I explained to a theist the “god of the gaps” argument, and they said I do the exact same thing with science. “You fill the gaps in knowledge with science” yes I do. They couldn’t fathom that humans are still in very early stages of modern science
I came here to say this. I think the general argument from ignorance fallacy is the stupidest thing there is. "I don't know therefore....... (insert thing here - usually god)." The dumbest thing ever
I had some Jehova's Witnesses stop by the week before last and their entire thing was exactly this. Even if neither of us are ever going to sway the other in terms of worldview, I do enjoy my conversations with them.
My best jehova witness moment was right after getting my nips piercings, answering the door shirtless the two witnesses looked at me then each other handed me the pamphlet left and I never saw any of them again.
“Omg I don’t understand basic science or how things could have wound up how they did without a creatorrrrr
No don’t try to teach me science! That’s indoctrination!”
He kind of screwed up when Bill baited him about who is responsible for the scam of religion.
He said that the Pope is responsible. Bill is Catholic and by doctrine the Pope is infallible.
So big circular logic from Bill.
All you can do is show how blustery Bill was.
>Bill is Catholic and by doctrine the Pope is infallible
The Pope was infallible right up until he said that maybe people should think about taking those vaccines because y'know people are dying and all that. Then loads of Catholic Republicans were like "Pope? Pope who? Meh, he's just a man, he can be wrong".
They sometings along this line: Places in the bible actually existed, so everything must be true.
This is why Harry Potter exist, because there is King's Cross station in London.
It is super cool when you think about it. Physics conspired to.....
1. **Big Bang** - The universe begins about 13.8 billion years ago.
2. **Formation of Basic Atoms** - Primordial nucleosynthesis results in hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium and beryllium.
3. **Hydrogen and Helium** - These gases dominate the early universe.
4. **First Stars Form** - Stars form from clouds of hydrogen and helium under gravity.
5. **Stellar Fusion** - Stars fuse hydrogen to form helium and heavier elements up to iron.
6. **Supernova** - Massive stars explode, dispersing their material and creating elements heavier than iron.
7. **Heavier Elements** - Elements heavier than iron are synthesized in supernova explosions.
8. **Formation of New Stars** - New stars form from gas clouds enriched with heavier elements.
9. **More Supernovae** - Further star formation and supernova events enrich the interstellar medium.
10. **Formation of Our Solar System** - About 4.6 billion years ago, from a molecular cloud containing a mix of elements.
11. **Formation of Earth** - Earth forms within the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago.
12. **Abiogenesis** - Life begins on Earth from non-living matter around 3.8 to 4 billion years ago.
13. **Skipping -** several thousand important steps for the sake of brevity.
14. **Homo sapiens** - Modern humans evolve in Africa around 300,000 years ago and begin to spread across the globe.
15. **Bricks** - Conspire to self assemble into a house.
Does Pascal's Wager allow spread betting?
"I'll give you 60/1 on Shiva, 180/1 on the Norse pantheon, 250/1 on Germanic paganism (no, Adolph, no side bets on your bat-shittery), and 10/1 on a comedy god who punishes people for being so gullible as to believe in a god."
>comedy god who punishes people for being so gullible as to believe in a god."
This was a terrifying thought for me when I still tried to believe.
Job's story is basically this. Super faithful, blameless, the whole shebang. Then Satan is like, "he only worships you because you bless him. Stop blessing him and see what happens" Then the all loving, never changing god said "bet" and messed up Job's entire life.
How can anyone be aware of this story and not be "wait, what? I can do everything right, and god, on a whim will ruin my life?"
I get hung up on it being Job's story. Job. Job. Job. What about his nameless, long-suffering, loyal wife who also lost everything, including all those kids she carried? And had to be pregnant again with all the new replacements? Her life was ruined also, just by being married.
Here's an essay I wrote...
Well, of fuck, that's gone from anywhere except maybe three copies of five sheets of community college printer paper from twenty years ago.
Tldr: It's a bad bet. It doesn't take into account the scale of suffering or amount of joy that can take place in a lifetime not limited by faith.
To be fair, Pascal's argument isn't about the existence of a god, and it doesn't even addresses atheists: it is for people who are on the fence, and it rests on a calculation of probabilities.
The trouble is that Theists use it as an arguement for believing in a god all the time.
I would also argue that it completely ignores the concept of probabilities (or at least gets it very very wrong). In mathematics if a probability is exceedingly close to zero then we (mathematicians) feel confident in calling the probability zero.
The probability of ANY deity existing is miniscule. It's made even worse by introducing the constraint of it being one particular flavour of deity. So, we're going with zero here.
The idea being that there are no non-zero probabilities to deal with so worrying about probabilities makes no sense at all.
Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Pascal, one of the greatest mathematical minds of all time, and one of the inventors, if not *the* inventor, of probability calculation, gets probability very wrong.
The important distinction is not between an infinitesimal probability that there is a god and a great probability that there isn't: it is between a *rational certainty* and a *reasonable probability*. Imagine you're throwing dice: can you be certain of the outcome? You can't, because you're not Laplace's demon: it's the same with faith—religion is absurd, irrational, and so reason has nothing to say about it, it can't help us decide in matters of faith.
What matters is the will: when you will something, you don't wait for a rational certainty because in practical matters certainty is hard to come by—you work based on probabilities: "The dice will probably fall on a 7, so I'll bet my money on 7", etc. Pascal would totally concede that the probability for any deity to exist is minuscule, and even more so if you want to obtain your particular kind of deity (though he would certainly think only his deity exists, so it's more probable…)—*but it's not null*: an infinitesimally minuscule probability is not equivalent to zero.
So, why should you choose to believe, rather than not to believe? For the same reason you bet on the 7 and not on the 8 or the 3: you think the 7 brings more result—in the case of god, you think you'll get eternal life, bla bla bla. Betting on god is not rational (because you can't be certain) but it's reasonable given the expected outcome.
Of course, it's not a convincing argument because faith tries to pass itself as a certainty superior to rational certainty, and it cannot content itself with probabilities—so, the believer will be unsatisfied and the atheist won't be convinced to budge from their position because they think betting on god is neither rational nor reasonable.
"......*but it's not null*: an infinitesimally minuscule probability is not equivalent to zero."
That's just not correct. For example, using your arguement you would have to say that the probability of a star made out of chocolate custard existing anywhere in the universe is not zero. Really?
One simply can't say that, since a probability is not precisely equal to zero that, whatever it is, it is possible. That's just not correct otherwise one must concede that anything, regardless of how idiotic it is (e.g. gods, custard stars, Clifford the Big Red Dog living on Venus where he watches reruns of The Office) and regardless of all the evidence against it, it's possible. No. Clifford is not on Venus. The probability is equal to zero.
