Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Why do you say atheists are morons? You are one too right?

Explain to me how someone who condemns Christianity means that such person is an atheist in your mind. The fact that you are even asking that question while ASSUMING I am an atheist is just retarded.

If you watch the videos I just posted above, they will PROVE that this world and biological organisms, including humans, MUST have been intelligently designed. Isn't that proof of God? Maybe not in the traditional Christian sense, but it does prove an intelligent architect of the universe for sure. Isn't that proof of God to you? Why or why not?

Is THAT your prove that god exists? FAIL!

I have long maintained that you tend to have tremendous difficulty understanding the very basic concepts of proof and evidence. It is the single biggest reason your mind gets twisted in knots about conspiracies and complex subjects. Some guy on a Youtube video discussing intelligent design is not even close to being proof that god exists. FAIL!

You said you find Christianity to be foolish. Well fine, but it's a man made religion. Just because it's foolish doesn't mean that no God exists. Agreed?

The Bible is second most ridiculous collection of ideas in the history of mankind right behind the Quran. And what does that say about the people who mindlessly follow the Bible?

Here are 7 strong philosophical arguments for God. Can you rebut any of them? Are you even familiar with them? If not, then you lack education in Theology 101 and you need to get educated, so you can weight arguments on both sides and come up with an informed opinion.

So this is your response to my simple request that you prove the existence of god? I can't say I am surprised at all because YOU CAN'T!

[flowerthief00]

Atheists aren't obligated to believe that god exists unless they can prove that he doesn't, any more than Joe Random is obligated to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon exists (and lives by the sea) unless he can prove that he doesn't. Burden of proof works the other way around.

[Winston]

Why do you say atheists are morons? You are one too right?

Explain to me how someone who condemns Christianity means that such person is an atheist in your mind. The fact that you are even asking that question while ASSUMING I am an atheist is just retarded.

If you watch the videos I just posted above, they will PROVE that this world and biological organisms, including humans, MUST have been intelligently designed. Isn't that proof of God? Maybe not in the traditional Christian sense, but it does prove an intelligent architect of the universe for sure. Isn't that proof of God to you? Why or why not?

Is THAT your prove that god exists? FAIL!

I have long maintained that you tend to have tremendous difficulty understanding the very basic concepts of proof and evidence. It is the single biggest reason your mind gets twisted in knots about conspiracies and complex subjects. Some guy on a Youtube video discussing intelligent design is not even close to being proof that god exists. FAIL!

You said you find Christianity to be foolish. Well fine, but it's a man made religion. Just because it's foolish doesn't mean that no God exists. Agreed?

The Bible is second most ridiculous collection of ideas in the history of mankind right behind the Quran. And what does that say about the people who mindlessly follow the Bible?

Here are 7 strong philosophical arguments for God. Can you rebut any of them? Are you even familiar with them? If not, then you lack education in Theology 101 and you need to get educated, so you can weight arguments on both sides and come up with an informed opinion.

So this is your response to my simple request that you prove the existence of god? I can't say I am surprised at all because YOU CAN'T!

But you are using atheist arguments such as "there's no proof that God exists". So what else could you be? Even critics of Christianity such as Mark Twain, Thomas Paine, and Robert Ingersoll never said that. They saw the creation as evidence of a Creator.

Let me guess, you are a pantheist like Einstein right? You see God as an impersonal force that doesn't talk but is pervaded throughout the universe, like a giant organism right? Michio Kaku, the mainstream science popularizer, has a one hour video about this.

The Bible is only ridiculous if you take it literally. Not if you take it metaphorically, then it means something. Same with Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

You dodged all my questions above. Doesn't that mean you're dishonest and don't have the truth on your side? Where is your rebuttal to those 7 logical arguments by Dr. William Lane Craig? And how do you explain intelligent design? Do you believe that a tornado can blow through a junkyard and create a fully functioning 747 airline? Or that your computer was put together by random forces? Or that the game of Pong in the 70's can evolve from natural selection into the modern video games we have today? lol

You are the one who FAILED. You dodged all my questions, just like Christopher Hitchens did in his debates.

Why do you think atheists are morons btw? Because of what? Which of their beliefs are moronic?

