• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Morer Questions For The Atheist [W:839]

Logicman said:
I understand it better than you, Quag.
Click to expand...

Please show evidence that you understand 'logic', being rational, and the concept of 'supporting a claim'.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The guy knows what sort of chemicals would be likely to be around in the environment of the early Earth. That is not an unknowable thing. The rocks deposited tell us what it was like back then.
Click to expand...

He doesn't know the temperature or what other kinds of elements were in that specific place. He doesn't even know what year or decade to look at. All he can do is speculate.

Tim the plumber said:
[Do you consider any experiment done in a lab as having no validity in the real world????
Click to expand...

Sure, but trying to extrapolate back to the days of abiogenesis is pure speculation.
 
RAMOSS said:
Please show evidence that you understand 'logic', being rational, and the concept of 'supporting a claim'.
Click to expand...

You first. So far you've stuck out completely with your theology.
 
For something to exist you must provide evidence for it, there is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist. Unless evidence can be given for his existence, based on quotom mechanics, his existence is irrelevant until he is proven to exist.

For example; is it true that it is equally possible for a giant tea pot to be orbiting Saturn than for there NOT to be a tea pot orbiting around Saturn? No, absolutely not, especially since we already checked Saturn and found no tea pot orbiting it. Then apologists would say: "maybe there WAS a tea pot orbiting around Saturn?"

If we consider God to be equally possible to exist as no God, we are basically throwing all logical fallacies out of the window. Science and mathematics would be useless because nothing can be predicted or annualized with some sort of a pattern.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
All the swamp slime evolution books were selected and edited by man.



Nonsense. The entire New Testament wasn't "The Bible" in the 1st century. They were all independent manuscripts written by different people in different places at different times.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The gospels were written by the same guy with a multiple personality disorder. Prove that it wasn't.
 
Warden of SJ said:
For something to exist you must provide evidence for it, there is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist. Unless evidence can be given for his existence, based on quotom mechanics, his existence is irrelevant until he is proven to exist.
Click to expand...

Sorry, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That's basic science 101.

However, there are many evidences for God, Jesus, and the Bible. 400+ pages worth.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ence-bible-god-w536-634-a.html#post1062712975
 
Logicman said:
<flush>

I see God let you live another day. You should thank him.
Click to expand...

So God picks and chooses who he will kill?
Seriously what kind of God is he if he didn't off Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan etc... before their atrocities instead he chooses to off some little kid by giving them Leukemia?
Your God is a very very sick being and should be detested not worshiped.
 
Quag said:
So God picks and chooses who he will kill?
Seriously what kind of God is he if he didn't off Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan etc... before their atrocities instead he chooses to off some little kid by giving them Leukemia?
Your God is a very very sick being and should be detested not worshiped.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your conclusions are twisted and sick.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with the over-the-top baiting and personal attacks.
 
Logicman said:
No evidence your claim is correct. It's just more inane blather.
Click to expand...

The lack of actual evidence on your part proves my statement correct.
You are free to post some actual evidence of God and prove me wrong.
 
Logicman said:
He doesn't know the temperature or what other kinds of elements were in that specific place. He doesn't even know what year or decade to look at. All he can do is speculate.



Sure, but trying to extrapolate back to the days of abiogenesis is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to know where and when it happened to the decade and the specific location?

Within a few years of the planet cooling to temperatures which allow this sort of chemistry there would be oceans where it would be happening. The man does know that these sorts of chemicals and lots of others were about, the fossil record tells us that.

It is not pure speculation. It is supported by evidence hard as rock. In fact the evidence is rock.

You know you are pushing a dead argument. You know this. Why continue?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Why do you need to know where and when it happened to the decade and the specific location?

Within a few years of the planet cooling to temperatures which allow this sort of chemistry there would be oceans where it would be happening. The man does know that these sorts of chemicals and lots of others were about, the fossil record tells us that.

It is not pure speculation. It is supported by evidence hard as rock. In fact the evidence is rock.

You know you are pushing a dead argument. You know this. Why continue?
Click to expand...

You have a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.
 
Logicman said:
Sorry, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That's basic science 101.

However, there are many evidences for God, Jesus, and the Bible. 400+ pages worth.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ence-bible-god-w536-634-a.html#post1062712975
Click to expand...

Anyone can write about any story in any book genius. If I wanted to I could write a book about a giant unicorn in space that ate some magical beans and farted the universe out of it's ass. Just because I wrote about it doesn't qualify it as evidence of the unicorn's existence.

Science must provide checks and experiments towards everything in order to come to a conclusion. Once something is proven it is considered fact, because whenever you are to repeat the same experiment or action in another scenario or by another person the resualts will remain the same or at least very similar to the previous results.

Also in order for someone to provide a claim like: "there is a God" you must conduct some kind of experiment to prove it. If not, your claim is hallow and provides no conclusion. Thus the opposite of the claim is true: "there is no god". There is either a God or no God, unless the claim that God exists is proven we must consider it's opposite to be true.

I would recommend looking up logical fallacies or discrete mathematics if you are still confused.
 
Last edited:
Warden of SJ said:
Anyone can write about any story in any book genius. If I wanted to I could write a book about a giant unicorn in space that ate some magical beans and farted the universe out of it's ass. Just because I wrote about it doesn't qualify it as evidence of the unicorn's existence.
Click to expand...

Well, to match the Bible you're going to need some 40 different authors writing over 1,500 years, and then, if they're writing crap, get a good number of them to die for their beliefs / what they wrote.

Warden of SJ said:
Science must provide checks and experiments towards everything in order to come to a conclusion. Once something is proven it is considered fact, because whenever you are to repeat the same experiment or action in another scenario or by another person the resualts will remain the same or at least very similar to the previous results.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with science. What I have a problem with is pseudo-science and unwarranted inferences.

Warden of SJ said:
Also in order for someone to provide a claim like: "there is a God" you must conduct some kind of experiment to prove it. If not, your claim is hallow and provides no conclusion.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and the supernatural.

Warden of SJ said:
I would recommend looking up logical fallacies or discrete mathematics if you are still confused.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one confused.
 
Logicman said:
Well, to match the Bible you're going to need some 40 different authors writing over 1,500 years, and then, if they're writing crap, get a good number of them to die for their beliefs / what they wrote.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. Joseph Smith, and L Ron Hubbard wrote religious texts as well and people believe just as much as Christians believe in the bible. Martyrs and age are irrelevant when it comes to what people will choose to believe.



Logicman said:
I don't have a problem with science. What I have a problem with is pseudo-science and unwarranted inferences.
Click to expand...

Says the Creationist.

Logicman said:
Nonsense. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Here you are showing your lack of understanding in the Scientific process. If you can not prove the existence of something than you can say it doesn't exist. It's completely illogical to try and disprove something anyway. That would be like performing tests to prove that Spongebob isn't real.



Logicman said:
I'm not the one confused.
Click to expand...

You're not confused, ignorant? Sure, but certainly not confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom