Thread: Why Christians are not just a load of backwards imbeciles.

I think the Christians should do some reading and then post in forums. if you read books by Dan Barker, Atheist Universe by David Mills, and other such books and you can refute all of their arguments, I might be inclined to listen. but as of now you're arguing from a point of utter ignorance and wasting time. read the current arguments against your beliefs, bring yourself up-to-date, otherwise you will convince -no one-.
and before you say, I've read stacks of Christians books, none of which have any arguments that aren't totally demolished by atheist authors.

yeah I am so done with this thread. I've wasted countless hours trying to argue some sense into christians and it's hopeless.

just trying to spread the love

Originally Posted by Rickrold

Not all of us believe that the world was created in seven literal days, and that those who believe otherwise will burn in hell.

Why are you upset at atheists for making those comments about christianity? For the most part, we KNOW we're only talking about the really crazy messed up fundamentalists when we're ranting about it.

But you know what? I also won't tolerate it when sane christians like yourself whine about that. If you don't like it, do something about it. In fact, if those neocon christians are really taking a huge shit on what christianity is supposed to stand for (and I think they are), then YOU, the sane christians, should be laying the smackdown on them WAY more than us non-theists. So take your complaints and aim them at a direction where they're more useful, i.e. the god-fearing, rapture-preaching, "repent cause the end is near... now watch this drive" folks. We shouldn't be fighting amongst ourselves, if we agree that the fundies who want to impose their views on everyone else are the bad apple.

The Bible depicts a false God for the sake of surpressing the masses. What a coincidence that the Bible was created at the same time of the rise of the roman empire. The Bible was nothing but a tool to surpress native culture, both in europe and in america, all native culture has been erased and replaced by christianity. In europe women who were originally in power were systematically prosecuted as witches, and in america, the natives were all killed. Christianity is a fake culture created for the sake of surpressing the people.

The Bible claiming Jesus is the son of God and Jesus is our lord and savior does this only for the purpose of putting the people down. We are all the sons of God and that is exactly what the Bible is trying to prevent us from realizing by creating a fake image of God. Both christians and atheists buy this image of God and no longer stand still and think about another possible concept of God. The Bible has successfully managed to numb our minds, we no longer think for ourselves.


Apart from that it is pretty obvious that God exists.
1. DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer? The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.
2. In the future we will be able to create a virtual reality similar to the matrix, who says God has not done this before us?
3. We can recreate the entire universe inside our dreams, we play God each night yet we deny the possibility of God?
4. Chicken or egg? Who was first? Only possible solution is that someone created either the chicken or egg. The argument of a proto-chicken only evades the question and does not solve it.
5.The main argument against God is that if there is God then why is there evil? It is because God gave us free will. On top of that, success is only achieved through failure. Therefore, it is impossible for an evolving world to be without evil.

Going against God is going against logic.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer? The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.

Well, it's not a mathematical impossibility, it's just a very low chance that it was achieved in the 4 billion years our Earth has existed. Now, if we had more time, that's a whole different argument, but still, it's not an impossibility. I personally think that, as a believer of the Ancient Alien Theory, that aliens have either created the first piece of DNA or blended their DNA with that of our ancestors. This is a whole different discussion, though, so I'm not going to go further than that.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Apart from that it is pretty obvious that God exists.
1. DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer? The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.

Evidence?

2. In the future we will be able to create a virtual reality similar to the matrix, who says God has not done this before us?

People who don't have evidence...Namely the entire human race.

3. We can recreate the entire universe inside our dreams, we play God each night yet we deny the possibility of God?

Because we live in the real world, not a fantasy dream land.

4. Chicken or egg? Who was first? Only possible solution is that someone created either the chicken or egg. The argument of a proto-chicken only evades the question and does not solve it.

Clearly the only answer is that the chicken magically popped into existence.

5.The main argument against God is that if there is God then why is there evil? It is because God gave us free will. On top of that, success is only achieved through failure. Therefore, it is impossible for an evolving world to be without evil.

No, the main argument against God is that there is no evidence for one. Of course, people will just side-step that and say "oh well X, Y, or Z SUGGESTS that God exists" except X, Y, and Z are speculative or misguided bullshit.

Going against God is going against logic.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

The Bible depicts a false God for the sake of surpressing the masses. What a coincidence that the Bible was created at the same time of the rise of the roman empire. The Bible was nothing but a tool to surpress native culture, both in europe and in america, all native culture has been erased and replaced by christianity. In europe women who were originally in power were systematically prosecuted as witches, and in america, the natives were all killed. Christianity is a fake culture created for the sake of surpressing the people.

The Bible claiming Jesus is the son of God and Jesus is our lord and savior does this only for the purpose of putting the people down. We are all the sons of God and that is exactly what the Bible is trying to prevent us from realizing by creating a fake image of God. Both christians and atheists buy this image of God and no longer stand still and think about another possible concept of God. The Bible has successfully managed to numb our minds, we no longer think for ourselves.


Apart from that it is pretty obvious that God exists.
1. DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer? The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.
2. In the future we will be able to create a virtual reality similar to the matrix, who says God has not done this before us?
3. We can recreate the entire universe inside our dreams, we play God each night yet we deny the possibility of God?
4. Chicken or egg? Who was first? Only possible solution is that someone created either the chicken or egg. The argument of a proto-chicken only evades the question and does not solve it.
5.The main argument against God is that if there is God then why is there evil? It is because God gave us free will. On top of that, success is only achieved through failure. Therefore, it is impossible for an evolving world to be without evil.

Going against God is going against logic.

If the bible is a lie, then where did you get all of your information regarding the Christian god?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

1. DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer?

That's a poetic analogy. A poetic analogy is a lot of things, but it isn't:

1) Logic
2) Data
3) Scientific
4) Conducive to any objective conclusions about anything.

The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.

Natural selection is not the same as "randomness" - it is mathematically shown that there is convergence. Here's a poetic analogy of my own, just so you have a different way of thinking of said "randomness" (I'm not claiming it's data - it's just a useful mental model): In computing, there is a concept called a "Monte Carlo algorithm." It's a way to solve a hard problem by introducing some "randomness" (i.e. randomly determine certain aspects of it), which usually converges to a correct solution (as opposed to a random solution). Wikipedia has a simple article on it:

Monte Carlo method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I've used such techniques myself in a basic AI class in university, so this stuff isn't exactly super esoteric. You can simulate converging properties while introducing randomness into your method. I hope this clears up a bit of the reasoning.

2. In the future we will be able to create a virtual reality similar to the matrix, who says God has not done this before us?

Nobody says god hasn't done this before us, and for us. But this is an argument in favour of "we cannot know" which is NOT the same as an argument in favour of believing in god. I've long accepted that we cannot know, but if you're going to argue, as it seems, OBJECTIVELY, in favour of there being a god, the burden of objective proof is on YOU. "We cannot know" is not an argument in favour of anything specific.

3. We can recreate the entire universe inside our dreams, we play God each night yet we deny the possibility of God?

I'm not denying the possibility of God. Again, "not denying the possibility" is nowhere near "an argument for god" - you NEED faith to really believe in god, and faith is a subjective experience. That's as good as it'll ever get, until said god shows himself in an objectively measurable way.

4. Chicken or egg? Who was first? Only possible solution is that someone created either the chicken or egg. The argument of a proto-chicken only evades the question and does not solve it.

I'm not gonna pretend I know the exact, specific answer to that question. I have not yet delved that deeply into evolutionary biology. However, if you're GENUINELY interested in finding an answer to that question, you should either go to the literature, or ask an expert. If you're NOT genuinely interested in finding the answer, and you're just using it as a way to get a rise out of people, then you're just being closed-minded. If you're asking someone a hard question about deep science, and then assuming that them not knowing the answer is a victory of your belief over someone else's, then you're using fox news' intellectually bankrupt argument strategies, and should be ashamed.

But I'll assume the best of you, and assume you will actually ask someone who has studied the field, for the sake of satisfying your curiosity about how this wonderful world works. Here's to genuine curiosity, my friend!

5.The main argument against God is that if there is God then why is there evil?

I don't think that's the main argument against god. You just decided that that was the main argument against god. Please provide evidence from the census bureau of a peer-reviewed poll that has shown that the main argument against god is the existence of evil. This is a silly premise. Please spare us the strawmen in the future.

It is because God gave us free will.

If god can't control me, then he is not omnipotent. (I don't really like using that argument, but when someone brings up the tired old free will thing, then anything goes)

On top of that, success is only achieved through failure.

Again, an assumed premise. What does that even mean? More poetic quotes on top of which to build your actual message. Listen, I successfully microwaved a pizza pocket today, and have achieved that without failing. I know you mean something else with that, but it's not really relevant to your next point.

Therefore, it is impossible for an evolving world to be without evil.

You went from "success is only achieved through failure" to "it is impossible for an evolving world to be without evil." To quote your elementary school math teacher: show your work.

I'm inclined to say that "evil" is relative. Morality is just an opinion. There is no such thing as "objective morality" - there is only "the vast majority of people agree with the idea that X is right/wrong"

Going against God is going against logic.

Once again: Please show your work. You've presented an amorphous blob of unconvincing arguments, and you're trying to pass it off as logical steps; an objective proof of there being a god. A belief in god is a _subjective_ experience only. You're welcome to it, but "faith" and "logic" are not the same thing. You have not shown any logic that objectively argues in favour of god in your post. If there were such an argument, the word "faith" would no longer be needed.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

1. DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer? The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.
2. In the future we will be able to create a virtual reality similar to the matrix, who says God has not done this before us?
3. We can recreate the entire universe inside our dreams, we play God each night yet we deny the possibility of God?
4. Chicken or egg? Who was first? Only possible solution is that someone created either the chicken or egg. The argument of a proto-chicken only evades the question and does not solve it.
5.The main argument against God is that if there is God then why is there evil? It is because God gave us free will. On top of that, success is only achieved through failure. Therefore, it is impossible for an evolving world to be without evil.

Going against God is going against logic.

Damn, did I go back in time again?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

1. DNA is structured like a book, so who is the writer? The argument that DNA was randomly created is a mathematical impossibility.

DNA wasn't created randomly, it was created based on prior conditions. If you want to argue that nature is God and that it spawned DNA I agree, but I just don't think that that is what people mean when they say God. It's like saying someone is gay and meaning that they are happy, you can do it but most people won't understand you(even more so in the case of God).

There does not need to be a being for there to be intelligence.

No clue about the chicken or the egg, but I hypothesize it was the chicken. I'm not expert on evolution, but it seems the chicken could have evolved from some other organism that did not need eggs to reproduce.

I agree with the rest of your post, about christianity's purpose being social conditioning and suppression of the individual.

Originally Posted by stonedape

No clue about the chicken or the egg, but I hypothesize it was the chicken. I'm not expert on evolution, but it seems the chicken could have evolved from some other organism that did not need eggs to reproduce.

For what it's worth, the chicken most definitely did not evolve from an organism that didn't need eggs. It's widely believed that the chicken evolved from the Red Jungle Fowl although some people have recently been claiming that another one of the Jungle Fowl's (forget which) got involved through a hybridization process. At any rate, all jungle fowls rely on eggs for reproduction. Indeed, the entire quail family does so.

So eggs were around long before chickens or even amphibians. The egg most definitely came first. This is unequivocal.

This would be a whole lot easier if god just said "hey suckers, I'm real" in a big loud voice, to everyone, at the same time.

And I haven't seen anyone walking around with awesome powers lately. You know, there was that guy who got strength from his hair etc.

Ok maybe that's symbolic (the only bible I've read was when I was about 8 and it was simple and had pictures and everything so I'm not sure haha) but hey whatever. If I could do anything and everything, I think I'd manage to give free will without evil (evil wouldn't exsist) and everyone would be happy and grateful. But without all the praying and worshipping and stuff, that would just annoy me.

But still, I think that this was all for control or that people just switched and changed things (anyone remember chinese whispers as a kid?) so much that everything got distorted.

If it were me, there would be no hell. No heaven either because the world would be good and pure just like what heaven is supposed to be.

My point with the chicken was that why does it have to be someone? Couldn't the system which the universe is create something, I think it does constantly. Couldn't the circumstances of the universe create a situation where DNA manifests? Why does there need to be a supernatural power involved?

If people have free will, one person will decide to do something, someone else won't like it and will decide to call it evil. Evil is just a word. It's an abstraction not a physical thing, that's why two different people can have two different ideas about what it is. In my opinion the only true evil is taking away the will of others, in exactly the way that christianity does. They tell you what is right and wrong because God says so(reminds me of stone cold steve austin). If you derive what is evil based on a dogma rather than on thought you will be wrong because your ideas come from the past rather than the present. What is wrong in one instance is not necessarily wrong in all instances. Most christians realize this even.

Originally Posted by stonedape

If people have free will, one person will decide to do something, someone else won't like it and will decide to call it evil. Evil is just a word. It's an abstraction not a physical thing, that's why two different people can have two different ideas about what it is. In my opinion the only true evil is taking away the will of others, in exactly the way that christianity does. They tell you what is right and wrong because God says so(reminds me of stone cold steve austin). If you derive what is evil based on a dogma rather than on thought you will be wrong because your ideas come from the past rather than the present. What is wrong in one instance is not necessarily wrong in all instances. Most christians realize this even.

Agreed! And people need to remember that everything changes, nothing stays the same.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

This would be a whole lot easier if god just said "hey suckers, I'm real" in a big loud voice, to everyone, at the same time.

Ok maybe that's symbolic (the only bible I've read was when I was about 8 and it was simple and had pictures and everything so I'm not sure haha) but hey whatever. If I could do anything and everything, I think I'd manage to give free will without evil (evil wouldn't exsist) and everyone would be happy and grateful. But without all the praying and worshipping and stuff, that would just annoy me.

If it were me, there would be no hell. No heaven either because the world would be good and pure just like what heaven is supposed to be.

Hahaha now that is a good argument, why doesn't God shout out and reveal himself? I think anyone could do this really, claim they are God, except for God himself as he gives us free will. And people have been doing this all the time really.

Also the thing about reality is, that without cold there is no warmth. Without good there is no evil. You need contrast to be able experience one or the other. Say you take a cold shower, the shower only feels cold because your skin is warm. Suppose your skin was freezing, the cold shower would feel warm. So yeah, there just has to be evil. An as evolution is infinite, what is good today, will be evil tomorrow, as things only get better and better. Take computers for example, old computers are like evil, and new ones are good. But in a few years the new computers will also belong to the evil group because they have been outdated.

Originally Posted by stonedape

DNA wasn't created randomly, it was created based on prior conditions. If you want to argue that nature is God and that it spawned DNA I agree, but I just don't think that that is what people mean when they say God. It's like saying someone is gay and meaning that they are happy, you can do it but most people won't understand you(even more so in the case of God).

No clue about the chicken or the egg, but I hypothesize it was the chicken. I'm not expert on evolution, but it seems the chicken could have evolved from some other organism that did not need eggs to reproduce.

According to evolution theory, evolution goes gradually. So it is impossible for an organism who doesn't lay eggs, to change into an organism that does, through one generation of a tiny small random mutation. And no I'm not arguing that God is nature. I'm arguing from a programmers perspective, that someone must have written the code for the DNA. DNA is a language with punctuation, phrases, paragraphs, chapters etc.

Originally Posted by Snowboy

Well, it's not a mathematical impossibility, it's just a very low chance that it was achieved in the 4 billion years our Earth has existed. Now, if we had more time, that's a whole different argument, but still, it's not an impossibility. I personally think that, as a believer of the Ancient Alien Theory, that aliens have either created the first piece of DNA or blended their DNA with that of our ancestors. This is a whole different discussion, though, so I'm not going to go further than that.

But this low chance has to be repeated each generation, each mutation, leading to an even lower chance, and it would only take one wrong mutation to lead to extinction, hence the mathematical impossibility. I believe in evolution tho, but to me it is obvious DNA is a written language.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Evidence?

No I don't have phsyical evidence for God, but I do have logical evidence. But then you would first have to believe in logic before you could accept logical evidence.

Originally Posted by bennerman

If the bible is a lie, then where did you get all of your information regarding the Christian god?

Logic. I believe it is the only way to arrive at any information on God at all. Suppose we live in a reality like the matrix, there is no way of knowing what is real except through the use of logic.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Logic.

Logic in your mind or logic in that of the rest of society?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

No I don't have phsyical evidence for God, but I do have logical evidence. But then you would first have to believe in logic before you could accept logical evidence.

So you don't have physical evidence for God...but you have logical evidence. What, exactly, is your "logical evidence."

Originally Posted by Rickrold

All around the interwebs I have noticed that most non-Christains are extremely hostile to all Christians, automatically vilifying them without really knowing what Christians believe, and before they know that apart from the central tenants of the faith there is a great amount of disagreement within Christianity on issues such as the age of the Earth/universe.

Not all of us believe that the world was created in seven literal days, and that those who believe otherwise will burn in hell.

Personally, I think that everything proven by science to be true is true. I am not entirely sure of my position on evolution: I am considering it as a possibility. I see no reason why man's body could not possibly have arisen by natural means. I believe that everything in the Bible is true, but I am open to varying interpretations of the text.

I'm just so tired of everyone calling us all backwards, sub-70-IQ hicks.

Sorry if I seem like I'm just going all over the place and not going anywhere, but I'm just eager to see what you all think about this subject.

It is fashionable and trendy. I don't criticize Christians, I criticize some dogma and doctrines. It is easy to criticize other's beliefs, but not so easy to even see one's own beliefs and assumptions objectively. People think that they are evolved and intelligent when they can point out what they perceive as silly in other's beliefs. This appeals to their egos and their own self-importance. But just try criticizing science and see how defensive they get, as if their own belief structure is being attacked. They do not see that there is truth in mythology. I don't know if they even interpret dreams to find self-knowledge. Because to interpret dreams one would also interpret myths and find truth. Truth in the story of the Garden of Eden, truth in the story of the resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth. If there is no truth in these stories then there is no truth in the messages in their dreams. Then dreams are just a hobby or past-time to them in which they can increase their skill in lucid dreaming in order to have fun but devoid of any meaning. But higher knowledge found subjectively? They probably don't believe in such things, because that would be silly just like believing in Christ. The language of dreams is the same language of myths. In order to understand this language one needs to open one's mind. But many of them do not think so deeply on these things and look honestly at their own beliefs and limitations of knowledge. It is trendy and fashionable, and they do not want to appear unintelligent, so they look outside themselves and point fingers at all the silly superstitious stupid people around them.

HAHA WTF?
My response to your post #74 somehow happened a minute before your post. Time for a RC.

It does not follow that if there was no creator then we would be able to map the or simulate creation ourselves. I don;t really have a situation in mind but the fact that I don't know how DNA was created doesn't mean that it was created by a supernatural being. It just means that I don;t fully understand the science behind it.

