Disproving God

Blade

Blade

CAG Newbie
The whole premise behind God is that he only exists through our tendencies to have faith that he does, which in theory would lead us to believe that God cannot prove himself without disproving himself as faith is defined as belief without logical proof.

Wouldn't the fact that the duck-billed platypus is an evolutionary anomaly between two distinct species result in proving Creationism, thus proving that God exists and therefore negating his existence?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']It's nice to see someone these days with such a clear and distinct understanding of evolution.[/QUOTE]

fuck you. Explain how the platypus developed.
 
the platypus? its just like breeding two different kind of dogs and getting a friggin new dog. one day a beaver and a duck or something had sex, bam, theres your damned platypus
 
[quote name='Blade']The whole premise behind God is that he only exists through our tendencies to have faith that he does, which in theory would lead us to believe that God cannot prove himself without disproving himself as faith is defined as belief without logical proof.

Wouldn't the fact that the duck-billed platypus is an evolutionary anomaly between two distinct species result in proving Creationism, thus proving that God exists and therefore negating his existence?[/QUOTE]


Jesus, I need a drink just to keep up with that nonesense. I can't tell if you're thinking too much or not enough. Maybe when you spontaneously *poof* yourself out of existence, it will prove that you never existed in the first place and ergo, weren't capable of cognition at all.
 
[quote name='Blade']fuck you. Explain how the platypus developed.[/QUOTE]


From the wiki...

The platypus in mammalian evolution

The platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood for many years, and to this day some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them endure, for example, that the monotremes are "inferior" or quasi-reptilian, and that they are the distant ancestor of the "superior" placental mammals. It is now known that modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups.
The oldest fossils of monotremes (Teinolophos and Steropodon) are closely related to the modern platypus. The Steropodon fossil is composed of an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth, and was discovered in New South Wales, Australia. The fossil is thought to be about 110 million years old, which means that the platypus-like animal was alive during the Cretaceous period, around the time of the dinosaurs. It is the oldest mammal fossil found in Australia so far.
Another fossil relative of the platypus has been found in Argentina, indicating that monotremes may have reached South America from Australia while the two continents were joined via Antarctica.
In summary, the platypus is one of the closest relatives of ancestral mammals, but not itself a link in the chain of mammalian evolution. The oldest fossil found of the present-day platypus dates back to about 100,000 years ago, the Quaternary period. It is a branch quite separate from any other known.
Fossil evidence has showed that the platypus ancestors were alive during the Cretaceous period, but it is not known exactly how the platypus has come to the creature it is today. Fossil evidence also shows that monotremes existed during the Mesozoic Era (which includes the Cretaceous period, as well as the Triassic and Jurassic eras).
There are two theories to explain how the platypus has evolved into what it is today. The first(theory B) shows that relatives of monotremes formed their own evolutionary branch that was completely different from development of both marsupials and placentals. This change is thought to have occured 135 million years go, the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The marsupials and the placentals divided at some point 135-65 million years ago.
The Second (theory A) was proposed by Gregory (1947) and was not popular until the 1970s. He said that between 135-65 million years ago, the placentals and marsupials seperated to their own way then later the monotremes and the marsupials went their own way.
Evidence for this theory is that between monotremes and marsupials their reproductive system is extremely similar. The embryos of both have some stage of encased shells in the gestation period. The only difference is that monotremes have the encased shells throughout the entire gestation period, whereas marsupials only have the encased shells for about two thirds of the gestation period.
In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared to two (XY) found in most other mammals. The chromosome system features characteristics found in mammals, but also those found in the WZ system of birds. This news has further pronounced the individuality of platypuses amongst the animal kingdom, and a target for further research into evolutionary links between mammals, birds and reptiles.[1]
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='ScottieBiscottie']the platypus? its just like breeding two different kind of dogs and getting a friggin new dog. one day a beaver and a duck or something had sex, bam, theres your damned platypus[/QUOTE]
No it's not. Dogs are all part of the same species. A bird and a mammal are not part of the same species. I guess it's a good thing you've decided not to go with Biology.
 
Debating religion is fruitless. Hell; discussing religion is fruitless.

For future reference, however: If you're a bitter Atheist (an Athiest to wild 'n' out against "The Man" [or 'the norm']) or a part of an "anti-religion", you're a Pseudo-Intellect on the Internets. Although I think that movement might be fading away... it was a pretty huge thing with mid to late teens and lost early twenty-somethings.
 
[quote name='Brak']Debating religion is fruitless. Hell; discussing religion is fruitless.

For future reference, however: If you're a bitter Athiest (an Athiest to wild 'n' out against "The Man" [or 'the norm']) or a part of an "anti-religion", you're a Pseudo-Intellect on the Internets. Although I think that movement might be fading away... it was a pretty huge thing with mid to late teens and lost early twenty-somethings.[/QUOTE]
Way to make a broad, over-generalized blanket statement.:applause:
 
[quote name='kakomu']Way to make a broad, over-generalized blanket statement.:applause:[/QUOTE]

Explain how it was broad.

I was half kidding with what I said. I have to clarify this as you have zero sense of humor. And before you point out that I said all Atheists are bitter, reread what I said, O' analytical master, and notice the order and placement of the words "bitter" and "Atheist".

If you are a bitter Atheist... followed by a clarification of what a "bitter Atheist" is -- as opposed to simply an "Atheist" -- in a set of parenthesis and brackets. And you can't do much generalizing with the term "anti-religion", which I carefully separated from "Atheist".

Moral of the story, Atheists are alright. However, people who go out of their way to believe in nothing -- or, specifically, go against the grain to appear wiser -- are "bitter Atheists". I prefer "Atheists" who don't call themselves "Atheists", though, creating a whole new reverse-religion to follow suit under.

Eh... This won't matter, anyway. Your opinions are gold because you take college courses, anyway.
 
[quote name='Brak']Explain how it was broad.

I was half kidding with what I said. I have to clarify this as you have zero sense of humor. And before you point out that I said all Athiests are bitter, reread what I said, O' analytical master, and notice the order and placement of the words "bitter" and "Athiest".

Eh... This won't matter, anyway. Your opinions are gold because you take college courses, anyway.[/QUOTE]
Funny that you talk about me taking college classes. As far as I can tell, I never use my going to college as justification for the validity of my opinions (except for those that directly pertain to college itself). In fact, the only times I ever even talk about school is if it's actually asked of me. However, people seem to like to harp on it as if I talk about it all the time.

That being said, your opinion talks of bitter atheists and anti religious types. This is broad because there are a lot of them that are bitter or anti religious for different reasons. It's also good to point out that people who are anti-religious aren't necessarily bitter atheists and vice versa. So, you've talked about a wide berth of people and lumped them into a single characterization. Tell me how that's not broad?

Maybe if you prefaced the opinion with "I Find that most bitter atheists...", it wouldn't be so bad, because it's stated from your perspective. Rather, you decided to declare that they are pseudo-intellectuals.

As for lack of humor, not sure where you got that from.
 
[quote name='kakomu']Funny that you talk about me taking college classes. As far as I can tell, I never use my going to college as justification for the validity of my opinions (except for those that directly pertain to college itself). In fact, the only times I ever even talk about school is if it's actually asked of me. However, people seem to like to harp on it as if I talk about it all the time.[/quote]

I recall in a debate about nothing in one of the topics, in which you sparked, you validated your argument by stating you were taking analytical courses and/or debating courses in college.

I took and completed a cooking class in 7th grade, this makes me an aficionado on the culinary arts, right?

I didn't know others "harped on it all the time". At least I wasn't the only one who saw it.

[quote name='kakomu']That being said, your opinion talks of bitter atheists and anti religious types. This is broad because there are a lot of them that are bitter or anti religious for different reasons. It's also good to point out that people who are anti-religious aren't necessarily bitter atheists and vice versa. So, you've talked about a wide berth of people and lumped them into a single characterization. Tell me how that's not broad?[/quote]

Let me start out by saying that I didn't say "anti-religious" -- I said "anti-RELIGIONS". I didn't clarify what this was, but it's a fairly common thing. It is a religion or organized group targeting a certain religion. People who are "anti-religious" are against all religion, but don't necessarily devote their lives to sticking it to a specific religion.

