6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)

[mo.mentum]

To 100% deny that anything could have happened before then is foolish.

I didn't say that. We can look further than this limit by using X-Ray and Infrared, or Ultraviolet telescopes. Duh. But even with that, we can do a few thousand years after the big bang, can't go further for now.

You're arguing from a purely philosophical point of view. As an atheist I'm 99.9% sure that the universe is goverened by natural laws that are the way they are based purely on the properties of matter.

The latest ideas in quantum physics state that matter is really nothing more than packets of energy. So matter, deep down, doesn't exist. 99.9999% of an atom is emtpy space. The rest are energy patterns and positions. Electrons just pop out of an orbit onto a higher one if they are given energy. There is no in between, there is no matter as we think. Matter is not absolute. At best, it is just signals send to our brains by our senses. We never come in direct contact with matter, we only see/hear/touch what our brain tells us we're seeing/hearing/touching. So how can we say that outside world is absolute if we never really touch it per se.

However the evidence you have is purely anecdotal and does not falsify that the universes properties are the way they are simply because that's the way it is. To compound the problem your theory relies solely upon an allpowerful invisible friend.

Ok..now, you're an idiot. I'll leave it at that.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

How does quantum physics make a case for either of our sides? Did I miss something in a previous thread?

 

[Arikay]

Ok, can you show us how evolution "propogrates atheism?"

So far im having a hard time thinking that your even listening when you keep falling back on old false ideas.

 

[mo.mentum]

Ok, can you show us how evolution "propogrates atheism?"

Hehehe.. This is just observation of the history of the 19th century. I've already explained this in one of my posts. Go back a few, I mentioned Nietsche and a bunch of others....

If i have to re-explain it to you..here it is briefly:

Materialist (and at that time equated with atheist) philosophies arose in the 19th century. Evolution just provided them with a scientific background and justification.

Oh and, Nazi ideology is heavily based on evolutionary ideas. So is Fascism and Communism.

I also mentioned this somewhere..go back, seriously. I knew you weren't reading my posts! you *#&@*&#*@&

 

[Arikay]

Actually I was hopeing you had a better explination, as this one doesnt really hold up.

Materialism doesnt have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Besides, some Materialists are atheists but not all atheists are materialists, as was already pointed out to you.

Yep, the theory of Evolution has been twisted by people. But then again, lets not forget how many people have twisted christianity, yet this doesnt make christianity bad, only those people.


Lets also not forget what religion Hitler was, and its not Atheist.

Hehehe.. This is just observation of the history of the 19th century. I've already explained this in one of my posts. Go back a few, I mentioned Nietsche and a bunch of others....

If i have to re-explain it to you..here it is briefly:

Materialist (and at that time equated with atheist) philosophies arose in the 19th century. Evolution just provided them with a scientific background and justification.

Oh and, Nazi ideology is heavily based on evolutionary ideas. So is Fascism and Communism.

I also mentioned this somewhere..go back, seriously. I knew you weren't reading my posts! you *#&@*&#*@&

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Evolution, materialism, and atheism are all very seperate entities. One's a field of science, the other a school of thought, another is a yes/no question about believing in invisible people. Do they fit together? Yeah, pretty well, although they can exist independently.

 

[mo.mentum]

Ok guys...I have to stay..You're one stubborn bunch..I'm all alone in this thread fending off dozens of heathens!!! j/k

I'm actually enjoying myself and honing my skills..so keep it up!!

Anyway, let's go on. yes.

Hitler, eventhough he was a Christian or a Jew, i dont remember how the conspiracy goes again. He saw religion as a whole as a threat to Aryan supremacy. You can see this hostility when he resurrected pagan rites that were performed during military parades and the likes.. Damnit i iwsh i had pics..i saw this on documentaries. The swastika is also a pagan symbol.

Where am i going with this? no where really. Just stating what an absence of a belief in God can lead to. Hitler was an example.

As for Materialism/Evolution/Atheism...in Anthropology, we see the three very tightly knit. Maybe not for the everyday joe like you guys..but in the grand scheme of things, ideologies lead to social change and ideas about our world.

So as an Anthropologist, i have to examine the history of these currents. That is why i talk about them in common. they are interrelated.

But come on guys..No one has given me an answer to my sperm or milk.....

ok that sounded perverted..but anyway

 

[Arikay]

"You can see this hostility when he resurrected pagan rites that were performed during military parades and the likes.. Damnit i iwsh i had pics..i saw this on documentaries. The swastika is also a pagan symbol."

Heh, yeah the Swastika is a hindu symbol I believe, and flipped its a native american symbol as well. One difference is the Nazi's turned it on its side.