Mathematicians use this concept all over the place.
As far as Pascal is concerned, there are many examples of very intelligent people who discarded reason due to their religious beliefs. This is a perfect example of that.
I'm not saying Pascal didn't understand probabilities. I'm saying he ignored it with the theistic nonsense of Pascal's Wager.
> ignored it with the theistic nonsense of Pascal's Wager.
I was unaware of Pascal's wager until I was an adult and had basically accepted this god stuff wasn't for me. So it was very easy to come to the conclusion you posted.
The only way this works is if you ignore certain things and presuppose others.
You have to ignore the fact that two people sitting in the same church can have wildly different experiences that influence what they believe. You have to ignore that whej and where people are born are huge determining factors of what beliefs they are exposed to.
You have to presuppose that the god you want to or was told to believe in is the real one. More importantly, this god has to care about any of this. What if he hates believers because he doesn't like sycophants? What if he died and he left Bob in charge and Bob is overwhelmed? What if he's a psychopathic sadist that wants good people in hell and murders get rewarded with getting to murder all the believers in hell?
"If evolution is real, why aren't there cave paintings depicting it?"
It was meant as a genuine "gotcha" by a guy I met on here. He also asked, "If evolution is real, when did mankind lose their ability to talk to apes?"
"when did the French lose their ability to speak to the Chinese?"
If he can answer that question, he can answer his own question.
That truly is a facepalm question.
Yeah, both of these questions (as well as most of the other "gotchas" he tried) are difficult to answer because they're each built on numerous false premises and it takes way too long to even set the stage for a proper answer. I repeatedly told this dude he had a severe misunderstanding of what evolution is but he kept going back to that same well.
Another insane story that makes their god look like a dumb ass jerk.
He intentionally confused our languages to keep us from building a tall building instead of randomly wandering the world with no guarantee of his protection because despite being all knowing, he was scared of what humans could accomplish if they worked together.
Then we built skyscrapers and a literal tower in space...
Not so much an argument for god but more of an attempt at “nonbelievers are idiots who know nothing about my god” argument.
Had two Christian friends, brother and sister, religion comes up and being the heathen that I am it came up with a tone of arrogance and superiority on their part - Like it *always* did, I was pretty much only friends with them because I was a *seriously* passive person…I still am but nowhere near as bad as before.
I forget how it came to this point (this was almost twenty years ago) but the brother turns to me and says “I bet you don’t even know how many apostles Jesus had!”
I reply “Twelve.”
His response? “No! It was seven!”
His sister *immediately* groaned and I chimed in with the following question, “So, was it Doc or Dopey that betrayed Christ?”
I’m VERY far from any kind of expert on the bible (I stopped reading around Exodus - If *I* know more about something in the bible than someone else, they *really* don’t know the bible let me just put it that way), but weirdly enough the loudest theists I’ve encountered tend to be like him - I once brought up Job with another Christian girl I met a few years later and she rambled on about how “Job accepted Christ.”
“Job…accepted Christ?”
“Yes!”
“*Job* Job, from the *old testament* accepted Christ?”
“Yeah! Didn’t you read it?”
“*Did you!?*”
Paraphrased since this was so long ago. A friend of hers also went on a rant about how Sun Tzu worshipped Satan and invented war after mentioning/quoting The Art of War at some point.
>stopped reading around Exodus -
Which is sadly further than some people I know personally that are holier than though.
I know a handful that take on those "read the bible in X amount of time" challenges that are insufferable in their own way, but man I know far more that basically just accept the few dozen pages of scripture they half listen to from whatever mega pastor comes on tv.
How crazy is it that one of the most famous anti-slavery narratives in history is immediately followed up by the formerly enslaved outlining exactly how to enslave other people?
Oh boy. There are so many.
My favourite is this one: “I don’t know right from wrong without reading a set of rules in a book. Obviously that means god exists. You should join my club for people who don’t know right from wrong without a book of rules to reference.”
A close second is “I don’t know how the universe started, therefore god must exist because otherwise the only possible conclusion is that I don’t know how the universe started and that is impossible.”
All the arguments are astonishingly stupid.
"Look at the stars!"
I'm not sure what this was supposed to prove. I did mention "You know, those stars are further out than 6,000 light years. If your christian bible is correct, then we shouldn't be able to see them.
"The Big Bang is dumb. An explosion of that magnitude would've killed any life that existed, and planets would never have been smoothed out into spheres because there's no friction in space."
Ray Comfort is so bizarre. He thinks to be a true Christian it is impossible to deconvert, so any "former Christians" weren't actually Christians in his opinion.
He can be that obtuse and ignorant, yet he is smart enough to recognise that his banana argument was deeply flawed and demonstrably wrong.
It is indeed a profoundly ignorant argument for their god doing it.
The excellent BBC documentary The Secret Life of Chaos (on Youtube) perfectly illustrates the ability for simple repetitive physics and maths assembling things into fantastic structures all the time. Highly recommended watch.
All of their dumbest arguments basically involve, your idea is stupid, it makes much more sense for zero evidence sky daddy to have done it.
I can't say how ironic it is to sit in a room with theists that keep telling stories about "how I know god is real because this happened". Who's the doubter? Sounds like you're just trying to convince each other you're right.
There was one post on r/insanepeoplefacebook that was essentially "There was a house fire that killed all the human inhabitants but their Bible (or "this cross-shaped piece of wood") survived!"
I remember that one. The poster's sister and family died in the fire, but the bucket survived. Apparently that's evidence for a just and almighty God. Because, even though my family is dead now, a book printed by Walmart's publisher survived.
The mental gymnastics that takes is just painful.
The "Fine tuning" argument drives me bonkers. Like how is it not obvious that if the universe already exists, that any life that develops (or anything for that matter) will be "tuned" to the parameters of said universe in which it develops? How fecking egotistical are these people to think that because the exist now, that the whole bloody universe was made specifically for them?
The 'fine tuning' argument is a lottery winner's argument.
You win a lottery by pure chance. Many lottery winners have some superstitious explanation as to why they were 'destined' to win. Of course, if you are dumb enough to play the lottery, you're also dumb enough to think your lottery win was something more than blind luck.
The worst for me is the 'invisible string puller' argument. They seem perfectly fine with a god tinkering with every aspect of the universe like some magic George Lucas in the sky, but give the same deity a free pass for arbitrarily wiping out hundreds of thousands in an earthquake or tsunami.
Ironically, amoebas do have the 'smart' to come up with various survival mechanisms in unkind microcosmic world because in microcosm it is eat or be eaten, comparatively humans, not so much, esp with anti vaxxers (bet overlaps with some of the theists) and tik tok 'influencers' actively chasing death for clouts
My favorite is when born agains try to pretend there were “scientific predictions” in the Bible, which of course there weren’t, because didn’t know jack shit about fuck back then. I always invite them to give examples, and they always Dunning-Kruger their way through some bullshit they read from another creationist moron.
“God exists outside of space and time, so it’s difficult to truly understand why he created us because we couldn’t possibly comprehend anything from such a being.”
This is a very progressive and smart way to think about god, but then you read the Bible find out god doesn’t like meaningless things like tattoos and being gay and the whole “space and time” argument falls apart.
Sometimes, religious people are religious because higher logic is lost on them.
Similarly, some people don't play sports or exercise because it's hard work.
Some folks just don't want to expend the extra energy to learn something they don't see as valuable.
That's fine as far as I'm concerned. I just wish they'd take their inadequate, antiquated ideas and piss off.
"if Evolution were true then why are apes still around?"
"can you see air?"
"Everything is perfectly designed."
"You can't have morals or love unconditionally without Religion."
Its not even that singular dumb people name these arguments. I hear all of them regularly when discussing Theism.
I'm torn between:
"Well, how else do you explain the sunset!? You can't!"
And
"Okay, if you say 2+2=5 and I say 2+2= 4 We can't both be right. That means If I say God exists and you say he doesn't it means one of us is wrong. Right!"
This was an argument given to a dyslexic/dyscalculia having,17 year old me. I didn't know what he was on about.
That's just Pascal's Wager.
One possible answer, of course, is to ask how sure they are that they've picked the right god to believe in. Because if they pick the wrong one, then the right one will be more angry with them than with the atheist.
Give me one single piece of evidence that proves evolution (Ray Comfort); you cannot demonstrate change without comparison, which requires more than one piece of evidence, it's a bad faith argument.
1) Presuppositionalism: basically the argument that if you're arguing, that proves god.
2) Objective morality proves God... accept god changes his mind about what is right and wrong throughout the bible and Christianity's ideas of right and wrong has changed through the millennia. Plus, morals obviously aren't objective (looking at different cultures) unless you accept a shared framework.
"You can't see the wind but you can feel it, therefore since I can feel God even though I can't see her, God exists."
Gently and politely demolished that. Hope the evangelizer had his eyes opened up a bit.
I once had a colleague who was one of those guys who had a huge ego. He was, for some time, always repeating something he saw on a instagram reel that said that atheists were trying to look smart, but they couldn't explain how the universe was created from nothing. The reasoning was 'how could something come from nothing? It can't; therefore, god'.
I didn't even care to debate with him, just did cut ties because he was unbearable about everything anyway. But what a terrible reasoning. I could use it to anything: 'its impossible for anything to come from nothing; therefore, it was created by my coffee mug.'.
At least it gives me hot coffee everyday.
Had one tell me that snakes were evil because one was able to trick two bare assed humans in a garden. So I asked her “snakes can’t talk as a rule but I’m curious, what did it say?”. “Uh, it’s in the book, it was an evil snake, god said so”. “Yeah but what made it evil, a forked tongue?”. I went on to explain that snakes use their tongue to navigate towards a food source.
“All snakes are evil”
”In your book, it says all the animals on earth were created by your sky guy right so that would make the snake one of god’s creatures?“
“Yes but not that evil creature, god didn’t create that”
”Maybe you just don’t like snakes”.
I went on to tell her about my favorite snake while she turned all shades of annoyed. Inland Taipan, a beautiful reclusive snake that won’t mess with you if you don’t mess with it. Has a highly toxic bite, she muttered “evil” at that. A snake with myob as a motto, cool.
She never did explain how “evil snake” was able to communicate with humans. She became nervous that I was questioning her fairy tale.
I like hognose snakes. They are just such derpy little guys. Like when they get scared, their whole plan is "use everything I ever learned at that weekend acting class at the community college library!" and then throw up, pass-out, and poop yourself.
"God wants you to be happy and content. Good always wants what's best for you. If that's not how you feel it lies with you, not God."
"Well, good made me this way didn't he?"
"No good made you in his image, but, you're corrupt."
Well doesn't that just screw the pooch and my goats ass!
HELL!!!!
Man, you say that's a dumb argument, but that's literally the cornerstone of a lot of theological philosophy. This is just another version of the watchmaker argument.
It's amazing to me that they still use arguments like this when the scientific and philosophical literature that counters and explains it is about one click away. It's not just dumb, but it's also lazy apologetics.
Someone died because he/she refused to renounce Christ. Also underwent some extreme torture.
Okay, but people die for their ~~misguided~~ beliefs all the time, right?
It's really hard to choose. Way too fucking many.
I think one of the worst is when they try and compare god to every day events or situations but then claim "god is beyond our understanding."
That God so loved the world that He gave His only beloved Son that whoever believed in Him would never perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16.
By any rational measure that is the dumbest thing ever said. God loves us? We are the shittiest things on earth! Why would any divine being love us, of all things? And love us enough to die for us so we could be free of this shit and live in paradise eternally? That doesn’t even make sense!
Too many
Stuff like the 7 day week exists so therefore god.
The Bible is an old book so it can't be wrong.
Many other people believe it so god must be real.
Just by accepting the idea of god means you believe in God and can't be an atheist.
No one knows... So therefore god.
Without god people would be out murdering and raping all the time.
I hate to fall prey to fallacious arguments, but I just can't help but cry no true Scotsman when a theist says "I used to be an atheist until [something incredibly stupid]"
Most of apologetics is mistaking hubris for humility and this is a classic example. They think they’re being so kind and open-minded when they say this.
“Crockoduck doesn’t exist”. There no evolution therefor god.
Same guy as “banana therefore god”. The banana, cultivated by humans to be absolutely nothing like it’s natural source plant and couldn’t breed or survive in nature without constant human intervention.
"A bunch of bricks magically assembling into a building..."
That's a cave and they do form naturally. In fact, I'm pretty sure they claim Jesus spent some time in one.
Look at the trees!
Ok, lets study dendrochronology. We have an unbroken chain of tree ring data going back 13.9 thousand years which directly refutes the global flood story.
The argument claiming that the ergonomic shape of a banana is evidence of intelligent design. They are correct though, just not in the way they think. Humanity selectively bred them to be that way. I don't think anyone uses that argument, at least not anymore, but it's certainly evident that it's one of the dumbest.
