Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

10 Args For God And Responses To Them


ficino

Recommended Posts

That's really good, thanks.  I'm getting ready to start discussing these issues with a family member for the first time.  Planning to take notes on resources like this and study up so I'm at least somewhat ready.  If an objection of theirs has me stumped though, I'll bring it here for advice smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ FTNZ, what are you going to reply to:  "But if we came from monkeys ... why do we still have monkeys?"

 

Yes, I think these are the sort of things that most sincere people say to argue for God. They are not like some of the slicker apologists' lines, which amount to contortions with words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ FTNZ, what are you going to reply to:  "But if we came from monkeys ... why do we still have monkeys?"

 

Yes, I think these are the sort of things that most sincere people say to argue for God. They are not like some of the slicker apologists' lines, which amount to contortions with words.

I'm expecting a combination of both kids of assertion, since one family member is known to read apologetics and another has parroted Ray Comfort-isms.  This couple like to think of themselves as liberal post-modern xians when in fact their beliefs are quite fundy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Thanks for the great link, ficino.  The author also has a $.99 kindle book available from Amazon, Why There Is No God - Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, those are all great second responses.  In every case though the first response to the argument should be laughter.  Facepalms are optional.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Yeah, those are all great second responses.  In every case though the first response to the argument should be laughter.  Facepalms are optional.

 

 

Love it!   Wish I could remember the exact statement one of my fundy-family members made (it was some kind of young-earth shit), but I literally started coughing and choked at their comment.  Looking all wide-eyed and innocent, I laughed and said "Whaaaaat?!?  You're pulling my leg.  You don't REALLY believe that, do you?!?"   I was on their shit-list for a quite a while afterward.  Probably still am, but at least civility is prevailing again.

.

.

.

But I just couldn't help myself.      I have no free will.   The devil made me say it. GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif   zDuivel7.gif GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good link, Ficino.

 

Good question about those monkeys. 

I mean, if the U.S. as we know it today was settled by Europeans, why is there still a Europe? They say I have ancestors there too! 

 

Best of luck, FTNZ!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good link, Ficino.

 

Good question about those monkeys. 

I mean, if the U.S. as we know it today was settled by Europeans, why is there still a Europe? They say I have ancestors there too! 

 

Best of luck, FTNZ!

Thanks, Dude.  

 

I am particularly looking forward to asking these people how kangaroos got from the Middle East to Australia, and why they only live in Australia, not to mention how 5,000 species of animal fitted into the Ark, which, by the way, could not have stayed afloat when built with the specified dimensions.  And that's just what I have gleaned from a cursory read, wait till I've done my studying in full!  

 

Such fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good link, Ficino.

 

Good question about those monkeys. 

I mean, if the U.S. as we know it today was settled by Europeans, why is there still a Europe? They say I have ancestors there too! 

 

Best of luck, FTNZ!

 

 

 

If a Shepard-Lab mix comes from a German Shepard and a Labrador Retriever then why do we still have German Shepards and Labrador Retrievers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I think the more relevant question is, "If all of life evolved from single celled organisms, why do we still have microbes?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so sick of people thinking their religious beliefs apply to everyone.  Not everyone believes in 'God'.  They act like it's the only religious belief on the planet.  What about Buddhism, nature worship, ancestor worship, polytheism, etc?  

 

I'm also sick of people trying to 'prove' their religious beliefs.  It's fucking faith, not science dumbshits.  If it was science it would be called science, but it's called religion for a reason.  That's why scientists realize their faith is not about science, because they're smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fairly good series of responses to ten popular arguments for God's existence:

 

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/why-there-no-god-quick-responses-10-common-theist-arguments

 

 

The first one:

 

1. "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

 

First, when considering this position, it's important to recognize the difference between complexity and design. Complexity itself does not require an intelligent creator. It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution.

 

To an extent, this argument gains traction because of wide misunderstanding of science and especially evolution. Everything in the universe conforms to certain simple scientific rules that have been repeated over billions of years. While this can be awe-inspiring, it by no means suggests a creator.

