm searching for any evidence of divine creation....can anyone help me?

thank you in advance.

54284[/snapback]

Well your buddy "Wisp" just registered today so I think you'll both be able to find something of interest. :lol:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, quite correct. Even if that purpose is nothing, by nothing, to nothing. It's still a belief in nothingness.

54368[/snapback]

Technically you can't have a belief in nothing, because it is still something. A lack of belief is not the same as a religion. You can call it a religion all you want, but that will never make it the definition of religion.

 

Ikester, how in the world did he just 'prove' that he knows God exists? I fail to see the logical deduction you went through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falcone, Why are you an A-theist and not also a A-loch ness monster also?

Well, to use your terminology, I am an a-Loch Ness monsterist.

 

It's because you truly believe Loch ness monster does not exist, but God? So you know it would be silly, as you guys imply in your own words, to be against the Loch ness monster. But not God, even though you just put God on the same level as Loch ness?

Correct. I do not belive that the Loch Ness monster, Yaweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Ganesha, nor your God exist.

If there is any kind of intelligence behind the question of "why is there anything?", then I find it equally unlikely to be any of the above.

 

So basically you just proved you know God exist, and is not on the same level as Loch ness monster or you would have to admit that you spend a bunch of time and money (cost of your internet) debating something that you say is like the Loch ness monster. I find that ironic.

Not at all. The difference is that any groups of Loch Ness monsterists do not have much of an impact on my or my family's life. They do not attempt to introduce unsolicited Loch Ness monsterism into my daughter's school curriculum, impose restrictions on my freedom one day in seven because it's a special Loch Ness monster day, or try to remove a person's choices when it comes to their own body.

 

So you don't have the same faith that God does not exist like you have that the Loch ness monster don't exist?

I not to keen on your terminology, but basically yes. I have the same amount of faith in the existence your God as I do in the Loch Ness monster .

 

So even by your comment, my faith is justified because even you cannot deny God. So the reason the word atheist exists is because all atheist know God exists. Because how can you be against what is not there? That would be stupid.

I'm not 'against' God; that would indeed be stupid. I'm 'against' the various religious groups that try to impose their rules on me.

 

And then you might ask: Which god? Considering that 98% of all atheist are against the Christian God, and do not debate against any other god on any other forum.

Once again, I am not 'against' the Christian God, I am 'against' those who use what I consider to be a ficticious character to impact the way I live my life. I live in a society where Christianity is the dominant religion. Other religions don't have the potential impact me as much / at all. Where did you get that 98% statistic, by the way?

 

By your own actions, again you guys prove what you claim does not exist, actually does exist. Or you would have to admit to spending so much time and money going after something as stupid as the Loch ness monster. So which is it?

If a group of people campaigned to require me to wash in the waters of Loch Ness whilst eating haggis once a week, then you are correct - going after Nessie herself would probably be futile. I'd be better off engaging in dialogue with these Loch Ness monsterists.

 

So all of the effort you guys put into this thread making fun of a belief, you actually prove it by your own actions. Otherwise you have to admit to something else.

I'm not making fun of your belief, and I'm sorry you see it that way.

 

I don't think you understand the difference between willfully opposing a god one knows exists, opposing a god by pretending he/she doesn't exist, and actually thinking that the god doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically you can't have a belief in nothing, because it is still something. 

54375[/snapback]

Actually, yes you can “believe†in nothing, if you superimpose that believe over and above something else (or in this case give “nothing†substance). The bottom line is, if you say you don’t believe in something, you are “De facto†believing in it’s opposite.

 

A lack of belief is not the same as a religion.  You can call it a religion all you want, but that will never make it the definition of religion.

54375[/snapback]

Again, a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in it’s opposite. And, if you defend that belief dogmatically (which I predict you are about to do) it does fit within the definition of religion.

 

re·li·gion

 

NOUN:

 

1.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

ETYMOLOGY:

Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast ; see rely

 

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti.../entry/religion

 

re·li·gion

 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back  more at rely

Date: 13th century

 

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, yes you can “believe†in nothing, if you superimpose that believe over and above something else (or in this case give “nothing†substance). The bottom line is, if you say you don’t believe in something, you are “De facto†believing in it’s opposite. 

Again, a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in it’s opposite. And, if you defend that belief dogmatically (which I predict you are about to do) it does fit within the definition of religion.

 

re·li·gion

 

NOUN:

 

   1.

         1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

         2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

   2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

   3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

   4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

ETYMOLOGY:

Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast ; see rely

 

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti.../entry/religion

 

re·li·gion

 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back  more at rely

Date: 13th century

 

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

54377[/snapback]

You would assume wrong Ron, I know exactly how you will respond to every response through observation and previous posts from you; so no I will not 'dogmatically' argue this point with you. I just have one question, how do you know that you are the one who is right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would assume wrong Ron, I know exactly how you will respond to every response through observation and previous posts from you; so no I will not 'dogmatically' argue this point with you. 

54379[/snapback]

I am assuming nothing blades, I am speaking facts as proven by logic and science. And by your dogmatic argumentation (Yes you are being dogmatic) for your unproven worldview, you have thusly provided credence for my assertion. And you know how I’ll respond because you have no refutation for said responses. And yet this is the same reason you are silent on said evidences, but will come to forums like these and dogmatically defend your religion of nothing.

 

I just have one question, how do you know that you are the one who is right?

54379[/snapback]

Quite simply, Mr.Razorblades; because the atheist believes the unproven assumption that we come from nothing, and are going to nothing. Which is an unproven and illogical assumption of a worldview.

 

Why, because we have absolutely no logical, rational, philosophical or scientific evidence that anything can come from nothing for; “from nothing, nothing comes†(see The Principle of Causality). And, because all of the logical, philosophical and scientific evidence (both inductive and deductive) we have supports the fact that “from nothing, nothing comesâ€ÂÂ. This first principle is a “self-evident†truth.

 

And for these (and many other reason) the atheist cannot answer the question; “Why is there something rather than nothing?†And the simple reason that I can say you are incorrect, and the probability that I am correct is supported by a vast amount of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming nothing blades, I am speaking facts as proven by logic and science.  And by your dogmatic argumentation (Yes you are being dogmatic) for your unproven worldview, you have thusly provided credence for my assertion. And you know how I’ll respond because you have no refutation for said responses. And yet this is the same reason you are silent on said evidences, but will come to forums like these and dogmatically defend your religion of nothing.

 

So you're using logic and science to prove that I'm dogmatic? Is that what you're saying here? My worldview is in the same sense just as unproven as yours, so stating that mine is such is equal to you stating that yours is unproven as well; which goes against your beliefs completely making your statement a contradiction. Please support your claim of me acting 'dogmatic' by showing where exactly I have been dogmatic, and when you can't I know you will not admit to you being fallacious in regards to that statement as I expect you will. I am not supplying you with a refutation because YOU WILL NOT LOOK AT IT, ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND IT, OR USE ANY LOGICAL DEDUCTION besides "that's not what I believe in so it's not true" or any other various form of denial based statements. For you to arrogantly assume that I have not one bit of evidence pisses (I assume I can use this word because moderation used it very recently) me off. This is the creationist tactic, which unfortunately works, of denying evidence when shown to them that subsequently annoys the provider of evidence so much that they leave; and then you have the audacity to claim victory when this happens.

 

I have no religion. I do not believe in a God just as much as I don't believe my chair will eat me when I sit on it. So using your other favorite tactic of "Well because you believe evolution or that you believe God doesn't exist that requires faith, which means you have a religion." Let's get this straight, if you're going to use the faith excuse as your ultimate cop out then you need to use it for everything. Faith that your legs will work in the morning, faith that the water you drink isn't poisoned, faith that the fork you eat your salad with won't magically disappear in your hand. Is there a God for each one of those faiths? Maybe a chair God, non poisoned water God, fork and salad God? It's these reasons why your faith argument ultimately fails, yet you continue to use it which is completely illogical and fallacious.

 

Quite simply, Mr.Razorblades; because the atheist believes the unproven assumption that we come from nothing, and are going to nothing. Which is an unproven and illogical assumption of a worldview.

You are lying again, and again, and again. You have been told that this is not what an atheist believes. What if I said that christians believe that their God wore a tuxedo and top hat while sipping champagne after he created everything there is? I could use your logic and say that "this is what I've been told time and time again, so it has to be true"; I bet you would get angry at that, or laugh at the prepostorous idea. You need to get your facts straight before you start to tell me what I beleive. Like I said before, you saying that my worldview is unproven is equal to your worldview being unproven making your statement a contradiction. Which one is it Ron?

 

Why, because we have absolutely no logical, rational, philosophical or scientific evidence that anything can come from nothing for; “from nothing, nothing comes†(see The Principle of Causality). And, because all of the logical, philosophical and scientific evidence (both inductive and deductive) we have supports the fact that “from nothing, nothing comesâ€ÂÂ. This first principle is a “self-evident†truth.

Research the physics concept of "nothing" Ron before you speak this tripe anymore.

 

And for these (and many other reason) the atheist cannot answer the question; “Why is there something rather than nothing?†And the simple reason that I can say you are incorrect, and the probability that I am correct is supported by a vast amount of evidence.

BS, show me the evidence Ron, show me ONE piece of evidence right here, right now. As for your question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This may be hard for you to wrap your head around but the answer is because we exist. If there was nothing, then the concept of something would not exist thus making that question irrelevant and non-existant. To go ahead and fend off any snide remarks about me being angry while writing this reply:

 

I WAS ANGRY WHILE WRITING THIS REPLY BECAUSE OF THE DISHONEST CREATIONIST TACTICS ABUSED BY RON AND VARIOUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON THIS SITE, WHICH WOULD CONFOUND ANY RATIONAL PERSON.

 

Insert any emoticons as you fell necessary Eocene. :lol:

;):blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kenetiks

Actually, yes you can “believe†in nothing, if you superimpose that believe over and above something else (or in this case give “nothing†substance). The bottom line is, if you say you don’t believe in something, you are “De facto†believing in it’s opposite. 

Again, a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in it’s opposite. And, if you defend that belief dogmatically (which I predict you are about to do) it does fit within the definition of religion.

 

re·li·gion

 

NOUN:

 

1.ck

      1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

      2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

ETYMOLOGY:

Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast ; see rely

 

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti.../entry/religion

 

re·li·gion

 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\

Function: noun a la

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back  more at rely

Date: 13th century

 

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

54377[/snapback]

 

I always failed to see the point of this argument. Why is a lack of belief a belief? Why is a lack of faith a faith?

 

I always did fail to see the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I WAS ANGRY WHILE WRITING THIS REPLY BECAUSE OF THE DISHONEST CREATIONIST TACTICS ABUSED BY RON AND VARIOUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON THIS SITE, WHICH WOULD CONFOUND ANY RATIONAL PERSON. 

54393[/snapback]

If evidence makes you angry blades, maybe you should see a professional. And I’m not saying this to be condescending, funny or trite. You can spout all the accusations you wish, but you have yet to refute one thing I’ve said thus far, you just thrown about massive amounts of unsubstantiated pabulum that can be best described as Elephant Hurling.

 

If you want to have a rational discourse, that is fine. But if you’re going to get your feelings hurt (or pretend you got your feelings hurt to increase the drama, and hide the fact that you have no refutation), you need to find a way to control yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms