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

[mo.mentum]

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?

You've perfected the art of missing the point.

Let's see if you can see this time...

THE POINT: when ANYONE reverts to pagan beliefs and customs, with Godless ideologies, without the guiding morals and ethics brought with religion and a sincere clergy, we see death and destruction.

The symbolism has nothing to do with the meaning of the symbol to the different cultures. The fact that one adopted a well known pagan symbol for no other reason that to be an affront to religion is VERY DIFFERENT than persecuted believers of God using a symbol that can be easily connected to Jesus without raising too many eyebrows. GUERILLA TACTICS, familiar with it? The fish symbol is still used because it served a good cause and is known as such. Whereas the swastika was representing a repressive regime.

Starting getting a clue Mr!

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.

I hope you guys aren't gonna teach me the basics of evolution. if i hear one of you say some primitive animal "appeared" that had functioniong primitive sperm which then evolved...i will pull out my hair

 

[mo.mentum]

"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/

so youlike to quote comedian authors for your physics and hard conceptual work?

 

[mo.mentum]

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.

I pay back what is due

 

[mo.mentum]

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.

Ok. First you guys tell me that we can;t even know if older creatures had sperm because the fossil record only shows us bones. Right?

Now you're telling me that sperm was all around us in the oceans and everywhere yet there is no proof of this.

But to top it off, you tell me that it was working from day 1, even if it was "primitive"...i will pull my hair later...

So let's go back to the Cambrian Explosion!!! 5or6 layers down into the geological record, all we find are some varieties of single-celled [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The next layer up, there is a sudden appearance of all sorts of vertibrate and invertibrate life in the oceans and "primitive" plants on the land. All these of course must have required seed, sperm being specific to certain types.

Then all of a sudden, with no transition, we see perfectly formed eyes, skeletons, nervous and circulatory systems, plants that know how to use photosynthesis, seeds, sperm to spread the animals, eggs, etc etc etc...

If you speak truth, where is your proof! Show it to me.. i want to see it.. not conjecture..

This event alone is enough to say that complex life forms emerged with no precedent or ancestors. The fact that the later layers show just as brisk a break in the type of animals present only adds credibility to this argument.

Cambrian species had no ancestors. Zoologist Richard Dawkins, confesses: "It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there, wihtout any evolutionary history" (The blind watchmaker 1986, p229)

Darwin wrote: "If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at all once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection" Origin of Species, 1ed p302

Good luck on that though, it's like asking a theist to point up in the sky and point to where God is.

Yet again you display your ignorance of what a proper concept of God is for a believer. He will point to his heart and his mind, that is where God resides.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, yes, gotta love those Pagan godless beliefs that cause destruction. Can you tell me what destruction the pagan religion, buddhism has caused?

No, the Point was that you are mixing stuff up to fit your own views, just like you are with materialism/Evolution/atheism.


You didnt answer all of my homework questions though.

Im amazed you still dont understand the basics of evolution, was the place you learned from really that bad?

You've perfected the art of missing the point.

Let's see if you can see this time...

THE POINT: when ANYONE reverts to pagan beliefs and customs, with Godless ideologies, without the guiding morals and ethics brought with religion and a sincere clergy, we see death and destruction.

The symbolism has nothing to do with the meaning of the symbol to the different cultures. The fact that one adopted a well known pagan symbol for no other reason that to be an affront to religion is VERY DIFFERENT than persecuted believers of God using a symbol that can be easily connected to Jesus without raising too many eyebrows. GUERILLA TACTICS, familiar with it? The fish symbol is still used because it served a good cause and is known as such. Whereas the swastika was representing a repressive regime.

Starting getting a clue Mr!




I hope you guys aren't gonna teach me the basics of evolution. if i hear one of you say some primitive animal "appeared" that had functioniong primitive sperm which then evolved...i will pull out my hair

 

[Arikay]

Speaking of the Dawkins quote, maybe you should type out the rest of it, as to not missrepresent Dawkins.

