Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Herk on July 12, 2009 at 8:39pm

How many rods and cones are in God's eyes? How did his eyes evolve? And if he has something better, why didn't we get it?

If Christianity is so wonderful, why aren't Christians less criminal than non-Christians?

If Christianity works, why is the world in such a mess? Why are the Christian areas of the world sometimes in more of a mess than places that are not Christian? (Example: why do places with better sex education have lower teenage pregnancy?)

Let's check the definition of "accident," while we're at it. Evolution is not accidental. (Example: How long would it take for one million monkeys banging on one million typewriters to produce the works of William Shakespeare? Now, if only the parts (letters) that work were kept, how long would it take?)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brutus on July 13, 2009 at 4:05pm

False equivalency. Paintings are not eyeballs. We know for a fact that paintings are the result of "intelligent design." Humans make them. If paintings evolved by natural selection we could expect to see millions of discarded paintings for each one that ended up on the wall. They would have been randomly created and look like nothing. (This is not a perfect analogy since paintings don't reproduce.)

The eyeball is not the result of an accident. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific position. Evolution is not intelligent or purposeful, but it is not accidental either. The tiny changes that happen by mutation are random, but natural selection is entirely deterministic. Things that give a survival advantage do well. Those that do not are killed by the environment. We do not see the mountains of failures for every success because the natural processes of the earth erase most of it over time. If we could see them, it would no longer seem so miraculous.

Eyes are a bad example for the creationists to use. The fact is that the evolution of the eye is very well understood. Begining with the first photosensitive spot to the first indented spot, to the pinhole cameras to lenses, there are examples well known to science of each stage. We also know that for such an "intelligently designed" organ, there sure are a lot of engineering screw ups, like the need for the brain to fill in the blank spots caused by the fact that blood vessels and nerves are run over the retina and not behind it like in squid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brutus on July 13, 2009 at 4:19pm

Side note. Try not to use the Bible as a counter-argument. Doing so concedes the validity of claims of Biblical authority. If there is no god, then there is no word of god. In point of fact, relying on the vague, contradictory and bizarre pronouncements of the Bible is self-serving. Ones own book written with ones own ideas in mind and not based on any objective evidence proves nothing.

Until someone can demonstrate that 1. god is real and 2. the Bible is his word, then it should not be relied upon as evidence. Further, religious efforts to use it as such should not go unchallenged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beka on July 13, 2009 at 8:12pm

YES!!! Thank you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on July 13, 2009 at 8:27pm

i agree to a point but surely you would agree, wouldn't you, that when you're able to cite scriptural references that specifically contradict the verse(s) that your opponent has offered to back their assertion you might do that while also making it clear that the bible is not an authoritative source for anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on July 14, 2009 at 2:03pm

Quoting contradictory or horrific sections of the bible is most useful when trying to demonstrate that the bible is, in fact, not an inerrant, unchanging, perfect source of anything, much less knowledge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on July 14, 2009 at 2:23pm

agreed. i have also used it to counter Christian theological claims that they are under a new covenant and that the law no longer applies to them. they cite Paul while in response i first cite the OT that repeatedly says that Yahweh intended the law to be eternal and then i cite Jesus himself who clearly never meant for the law to be anything but followed.

you can either refuse to quote from the bible in order to respond at all (as opposed to saying simply, "i don't consider the bible an authoritative source."), and then the conversation basically ends with your opponent quoting from a source you don't consider authoritative, or you can continue the conversation by quoting from the bible, if you're able, in order to refute the verses offered by your opponent. if the point is to make the other person think then surely to shine a light on the contradictory verses in the bible is a worthy goal. case in point is in my first post in this thread where i responded to the quotation of Psalm 14 by quoting James 1:26 and Matthew 5:22- the Christian who calls atheists fools in quoting Psalm 14 has, according to James and Matthew anyway, rendered his religion worthless and is danger of the fires of hell.

now surely if someone quotes from the bible in order to justify a belief in Yahweh's existence that's circular reasoning (god exists because the book that god inspired says god exists!) and i absolutely agree that that shouldn't be allowed. but i'm not sure how that applies anyway since i can't think of how you would quote from the bible in response in order to show that Yahweh doesn't exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on July 14, 2009 at 3:12pm

"since i can't think of how you would quote from the bible in response in order to show that Yahweh doesn't exist."

Yeah, but imagine if you could. Imagine a verse that said 'Hah! Fooled you, I made it all up!" :D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on July 14, 2009 at 3:40pm

LOL. "verily i say unto you, i wrote this for my creative writing class. it's just a rough draft so don't be overly harsh!" :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on July 14, 2009 at 3:46pm

I don't know why so many people are so caught up in what a few goat herders born 2,000 years ago think about their actions today.

Holy fuck, people. These are the same guys that believed in a talking snake, every land animal in the world fitting on a handmade boat, cutting your foreskins off with sharp rocks and burning bushes that talk!

Let's move on to ways of thinking that we KNOW will benefit the world.. like feeding our hungry and providing health care, eh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 16, 2009 at 9:37pm

@ Nelson - Ha!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 16, 2009 at 9:39pm

So....when are you starting an Atheist Bible study on TA?

That is geared towards Nelson. I don't completely understand my "reply to" messages get inserted into seemingly random spots. This was supposed to be on page 2. Sigh...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page