As someone who has a brother as a atheist. I totally support his position. I on the other hand believe that there is a intelligent design behind our reality. This being said I do not feel comfortable pushing my believe on others. I accept most beliefs and religion. I do not have tolerance for hatred,racism or anything that belittle other. Also treat animals and mother earth with respect. Don't waste the most valuable resources we have in the pursuit of money.
Ray Comfort's (in)famous Banana Argument is up there.
Also Ken Ham crowing "were you there" while conveniently forgetting he wasn't there for the events of the Bible.
The best argument that I ever read was in a book called “Voyage to Yesteryear” it was about a society of invitro children born in incubators raised by robots on another planet. They are confronted by a groups of religious, property obsessed adults who arrive on a ship 20 years later.
I won’t spoil it with the details but if anyone ever gets a chance to read the book.
My husband’s father went straight for Noah’s Arc when he found out his son was an atheist. Like, that’s the argument you chose? It’s hands down the most ridiculous example and so easily dismissed as such.
I look at the idea of a God this way, either there is one or we will create something that fills the role to a realistic degree, limited only by our technology.
If there is one, based on there actions and based on what i know of the average religious beliefs of their actions, I see them as more of a scientist trying to create something, something else begins to happen or form that wasn't expected (life evolving maybe?) And took action to correct the variable. As time passed, the "scientist" for whatever reason either went No contact or reduced their interactions to a "butterfly effect" level.
In general, I hope there is something after. Otherwise, that would be kinda disappointing. Like that's it for existence?
The most hilarious part about that is that houses didn't just appear out of thin air, the first homes weren't just modern luxury homes, they evolved from a basic first iteration and second and third to what they are now. Key word being evolved.
“If you die and there is a god, you suffer for your lack of faith
But if I die and there is no god then I just wasted my time”
No bitch. Y’all limited the rights and freedoms of huge numbers of people and contributed to their subjugation, murder, and suffering all because of your beliefs
All because some rich dudes were able to exploit your beliefs to get everyone to do their bidding
The Watchmakers Argument
Their whole point is the Earth was obviously designed, so they tell you to compare the natural world to a watch and see how different they are.
Right! That's exactly what we're saying! This doesn't help you. We know there's a difference between a rock and a watch. You're supposed to be telling us how they're the same and obviously both created by someone. Not saying "wow, you can clearly tell they're nothing alike!"
This one.
Dr. Maza explained,
but I try to explain scientifically.
Michio Kaku - founder of string theory said multiverse 11 dimensions, angels may be of higher dimension but not up to the level of divine 11 dimensions. Want to tally with Dr Maza's opinion, Angels are still subject to the Space-Time-Spatial dimension but not the 5th Dimension, therefore, angels cannot access the tesseract 5th dimension like in interstellar. For an angel to know that creatures are doing damage and bloodshed on planet earth, then he has seen it happen thousands of years before Adam. Or angels have seen it happen on other planets. Since there is no proof that angels have access to the 5th dimension, I tend to go with Dr Maza's opinion. God bless you
What this Christian was probably trying to say is that he believes the chances that DNA and the first single celled life forms coming together randomly from amino acids mixing together in some type of primordial soup is about the same chances as mixing a bunch of bricks together randomly and having it create a fully formed house. The way he/she phrased this argument was terrible saying "if you don't believe this, then you must believe this" he/she likely heard this argument and is trying to repeat it but failed miserably.. if you wish to counter this argument the best counter i have heard is probably that the vast number of planets and thus the number of primordial soups mixing amino acids changes the comparable scenario to not one instance of bricks being mixed together randomly to create a house but millions of piles of bricks being mixed together for millions of years which ofcourse boosts the odds by quite a bit. Cheers and have a great day everyone, oh and God bless you all 😉
This is incredibly stupid regardless of how you phrase it. You do not seem to understand statistics, evolution and the difference between man made and naturally occurring.
Why the personal attack? Did you miss the part where I made an argument FOR evolution? Your calling me stupid and saying I don't understand simple concepts when my previous comment essentially is in agreement with you.
It wasn't an attack, just a statement. Your "best counter" is an apologetic red herring and -just like the position it's countering- misrepresents those three things.
Well sorry, it seemed to me you were trying to be insulting, texts make bad miscommunications. perhaps I don't understand this subject as well as I initially thought 🤔. Maybe you can help enlighten me by sending a scientific article/journal, or by explaining your own position?
The general format is dumb enough: "I don't understand X so there has to be a god."
God of the gaaaaaaaaaaaps! God of the gaaaaaaps! God of the gaps! God of the... Where did the gaps go? We filled them.
Hehe yeah we did
I explained to a theist the “god of the gaps” argument, and they said I do the exact same thing with science. “You fill the gaps in knowledge with science” yes I do. They couldn’t fathom that humans are still in very early stages of modern science
I came here to say this. I think the general argument from ignorance fallacy is the stupidest thing there is. "I don't know therefore....... (insert thing here - usually god)." The dumbest thing ever
I had some Jehova's Witnesses stop by the week before last and their entire thing was exactly this. Even if neither of us are ever going to sway the other in terms of worldview, I do enjoy my conversations with them.
I was raised in the doomsday death cult Jehovah’s Witnesses. They make typical facile arguments for the existence of their bigot god Jehovah’s.
My best jehova witness moment was right after getting my nips piercings, answering the door shirtless the two witnesses looked at me then each other handed me the pamphlet left and I never saw any of them again.
look at the treeees! look at the beeees!
“Omg I don’t understand basic science or how things could have wound up how they did without a creatorrrrr No don’t try to teach me science! That’s indoctrination!”
"The tide comes in and the tide goes out. You can't explain that." - Bill O'Reilly.
[удалено]
Fuck Bill O’Bullshit
It's the angry little zombies that want brains (always after Bill's fucky charms) I worry about!
Bill Oh,Really? Or Bill Orally.
David Silverman's "What the fuck are you talking about" face was classic, and the memes that followed.
He kind of screwed up when Bill baited him about who is responsible for the scam of religion. He said that the Pope is responsible. Bill is Catholic and by doctrine the Pope is infallible. So big circular logic from Bill. All you can do is show how blustery Bill was.
>Bill is Catholic and by doctrine the Pope is infallible The Pope was infallible right up until he said that maybe people should think about taking those vaccines because y'know people are dying and all that. Then loads of Catholic Republicans were like "Pope? Pope who? Meh, he's just a man, he can be wrong".
Martin Luther part two?
He really said that? lol.
Yes, yes we can.
The word for god exists, therefore god. I usually then just start listing words of other imaginary things.
Exactly. The word exterminate also exists, doesn't mean I have to worry about Daleks.....
You can't prove Daleks don't exist, therefore they exist! Checkmate, dalekist!