Symbols are an interesting thing, and their meanings get changed quite a bit, just because it was used in another religion, does not automatically mean he is endorsing that religion.

The "jesus fish" symbol was a Pagan symbol before it was used as the Jesus fish. The Two symbols dont share too much in common in meaning, so should we deduce that Christians are really Pagans in hiding?

Another symbol that has changed around would be the Pentagram or Pentacle. Many christians Shun it as an Evil Pagan symbol, but obviously dont know its history, or they would realize that it was at one time a christian symbol.

"As for Materialism/Evolution/Atheism...in Anthropology, we see the three very tightly knit."

Then anthropologists dont understand the Theory of Evolution. Nor do they completly understand atheism if they think most atheists are materialists.

Ok guys...I have to stay..You're one stubborn bunch..I'm all alone in this thread fending off dozens of heathens!!! j/k

I'm actually enjoying myself and honing my skills..so keep it up!!

Anyway, let's go on. yes.

Hitler, eventhough he was a Christian or a Jew, i dont remember how the conspiracy goes again. He saw religion as a whole as a threat to Aryan supremacy. You can see this hostility when he resurrected pagan rites that were performed during military parades and the likes.. Damnit i iwsh i had pics..i saw this on documentaries. The swastika is also a pagan symbol.

Where am i going with this? no where really. Just stating what an absence of a belief in God can lead to. Hitler was an example.

As for Materialism/Evolution/Atheism...in Anthropology, we see the three very tightly knit. Maybe not for the everyday joe like you guys..but in the grand scheme of things, ideologies lead to social change and ideas about our world.

So as an Anthropologist, i have to examine the history of these currents. That is why i talk about them in common. they are interrelated.

But come on guys..No one has given me an answer to my sperm or milk.....

ok that sounded perverted..but anyway

 

[mo.mentum]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

I'll leave it that for tonight

Nice exchange for the day though. I feel refreshed.

Gimme something to disprove for you tomorrow.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Yes, if you want to tie them all together they fit quite well, almost like some mysterious power willed it to be

If you're a materialist then you only believe in what can be proven. So naturally this almost definetely rules out organized religion, which leaves you as either an agnostic, atheist, or in a philosophical religion. Then if you don't have a religion then you have no dogma limiting what you can accept so long as it has sufficient evidence and hasn't been debunked. Evolution fits this bill.

However if you start off as just an atheist then you may or may not be a materialist, ditto for evolution.

If you're just into evolution then you could belong to any liberal religion that doesn't rely on literal creation myths.

As for the sperm... Probabbly gonna think I'm helping you but sperm are even more complex. There are different types of sperm with each "load" (PC term? heck if I know). To really understand the evolution of sperm we need a reference point. Just looking at sperm as they are today does us no good. We'd need at least 1 point of reference, preferbbly from early ancestors. Perhaps by comparing the sperm of land mammals we could see how they vary, common traits, etc. we could find some sort of trend and see where certain attributes first appeared.

Unless there's research out there comparing different sperm samples from different mammals and people thru out time we can't really make any judgements. All we can infer is that the sperm have been strong enough to get the job done before mammals, reptiles, and birds were even around.

 

[mo.mentum]

OH YA! And no one bothered mentioning anything about the Cambrian Explosion. What do you say to that?

See! So many points ive presented have just been ignored...Go back and check my really really long posts...Plenty of counter-evolution stuff.

And i guess i will have to diffeentiate between athetists, evolutionists and materialists. God! It's so much eaiser to just bundle all you infidels together

 

[serendipity79]

Good for it. Of course this is no proof of an Inteligent Designers. Again, if a puddle finds that it fits perfectly in a hole. Can we deduce that the hole was made specifically for the puddle?

You bring this up repeatedly, How can you compare a hole in the ground to something as magnificent as the universe?

The 2 are completely un equal, nor similar in any way.

But if you realy must know, perhaps the reason a puddle fits so well into a hole is because God made it so. After all God created water and earth.

 

[Arikay]

Hmm, not your best response. It lacks, um, everything.

How about some homework for you

What was the pagan symbol that is similiar and predates the Jesus fish called?
Can we conclude that christians were trying to be pagan?

What does the Swastika mean in Hindu?
What does the swastika mean in Nazi?
What can we conclude from the two definitions?

Can an atheist have faith in something that cant be proven?


Edit: Well, quite a bit of your stuff has been ignored to try and fix some of your more glaring missunderstandings. Eventually we can get to those, however first you need to understand the basics of evolution before we can go on.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

I'll leave it that for tonight

Nice exchange for the day though. I feel refreshed.

