If you're asking the question seriously, then the answer is because the god of the bible doesn't exist.
Psychotic Parrot
JoinedPosts by Psychotic Parrot
-
48
Why would God stop man from building a tower that reached into the "heavens" and yet let modern man reach even further with a space station and moon landings?
by StoneWall inanyone?.
-
-
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
The argument that Password Protected made was a total strawman. I hesitated to call it one, because i know it's a word that Password Protected loves to throw at atheists all the time, so i thought he might be offended if it were levelled at him. But it is true, his definition of a materialist / naturalist was completely false & he knows it, he just (naively) thought that no one else here would notice, but unfortunately for him, everyone here noticed it. As with all strawman arguments, it isn't worth arguing as it isn't a real issue. No one believes what he claims we all believe & thus we have no such position to defend. But it is worth clearing that up i think, even though it probably isn't necessary since i'm sure he already realises that it's a lame duck of an argument.
I would appreciate it if he would answer my two questions though.
-
69
Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?
by passwordprotected inatheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
I have two questions for Password Protected. I hope that he answers them both. If he doesn't answer them, i may feel that i've wasted my time with this post, & that's not a pleasant feeling
But that said, anyone can answer them if they wish to.
Firstly though, i'd like to aplogise for the amount of brackets i'm going to use in this post. Secondly, i disagree with the premise of the question, as i do not agree that an atheist (or anyone in fact) with a naturalist / materialist worldview only believes in physical matter & energy, & i genuinely believe that Password Protected is being disingenuous (albeit maybe on a mere subconscious level) in asserting such a thing. A naturalist / materialist worldview means that someone only accepts (& even then, only tentatively accepts) what can be demonstrated to be real / true, whether it is counterintuitive or not. Physical matter & energy can be demonstrated to be real (yes the universe could be an elaborate hoax, an illusion, but there is no pressing reason to think that) & logic & mathematics can be demonstrated to be real. From a pragmatic perspective, which is arguably the scientific perspective, concepts such as logic & maths are just as real as matter & energy due to their usefulness & effectiveness in achieving certain things, they are a means to an end. So i see no contradiction.
BUT (here is my first question), if i were to accept that there were a contradiction, purely for the sake of argument, which i am willing to in this thread, then i would like to ask this: If the 'atheist worldview' is contradictory, then does that mean that the 'theistic worldview' is automatically, by default, the best worldview to have? What do you think? Is the theistic worldview void of any contradictions of it's own? Would you be willing to claim that it isn't? I'm not going to say that it is, i'm just asking what you think.
Also (here is my second question), if i were to come to the conclusion that the theistic worldview is the sound alternative that you evidently think it is (& that's not just based on reading this thread, your posts in previous threads have informed that observation of you), then what should i do about it? Would just accepting it as a fact be enough? I know i'm going off topic here, but i think it's important. If i accept theism, & agree that there is a God, can i leave it at that? Or is it imperative that i take some further steps in order to be on God's good side. You know what i'm asking here, is it enough to just accept that God exists? Or do i have to have 'faith' as well. Do i have to accept Jesus as my lord & saviour? Do i have to go to church & give money to the church & vote how the church wants me to vote & evangelize, either explicitly by preaching the word, or implicitly by leading a certain way of life for others to see.
I would appreciate an answer to both of those questions, thanks in advance
-
51
Putting the 'probability argument' against abiogenesis in the grave once and for all
by bohm inamongst the many arguments for and against creation the probability arguments stands out.
the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chanceor the genetic information to produce themto balloon beyond comprehension.
... the odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebioitc soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. meyer continues, another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specific particle among all the particles in the universe.. the evidence for the probability of origin of life arising from darwins warm little pond seems to have vanished beyond the realm of any possibilityregardless of any early earth scenario.. i really, really want to put it in the grave because i think its an embaressment to the theists and thinking humans in general; its right up there with 'noahs ark has been found' and 'humans have less chromosomes than monkeys', but for some reason people dont see through it.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
I believe Judge Dread was talking to me in that post. He is under the extremely wise & well thought out impression that the only way to know anything for certain about the world, is to work it all out for yourself.
