Atheism - The Final Frontier, page 1

Oh here we go. Another religious ignoramous who's getting butthurt about stuff he's making up.

Originally posted by confreak
Since the acceleration of scientific discoveries, Atheism has worked hard to take science hostage and distance creationists from science.

Assuming for a moment that you are correct (you're not, by the way. What do you think Atheism is, some sort of wrestling team?) then it wouldn't really matter; if the evdence for creationism were so overwhelming and compelling, then creationism would be part of science.

See, this is the inherent problem of people like you. Your "a wizard did it!" hypothesis can't stand on its own feet, so you, utterly unable to conceive of alternatives to your wizard, look for "sabotage." When will you realize that the reason your hypothesis gets no credit is because the hypothesis itself is bad?

They achieved this deceit by using scientific finding as evidence of disbelief and as evidence against creationism. For a long time their assault was on an easy target "the Bible", revolving their assaults around the age of the Earth, the creation of man (evolution), and the "GOD of Gaps".

Yes, "deceit." Every atheist on earth is colluding with every scientist on earth, forging all this evidence, just to give you something to whine about on the internet. This is a startling level of cohesion between such disparate, competitive people. Of course, maybe the near-fistfights over hte nomenclatureof orchids that happens when botanists get together is just a ruse!

The problem though is, that creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible. The simple reason why Atheists target the Bible excessively has to do with their attempts to discredit the whole idea of creationism through it.

Oh, there's no attempt to discredit creationism. After all, there's no need - the hypothesis, whatever its origins, can't even support itself. its own adherents can't agree on anything other than the notion that some variety of wizard did it. God? Aliens? computer programmers? They have no idea, because they have no data to draw their conclusions from; they start with a conclusion ("a wizard did it!") and then don't even bother trying to collect a single speck of datum; they just stuck their thumbs up their buttsand squal about how "oppressed" they are when we ignore them.

No, there's no need to discredit creationism. But it is awfully fun to mock. Care for a glass of phlogiston before we sail off the edge of the world?

This is cheap shots, using one segment of creationist belief to discredit the whole, which forces me to reitterate, "Creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible".

No, in fact the Bible revolves around creationsim. However, the bible is the most often-cited "source" (since again, creationists have no data) and so it gets to be mocked for all it's worth, too.

I hear chemists throw similar mockery at anyone who quotes passages from Everburning Lights of Trithemius at them.

Science proves there is no GOD

You will hear many Atheists describe the findings of science as evidence that GOD doesn't exist, or more famously, "don't need to exist to explain the universal phenomenas".

More accurately, we - and scientists - note that there is no evidence for God, or any other sort of wizard that may have done it. None. Now, we have evidence of subatomic particles that seem to be capable of time-travel and teleportation. But so far? No god.

More interestingly, even the people who want really badly for there to be a god have found nothing supporting the existence of such a being. nothing. Everything - everything they have brought forth has a much simpler explanation that stands on its own merit, rather than their own circular logic of "It exists, so the creator made it, so the creator also exists!"

In layman's terms, yes, this is "evidence that god doesn't exist." of course in scientific terms, there is no such thing as negative evidence; However the evidence of everything else seems to reduce the possibility of "God" by an ever-increasing percentage, especially when coupled with the lack of supporting evidence for such a being.

Many believers get trapped by this non-sense. When believers are told that GOD didn't create man, rather evolution did, they get confused and out of ignorance fall in this trap, which pushes them against the wall and lead them to question the validity of evolution.

The trap is created with intention to distance creationists from science, and creationists should never fall for it.

This is known as "critical thought." I am unsurprised that you have a deep problem with the application of this notion.

Yes, believers, ignore all the evidence! Ignore everything discovered. ignore everything you yourself can examine and draw your own conclusions from! Ignore all that #, all you need is a magical caste of specially-enlightened secretive men in robes to tell you about reality. Critical thought and applied logic is the debbil!

Science can be looked at from a different perspective hence, science is the elaboration of the creation, and in no way or form does elaboration of creation disprove the creator.

Trouble is, one would need evidence of the creator to start down this path. There is - I'm starting to repeat myself - absolutely no evidence of such a thing. so you're engaging in special pleading here.

If evidence supports the process of evolution, that merely is an elaboration of how man was created, rather than evidence that GOD doesn't exist.

No, it's not evidence that "god" doesn't exist (it IS pretty solid evidence against every single religious and sci-fi woowoo account of how we got here, though)

Again, there is no such thing as negative evidence; There is only lack of evidence for something. For example, we have zero evidence of extra-terrestrial life. does this mean there is no extraterrestrial life? No, it simply means that we have no evidence. However, as we keep expanding our horizons and finding that the evidence keeps right on lacking, we can start decreasing the odds for extra-terrestrial life.