[Winston]

Atheists aren't obligated to believe that god exists unless they can prove that he doesn't, any more than Joe Random is obligated to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon exists (and lives by the sea) unless he can prove that he doesn't. Burden of proof works the other way around.

But atheists have zero arguments for the non-existence of God. Theists have many arguments, such as the 7 logical arguments above by Dr. William Craig. No comparison. That means atheists lose.

The only argument atheists have is that God allows evil and suffering in this world. But that's not a logical arguments. That's like saying that just because your dad is negligent or does something wrong or doesn't fix a problem, means he doesn't exist and that we all came from random chemicals colliding in a mud pool struck by lightning. It's as if they assume that either God is perfect or he doesn't exist at all. That's a weird fallacy that makes no sense. Even a child wouldn't be dumb enough to buy that. So why do most university professors buy it? It boggles the mind.

[flowerthief00]

But atheists have zero arguments for the non-existence of God. Theists have many arguments, such as the 7 logical arguments above by Dr. William Craig. No comparison. That means atheists lose....

Are you being deliberately dense? You're telling me that you believe in everything by default for which you don't have an argument against? So this mean that you DO believe that a teapot is orbiting the sun? There are zero arguments for its non-existence. That means teapot-deniers lose...?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Why do you say atheists are morons? You are one too right?

Explain to me how someone who condemns Christianity means that such person is an atheist in your mind. The fact that you are even asking that question while ASSUMING I am an atheist is just retarded.

If you watch the videos I just posted above, they will PROVE that this world and biological organisms, including humans, MUST have been intelligently designed. Isn't that proof of God? Maybe not in the traditional Christian sense, but it does prove an intelligent architect of the universe for sure. Isn't that proof of God to you? Why or why not?

Is THAT your prove that god exists? FAIL!

I have long maintained that you tend to have tremendous difficulty understanding the very basic concepts of proof and evidence. It is the single biggest reason your mind gets twisted in knots about conspiracies and complex subjects. Some guy on a Youtube video discussing intelligent design is not even close to being proof that god exists. FAIL!

You said you find Christianity to be foolish. Well fine, but it's a man made religion. Just because it's foolish doesn't mean that no God exists. Agreed?

The Bible is second most ridiculous collection of ideas in the history of mankind right behind the Quran. And what does that say about the people who mindlessly follow the Bible?

Here are 7 strong philosophical arguments for God. Can you rebut any of them? Are you even familiar with them? If not, then you lack education in Theology 101 and you need to get educated, so you can weight arguments on both sides and come up with an informed opinion.

So this is your response to my simple request that you prove the existence of god? I can't say I am surprised at all because YOU CAN'T!

But you are using atheist arguments such as "there's no proof that God exists". So what else could you be? Even critics of Christianity such as Mark Twain, Thomas Paine, and Robert Ingersoll never said that. They saw the creation as evidence of a Creator.

Let me guess, you are a pantheist like Einstein right? You see God as an impersonal force that doesn't talk but is pervaded throughout the universe, like a giant organism right? Michio Kaku, the mainstream science popularizer, has a one hour video about this.

The Bible is only ridiculous if you take it literally. Not if you take it metaphorically, then it means something. Same with Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

You dodged all my questions above. Doesn't that mean you're dishonest and don't have the truth on your side? Where is your rebuttal to those 7 logical arguments by Dr. William Lane Craig? And how do you explain intelligent design? Do you believe that a tornado can blow through a junkyard and create a fully functioning 747 airline? Or that your computer was put together by random forces? Or that the game of Pong in the 70's can evolve from natural selection into the modern video games we have today? lol

You are the one who FAILED. You dodged all my questions, just like Christopher Hitchens did in his debates.

Why do you think atheists are morons btw? Because of what? Which of their beliefs are moronic?

So at least you agree that literal readings of the Bible are ridiculous, but I regret to inform you that @Neo, @MrMan, and a few other wackos here DO believe in literal readings of the bible. But to tell you the truth, metaphorical readings of the Bible are not much better!

The fact that you are trying to pepper me with a series of ridiculous questions because you can't prove the existence of god is quite telling. Either prove that god exists and come to terms with the fact that you are WRONG.

Going on fishing expeditions to try to find something you can win is a losing strategy.

