"Atheism Produces Evil on Incredible Levels"

How about Hot Petting?
Ever hear of that?

But, the creation of Jesus seems to have been an act-of-God, by which a mutation created the next evolution.
He was the first born with access into the Unconscious mind.

 

That is the trouble. You BELIEVE instead of tasting. Your religion is based upon a myriad of ideas, based upon thought, based upon ego understanding, if I may point out your trouble.

Die to that ego that controls your existence, and you will make the discovery, find the door, and have a revolution or a rebirth of consciousness. That is all Christ was about, but it was men who corrupted the message, and turned him into a blood sacrifice, when indeed what has to die, was not Christ, but each one of our egos, so that it stops making a mess of things, and so that something else can operate in this existence we all share.

 

Truth is found by Science, by experience, by learning, and through contact with the Unconscious mind, too.

We never have more than the spirit of Truth, on this issue or in that case.
But when we act upon it, as did Rev Martin Luther King,... we are the sons-of-god.

- - - Updated - - -

So you can not recognize Truth?
You think I must be using Ego, and just think that bastard kids are child abused?

 

That's equating correlation with causation - the mere fact that Stalin and the like were atheist doesn't automatically mean that atheism was the primary motive as opposed to political ones.

I agree though that there's a double standard, as far as the New Atheists automatically equating every murder by religious people with "religion" (while dismissing possible political motives).

 

What about China?
There was no religion there, and Mao killed 60 million people.

 

See above - there's no reason to believe it was strictly "atheism" with no political motive.

Plus there were plenty of religious people within China itself - despite an atheist government

 

Dave, you are more committed to the cause the you are advocating on this forum that any poster here I've ever seen, and I want to say that I admire your commitment to your cause. If everybody was as dedicated to doing what they believe is right as you are, the world would be a better place. You may want to consider being, say, an abstinence-only educator, I am aware that some programs exist like that, but your zeal, and the large amount of research that you've obviously done, would make you probably very very good at that.

 

Not "abstinence only."

I foster early marriages as soon as the people feel sexual behavior is what the want with one another.
This is to be coupled to a silence about what they will do, or what they think about sexuality, completely.

The present error is an evil, where parent want young people to wait until age 26, now, before they marry.
And, girls living with men as a life style now in effect is a bad idea after they have all been sexual, had abortions, break up, later, to marry as if virgins.

 

?
China has long been both atheistic and trapped in a Matriarchy which destroyed them all for centuries.

 

So...which of the thousands of books did it want us to accept as real?

Perhaps the one YOU have decided upon?

 

Philosophers:
J.L. Mackie = Doesn't believe in the Big Bang. He believed in an eternal existing universe. No philosopher worth his salt believes in that. I'm sure you don't either.

Graham Oppy = He believes in the same things J.L Mackie believes in. Seriously, why would you pick people who disagree with your own points??

Michael Martin = Believes in the Big Bang, but his causation arguments are all over the place. On one hand he says multiple deities could've created the big bang, or that God could've used materials from within an existing universe to create the big bang.

Quentin Smith = Believes the universe came into being uncaused from absolutely nothing. Which means, like Lawrence Krauss, he believes nothing is actually something. Which makes no sense.

Physicists:

Paul Davies = He believes in God... LOLOL!

Lawrence Krauss = Believes nothing is actually something. His beliefs have been debunked a long time ago. Seriously, this guy is just a bumbling emotional idiot.

Victor Stenger = Believes the same thing as the buffoon above.

So, your stance is... Nothing, since you're claiming not to know, like every other ignorant atheist out there. So, now it goes back to my plausibility argument.
Think of it like this. Lets say you have two children. You hear a crash in the kitchen. You race to the kitchen and you find both of your children there standing above a broken cookie jar. You then ask your children what happened. The first one says, "I don't know." and the second one says, "The dog came in and knocked it over." Sure, you can conclude that they are both lying, but which excuse is more plausible? The fact that one kid doesn't know or the fact that the dog knocked it over?

If you have no answers while I'm providing answers that appear to be consistent with what both you and I can observe, it would stand without question that my reasoning is more plausible and satisfying than yours.

 

Read what I'm telling you: A creator cannot be bound by their OWN creation. It doesn't make sense. No, a parent isn't bound by their children. That is why they are called the parents.

That made absolutely no sense.

Alright. I read what you said. You're blabbering incoherently and saying stuff that makes no logical sense at all. You have no evidence for atheism and you won't examine the evidence I gave you. You have no arguments for the fine tuning of the universe and you have no arguments against the cosmological argument. You have no evidence against the overwhelming evidence to the existence of Jesus Christ nor his resurrection.You simply have nothing left to say to me. So, why are you still talking? Why??

 

Uh, no, that's not how logic works.

Professor - "What does X equal in this equation, off the top of your head: (182 x 3,954,921)/ 2X?"
Student 1 - "I have no idea"
Student 2 - "Purple!"

According to you, Student 2 is more right than Student 1 solely because he gave an answer.

Uh... neither excuse is more plausible. The first kid may be telling the truth and doesn't actually know what happened, or he might be lying. The second kid may be telling the truth, or may be lying.

But this has nothing to do with what you or I observe. You didn't observe the creation of the Universe, if it actually happened, anymore than I did.

- - - Updated - - -

You're avoiding the question we are posing to you by introducing red herrings into the mix. WHY would something have to be the opposite of what it created?

 

Lol, you said "You can't create something while simultaneously being bound by its laws". Now you're saying a creator cannot be bound by their own creation. Two different things, both equally nonsensical. Perhaps you should not only read what I'm telling you but should also re-read what you're telling me. Parents are bound by the same laws as their children and visa versa as is everything that exists in nature.

Which part didn't make sense? The part where you admitted that the universe doesn't need a creator or the part where I used your argument almost verbatim against you? Is something that is not eternal bound by the laws of something that is? If so your argument makes no sense if not than by your logic something that is not eternal is the only thing that could make something eternal. See it helps if the argument doesn't get pulled out of the ether and actually has some semblance of evidentiary substance. If God is thought not to have, or not to need a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

You are a broken record that started skipping a couple thousand years ago and hasn't stopped since.

Fine tuning? You think the universe is fine tuned? You're a puddle in a pothole with a narcissistic view of your existence.
Tell you what, pick a random cubic kilometre of our universe; now try making a case for theism given only the contents of that cube. If you object that you want instead a highly particular, specially chosen chunk of universe (Earth) on which to base your case, then that’s anthropocentric special pleading. If your case had merit it could still be made without carefully selecting your data inputs. Afterall, without Earth, you’d still have 99.999999999999% of God’s creation to work with.

The cosmological argument is just as tiresome and intellectually lazy as the rest. We have no idea if the universe had to exist or whether or not it is just one of many universes. The argument never explains why god is a necessary agent. As I said above, if God is thought not to have, or not to need a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

There is ample evidence against the theory that Jesus existed. Since you're so fond of videos why not start here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

 

Everything you said conflicts with the one idea, that Reality is the Creator, and Truth is how we understand Reality, little by little.

 

I didn't say I agreed with them. Just quoted what you asked for.

As for plausibility I find #463 much more plausible than #461.

The truth of the matter is that 200 years ago this debate would not have occurred. Most people would have accepted that a god created all things. In 200 years science has shown us that there is a probability that this is not so. In the next 200 years science may be able to prove that other factors were the cause.

Can Something come from Nothing? What is Nothing?
Years ago it was assumed that there was 'nothing' in the emptiness of space. Now we have 'Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.'

Rather like the Bible description of wind.

You might find your answer satisfying, I certainly don't. Neither do I find it plausible. What you and I observe are from different standpoints and therefore cannot agree. All you post is on the basis of there being a mythical being.
A view I once held but gave up long ago.

How did Monty Pythons Galaxy song go?

So remember when you’re feeling small and insecure,

How amazingly unlikely is your birth,

And pray there’s intelligent life somewhere out in space

‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth.

 

LOL! Man oh man!

"You can't create something while simultaneously being bond by its laws."

Key word here is "its". Its a possessive pronoun. It means, the verb that comes after it belongs to the subject of the sentence. So, lets translate what we're reading here, hmm?