This is how the ancient people of old used to do things. They used to work it all out for themselves, they had great integrity, they would not allow anyone else to tell them how to think. Unlike me, they didn't have their heads up their arsehole, they looked around them & made it up as they went along. They were also unlike myself, not to mention everyone else on this planet who believes in team work, community, & excepting the claims of others when those claims are well presented & backed up with compelling evidence (i.e. everyone on earth aside from Judge Dread, & maybe a few other scattered creationists), in that they were never actually correct in any of their observations. They also achieved virtually nothing, they brought very little to the table.
But then something happened, about 50,000 years ago, community in it's modern form evolved, & people began to work together, & learn from eachother. The result? Science, technology, civilisation, medicine, agriculture, industry, space rockets, televisions, radios, computers, telephones, the electricity grid, cars, aeroplanes, plumbing, & of course the internet. Yes, the internet, that disgusting, terrible thing that was created by stupid, idiotic people who made the fatal error of working together & listening to eachother & relying on eachother's thoughts & opinions, that pointless, worthless thing that Judge Dread is so wisely & beautifully using to make the point that relying on other people & listening to their thoughts & ideas is such a dumb & brainless thing to do.
What a bunch of nutcase clowns we all are for listening to eachother's ideas & basing our worldview's on a healthy mixture of other people's evidence & insights together with our own opinions & reasoning. If only we had more brainpower, like Judge Dread, if only we would take our heads out of our arseholes & look around us, then perhaps we MIGHT, & i emphasise the word MIGHT, be able to come to the conclusion that everything we've ever been told by scientists that doesn't comform to our own preconceptions is wrong, listening to other people equates to not thinking for yourself, the internet only works by accident, & life didn't develop in primordial soup (strawman), but rather came from God, even though we're not going to be brave enough to admit that that's what we really think.
What losers we all are. If only we were more like Judge Dread. If only...
By the way Judge Dread, my limited brainpower was enough to allow me (a helpless born-in) to see through the lies & bullshit of the WT & get me the hell out of there before the age of 19. How old were you when you realised they were frauds? Have you even come to that realisation yet?
-
51
Putting the 'probability argument' against abiogenesis in the grave once and for all
by bohm inamongst the many arguments for and against creation the probability arguments stands out.
the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chanceor the genetic information to produce themto balloon beyond comprehension.
... the odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebioitc soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. meyer continues, another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specific particle among all the particles in the universe.. the evidence for the probability of origin of life arising from darwins warm little pond seems to have vanished beyond the realm of any possibilityregardless of any early earth scenario.. i really, really want to put it in the grave because i think its an embaressment to the theists and thinking humans in general; its right up there with 'noahs ark has been found' and 'humans have less chromosomes than monkeys', but for some reason people dont see through it.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
Your usage of the word 'smokescreen' shows that you've obviously been exposed to ideas about logical fallacies. It's just a shame that all you've picked up from those ideas are buzzwords which you don't understand & absolutely no substance at all.
Science is nothing to do with God, & the study of abiogenesis is nothing to do with God, it neither wants to prove nor disprove his existence, no smokescreen there (not that you'll have a clue what you even meant by that), just cold, hard reality. People who study abiogenesis do not care about God, & your insistence on ramming him in there at any cost & in any way possible is pathetic, nauseating, boring, ignorant & just plain dumb.
Go away & learn something, then come back & contribute, because as it is, you are the equivalent of a newborn baby in a research laboratory.
And any use of profanity by anyone does nothing to diminish anyone's case, it just shows how pissed off people like me get when faced with willful ignorance & intellectual dishonesty.
Oh & by the way, you cannot PROVE God exists, so your entire life is pointless.
-
51
Putting the 'probability argument' against abiogenesis in the grave once and for all
by bohm inamongst the many arguments for and against creation the probability arguments stands out.
the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chanceor the genetic information to produce themto balloon beyond comprehension.
... the odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebioitc soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. meyer continues, another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specific particle among all the particles in the universe.. the evidence for the probability of origin of life arising from darwins warm little pond seems to have vanished beyond the realm of any possibilityregardless of any early earth scenario.. i really, really want to put it in the grave because i think its an embaressment to the theists and thinking humans in general; its right up there with 'noahs ark has been found' and 'humans have less chromosomes than monkeys', but for some reason people dont see through it.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
You honestly think that science & the pursuit of knowledge regarding our origins & existence is merely an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist? What an ignorant arsehole you are. You're a disgrace to humanity. Fuck off & don't come back.