I clarified what brand of Atheist I was speaking of, by the way; in the parenthesis after the initial "bitter Atheist" comment. Ones who are Atheist for mere shock value or to appear smarter.

These weren't generalizations. I spoke of what type of Atheist think they're sages and people of "anti-religions" (although "anti-religion religion" may be more suitable) was self-evident.

Maybe if you prefaced the opinion with "I Find that most bitter atheists...", it wouldn't be so bad, because it's stated from your perspective. Rather, you decided to declare that they are pseudo-intellectuals.
Click to expand...

I've addressed this above, already, but I'll make mention again. I don't need to correct my opinion by saying "most bitter Atheists", as I've already stated what type of Atheist I feel defines "bitter". If I prefaced my opinion as such, it would sound as though I thought that all Atheists were bitter.

As for lack of humor, not sure where you got that from.
Click to expand...

I've seen you post in Family Guy and Simpsons topics.

-> rimshot
 
[quote name='Brak']I recall in a debate about nothing in one of the topics, in which you sparked, you validated your argument by stating you were taking analytical courses and/or debating courses in college.

I took and completed a cooking class in 7th grade, this makes me an aficionado on the culinary arts, right?

I didn't know others "harped on it all the time". At least I wasn't the only one who saw it.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't me, because I took neither analytical nor debate classes. As for the harping, It appears to be contingent on some sort of stereotypical and inherently prejudiced view on college students. Some sort of opinion that any college student is an elitist, and any elitist MUST be a college student. It's not even knowing that I'm a college student and bashing me for that (why going to college is bash-worthy is beyond me), but rather assuming I'm a college student and bashing me with some sort of misconception involving lattes, black rimmed glasses and other facets of elitism. None of which are true and all of which are simply prejudicial behavior.

As for your definition of bitter atheist, it doesn't fit in the confines of "bitter". On top of which, there are plenty of conflicting definitions out there. For instance, here's a link that took all of 5 seconds on google (and seems to fit the definition of bitter much better).
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8506.htm
When I refer to a "bitter atheist", (and I am not trying to say that all atheist's are bitter) I mean the kind of person who refuses to believe in anything because they can see nothing good in the world. They are not open-minded about their existence, and do not base their existence on rationality, but instead have lashed out at the pain in the world by denying the good of the world. This kind of "bitter atheist" is angry at God for the evil in the world, therefore they choose not believe in a God.
Click to expand...
Maybe using a different adjective than bitter would suffice, but in the context that you used it, Bitter is incorrect.

I certainly misread the part of an "anti-religion". However, I've never heard of any group claiming to be an anti-religion. On top of which, even if people were anti-religion insofar as they were against a single specific religion, what's to say that they're all the same and all have the same reasoning for being part of group? To believe that any group is totally homogenized and subject to broad interpretation is ignorant.

Anyways, what I see here is a made up definition that is used after the fact to try to defend a blunder of speech (peppered with insults, too. Ad hominem to the rescue).
 
[quote name='Brak']Debating religion is fruitless. Hell; discussing religion is fruitless.

For future reference, however: If you're a bitter Atheist (an Athiest to wild 'n' out against "The Man" [or 'the norm']) or a part of an "anti-religion", you're a Pseudo-Intellect on the Internets. Although I think that movement might be fading away... it was a pretty huge thing with mid to late teens and lost early twenty-somethings.[/QUOTE]

Didn't most of the 'anti-religion' kids get picked up by the emo movement?

Yet I do believe that the Americanized version of Jesus is back for the time being.

usa150.gif


With propaganda like this, why not just put the guy in a Centurion's outfit?
 
I don't think we would be so understanding to anti-atheist religious people. We wouldn't start probing and asking "well, what's to say they all have the same reason?". Besides, I've seen a lot of angry teenage atheists, I've also seen a lot of them return to christianity when they got into their 20's.
 
I believe in god but not in organized Religion. I don't trust the motives of man enough to take faith in what he is saying is the gospel. Too many people twist the words of the bible to fit their own agenda. In fact the bible itself is something I'm split on.
 
can you disprove God's existence? probably not since religon adapts. The only way to disprove his existence is to scour the whole universe and above and beyond. God lies beyond the realm of science.