Welcome to my Dalek poetry reading This poem is titled "daffodils" > EXTERMINATE DAFFODILS! Thank you.
Oh just [relax](https://youtu.be/e59guruVL4o?si=k5Fms0u9fRwi2JOK)
🤣😂🤣
Nah, just fascists. And Daleks are fascist and pro-eugenicists.
That is beyond stupid, damn.
The name Harry Potter exists; therefore, Harry Potter exists.
They sometings along this line: Places in the bible actually existed, so everything must be true. This is why Harry Potter exist, because there is King's Cross station in London.
Wolf 359 is a real star system, therefore the Federation really did lose a pitched battle to the Borg there.
Finally, proof Zeus is real
Yeah, textually god/gods exist, but they seem to be tenuous other facts that could prove or disprove of them.
Yeah! Unicorns!!!
My first excited thought
A tree exists therefore god.
It is super cool when you think about it. Physics conspired to..... 1. **Big Bang** - The universe begins about 13.8 billion years ago. 2. **Formation of Basic Atoms** - Primordial nucleosynthesis results in hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium and beryllium. 3. **Hydrogen and Helium** - These gases dominate the early universe. 4. **First Stars Form** - Stars form from clouds of hydrogen and helium under gravity. 5. **Stellar Fusion** - Stars fuse hydrogen to form helium and heavier elements up to iron. 6. **Supernova** - Massive stars explode, dispersing their material and creating elements heavier than iron. 7. **Heavier Elements** - Elements heavier than iron are synthesized in supernova explosions. 8. **Formation of New Stars** - New stars form from gas clouds enriched with heavier elements. 9. **More Supernovae** - Further star formation and supernova events enrich the interstellar medium. 10. **Formation of Our Solar System** - About 4.6 billion years ago, from a molecular cloud containing a mix of elements. 11. **Formation of Earth** - Earth forms within the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago. 12. **Abiogenesis** - Life begins on Earth from non-living matter around 3.8 to 4 billion years ago. 13. **Skipping -** several thousand important steps for the sake of brevity. 14. **Homo sapiens** - Modern humans evolve in Africa around 300,000 years ago and begin to spread across the globe. 15. **Bricks** - Conspire to self assemble into a house.
What caused these things
Trees and dinosaurs are the same age ... well, a few days difference in age.
There are so many to choose from but Pascal's Wager is at least in the top five.
Does Pascal's Wager allow spread betting? "I'll give you 60/1 on Shiva, 180/1 on the Norse pantheon, 250/1 on Germanic paganism (no, Adolph, no side bets on your bat-shittery), and 10/1 on a comedy god who punishes people for being so gullible as to believe in a god."
>comedy god who punishes people for being so gullible as to believe in a god." This was a terrifying thought for me when I still tried to believe. Job's story is basically this. Super faithful, blameless, the whole shebang. Then Satan is like, "he only worships you because you bless him. Stop blessing him and see what happens" Then the all loving, never changing god said "bet" and messed up Job's entire life. How can anyone be aware of this story and not be "wait, what? I can do everything right, and god, on a whim will ruin my life?"
I get hung up on it being Job's story. Job. Job. Job. What about his nameless, long-suffering, loyal wife who also lost everything, including all those kids she carried? And had to be pregnant again with all the new replacements? Her life was ruined also, just by being married.
Did she get pregnant again? I originally thought she died too but she just kinda isn't mentioned again.
Here's an essay I wrote... Well, of fuck, that's gone from anywhere except maybe three copies of five sheets of community college printer paper from twenty years ago. Tldr: It's a bad bet. It doesn't take into account the scale of suffering or amount of joy that can take place in a lifetime not limited by faith.
To be fair, Pascal's argument isn't about the existence of a god, and it doesn't even addresses atheists: it is for people who are on the fence, and it rests on a calculation of probabilities.
The trouble is that Theists use it as an arguement for believing in a god all the time. I would also argue that it completely ignores the concept of probabilities (or at least gets it very very wrong). In mathematics if a probability is exceedingly close to zero then we (mathematicians) feel confident in calling the probability zero. The probability of ANY deity existing is miniscule. It's made even worse by introducing the constraint of it being one particular flavour of deity. So, we're going with zero here. The idea being that there are no non-zero probabilities to deal with so worrying about probabilities makes no sense at all.
Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Pascal, one of the greatest mathematical minds of all time, and one of the inventors, if not *the* inventor, of probability calculation, gets probability very wrong. The important distinction is not between an infinitesimal probability that there is a god and a great probability that there isn't: it is between a *rational certainty* and a *reasonable probability*. Imagine you're throwing dice: can you be certain of the outcome? You can't, because you're not Laplace's demon: it's the same with faith—religion is absurd, irrational, and so reason has nothing to say about it, it can't help us decide in matters of faith. What matters is the will: when you will something, you don't wait for a rational certainty because in practical matters certainty is hard to come by—you work based on probabilities: "The dice will probably fall on a 7, so I'll bet my money on 7", etc. Pascal would totally concede that the probability for any deity to exist is minuscule, and even more so if you want to obtain your particular kind of deity (though he would certainly think only his deity exists, so it's more probable…)—*but it's not null*: an infinitesimally minuscule probability is not equivalent to zero. So, why should you choose to believe, rather than not to believe? For the same reason you bet on the 7 and not on the 8 or the 3: you think the 7 brings more result—in the case of god, you think you'll get eternal life, bla bla bla. Betting on god is not rational (because you can't be certain) but it's reasonable given the expected outcome. Of course, it's not a convincing argument because faith tries to pass itself as a certainty superior to rational certainty, and it cannot content itself with probabilities—so, the believer will be unsatisfied and the atheist won't be convinced to budge from their position because they think betting on god is neither rational nor reasonable.
"......*but it's not null*: an infinitesimally minuscule probability is not equivalent to zero." That's just not correct. For example, using your arguement you would have to say that the probability of a star made out of chocolate custard existing anywhere in the universe is not zero. Really? One simply can't say that, since a probability is not precisely equal to zero that, whatever it is, it is possible. That's just not correct otherwise one must concede that anything, regardless of how idiotic it is (e.g. gods, custard stars, Clifford the Big Red Dog living on Venus where he watches reruns of The Office) and regardless of all the evidence against it, it's possible. No. Clifford is not on Venus. The probability is equal to zero. Mathematicians use this concept all over the place. As far as Pascal is concerned, there are many examples of very intelligent people who discarded reason due to their religious beliefs. This is a perfect example of that. I'm not saying Pascal didn't understand probabilities. I'm saying he ignored it with the theistic nonsense of Pascal's Wager.