Unfortunately for God, extraterrestrial life has a head start on him; we already have evidence that life exists on ONE world, after all. we have no evidence of a creator anywhere. And all ET impacts is their planet's own ecology, while this creator impacts, well... absolutely everything, apparently. So the fact that we have no evidence of it anywhere already means that God is way behind the prawns from "District 9" on hte probability charts.

The GOD of Gaps

This has become a very famous argument amongst the ignorant, which is un-necessary.

The God of Gap is an argument which states that creationists support the existence of GOD based on what we don't know, rather than what we do know.

Yes, it is true, the ignorant will always revolve their beliefs around ignorance, that shouldn't be surprisings. But that doesn't mean that creationism revolve around what we don't know, rather I'll argue that creationism revolves around what we do know.

Actually it has more to do with the arguments and "evidence" creationists usually bring up. Most famously their demands for "transitional species" - and when such is found, they demand transitional species between that one and the two next to it, ad infinitum. Also the bad habit of pointing to any case where science doesn't know yet, and going "AHA! YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING, SO YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!"

Every process that science has elaborated on shows that they are not random. This is a scientific fact (unless someone can produce a formula for random). If there is no randomness within this universe, then the Universe is determined hence "determinism". This is the scientific evidence of a creator, hence determinism and non-random existence.

Except the existence of such a being - assuming it has the powers to just create stuff willy-nilly - would impart randomness to the universe; call it "divine whim." if it lacks such powers, then it's not really a "creator," now is it? Or, at least, not one worth deification, any more than gravity is (and truthfully, gravity is, thus far, about as close as you can get.)

This is, of course, without even mentioning how absolutely terrible your logic is. You're making some pretty massive leaps of assumption there; first, that a lack of randomness is certain proof of determinism (it's not) and that said determinism would be proof of a creator (it wouldn't be).

Essentially your argument boils down to an argument of "it exists, so it must have been created, so there's a creator!"

Atheists have convinced themselves that the Universe evolved randomly, that evolution is random, even though science has clearly proven that nothing is random within this Universe.

Actually no, it's creationists who are convinced that atheists are convinced of this. Evolution is not the least bit random. The origin of the universe wasn't, either, as far as we can tell.

This is a comforting myth that ignorant creationists such as you tell yourselves. it's like a woobie blanket. The fact is not only do you not know crap about evolution, not only do you not know crap about astrophysics, but you very certainly don't know crap about how atheists think.

If you flip a coin, it doesn't give you a random out come, it is determined.

When you roll a dice, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

When you spin the wheel of fortune, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

This proves that the Universe was determined to be what it is, rather than the product of random.

well, actually it proves that the forces of gravity and friction can have a predictable outcome on the kinectic energy of tossed coins, thrown dice, and spun wheels. If I had time I could probably even do the calculus for you. of course it varies on everything from the position of your hand, applied force, local air density, and so many other niggling little things that, in layman's terms, it IS in fact random; it's possible to write a proof for every single possible outcome by taking in all factors, but in practice, there's no real way to do this.

That is, a given predicted outcome of a particular dice roll can be falsified reliably. Actually making that particular roll, however, has such tiny, tiny odds that this proof doesn't actually matter to anyone shooting craps.

If the Universe is restarted a million times the results will be exactly the same, unless a conscious being/creator/GOD changes the variables.

Yup! And changing those variables would be an injection of randomness. So which is it, buddy? Does your argument hinge on there being randomness, or there being a lack of randomness?

Where is your god now?

Creationists - Don't be Intimidated

Creationists should never be intimidated by Atheists, there is no reason for that. The vast majority of the world believes the Universe is the product of a conscious created, and the Universal elaboration is evidence supporting this belief.

No one should be intimidated by anyone.

Creationists; don't be intimidated by other creationsits. All the data is out there for you to observe. Use that chunk of spongy nerve tissue, fat, and blood vessels within your head-bone and apply critical thought. Regardless of the dire warnings given to you by your holy books, your priests, and your fellows such as confreak. you've got a big ol' universe to learn about out there, and it's even more amazing for the lack of a wizard doing it.

This belief will continue till the end of times, it won't end, because some scientists have realized with justification, that the more we elaborate on our surroundings, the closer we get to the creator, more signs pointing to a creator arises.

Well, you have no such evidence to bring to bear.

Interesting graphic. Do you think that lots of people believing wildly different stuff actually supports your notion for creationism?

They can say what ever they want, let them drown in pride, let them feel superior, that's a waste of time for them. For us to defend our beliefs is not a waste of time, for believers, every moment of this defense is rewarding, it is rewarding in this life time, and in the next.

Well, so long as you enjoy yourself, nothing is a waste of time.

I for instance, enjoy enlightening the stunningly ignorant. Or at least giving it a shot. This has been a fun post.