-
8
JESUS: a latter day ALEXANDER THE GREAT
by Terry inthink of japan before and after their defeat in wwii.. before wwii japan was a feudal society with god (hirohito) as its political and theocratic.
leader in the person of the emperor.
when the atomic bombs fell on hiroshima and nagasaki all this was virtually wiped out in a very short span of time!!.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
John Lennon was just plain confused, but we don't focus on that
-
36
What would Jesus Christ say if he returned today?
by James_Slash inthis was always one of the main justifications for me in leaving the wt behind.
i was just wondering how many of you have ever reasoned in the same way.. i have often wondered how jesus christ would react if he came back to the earth now and how he would view the organisation who claim to represent his standards?.
would jesus really want to be associated with paedophilia, false prophecies, shunning, the destruction of families, lies, untruths, hypocritical leaders and the lack of love amongst members?.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
I hope he'd apologise for being so late. He'd have a lot of explaining to do.
-
36
What would Jesus Christ say if he returned today?
by James_Slash inthis was always one of the main justifications for me in leaving the wt behind.
i was just wondering how many of you have ever reasoned in the same way.. i have often wondered how jesus christ would react if he came back to the earth now and how he would view the organisation who claim to represent his standards?.
would jesus really want to be associated with paedophilia, false prophecies, shunning, the destruction of families, lies, untruths, hypocritical leaders and the lack of love amongst members?.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
Jesus who?
-
51
Putting the 'probability argument' against abiogenesis in the grave once and for all
by bohm inamongst the many arguments for and against creation the probability arguments stands out.
the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chanceor the genetic information to produce themto balloon beyond comprehension.
... the odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebioitc soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. meyer continues, another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specific particle among all the particles in the universe.. the evidence for the probability of origin of life arising from darwins warm little pond seems to have vanished beyond the realm of any possibilityregardless of any early earth scenario.. i really, really want to put it in the grave because i think its an embaressment to the theists and thinking humans in general; its right up there with 'noahs ark has been found' and 'humans have less chromosomes than monkeys', but for some reason people dont see through it.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
The laws in question are the laws of electromagnetism, thermodynamics & just plain chemistry (covalent electron bonds, etc). Those are the laws that are left out when the probability calculations are made. With those laws in place, the probability factor essentially vanishes.
An illustration:
Take a ball, hold it in the air, then let go. Now if you take gravity out of the scenario, just think of all the possible directions the ball could travel in? It could go in literally any direction of the x, y, z vector, the possibilities are, while not endless, certainly numbering in at least the billions & the probability that it'll fall straight downwards is incredibly slim. And as BTS pointed out, it's very unlikely to fall straight downwards by mere chance alone. Put gravity back into the scenario however, & the ball will fall straight downwards every time, probability is no longer a factor, it's simply a matter of physics running running it's course. This illustration shows that although the probability of chemicals coming together to form life (even over a period of millions to billions of years) by chance alone is incredibly low, as BTS pointed out it is in fact verging on the impossible, when the laws of physics & chemistry are factored in, it is no longer a matter of probability, but merely a matter of chemistry & physics running their course in their environment. Once you have an environment with certain chemicals & circumstances, chance is no longer a factor, just like with evolution by natural selection.
As for the probability of such an environment existing... well, just look at how vast the universe is, & how common those chemicals are in the universe (thanks to stars) & you'll see how likely it is that life should have happened at least once, which it has.
Finally, i agree, it isn't down to anyone to refute abiogenesis, but rather it is the responsibility of scientists to prove it. And they are working on it. So far they have discovered that it can happen, under a multitude of circumstances, now they are working on finding out if it did happen on this planet, billions of years ago, not an easy thing to do, so you have to admire them for working on such a difficult problem, it takes a lot of effort & diligence.
Oh & one more thing, it is not for evolutionists to prove that abiogenesis happened, as evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolutionists (a term which covers many different fields of study) deal with the many different aspects of evolution, biochemists deal with abiogenesis. Just a minor quibble, but i thought i'd clarify it.