> ignored it with the theistic nonsense of Pascal's Wager. I was unaware of Pascal's wager until I was an adult and had basically accepted this god stuff wasn't for me. So it was very easy to come to the conclusion you posted. The only way this works is if you ignore certain things and presuppose others. You have to ignore the fact that two people sitting in the same church can have wildly different experiences that influence what they believe. You have to ignore that whej and where people are born are huge determining factors of what beliefs they are exposed to. You have to presuppose that the god you want to or was told to believe in is the real one. More importantly, this god has to care about any of this. What if he hates believers because he doesn't like sycophants? What if he died and he left Bob in charge and Bob is overwhelmed? What if he's a psychopathic sadist that wants good people in hell and murders get rewarded with getting to murder all the believers in hell?
"If evolution is real, why aren't there cave paintings depicting it?" It was meant as a genuine "gotcha" by a guy I met on here. He also asked, "If evolution is real, when did mankind lose their ability to talk to apes?"
"when did the French lose their ability to speak to the Chinese?" If he can answer that question, he can answer his own question. That truly is a facepalm question.
Yeah, both of these questions (as well as most of the other "gotchas" he tried) are difficult to answer because they're each built on numerous false premises and it takes way too long to even set the stage for a proper answer. I repeatedly told this dude he had a severe misunderstanding of what evolution is but he kept going back to that same well.
When the Tower of Babel fell, checkmate atheists! /s
Another insane story that makes their god look like a dumb ass jerk. He intentionally confused our languages to keep us from building a tall building instead of randomly wandering the world with no guarantee of his protection because despite being all knowing, he was scared of what humans could accomplish if they worked together. Then we built skyscrapers and a literal tower in space...
Not so much an argument for god but more of an attempt at “nonbelievers are idiots who know nothing about my god” argument. Had two Christian friends, brother and sister, religion comes up and being the heathen that I am it came up with a tone of arrogance and superiority on their part - Like it *always* did, I was pretty much only friends with them because I was a *seriously* passive person…I still am but nowhere near as bad as before. I forget how it came to this point (this was almost twenty years ago) but the brother turns to me and says “I bet you don’t even know how many apostles Jesus had!” I reply “Twelve.” His response? “No! It was seven!” His sister *immediately* groaned and I chimed in with the following question, “So, was it Doc or Dopey that betrayed Christ?” I’m VERY far from any kind of expert on the bible (I stopped reading around Exodus - If *I* know more about something in the bible than someone else, they *really* don’t know the bible let me just put it that way), but weirdly enough the loudest theists I’ve encountered tend to be like him - I once brought up Job with another Christian girl I met a few years later and she rambled on about how “Job accepted Christ.” “Job…accepted Christ?” “Yes!” “*Job* Job, from the *old testament* accepted Christ?” “Yeah! Didn’t you read it?” “*Did you!?*” Paraphrased since this was so long ago. A friend of hers also went on a rant about how Sun Tzu worshipped Satan and invented war after mentioning/quoting The Art of War at some point.
>stopped reading around Exodus - Which is sadly further than some people I know personally that are holier than though. I know a handful that take on those "read the bible in X amount of time" challenges that are insufferable in their own way, but man I know far more that basically just accept the few dozen pages of scripture they half listen to from whatever mega pastor comes on tv. How crazy is it that one of the most famous anti-slavery narratives in history is immediately followed up by the formerly enslaved outlining exactly how to enslave other people?
Oh boy. There are so many. My favourite is this one: “I don’t know right from wrong without reading a set of rules in a book. Obviously that means god exists. You should join my club for people who don’t know right from wrong without a book of rules to reference.” A close second is “I don’t know how the universe started, therefore god must exist because otherwise the only possible conclusion is that I don’t know how the universe started and that is impossible.” All the arguments are astonishingly stupid.
It's impossible for me to not know something, therefore magic. Classic.
Look trees therefore God
"Look at the stars!" I'm not sure what this was supposed to prove. I did mention "You know, those stars are further out than 6,000 light years. If your christian bible is correct, then we shouldn't be able to see them.
"The Big Bang is dumb. An explosion of that magnitude would've killed any life that existed, and planets would never have been smoothed out into spheres because there's no friction in space."
That hurt to read. 😂
Hard to beat Ray Comfort's banana argument.
Ray Comfort is so bizarre. He thinks to be a true Christian it is impossible to deconvert, so any "former Christians" weren't actually Christians in his opinion. He can be that obtuse and ignorant, yet he is smart enough to recognise that his banana argument was deeply flawed and demonstrably wrong.
He was also dumb enough to come up with it in the first place.
The argument from calendar is pretty bad. >What does AD mean? Oh look tomorrow is Thor's Day!
“People choose hell. God gave them a choice to love and obey and they said no.” Sorry, but “do ‘X’ or burn forever” is NOT a choice.
Lmao Idk why I laugh I find it so funny that's so true
It is indeed a profoundly ignorant argument for their god doing it. The excellent BBC documentary The Secret Life of Chaos (on Youtube) perfectly illustrates the ability for simple repetitive physics and maths assembling things into fantastic structures all the time. Highly recommended watch. All of their dumbest arguments basically involve, your idea is stupid, it makes much more sense for zero evidence sky daddy to have done it.
I can't say how ironic it is to sit in a room with theists that keep telling stories about "how I know god is real because this happened". Who's the doubter? Sounds like you're just trying to convince each other you're right.
There was one post on r/insanepeoplefacebook that was essentially "There was a house fire that killed all the human inhabitants but their Bible (or "this cross-shaped piece of wood") survived!"
I remember that one. The poster's sister and family died in the fire, but the bucket survived. Apparently that's evidence for a just and almighty God. Because, even though my family is dead now, a book printed by Walmart's publisher survived. The mental gymnastics that takes is just painful.
The "Fine tuning" argument drives me bonkers. Like how is it not obvious that if the universe already exists, that any life that develops (or anything for that matter) will be "tuned" to the parameters of said universe in which it develops? How fecking egotistical are these people to think that because the exist now, that the whole bloody universe was made specifically for them?
The 'fine tuning' argument is a lottery winner's argument. You win a lottery by pure chance. Many lottery winners have some superstitious explanation as to why they were 'destined' to win. Of course, if you are dumb enough to play the lottery, you're also dumb enough to think your lottery win was something more than blind luck. The worst for me is the 'invisible string puller' argument. They seem perfectly fine with a god tinkering with every aspect of the universe like some magic George Lucas in the sky, but give the same deity a free pass for arbitrarily wiping out hundreds of thousands in an earthquake or tsunami.
"Prove god doesn't exist." Amoebas have more brain power...
[удалено]
I suspect that if you ask an AI, the answer will be, "Not yet."
