Evolution v Creationism

**Che Roriniho** · 05-05-2009, 13:50

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies...

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?

Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

And even if I did, then as I said, it would be through reason:

People say that god exists.
God is against Nature (Natural sciences)
People are Nature
Therefore is against people, and therefore irrational.

Not brilliant, I know, but I'm tired so can't becopulated to make anything more advanced.

The human mind has remarkable decision makin properties, and the decision (or not, see above) to become an athiest is because of the frankly utterly ridiculus ideas from the other side.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a Jewish deity-figure who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 cents about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.

And while that argument could not be used as an argument in itself (argumentam ad numerum and argumentum ad verecundiam), it COULD be used in argument, provided that was not the only evidence submitted, and that the evidence given justifies the use of a line. On it's own, however,it is insubmittable.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

My thoughts exactly. If we accept the King James version, then we must asume that James I was a messiah. Otherwise, how could he translate it from latin perfectly, and still contain the word of god?

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 05-05-2009, 15:33

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a cosmic Jewish Zombie who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 faeces about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.

I've always been an atheist...I'm not arguing for the existence of god. For all we know, if one did exist, he'd send all the atheists to heaven and the religious people to hell

But I think taking a holier-than-thou attitude towards all religious people paints them with too broad a brush. First I would say it's hypocritical.

If you go back 200 years you see that the people then believed all sorts of silly things, yes? So why would you assume that 200 years from now people won't be laughing at your beliefs? Also, most people are atheist because of their upbringing. Either their parents were atheists or they were overbearingly religious.

Secondly, you can't simply say "that which is rational and logical is better that the irrational and illogical". Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.