The Anti-theist Thread

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm
The argument that if we aren't perfect then we couldn't have been created denies the possiblity that 'God' would make less then perfect creations. Humans do it all the time. Why not 'God'? You already showed that 'God' didn't create us "perfect", but you did not show that 'God' didn't create us "imperfect". I don't know if we were created or not. Neither does science, YET. Perhaps someday it will.

Okay, I see what you are saying now. Thanks for clearing it up. However, I will cite that by this logic, 'God' must be imperfect, because he created us in his own image.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But I know that wisdom teeth and the appendix do not serve any purpose anymore.

That's what people said about the tonsils and they were wrong.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

'God' must be imperfect, because he created us in his own image.

Only if 'he' did create us in 'his' image. Also "in the image of" doesn't logically infer an exact copy in all respects, just that some aspects are shared. Image is a vague word.

[afro-elf]

olsonm

it is not subjective to say


the human eye;

the photorecptors are backward reducing visual acuity

there is a hole where fibers enter the eye = blindspot

squids don't have this problem buy vert's do

swallow and chew through the same whole = choking


you state better in my opinion


so are you saying reduce visual acuity is good

that that blindspot is good


that breathing and chewing through the same whole is optimal




HOW is that subjective?

[jerseydevil]

Well in order to believe the science about the appendix and wisdom teeth - you'd have to believe in the theory of evolution.

I never heard that the tonsils didn't serve any purpose - just that scientists weren't sure if they did or what that purpose may be. You can still live without your tonsils.

[afro-elf]

first of all what you seem to miss that this is thread is a non-god thread

nothing here is against the force so to speak but against an anthropomorphic or anthropopathic creator

on this thread you have the burden of proof so show us your CHRISTAIN god


part I

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For thousands of years, man thought the earth was flat. And up until about fifty years ago man was certain that the atom was the smallest building- block in the universe. Man was wrong about those things, so couldn't there be a slight possibility that man is wrong about evolution as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see how this is at all unreasonable. Do You? Yet the author claims that the evolutionist, in admitting that it is reasonable, is 'betraying science'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I would just sub reasonale with POSSIBLE. Its possible that britttany spears is satan incarnate, its possibe that i'll be able to take some genetic material from tolkien's grave and resurect him, it's possible that william shanter will win an academy award.


well maybe not the last one




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In actuality, the roman catholic church accepted and sponsored astronomers until it was urged to decry them by the scientific aristolian league. They did so not because of what thier religion taught, but because the intellectuals of hte day (who were usually priests or otherwise privilidged) didn't want to accept that the classical greek and roman philosophies (i.e. heliocentricism) were wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




that’s just plain wrong

a handful of greeks postulated a helio-centric view however

European learning was based on the Greek sources that had been passed down, and cosmological and astronomical thought were based on Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's cosmology of a central Earth surrounded by concentric spherical shells carrying the planets and fixed stars was the basis of European thought from the 12th century CE onward. Technical astronomy, also geocentric, was based on the constructions of excentric circles and epicycles codified in Ptolemy's Almagest (2d. century CE).


The Catholic Church supported a
largely Aristotelian physical world view, skilfully woven into Christian
theology by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

[afro-elf]

wayfarer you said you agreed with our facts


so please use them to support show of a Christain god

using the bible as your basis

[Wayfarer]

That would only mean anything if we were claiming that humans were perfect now. We're not.

[afro-elf]

BOP


i'm still confused on the radio-dating

what IS a precise reading

and what IS an accurate reading

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
That would only mean anything if we were claiming that humans were perfect now. We're not.

i'm NOT talking about the imperfect debate

but the earlier stuff where you said BASICALLY you agreed with all of our facts but not our conclusions about an old earth, evolution etc

[olsonm]

I believed that your implied conclusion was, if 'God' could have made it better 'he' would have. There is no proof of this. My response to you was incomplete and unargumentative, and I apologize.

Saying that something isn't optimal doesn't prove that it's flawed. A flaw is a mistake. This line of argument doesn't disprove design, just 'perfect design', which I've always found to be irrational anyway. Again, people design things that are inherently un-optimal, why not 'God'.

P.S. I do believe in 'evolution'.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well in order to believe the science about the appendix and wisdom teeth - you'd have to believe in the theory of evolution.

I never heard that the tonsils didn't serve any purpose - just that scientists weren't sure if they did or what that purpose may be. You can still live without your tonsils.

Scientist DID believe that tonsils served no purpose. As for the appendix, it has not been proven that it does nothing. A recent article (forgive me, I can't remeber where) in a scientific journal indicated that the appendix MAY release a chemical that MAY still be used by the body. This doesn't prove it does anything, but the truth is still in question.

[jerseydevil]

I've often thought that god was a 2nd grade alien and we were his science project that went awry.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by afro-elf
on this thread you have the burden of proof so show us your CHRISTAIN God.

]: ) I could do that, if all the arguements either way weren't circumstantial and subjective. I've never claimed that I could. But I do claim that Christianity makes more sense than anything else.

Originally posted by afro-elf
I would just sub reasonale with POSSIBLE.

You expect me to believe it with no convincing facts. That's what people did with a flat-heliocentric earth. I've been repeatedly told that one thing or another 'is a fact'. And yet i've never been given any reason to believe it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've often thought that god was a 2nd grade alien and we were his science project that went awry.

That's infinitely more believable than divine creation!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm


Scientist DID believe that tonsils served no purpose. As for the appendix, it has not been proven that it does nothing. A recent article (forgive me, I can't remeber where) in a scientific journal indicated that the appendix MAY release a chemical that MAY still be used by the body. This doesn't prove it does anything, but the truth is still in question.

This is just being pedantic. As we all know, science has been wrong in the past: this has been due to a lack of information. Yes the truth is still in question, however, this thread is for anti-theists, who are arguing for a non-divine creation. It is NOT about discussing the merits of science.

[jerseydevil]

I've always thought so too, BeardofPants. He probably got an F though on it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm

Only if 'he' did create us in 'his' image. Also "in the image of" doesn't logically infer an exact copy in all respects, just that some aspects are shared. Image is a vague word.

I'm just quoting the popular christian dogma, as to why we haven't evolved.

[Nibs]

In an effort to support my brethren, albeit without sarcasm and forced cordiality, I wish to present my own evidence for theism.

The arguments against theism are the fact that most of the "evidence" for it are intangible. So, so true. Why should you believe that there is a superior being that created us and so on? Where's the proof?

True, there are some flaws contained therein, but I present the Bible itself as evidence. Not as unarguable proof, mind you, but these are very wise words from (as some may refer to them) "deluded zealots." Such a large manifestation of testimony and lessons based on the fact that there is indeed a God should not be overlooked.

As I said, that is not solid proof, but rather another mode of thinking. Assuredly, many of the statements in the book have been argued and disproven when taken literally, but I still think it contains more truth than many wish to admit.

[afro-elf]

I could do that, if all the arguements either way weren't circumstantial and subjective. I've never claimed that I could. But I do claim that Christianity makes more sense than anything else.

as for the first part that is just a plain epistemological fart ( flatulence)

just my opinion

at least you can try

i do throw down my guanlet

NAH i smack you with it



as for the latter it that's they way i feel about the non preternatural world