Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[atticus]

Quote from Martinghoul:

There's also Pascal's Wager, actually.

Which is the basis of 2 & 20.

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

What's it like to be so STUpid that even the simplest concepts are beyond your grasp?

Russell's teapot is absolutely falsifiable because it involves a physical object in a specified, finite amount of space. God is of unknown composition and location. To continue to STUpidly and childishly maintain they're "equally unfalsifiable" even after I've corrected you is hilarious.

P.S. even if you improve Russell's original teapot to something that seems unfalsifiable today (as Russell's construct did to him at the time) you still can't say God and the teapot are "equally unfalsifiable." (see below)

This is STUpid on so many levels.

You don't know God is mythical, you just "think" so. Which means you don't even know what you don't know.

What can be said with certainty about God and falsifiability is: if God does exist it can't be proven God doesn't exist and, if God doesn't exist it can't proven God does exist.

You can't ASSume God is mythical and pretend that your imagined equivalence in falsifiability magically equals an equivalence in plausibility. That's incredibly STUpid and truly pathetic.

Projecting doesn't make something so. As I said before, please seek professional help.

What is it with you ET's angry religious brigade that you can only repeat the same argument after a full explanation has already been given for why you're wrong.

"What can be said with certainty about God and falsifiability is: if God does exist it can't be proven God doesn't exist and, if God doesn't exist it can't proven God does exist."

The same goes for Russell's Teapot. If it does exist you'll never find it, if it doesn't exist it's still unfalsifiable.

Equally implausible and equally unfalsifiable as God.

 

[stu]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

We dont worship him because we are scared. We worship him because he provided a way for us to avoid Hell.

If a Judge sentences you to death, and the judges son comes in and says "Hey, i will accept his punishment for him" how grateful would you be to that guy? Out of respect for what he did for you, wouldnt you try to keep the judges laws after that?

To be honest, I am not grateful to that guy, or the megalomaniac judge who's supposed to be that guy's dad, for the trumped up charge. I don't accept that sort of immorality in the first place.

So no, I wouldn't want to even trust let alone keep any laws set up under such psychotic an arrangement.

 

[atticus]

Fuck God. There, I said it.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

"Reasonable", "evidence", "invisible", all these are akin to "clearly" which you used previously and which I challenged. All of them are subjective.

Not when they’re based on the scientific method as observable phenomena .
The words for that are rational and objective.

The description for an unknown indescribable level of absolute all knowing is, I’m told, "meta".
But then as they say, it takes all sorts.

 

[soldsoldsold]

Quote from Martinghoul:

There's also Pascal's Wager, actually.

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. It is not optional.
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.


What does he mean when he says "If you gain, you gain all;" That statement is not backed up by anything.

 

[shortie]

that's the problem. the assumption is that if one believes in God then God rewards this. But what if it is the other way around: you get punished by God for believing in Him? There is no way of knowing what's in His head (or even if he has one).

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Lucrum:

My own personal theory is that most worship because they're scared of hell in one form or another. Not because they love a God they've never seen. OTOH I'm also inclined to think most atheists would like to believe there is no hell/God for the same reason.

I think most atheists don't believe in hell because there is nothing to indicate such a place exists.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Martinghoul:

There's also Pascal's Wager, actually.

So the Christian faith is basically one giant after-life insurance policy. What a wonderful excuse to surrender one's own logic and reason.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Betapeg:

I think most atheists don't believe in hell because there is nothing to indicate such a place exists.

That's my point actually, people believe what they want to believe.