 

Failure to understand the scientific principles guiding the creation and development of the universe does not mean that a deity must exist to explain the natural world.

 

________________________________________

 

 

"It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution."

 

Easy?

 

Then why not try designing a few new life forms yourself. It's easy. If chance can do it, a brilliant scientist with a computer should have few out in no time.

 

 

 

How can one taste a strawberry and deny there is a God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know how or why tastebuds work… it actually supports evolution.  Did you know that cats have no tastebuds for sweet? They can't smell or taste sweet… because...

 

 

wait for it...

 

 

...they don't need to. They are pure carnivores.. they don't get their energy from simple or complex carbohydrates…they get it from protein.. they evolved that way.. so, no need for sweets.  Why have a sense that is useless - but, relatives of felines DO have the sense for sweet, because they are omnivores and need to be able to sense it. You sense the sweetness in strawberries because you are an omnivore - and sugar/carbs are part of your natural diet.

 

Spiders that once lived under the sun and then went to live underground in caves, LOSE THEIR SIGHT.. they don't need it, but! They still have eyes from when they were sighted. They also lose pigmentation.. and become ghostly white. Why?  Because they no longer need the protection from sighted predators, or UV rays. They.. evolved, to fit their environment.

 

You are a puddle of water that thinks the hole was made to fit you, instead of you filling the hole.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here's a fairly good series of responses to ten popular arguments for God's existence:

 

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/why-there-no-god-quick-responses-10-common-theist-arguments

 

 

The first one:

 

1. "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

 

First, when considering this position, it's important to recognize the difference between complexity and design. Complexity itself does not require an intelligent creator. It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution.

 

To an extent, this argument gains traction because of wide misunderstanding of science and especially evolution. Everything in the universe conforms to certain simple scientific rules that have been repeated over billions of years. While this can be awe-inspiring, it by no means suggests a creator.

 

Failure to understand the scientific principles guiding the creation and development of the universe does not mean that a deity must exist to explain the natural world.

 

________________________________________

 

 

"It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution."

 

Easy?

 

Then why not try designing a few new life forms yourself. It's easy. If chance can do it, a brilliant scientist with a computer should have few out in no time.

...

 

 

You have misinterpreted the author's statement.  Pattern recognition is a well developed trait among many life forms on Earth.  Humans are particularly good at it, sometimes to a fault.  When the author says, "It's easy to impose design..." he is simply saying that it is common for humans to impose the illusion of design upon "things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process such as evolution."  He is not saying that it is easy for humans to manufacture "things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process such as evolution."  More precisely, you have an apparent misunderstanding of his use of the word "impose".  Please reconsider your initial analysis of his statement.  In short, try again.

 

If you interpret his use of the word "impose" to coincide with common human pattern recognition, the remainder of your post quoted above becomes an obvious strawman fallacy.  More to the point, and to reinforce what I previous said, the author is not saying anything about humans designing life forms.  Nothing.  At.  All.  He is simply saying that humans can easily IMPOSE a pattern (i.e., illusion of design) upon things.

 

Instead of keeping your nose in the Bible and your eyes on creationist-whore websites, perhaps you could spend some time studying a few of the hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles dealing with pattern recognition, in humans and other animals and plants.

 

 

 

How can one taste a strawberry and deny there is a God?

 

 

Non sequitur.  The existence of strawberries (or any other fruit) or the taste of a strawberry (or any other fruit) is not evidence of the existence or non-existence of any sky fairy, your particular God included.

 

Your statement is a half-baked argument from incredulity.  No, one-quarter baked.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution."

 

Easy?

 

Then why not try designing a few new life forms yourself. It's easy. If chance can do it, a brilliant scientist with a computer should have few out in no time.

 

 

 

How can one taste a strawberry and deny there is a God?

 

 

If nature gets billions of years to do it why should the scientist get no time?

 

I can taste a strawberry and deny that there is a God because all the available evidence demonstrates that it is human nature to create gods.