Gimme something to disprove for you tomorrow.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

"Despite the fact that no sperm, in the entire history of sperm had the opportunity to visit this environment, get back into the male body and report what it saw.

If this system was not fully functional from day 1, then no species would have procreated. There is no trial and error, there is no slow development."

Just noticed something...

You're wrong... and you're right. You nailed the facts down as far as I can tell. You're right, the idea that human sperm, this incredibly complex system of no return couldn't have possibly just sprung up out of nowhere. However, you neglected a very important detail that you won't find on any spec sheet for sperm.

Sperm has been around for hundreds of millions of years. It has adapted for use with plants, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In it's various forms it floats thru the oceans currents, hitchhikes on bugs, is sprayed on eggs, or gets delivered the fun way. Somewhere a long time ago a very primitive sperm producing animal appeared. It's sperm must have been incredibly primitive compared to the varieties we see today. However it managed to get the job done and reproduced, ensuring a successful reproduction method. Natural selection, evolution, changing enviroments, new anatomy, sperm become better adapted since better sperm = higher chance of reproduction. This goes on for hundreds of millions of years and badda bing, you've got us. That's an incredibly blunt version but how it could have happened. To verify this we'd need fossilized sperm from at least a few in a chain of evolution. Good luck on that though, it's like asking a theist to point up in the sky and point to where God is.

 

[Arikay]

How can I compare it? Because it works well for this analogy.

They may be "un equal" but it works to get the point accross.

Yes, thats a possibility (that god made it so). But the point is to show that the most likely reason the puddle fits the whole is because the puddle (humans, and also animals, etc) conforms to the parameters of the hole, the hole does not reshape itself to fit the water. The hole came first, then the water changed to fit it, not the other way around.

For anyone who is interested in the actual quote, it is here,

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
-Douglas Adams
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

You bring this up repeatedly, How can you compare a hole in the ground to something as magnificent as the universe?

The 2 are completely un equal, nor similar in any way.

But if you realy must know, perhaps the reason a puddle fits so well into a hole is because God made it so. After all God created water and earth.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

OH YA! And no one bothered mentioning anything about the Cambrian Explosion. What do you say to that?

See! So many points ive presented have just been ignored...Go back and check my really really long posts...Plenty of counter-evolution stuff.

And i guess i will have to diffeentiate between athetists, evolutionists and materialists. God! It's so much eaiser to just bundle all you infidels together

Honestly I stopped reading what you wrote after the first page and half. What you presented then for the most part was completely wrong and off base about atheism, then the 747 analogy I browsed over made me think you were just as wrong about evolution, which you were. That and you're an arrogent SOB didn't help any either. I'm arrogent but man, even by my standards you're out there.

 

[serendipity79]

Douglas Adams is obviously not thinking deep enough to realize how poor this analogy is. It really doesn't work very well. Water fits also very well in a glass. Where did the glass come from. Perhaps the glass was made to hold water? I don't know i am just throwing possibilities that also are poor analogies.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Evolution is agnostic, it doesn't rely on a creator but it can involve one. Evolution only has problems with creationism, not creation.

The analogy still holds true. The water (life) adapts to the structure (enviroment). So long as the structure is stable so to is the water, change the structre and the water changes shape.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

As for Materialism/Evolution/Atheism...in Anthropology, we see the three very tightly knit.

If you want to get general about it, sure. As has been said: They may go together, but it is not a rule that they do so.

Ok...I just wanted to through something relevant in there. Real reason for the post: You're an Anthropologist? Interesting...Anthropology is one of my hobbies. I consider myself an amatuer Ethnologist ^^

Ok...back to your regularly schedualed thread...

 

[mo.mentum]

You bring this up repeatedly, How can you compare a hole in the ground to something as magnificent as the universe?

The 2 are completely un equal, nor similar in any way.

But if you realy must know, perhaps the reason a puddle fits so well into a hole is because God made it so. After all God created water and earth.

I know eh...If water was closer to Helium, in liquid form Helium will actually climb the walls of whatever container its in and drop to the floor. I **** you not! The properties of Helium surely wouldn't find that puddle comfortable.

Yet water, which has all sorts of balanced chemical properties (not to mention surface tension which allows trees to suck it up from the ground to the top of the tree), is perfectly suited to function on many different levels as solid, gaz and liquid...ever notice how well rounded the metric system is? 0Celsius = water turns to ice, from top to bottom none the less, so that the ocean wouldnt freeze over.

100Celsius = water boils and turns to vapor.

nice neat numbers eh?


these atheists/materialists/evolutionists have no concept of infinity...

its mathematical, friends..it kinda looks like oo but the "o"s are closer...

Oroboros, the snake which bites its own tail.