 

[mo.mentum]

Ah, yes, gotta love those Pagan godless beliefs that cause destruction. Can you tell me what destruction the pagan religion, buddhism has caused?

If you understood the most basic precepts of Buddhism, it doesn't qualify as a pagan religion. It's an atheist philosophy axed on self-perception and self-improvement through trial and suffering. It encourages its followers to withdraw from the world. So the destruction here is internal, not inter-cultural.

The person believes that they will be reincarnted forever until they reach nirvana which is a state of non-existence. Thus they accept whatever situation they receive in life as part of their punishment from a previous life. Why do you think there are no uprisings in China and such places where oppression is high...

No, the Point was that you are mixing stuff up to fit your own views, just like you are with materialism/Evolution/atheism.

There is a difference between mixing up and intentionally bundling up the lot of youz together.

You didnt answer all of my homework questions though.
Im amazed you still dont understand the basics of evolution, was the place you learned from really that bad?

I've consistently presented you with opportunities to defend your points with the Cambrian explosion, sperm development, the balance in physics and at every opportunity you've just concentrated on two words that i might have wrote wrong.

Try again

The Almighty Knows Best.

 

[Arikay]

Um, Yes based on one definition of "pagan" buddhism is Pagan,

Pagan (adj):
1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.

Again, we can address the cambrian explosion later, after we have addressed more pressing matters,

Two that pop to mind are,
1) Why dont you post the rest of what Dawkins said, so that you dont misrepresent him.

2) Why are you still trying to fight atheism by attacking Evolution?

But then again, those are only the tip of the ice berg, another would be that none of your 6 points did what you said they would, they didnt even come close.

 

[Jet Black]

Thus they accept whatever situation they receive in life as part of their punishment from a previous life. Why do you think there are no uprisings in China and such places where oppression is high...

Excuse me, but you seem to know extraordinarily little about chinese culture.

also I found this on a christian website:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tiananmen.html

 

[Jet Black]

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?

because it is a scale that was invented by humans. if you look at it in absolute terms, then the freezing point of water is 214.3K ... suddenly it isn't so neat... and what have I done? I have redefined the location of the zero to be absolute zero.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, especially considering for the majority of china's history K'ung-Fu-Tse-ism was the religion of the land. Taoism was very large too, however it didnt have the Empire hold that K'ung-Fu-Tse-ism did.

 

[Jet Black]

HAH! Not true! There is a physical limit to how far we can see with telescopes. We get to a point where all we see is blackness due to the primordial dust released in the Big Bang. If you didn't know, the further we look out into space, the older things are, since light travels slowly compared to the age of the universe. The farthest back in time we can see is 300,000 years after the Big Bang, everything before that is invisible due to the opaquness of the dust. So yes, we can see quite far and we do see a beginning. SO it is not infinite, something infinite does NOT have a beginning.

your knowledge of big bang cosmology is incorrect. there was no "dust" released in the big bang, we do not see blackness because of all the dust. we do not see blackness at all.

 

[Jet Black]

I said may or may not. We can only see so far back. However we can't know if there is another universe 10^50 light years out there. And no, we don't see the beginning. You said so yourself, we are blocked by dust (thought it was plasma?) and background radiation. All we know is that 14ish billion years ago the big bang happened, we are unable to gather data about what happened prior to that. To 100% deny that anything could have happened before then is foolish.

to say that there is a universe some distance away is to fall for the same problem that lots of creationists use in attempting to debunk the big bang - it makes the big bang sound like an explosion from a definable point, where in fact it wasn't. it was an expansion of all of space time, containing matter, all of spacetime contains the same rules, and there is no scope for another universe (which would probably have different rules) within our spacetime. it may be that other spacetimes can be created from our universe (such as pinching off in black holes.

also to use the word before, is a tricky one, since it implies time, which came about in the big bang.