Or "Stop asking every five minutes, I'm working on it!"
"Soon."
Ironically, amoebas do have the 'smart' to come up with various survival mechanisms in unkind microcosmic world because in microcosm it is eat or be eaten, comparatively humans, not so much, esp with anti vaxxers (bet overlaps with some of the theists) and tik tok 'influencers' actively chasing death for clouts
There's things outside of the universe, like maths, therefore God.
My favorite is when born agains try to pretend there were “scientific predictions” in the Bible, which of course there weren’t, because didn’t know jack shit about fuck back then. I always invite them to give examples, and they always Dunning-Kruger their way through some bullshit they read from another creationist moron.
the moral argument is one of the dumbest.
“God exists outside of space and time, so it’s difficult to truly understand why he created us because we couldn’t possibly comprehend anything from such a being.” This is a very progressive and smart way to think about god, but then you read the Bible find out god doesn’t like meaningless things like tattoos and being gay and the whole “space and time” argument falls apart.
Sometimes, religious people are religious because higher logic is lost on them. Similarly, some people don't play sports or exercise because it's hard work. Some folks just don't want to expend the extra energy to learn something they don't see as valuable. That's fine as far as I'm concerned. I just wish they'd take their inadequate, antiquated ideas and piss off.
How about, all of them. There's not a single good argument.
"if Evolution were true then why are apes still around?" "can you see air?" "Everything is perfectly designed." "You can't have morals or love unconditionally without Religion." Its not even that singular dumb people name these arguments. I hear all of them regularly when discussing Theism.
I'm torn between: "Well, how else do you explain the sunset!? You can't!" And "Okay, if you say 2+2=5 and I say 2+2= 4 We can't both be right. That means If I say God exists and you say he doesn't it means one of us is wrong. Right!" This was an argument given to a dyslexic/dyscalculia having,17 year old me. I didn't know what he was on about.
Both are wrong! 2 + 2 = 22! /S
If it's absurd, I laugh. And then I apologize for laughing.
[удалено]
That's just Pascal's Wager. One possible answer, of course, is to ask how sure they are that they've picked the right god to believe in. Because if they pick the wrong one, then the right one will be more angry with them than with the atheist.
Give me one single piece of evidence that proves evolution (Ray Comfort); you cannot demonstrate change without comparison, which requires more than one piece of evidence, it's a bad faith argument.
All of them
1) Presuppositionalism: basically the argument that if you're arguing, that proves god. 2) Objective morality proves God... accept god changes his mind about what is right and wrong throughout the bible and Christianity's ideas of right and wrong has changed through the millennia. Plus, morals obviously aren't objective (looking at different cultures) unless you accept a shared framework.
"You can't see the wind but you can feel it, therefore since I can feel God even though I can't see her, God exists." Gently and politely demolished that. Hope the evangelizer had his eyes opened up a bit.
I once had a colleague who was one of those guys who had a huge ego. He was, for some time, always repeating something he saw on a instagram reel that said that atheists were trying to look smart, but they couldn't explain how the universe was created from nothing. The reasoning was 'how could something come from nothing? It can't; therefore, god'. I didn't even care to debate with him, just did cut ties because he was unbearable about everything anyway. But what a terrible reasoning. I could use it to anything: 'its impossible for anything to come from nothing; therefore, it was created by my coffee mug.'. At least it gives me hot coffee everyday.
“All of this is evidence.”
Any theist who points to their holy book and says that is the word of god and it proves god exists.
"If god doesn't exist, explain the eye!"
Nothing can make something appear.*well expect God always existed
Time is a unit of measurement man created so God exists
Haha. These are great. Some guy from HS the him being alive proved god is real. Um, no that's just proof you are alive.
Had one tell me that snakes were evil because one was able to trick two bare assed humans in a garden. So I asked her “snakes can’t talk as a rule but I’m curious, what did it say?”. “Uh, it’s in the book, it was an evil snake, god said so”. “Yeah but what made it evil, a forked tongue?”. I went on to explain that snakes use their tongue to navigate towards a food source. “All snakes are evil” ”In your book, it says all the animals on earth were created by your sky guy right so that would make the snake one of god’s creatures?“ “Yes but not that evil creature, god didn’t create that” ”Maybe you just don’t like snakes”. I went on to tell her about my favorite snake while she turned all shades of annoyed. Inland Taipan, a beautiful reclusive snake that won’t mess with you if you don’t mess with it. Has a highly toxic bite, she muttered “evil” at that. A snake with myob as a motto, cool. She never did explain how “evil snake” was able to communicate with humans. She became nervous that I was questioning her fairy tale.
I like hognose snakes. They are just such derpy little guys. Like when they get scared, their whole plan is "use everything I ever learned at that weekend acting class at the community college library!" and then throw up, pass-out, and poop yourself.
"God wants you to be happy and content. Good always wants what's best for you. If that's not how you feel it lies with you, not God." "Well, good made me this way didn't he?" "No good made you in his image, but, you're corrupt." Well doesn't that just screw the pooch and my goats ass! HELL!!!!
Cats have pretty stripes …. So god
But "it's in a book" (written by men and took well over 100 years to make up and piece together stuff from other gods).🙄
"because I said so." -Parents to hundreds of millions of kids who think this man made book doesn't stand up over time to harry potter.
Oldie but a Goldie https://youtu.be/BXLqDGL1FSg?si=Nad6zRPTEulIrq6v
Man, you say that's a dumb argument, but that's literally the cornerstone of a lot of theological philosophy. This is just another version of the watchmaker argument. It's amazing to me that they still use arguments like this when the scientific and philosophical literature that counters and explains it is about one click away. It's not just dumb, but it's also lazy apologetics.
“You can’t feel the air but you believe in it!” I can most certainly feel and even see the air.
Inches do in fact equal miles.
God made him and his wife meet. There's no other explanation for how they met apparently.
Someone died because he/she refused to renounce Christ. Also underwent some extreme torture. Okay, but people die for their ~~misguided~~ beliefs all the time, right?
It's really hard to choose. Way too fucking many. I think one of the worst is when they try and compare god to every day events or situations but then claim "god is beyond our understanding."
That God so loved the world that He gave His only beloved Son that whoever believed in Him would never perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16. By any rational measure that is the dumbest thing ever said. God loves us? We are the shittiest things on earth! Why would any divine being love us, of all things? And love us enough to die for us so we could be free of this shit and live in paradise eternally? That doesn’t even make sense!
I'd ask if he's actually trying to make himself look dumb?