 

 

(By the way any strawberry you taste will have been the result of humans guiding the evolution of strawberries for thousands of strawberry generations.  Evolution is quite real.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

How can one taste a strawberry and deny there is a God?

 

Perhaps you didn't realize that the strawberries we eat today are absolutely nothing like the original, wild-type strawberries first encountered by cavemen.  They are radically different because over the millenia, they have been selectively bred to be bigger, sweeter, juicier, drought resistant, higher yielding, etc.  If you saw a wild-type strawberry, you'd probably not even recognize it.  I would; because I worked with strawberries and strawberry researchers for so many years.  You certainly wouldn't like the taste of a wild strawberry.

 

So, your question really should read, "How can one taste a strawberry and deny the awesome power of science?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can one taste a strawberry and deny there is a God?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To IH and any lurkers who think bananas were designed by god:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana

 

Like the strawberries we eat, the bananas we eat were selectively bred - by humans - for human consumption.

 

Evolution can happen by natural selection or by artificial selection.  Strawberries and bananas have evolved by artificial selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To IH, here Matt is proposing another purpose as to why your god created the banana.  It fits, so it must be true.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To IH and any lurkers who think bananas were designed by god:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana

 

Like the strawberries we eat, the bananas we eat were selectively bred - by humans - for human consumption.

 

Evolution can happen by natural selection or by artificial selection.  Strawberries and bananas have evolved by artificial selection.

 

The first chapter of Darwin's Origin of Species discusses artificial selection, i.e., humans selectively breeding animals to enhance certain phenotypes, traits and behaviors.  He used that as a springboard to discuss natural selection in subsequent chapters and proposed it as an explanation of the evidence he presented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Nobody should even be bothered to have evidence, let alone have a discussion towards the Mormons and their God, tbh. That one is the MOST obvious lie of em all. Jesus was practically a warrior and they get their own planet lmfao. Not to mention how recent it came about.

 

 

Scientology is 2nd or tied with Mormonism for number one, most absurd religion ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody should even be bothered to have evidence, let alone have a discussion towards the Mormons and their God, tbh. That one is the MOST obvious lie of em all. Jesus was practically a warrior and they get their own planet lmfao. Not to mention how recent it came about.

 

 

Scientology is 2nd or tied with Mormonism for number one, most absurd religion ever.

 

I agree that Scientology and Mormonism are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nobody should even be bothered to have evidence, let alone have a discussion towards the Mormons and their God, tbh. That one is the MOST obvious lie of em all. Jesus was practically a warrior and they get their own planet lmfao. Not to mention how recent it came about.

 

 

Scientology is 2nd or tied with Mormonism for number one, most absurd religion ever.

 

I agree that Scientology and Mormonism are false.

 

 

Why do you think that Scientology and Mormonism are false Ironhorse?

 

You know they have lots and lots of followers, and books and churches and everything, don't you?  They have songs and heroes and stories and histories and pastors and websites and laymen that defend them on their respective Ex-forums. They have everything that you and I have, and one of them has a better choir and the other more famous actors.

 

Really, why do you think that they are false?  I'm sure I'm not the only one here that would like to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Nobody should even be bothered to have evidence, let alone have a discussion towards the Mormons and their God, tbh. That one is the MOST obvious lie of em all. Jesus was practically a warrior and they get their own planet lmfao. Not to mention how recent it came about.

 

 

Scientology is 2nd or tied with Mormonism for number one, most absurd religion ever.

 

I agree that Scientology and Mormonism are false.

 

 

Why do you think that Scientology and Mormonism are false Ironhorse?

 

You know they have lots and lots of followers, and books and churches and everything, don't you?  They have songs and heroes and stories and histories and pastors and websites and laymen that defend them on their respective Ex-forums. They have everything that you and I have, and one of them has a better choir and the other more famous actors.

 

Really, why do you think that they are false?  I'm sure I'm not the only one here that would like to know. 

 

 

 

-Scientology teaches that humans are basically good, and that spiritual salvation depends upon what they do.

 

-Mormonism denies the Deity of Christ.

 

It's out there...look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.