"You are not bound by the Something's (The object you created) Law"

This is quite simple to understand, and the fact that you don't understand explains why you're probably not an atheist for logical reasons.

Sometimes a conversation can get to the point where I just refuse to argue. Right now you're just arguing against common sense. I'm not too sure what benefit it serves you.

This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Even atheists agree that the universe is fine tuned. Lawrence Krauss himself even admits it. His belief as to why the universe is so finely tuned is because there exists a multitude of universes that were generated, and out of several trillion universes made, it just happened that ours came out just right. The comedy begins when you start arguing against known scientific fact that most scientists have already agreed upon. You're not worthy to debate me.

The cosmological argument extends even to the multiverse theory. It states that the universe has a cause and that something had to create that cause. It says that something would have to exist outside of the known laws of the universe. This is just an argument based upon common sense. The only way to argue against this argument is to argue that the universe didn't have a cause and that it has always existed. You're just not able to intelligently debate this. So, I'll leave this where its at. We will simply agree to disagree and I'll debate with someone else.

ggs!

 

Which should make you rethink your entire perspective but considering how consistent you are with this nonsense I doubt that's gonna happen anytime soon.

 

It's not the opposite. I've explained this thoroughly enough.

The reality is, no matter how much evidence is thrown at you, you and your friends will always object. Your reasoning for not believing in God isn't actually logical. It's emotional.

 

I've tried logic and you've called me too robotic. I've tried emotion and you've called me too poetic. I'll refrain from making knee-jerk assumptions about your motivations.

 

Well this is fun. So, the parent isn't bound by the laws of the child? What are these laws of the child the parent isn't bound to? You are playing semantics games with something you pulled out of your ass, try to save some face by not being so arrogant about it because credulity isn't a virtue. The entire argument is to suggest that god is timeless, space-less and material-less in order for him to create time, space and material, so how does the child differ from their parents, what laws does the child possess in your mind that the parent doesn't because they exist in the same time and space are made of the same materials and their very nature and the nature they are a part of are all bound by the same laws from before they were born until they die.

The problem is your common sense doesn't contain much sense.

Yep Lawrence Krauss admits the universe is fine tuned. Also I find it hilarious you think one out of several trillion universes containing one planet with life equals fine tuned, I mean that's good stuff. See this is the arrogance of theists and it must be a wonderful thing to be bathed in so much ignorance that all you see is yourself and how special and knowledgeable you are and the greatest thing about it is that reality plays absolutely no role.

I've already countered this response in the one you quoted, you don't have an answer for any of it you just reverted back to the argument I already addressed. Circular logic at it's finest I guess.

This is how you play tennis without the net.

If God is thought not to have, or not to need a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

Your "intelligent" argument is nothing more than a credulous double standard and yet you hold it up like a trophy, it's amusing if not concerning.

 

Uh, you have explained nothing about why whatever created the Universe has to have dissimilar qualities, the only thing explanation you've given me has basically been "It's dumb to think otherwise!" Which isn't an explanation, it's an excuse.

Which one of us dots the landscape of our posts with "ROFLs" "BUHAHAHAHAHAs" and "You just hate God!"? If anybody is being emotional here, it's you, Qchan. Your arguments are all over the place, have been debunked by both creationists and others, and you have to accuse us of hating God; an entity we don't believe exists. The only reason to play that card is to troll because it's intentionally provocative.

 

If you have a child, then the child has to abide by your laws, right? Be home before curfew, do your homework, clean your room. Those are laws issued by the parent to the child. The parent isn't bound by those laws.

I'm surprised I have to seriously explain this to you. Very surprised. Amazed even!

LOL. You have every reason to laugh. Sounds silly, right? I agree!

Only one thing, though.... Lawrence Krauss isn't a theist. He's an atheist

God exists by necessity of himself. Just like the number 7 exists in necessity of itself. The number 7 doesn't just pop into being.

 

All arguments for a creator rest upon the unproven assumption that the universe was created.

 

The same could be said about the universe itself, since we wouldn't be having this debate if it didn't exist.