[Neo]

So at least you agree that literal readings of the Bible are ridiculous, but I regret to inform you that @Neo, @MrMan, and a few other wackos here DO believe in literal readings of the bible. But to tell you the truth, metaphorical readings of the Bible are not much better!

The fact that you are trying to pepper me with a series of ridiculous questions because you can't prove the existence of god is quite telling. Either prove that god exists and come to terms with the fact that you are WRONG.

Going on fishing expeditions to try to find something you can win is a losing strategy.

The Bible is both literal and symbolic. God gives some of His believers proof of His existence while they are alive. However, everyone will eventually have sufficient proof in eternity.

Whether a person wants to accept that God is real, and that Jesus is the only way to the Father, is up to them.

Thanks for the tag.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Atheists aren't obligated to believe that god exists unless they can prove that he doesn't, any more than Joe Random is obligated to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon exists (and lives by the sea) unless he can prove that he doesn't. Burden of proof works the other way around.

Not even close. And I can tell that you have never studied philosophy.

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... a_negative

In philosophy, one is NEVER called upon to prove a negative. The burden is ALWAYS on one to prove one's positive claim first.

If I decide to consider you a thief, you would never be called upon to prove that you are not and such would be impossible. I would need affirmative evidence to establish that you are indeed a thief first.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

The Bible is both literal and symbolic.

Well Winston disagrees with you. He says your Bible is to be taken metaphorically. The fact that Christians can even agree on fundamental things like the Bible is an indication that Christianity is worthless pack of lies.

God gives some of His believers proof of His existence while they are alive.

Bullshiat! You have no proof and you never will. Simply CLAIMING that you have proof is one of the Christian tactics to fool people.

Whether a person wants to accept that God is real, and that Jesus is the only way to the Father, is up to them.

More lies..... And it is criminal that preach this filth to children. Thank goodness Christianity is dying out. It belongs in the trash heap of history already.

[flowerthief00]

Nope....

In philosophy, one is NEVER called upon to prove a negative. The burden is ALWAYS on one to prove one's position first.

If I consider you a thief, you would never be called upon to prove that you are not and such would be impossible. I would need affirmative evidence to establish that you are indeed a thief first.

This might be why so much nonsense gets past Winston's shields. (existence of god, pseudo-science, conspiracy theories) He might feel obligated to believe these things because he can't prove the negative that any of them are not true--how could anyone? Reading through all these wacky threads is a waste of time for most of us when the logical error was committed much earlier.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Nope....

In philosophy, one is NEVER called upon to prove a negative. The burden is ALWAYS on one to prove one's position first.

If I consider you a thief, you would never be called upon to prove that you are not and such would be impossible. I would need affirmative evidence to establish that you are indeed a thief first.

This might be why so much nonsense gets past Winston's shields. (existence of god, pseudo-science, conspiracy theories) He might feel obligated to believe these things because he can't prove the negative that any of them are not true--how could anyone? Reading through all these wacky threads is a waste of time for most of us when the logical error was committed much earlier.

I agree that Winston gets wrapped around the axel often. But I see him being mired in accepting too many things as true even where there is no proof.

He is many things but rational and evidence driven are not among them.

[Neo]

The Bible is both literal and symbolic.

Well Winston disagrees with you. He says your Bible is to be taken metaphorically. The fact that Christians can even agree on fundamental things like the Bible is an indication that Christianity is worthless pack of lies.

God gives some of His believers proof of His existence while they are alive.

Bullshiat! You have no proof and you never will. Simply CLAIMING that you have proof is one of the Christian tactics to fool people.

Whether a person wants to accept that God is real, and that Jesus is the only way to the Father, is up to them.

More lies..... And it is criminal that preach this filth to children. Thank goodness Christianity is dying out. It belongs in the trash heap of history already.

It sure seems like we are running around in circles here. You don't want to believe in God and refuse to believe He exists. That's your business. As I've stated before, it's irrelevant to me what you believe.

I however do believe in God, and my posts reflect that.

You choose to believe one thing; I choose to believe another.

However, I do not seek to restrict your freedom of speech. Neither do I insult you or your intelligence for what you believe.

Winston and I also do not have to agree on anything. I don't care what he believes or doesn't. We can certainly discuss it, possibly though. And his beliefs do not need to reinforce mine. Neither do they tear mine down because he believes differently.