Basically through naturally occurring processes a very simple form of life was created with a much simpler DNA structure. Over time this structure adapted to conditions and became more complex and now we're here. Again I don't know science so well, but I believe that DNA is an open ended program, it changes with each generation.

How do you suppose it happened? Where was DNA written by God and how did he make it manifest? What is God even made of?

Plus who created God?

Originally Posted by stonedape

HAHA WTF?
My response to your post #74 somehow happened a minute before your post. Time for a RC.

It does not follow that if there was no creator then we would be able to map the or simulate creation ourselves. I don;t really have a situation in mind but the fact that I don't know how DNA was created doesn't mean that it was created by a supernatural being. It just means that I don;t fully understand the science behind it.

Basically through naturally occurring processes a very simple form of life was created with a much simpler DNA structure. Over time this structure adapted to conditions and became more complex and now we're here. Again I don't know science so well, but I believe that DNA is an open ended program, it changes with each generation.

How do you suppose it happened? Where was DNA written by God and how did he make it manifest? What is God even made of?

Plus who created God?

Hah! No need for a RC, I deleted and then reposted to add more quotes in my post so I wouldn't need to double or triple post.

There is no such thing as a simple DNA structure. All life shares the same complex DNA structure, all life is made out of cells. So where did this cell suddenly come from? That is a mystery. There is no precursor to the cell.

How do I think it happened? That is what I'm still trying to figure out, but I did figure out tho, that other explanations of how it supposed to have happened are impossible. So by the process of elimination, I arrived at God.

Who created God? No idea either, I guess he must have always been there.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Let's look at the fur example. A population of mice live in a warm environment. One day, a mouse is born with a little more fur. This allows the mouse to live in colder climates and to be more active during winter. This means that it is more likely to survive, thus it will most likely have a bigger amount of offspring than other mice. Over some time, maybe a hundred years, the entire population has the extra fur gene. It's quite simple really.
In farming, we employ the same concept. We take the big grain and use them for the next season and eat the small grain. We have been doing this for thousands of years and it is one of the reasons we're a successful species.

Yes agreed, but we're talking about random mutations here. The mouse would only get like a few extra hairs, that doesn't give it more chance to survive. Unless this random mutation would occur over and over, until there is enough fur to give it an advantage, which is a mathematical impossibility and which is the point I was making. I don't disagree with evolution theory, I disagree with the idea of random mutation.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Yes agreed, but we're talking about random mutations here. The mouse would only get like a few extra hairs, that doesn't give it more chance to survive. Unless this random mutation would occur over and over, until there is enough fur to give it an advantage, which is a mathematical impossibility and which is the point I was making. I don't disagree with evolution theory, I disagree with the idea of random mutation.

So all the examples we have of humanly directed selection, such as modern day dogs and cats, grain, bananas, you deny their existence? Also, a mutation doesn't have to just cause one or two more hairs. Maybe it would cause an extension of the fur, like making it thicker. This would affect all the hair on the mouse.

Originally Posted by Marvo

So all the examples we have of humanly directed selection, such as modern day dogs and cats, grain, bananas, you deny their existence? Also, a mutation doesn't have to just cause one or two more hairs. Maybe it would cause an extension of the fur, like making it thicker. This would affect all the hair on the mouse.

What does humanly directed selection have to do with random mutation? I'm arguing against the idea, that driving force behind evolution is random mutation. Random is nothing but a mechanism undiscovered.

Originally Posted by bennerman

My point was that he thinks that it is logic if everyone accepts it, and I was disproving that part.

Nah, I meant there is a type of logic everyone can agree upon or we wouldn't be able to debate. But ok, I get your point, good point, point taken.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

What does humanly directed selection have to do with random mutation? I'm arguing against the idea, that driving force behind evolution is random mutation. Random is nothing but a mechanism undiscovered.

Nice, everybody knows this. This is not a secret. Nobody has argued this. "Random mutation" is just a metaphor for what is actually happening.