Sooooo yeah but I don't believe in God. The probablity just isnt there. But people usually need a higher being to rely on and give purpose to life or else they break down. Hence the commonly used term "I can't imagine a world without God".
I can tho, and it feels great :D
 
Hmm, sounds like somebody just read (heard? watched?) The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:

[quote name='Douglas Adams']The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.

The argument goes like this:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.[/quote]
 
[quote name='kakomu']As for lack of humor, not sure where you got that from.[/quote]

My money is on this little gem:

[quote name='kakomu'][quote name='ScottieBiscottie']
the platypus? its just like breeding two different kind of dogs and getting a friggin new dog. one day a beaver and a duck or something had sex, bam, theres your damned platypus[/quote]

No it's not. Dogs are all part of the same species. A bird and a mammal are not part of the same species. I guess it's a good thing you've decided not to go with Biology.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='kakomu']No it's not. Dogs are all part of the same species. A bird and a mammal are not part of the same species. I guess it's a good thing you've decided not to go with Biology.[/QUOTE]

guns and ammo for me
 
[quote name='jlarlee']I believe in god but not in organized Religion. I don't trust the motives of man enough to take faith in what he is saying is the gospel. Too many people twist the words of the bible to fit their own agenda. In fact the bible itself is something I'm split on.[/QUOTE]

I believe that the OT was written as a compilation of spiritual analogies.

The christianity of today is the result of the teachings of St Paul and a long line of Roman/Medieval beauraucrats. The gnostics were driven underground a long time ago.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']Hmm, sounds like somebody just read (heard? watched?) The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:[/QUOTE]
Duh! I was tearing through all my Terry Pratchett books looking for that quote, hoping that people would realize it was humorous and not serious. I can't believe I thought of Pratchett over Adams...
 
[quote name='Fanboy']Hmm, sounds like somebody just read (heard? watched?) The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:[/QUOTE]

I was about to say the same thing.

One thing I learned is that with a topic such this there is no point in arguing becuase neither side will secede to the other.
 
[quote name='kakomu']Oh, I get it! Ignorance is funny. hahaha:roll:[/QUOTE]

I guess you just don't understand how humour can be derived from the juxtaposition of dissimilar ideas and you mask your own ignorance behind derision. How very sad.
 
[quote name='camoor']I believe that the OT was written as a compilation of spiritual analogies.

The christianity of today is the result of the teachings of St Paul and a long line of Roman/Medieval beauraucrats. The gnostics were driven underground a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

If by OT you mean 'off topic' or 'original trilogy' you may be correct, but if you meant 'old testament' you should realize that jesus doesn't appear until the new expanded edition.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']I guess you just don't understand how humour can be derived from the juxtaposition of dissimilar ideas and you mask your own ignorance behind derision. How very sad.[/QUOTE]
There's no juxtaposition. It's an ill-conceived idea presented as a simile. Big difference.
 
You should ask God what He thinks:

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adam
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If by OT you mean 'off topic' or 'original trilogy' you may be correct, but if you meant 'old testament' you should realize that jesus doesn't appear until the new expanded edition.[/QUOTE]

Last I checked, christianity includes the old testament as part of their sacred writings. Of course, it is true that most christian churches instruct their followers to avoid trying to understand this book without the help of an officially recognized religious leader (IE priest, pastor, etc)
 
[quote name='vherub']You should ask God what He thinks:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adam[/QUOTE]

That's where the topic came from. I wanted to see what people thought of the idea, so I paraphrased it and applied it to an actual species. Unfortunately, I didn't realize elitism was a prerequisite to post on these forums.

I could apply the fact that every environment has significantly changed in the last 175 million years, but I'll just say fuck you and put the sarcastic ones on ignore.
 
[quote name='Blade']That's where the topic came from. I wanted to see what people thought of the idea, so I paraphrased it and applied it to an actual species. Unfortunately, I didn't realize elitism was a prerequisite to post on these forums.

I could apply the fact that every environment has significantly changed in the last 175 million years, but I'll just say fuck you and put the sarcastic ones on ignore.[/QUOTE]

I guess I now know what kind of an idiot it requires to take humor seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top