A man's experiences are his own to share or to keep private. Even if a Christian shared his experiences and confirmations, many who don't want God would choose not to believe them. That's on them, not me.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

The Bible is both literal and symbolic.

Well Winston disagrees with you. He says your Bible is to be taken metaphorically. The fact that Christians can even agree on fundamental things like the Bible is an indication that Christianity is worthless pack of lies.

God gives some of His believers proof of His existence while they are alive.

Bullshiat! You have no proof and you never will. Simply CLAIMING that you have proof is one of the Christian tactics to fool people.

Whether a person wants to accept that God is real, and that Jesus is the only way to the Father, is up to them.

More lies..... And it is criminal that preach this filth to children. Thank goodness Christianity is dying out. It belongs in the trash heap of history already.

It sure seems like we are running around in circles here. You don't want to believe in God and refuse to believe He exists. That's your business. As I've stated before, it's irrelevant to me what you believe.

I however do believe in God, and my posts reflect that.

You choose to believe one thing; I choose to believe another.

However, I do not seek to restrict your freedom of speech. Neither do I insult you or your intelligence for what you believe.

Winston and I also do not have to agree on anything. I don't care what he believes or doesn't. We can certainly discuss it, possibly though. And his beliefs do not need to reinforce mine. Neither do they tear mine down because he believes differently.

A man's experiences are his own to share or to keep private. Even if a Christian shared his experiences and confirmations, many who don't want God would choose not to believe them. That's on them, not me.

Don’t be stupid. You might not care what others believe, but you SHOULD care about the fact that you are dead wrong.

Also your assumption about what you THINK I believe is the most mindless comment I have heard from you yet. As with Winston’s small-minded attempt in this thread, just because someone finds Christianity to be a fool’s religion does not mean they don’t believe in god you idiot.

Unlike you and other brainwashed Christians, I don’t have this foolosh need to wear my particular beliefs on my sleeves. Keep your stupid beliefs to yourself or expect people to prove you wrong.

[Neo]

The Bible is both literal and symbolic.

Well Winston disagrees with you. He says your Bible is to be taken metaphorically. The fact that Christians can even agree on fundamental things like the Bible is an indication that Christianity is worthless pack of lies.

God gives some of His believers proof of His existence while they are alive.

Bullshiat! You have no proof and you never will. Simply CLAIMING that you have proof is one of the Christian tactics to fool people.

Whether a person wants to accept that God is real, and that Jesus is the only way to the Father, is up to them.

More lies..... And it is criminal that preach this filth to children. Thank goodness Christianity is dying out. It belongs in the trash heap of history already.

It sure seems like we are running around in circles here. You don't want to believe in God and refuse to believe He exists. That's your business. As I've stated before, it's irrelevant to me what you believe.

I however do believe in God, and my posts reflect that.

You choose to believe one thing; I choose to believe another.

However, I do not seek to restrict your freedom of speech. Neither do I insult you or your intelligence for what you believe.

Winston and I also do not have to agree on anything. I don't care what he believes or doesn't. We can certainly discuss it, possibly though. And his beliefs do not need to reinforce mine. Neither do they tear mine down because he believes differently.

A man's experiences are his own to share or to keep private. Even if a Christian shared his experiences and confirmations, many who don't want God would choose not to believe them. That's on them, not me.

Don’t be stupid. You might not care what others believe, but you SHOULD care about the fact that you are dead wrong.

Also your assumption about what you THINK I believe is the most mindless comment I have heard from you yet. As with Winston’s small-minded attempt in this thread, just because someone finds Christianity to be a fool’s religion does not mean they don’t believe in god you idiot.

Unlike you and other brainwashed Christians, I don’t have this foolosh need to wear my particular beliefs on my sleeves. Keep your stupid beliefs to yourself or expect people to prove you wrong.

[flowerthief00]

Atheists aren't obligated to believe that god exists unless they can prove that he doesn't, any more than Joe Random is obligated to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon exists (and lives by the sea) unless he can prove that he doesn't. Burden of proof works the other way around.

Not even close. And I can tell that you have never studied philosophy.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, and reading my post again, the way I worded things was too ambiguous. This...

In philosophy, one is NEVER called upon to prove a negative. The burden is ALWAYS on one to prove one's positive claim first.

...is exactly what I was trying to say.

Damn the English language.