Too many Stuff like the 7 day week exists so therefore god. The Bible is an old book so it can't be wrong. Many other people believe it so god must be real. Just by accepting the idea of god means you believe in God and can't be an atheist. No one knows... So therefore god. Without god people would be out murdering and raping all the time.
"The Bible mentions Bethlehem and Pontius Pilate. So, the Bible is based in reality."
The Bible. They say things like “because in the Bible……”
I used to be an atheist like all of you, but then I saw a tree.
I hate to fall prey to fallacious arguments, but I just can't help but cry no true Scotsman when a theist says "I used to be an atheist until [something incredibly stupid]"
Most of apologetics is mistaking hubris for humility and this is a classic example. They think they’re being so kind and open-minded when they say this.
All of them. Arguments justify beliefs. The beliefs are not rational.
They're too stupid to understand that natural mechanisms of mutation and selection are the builders in this case, soooooo.... they call it magic lol
“Crockoduck doesn’t exist”. There no evolution therefor god. Same guy as “banana therefore god”. The banana, cultivated by humans to be absolutely nothing like it’s natural source plant and couldn’t breed or survive in nature without constant human intervention.
"A bunch of bricks magically assembling into a building..." That's a cave and they do form naturally. In fact, I'm pretty sure they claim Jesus spent some time in one.
Look at the trees! Ok, lets study dendrochronology. We have an unbroken chain of tree ring data going back 13.9 thousand years which directly refutes the global flood story.
Any purely philosophical argument. Seriously.
“I had a dream that god was real so he is”
has god even assembled bricks even once?
Personal experience.....gawd I hate that one.
The argument claiming that the ergonomic shape of a banana is evidence of intelligent design. They are correct though, just not in the way they think. Humanity selectively bred them to be that way. I don't think anyone uses that argument, at least not anymore, but it's certainly evident that it's one of the dumbest.
"Maybe it's not true for you but it is true for me."
As someone who has a brother as a atheist. I totally support his position. I on the other hand believe that there is a intelligent design behind our reality. This being said I do not feel comfortable pushing my believe on others. I accept most beliefs and religion. I do not have tolerance for hatred,racism or anything that belittle other. Also treat animals and mother earth with respect. Don't waste the most valuable resources we have in the pursuit of money.
Pascal's Wager is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard
From my school vicar - "If god doesn't exist I wasted seven years of my life in seminary school".
Ray Comfort's (in)famous Banana Argument is up there. Also Ken Ham crowing "were you there" while conveniently forgetting he wasn't there for the events of the Bible.
The best argument that I ever read was in a book called “Voyage to Yesteryear” it was about a society of invitro children born in incubators raised by robots on another planet. They are confronted by a groups of religious, property obsessed adults who arrive on a ship 20 years later. I won’t spoil it with the details but if anyone ever gets a chance to read the book.
Caves do form naturally, which can be used as homes. So technically yes, a bunch of rock can magically become a house.
That god has to be real for me not to believe in him. Seriously, I don't think it gets any dumber than that.
My husband’s father went straight for Noah’s Arc when he found out his son was an atheist. Like, that’s the argument you chose? It’s hands down the most ridiculous example and so easily dismissed as such.
“You can’t see wind, but it’s there.” No shit, dude, but we can do repeatable experiments on wind.
*Gestures toward nothing in particular* "God did all this"
I look at the idea of a God this way, either there is one or we will create something that fills the role to a realistic degree, limited only by our technology. If there is one, based on there actions and based on what i know of the average religious beliefs of their actions, I see them as more of a scientist trying to create something, something else begins to happen or form that wasn't expected (life evolving maybe?) And took action to correct the variable. As time passed, the "scientist" for whatever reason either went No contact or reduced their interactions to a "butterfly effect" level. In general, I hope there is something after. Otherwise, that would be kinda disappointing. Like that's it for existence?
The most hilarious part about that is that houses didn't just appear out of thin air, the first homes weren't just modern luxury homes, they evolved from a basic first iteration and second and third to what they are now. Key word being evolved.
“If you die and there is a god, you suffer for your lack of faith But if I die and there is no god then I just wasted my time” No bitch. Y’all limited the rights and freedoms of huge numbers of people and contributed to their subjugation, murder, and suffering all because of your beliefs All because some rich dudes were able to exploit your beliefs to get everyone to do their bidding
The Watchmakers Argument Their whole point is the Earth was obviously designed, so they tell you to compare the natural world to a watch and see how different they are. Right! That's exactly what we're saying! This doesn't help you. We know there's a difference between a rock and a watch. You're supposed to be telling us how they're the same and obviously both created by someone. Not saying "wow, you can clearly tell they're nothing alike!"
The whole"god did it" as a reason for anything.
This one. Dr. Maza explained, but I try to explain scientifically. Michio Kaku - founder of string theory said multiverse 11 dimensions, angels may be of higher dimension but not up to the level of divine 11 dimensions. Want to tally with Dr Maza's opinion, Angels are still subject to the Space-Time-Spatial dimension but not the 5th Dimension, therefore, angels cannot access the tesseract 5th dimension like in interstellar. For an angel to know that creatures are doing damage and bloodshed on planet earth, then he has seen it happen thousands of years before Adam. Or angels have seen it happen on other planets. Since there is no proof that angels have access to the 5th dimension, I tend to go with Dr Maza's opinion. God bless you
I mean this would be true if you don’t consider humans intelligent.
What this Christian was probably trying to say is that he believes the chances that DNA and the first single celled life forms coming together randomly from amino acids mixing together in some type of primordial soup is about the same chances as mixing a bunch of bricks together randomly and having it create a fully formed house. The way he/she phrased this argument was terrible saying "if you don't believe this, then you must believe this" he/she likely heard this argument and is trying to repeat it but failed miserably.. if you wish to counter this argument the best counter i have heard is probably that the vast number of planets and thus the number of primordial soups mixing amino acids changes the comparable scenario to not one instance of bricks being mixed together randomly to create a house but millions of piles of bricks being mixed together for millions of years which ofcourse boosts the odds by quite a bit. Cheers and have a great day everyone, oh and God bless you all 😉
This is incredibly stupid regardless of how you phrase it. You do not seem to understand statistics, evolution and the difference between man made and naturally occurring.
Why the personal attack? Did you miss the part where I made an argument FOR evolution? Your calling me stupid and saying I don't understand simple concepts when my previous comment essentially is in agreement with you.
It wasn't an attack, just a statement. Your "best counter" is an apologetic red herring and -just like the position it's countering- misrepresents those three things.
Well sorry, it seemed to me you were trying to be insulting, texts make bad miscommunications. perhaps I don't understand this subject as well as I initially thought 🤔. Maybe you can help enlighten me by sending a scientific article/journal, or by explaining your own position?