 

[vajradhara]

Vaj,
The laws of physics are uniform everywhere because we observe the same galactic structures whether we look at our own milky way or other galaxies far far away..it wouldn't make much scientific sense if the laws of gravity changed when you cross a certain boundary in space. Or that the nuclear force had a different range that it does closer to us. Things would be thrown out of balance and we wouldn't have the magnificient galactic structures we see today.

Namaste mo.mentum,

actually, they are not uniform everywhere, the break down at the event horizon of a Black Hole. in any event... there are other dimensions that differ from this one only by the position of one electron or one nutron, and in those dimenisons, we do not know how physics works... our observation of the universe, so far, would indicate a euclidian type of structure, however some of the most recent theories rather challenge that concept.

i look forward to the next four years or so in the astro-physics field... it should be quite interesting!

 

[vajradhara]

If you understood the most basic precepts of Buddhism, it doesn't qualify as a pagan religion. It's an atheist philosophy axed on self-perception and self-improvement through trial and suffering. It encourages its followers to withdraw from the world. So the destruction here is internal, not inter-cultural.

The person believes that they will be reincarnted forever until they reach nirvana which is a state of non-existence. Thus they accept whatever situation they receive in life as part of their punishment from a previous life. Why do you think there are no uprisings in China and such places where oppression is high...

Namaste mo.mentum,

Buddhism is not an atheist religion, which is quite plainly stated in many Sutras and Shastras. Please do not misrepresent Buddhism by presenting it as what you think that it is. Your interpetation of the teachings is not correct. If you are seriously interested in learning, i can direct you to some very knowledgeable people that will be more than happy to help you understand.

It should be clearly understood that reincarnation and rebirth are not the same thing, Buddhism does not teach reincarnation, it teaches rebirth. Also, you are vastly misinterpeting the Law of Karma which is not understood in the fashion in which you have attempted to explain it here.

there are no uprisings in China because Buddhists believe in active passive resistance. violence will never produce lasting change in society and as such, Buddhists don't engage in that as a general rule. of course, there are exceptions to every rule, however we are speaking of the teachings themselves, not the adherents as individuals.

 

[vajradhara]

Yeah, especially considering for the majority of china's history K'ung-Fu-Tse-ism was the religion of the land. Taoism was very large too, however it didnt have the Empire hold that K'ung-Fu-Tse-ism did.

Namaste Arikay,

whilst this is true for a certain period of time... recall that at one point Taoism was the state religion for all of the Chin empire... and they were, at one point, co-state religions. It came to pass that the testing for civil servants consisted of knowledge of the I Ching, Tao Te Ching and Analects. When Bodhidharma came to China... things really got interesting... as it also heralded a resurgance of Taoism, espeically the Complete Reality School.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah.

One thing to point out is that buddhism, is or can be an atheist religion. Atheism being the lack of belief in a god. Just like Taoism.

 

[vajradhara]

Yeah.

One thing to point out is that buddhism, is or can be an atheist religion. Atheism being the lack of belief in a god. Just like Taoism.

Namaste Arikay,

hmm... well, i would not concur with that interpetation. the Sutras clearly indicate that the Buddha taught men and gods.

i suppose you could say that it is atheist in that Buddhists don't believe that gods are eternal nor omnipotent though that would certainly be a novel interpetation

as for Taoism... it really depends on the school in question. without doubt the religious taoists held there to be gods.. the Three Taoist Immortals, for instance. however, religious Taoism is mostly non-existent today. what has continued down is the philosophical and alchemical schools of Taoism, most broadly represented by the Northern and Southern Schools of Complete Reality. so, i suppose it would depend on which type of Taoism we are discussing.. however, the philosophical and alchemical schools do not hold there to be diety of any type.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

"Ok. First you guys tell me that we can;t even know if older creatures had sperm because the fossil record only shows us bones. Right?"

Again you're only half right. Soft body parts are very hard to preserve, especially for hundreds of millions of years. We can't pin down the exact time because of the incomplete fossil record. However we can deduce that by the time complicated lifeforms came onto the scene that they did not reproduce by dividing or regenerating after being divided. The only other known way of reproducing is by sperm/egg.


"Now you're telling me that sperm was all around us in the oceans and everywhere yet there is no proof of this."

I was referring to corals who have been around for 470 million years (also a relative of the jellyfish). They sexually reproduce by spraying their sperm and eggs into the ocean and just leaving it up to chance.


"But to top it off, you tell me that it was working from day 1, even if it was "primitive"...i will pull my hair later..."

You misunderstood. Odds are it took quite a few tries before viable sperm were produced. We can't examine exactly what happened because the record is lost to time. However there is precedence for life being both sexual and asexual (see the coral example above)so even if sperm failed they could fall back on asexual reproduction.


"So let's go back to the Cambrian Explosion!!! 5or6 layers down into the geological record, all we find are some varieties of single-celled [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The next layer up, there is a sudden appearance of all sorts of vertibrate and invertibrate life in the oceans and "primitive" plants on the land. All these of course must have required seed, sperm being specific to certain types."

You are incorrect and completely skipped over the Vendian period. There is a progression from microscopic to macroscopic organisms during this period. There have also been small mineralized skeletons and small shell life found dating to this era. There were also sponges.



"Then all of a sudden, with no transition, we see perfectly formed eyes, skeletons, nervous and circulatory systems, plants that know how to use photosynthesis, seeds, sperm to spread the animals, eggs, etc etc etc..."

Again, you're skipping over so much data. None of what you claimed magically jumped into the record, there were precedence before them.

-Photosensitive single celled organisms predate eyes. In flatworms, some of the earliest worms, they don't have eyes but they have photosensitive clusters of cells, a very crude eye so to speak.

-Look into the Ediacaran Fauna fossil record. They are the suspected precursors to trilobites who existed in both the Vendian and Cambrain periods.

-Photosynthetic cells and colonies of cells predate plants.



"If you speak truth, where is your proof! Show it to me.. i want to see it.. not conjecture.."

Check

"This event alone is enough to say that complex life forms emerged with no precedent or ancestors. The fact that the later layers show just as brisk a break in the type of animals present only adds credibility to this argument."

You ignored so much evidence that your entire accusation is unfounded. The only thing you got right was that there are spurts of evolution, often brought about by drastic changes in the enviroment.




I showed you mine, now you show me yours disproving that this happened and that those creatures were placed there by an invisible man.

 

[revolutio]

That's the point. If the universe WAS infinite, then yes anything can happen.

But the fact is, it's NOT infinite. It has a beginning and an end. Big Bang and Big Crunch.

The universe is finite. It is the multiverse that is infinite. However you are also wrong in saying that the universe is finite in regards to time. The Big Crunch has recently been disproved.

The wide array of universal constants (Planck, Avogadro, Light Speed, Hubble, Electronic charge, Boltzmann, etc..) are testimony to a designed environment with delicate balances. These numbers are not random. This universe isnt what it is because all these constants found the "right" combination to support quarks, protons, atoms, molecules, life, planets, stars and galaxies.

I already explained this man. There are an infinite number of universes with those constants all set 'incorrectly' but for us to even be here right now they had to be correct. We are not lucky, sentient life is incapable of being 'unlucky' in this case.

All the laws of physics work uniformaly in all time and space.

Ehh probably across space however they certainly aren't across time. But we don't know how things acted exactly during the Big Bang.

A little too many "perfect" coincidences. Yes no? I mean, I'm not one to gamble, and with those odds, i wouldn't foolishly part with my money.

You are right the odds of us being randomly inserted into a universe with those correct numbers are insanely against us. However sentient life can only arise in those universes so it isn't a gamble at all. We had to be in one of those universes, so to speak.

All that I said of course assumes that the Many-World Interpretation is correct.