joseph1013:
ABSOLUTE PROOF OF CREATIONISM

Yesterday, Professor Ap' Cryphal, the lead archeologist digging at a location outside of Basra, Iraq announced a discovery that will stun the world. The secret dig, involving more than 250 archeologists and scientists over 20 years, has finally found what millions have long expected.

Dated from almost 10,000 years ago, the team has unearthed a rich seam of bones, fossils, and timbers. They have found every life form known to man, including thousands of extinct species. The list of finds includes prokaryotic and eukaryotic bacteria, fish, amphibians, plants, tree, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals.

A rich array of mammals has been found including primates and Hominidae.

Two finds particularly stand out and cast grave doubt on modern theories of evolution. The first is a fully-human, adult femur and cranium that experts say must be from a human male exceeding 2.4 meters (8.5 feet) tall.

The second is a range of bones that have been positively identified as coming from Deinonychus, Apatosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex. Astonishingly, the well-preserved T rex jawbone shows not the sharp teeth of a carnivore but the blunt grinding teeth of a vegetarian.

Dating shows that all these specimens were laid down within a period of 1,000 years from 9,600 years ago. Finds stop abruptly at this point--no life at all can be found earlier than this. Professor Cryphal's final words will echo throughout history. He said, "This site conclusively proves that evolutionary theory is false. But this find does not just move science forward, it proves something else as well. We have found the Garden of Eden. We have proved Genesis is true."

.....

Of course, this story is fiction. It never happened but, if creationism were true, sites somewhat like this would be found all over the world. In fact, we have never, ever found such a site. Everything we find shows a gradual evolution of species over billions of years.

Everything we have found shows Biblical creation to be false.

CAPSLOCKED:
THE FUNNIEST THING YOU'LL SEE THIS WEEKEND!

joseph1013:

This is why not believing in a god is the most intellectually robust and unequivocally honest position to hold. And why believing in a god is neither intellectually sound nor honest.

budaatum:

Believing and not believing in a god are actually both neither intellectually sound nor honest, unless one were using the word "believe" to denote "not exactly knowing". One can after all believe or not believe whatever pleases one but neither has any bearing on reality.

I can understand the believer in God however, for they are saying they know not, even if they do not realise that is what they mean. But I can't say I understand an atheist who claims to believe there are no gods. My opinion is that they are intellectually unsound and dishonest, and lazy too, because, if they had truly checked and found there to be no gods, they would not believe there are no gods, but know there are no gods.

"Believing in a god", however is of a different order, I would have thought. To start with, asking an atheist who has bothered to check and found no god to believe in god would be like asking one to believe in the spending.power of a non-existing million pounds, which I must admit would be absurd for "the most intellectually robust and unequivocally honest [person] to hold”. Though, one must ask if they know what is meant by the word "god", to begin with, because the intellectually robust and unequivocally honest would have begun with a definition of terms.

So let me help.

To Believe is to not exactly know but choose to accept as true the unfounded crap one makes up in ones head.

To not believe is to not exactly know but refuse not to accept as true unfounded crap others make up in their own heads.

God, well, that's really a word with no exact meaning in the wider sense, but which is narrowed down by where one stands.

And atheist [ought to] mean the crap made up in heads is crap, who one would expect them not to believe, but to have honestly checked the evidence so they actually know, and if they haven't, they are just as intellectually dishonest and not robust as the theist who merely believes as equally as they seem to disbelieve.

Those who are intellectually robust and unequivocally honest do not believe or disbelieve because they would have checked and would know.

joseph1013:

LOL.

You have created a strawman and built a mansion with it.

To make it easy for you: You believe in a phone that cooks. I ask for evidence, but you can't produce it.

I say, for lack of evidence, it is intellectually robust and unequivocally honest to disbelieve in a phone that cooks.

How difficult is this?

budaatum:

I do like the condescension. It shows what you think of my intellectual capacity.

If I create crap in my head called a phone that cooks, and cannot provide evidence for it yet ask you to believe such a phone exists, then I am intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest and you must treat me with the contempt that I deserve for believeng it myself if I say I do, and moreso for asking you to believe my crap without providing evidence so you may know instead. For as you say, "for lack of evidence, it is intellectually robust and unequivocally honest to disbelieve in a phone that cooks", though, I, being a sceptical person, would check first. Someone might have somewhere welded a cooker to a phone.

The only reason I can believe or disbelieve in the existence of phones that make calls, even, is because of my ignorance about phones that make calls. If I were not ignorant about phones that make calls I would know about phones that make calls instead of ignorantly believing or disbelieving whatever it is about phones that make calls that I believe or disbelieve.

Theists (who predominantly happen to be believers, and not knowers and understanders) are not intellectually robust and unequivocally honest and neither are their counterpart atheists who disbelieve gods exist or believe gods don't exist. There is quite a lot of 'evidence' out there about gods and for the existence or lack of existence of gods, so atheism and theism, in my opinion, is, or rather, should not be about "evidence", unless we mean a lazy person who has not bothered to check (and consider) the available evidence. It is also very lazy to believe or disbelieve the available or lack of available evidence once checked, in my opinion, instead of attempting to understand what the evidence or lack of evidence might mean or imply.

The intellectually robust and unequivocally honest ought to know either way and understand, instead of believing or disbelieving the crap they think up in their own heads, is my point, and if I were to ask you to believe or disbelieve anything at all, then I am intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest and would be insulting your intelligence and you must treat me with the contempt that I deserve for believing or not believing it myself and moreso for attempting to make you ignorant and dishonest like I would have been being myself.

It is the religious education most get that allows them to use words like believe and disbelieve, is the point I'm making here. Intellectually robust and unequivocally honest people ought to know, either way, instead of believing and or disbelieving. Or does one believe or disbelieve or know or not know about Pythagoras and his theorem, and would the use of either of those words say nothing about the one who used it?

budaatum:

I do like the condescension. It shows what you think of my intellectual capacity.

If I create crap in my head called a phone that cooks, and cannot provide evidence for it yet ask you to believe such a phone exists, then I am intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest and you must treat me with the contempt that I deserve for believeng it myself if I say I do, and moreso for asking you to believe my crap without providing evidence so you may know instead. For as you say, "for lack of evidence, it is intellectually robust and unequivocally honest to disbelieve in a phone that cooks", though, I, being a sceptical person, would check first. Someone might have somewhere welded a cooker to a phone.

The only reason I can believe or disbelieve in the existence of phones that make calls, even, is because of my ignorance about phones that make calls. If I were not ignorant about phones that make calls I would know about phones that make calls instead of ignorantly believing or disbelieving whatever it is about phones that make calls that I believe or disbelieve.

Theists (who predominantly happen to be believers, and not knowers and understanders) are not intellectually robust and unequivocally honest and neither are their counterpart atheists who disbelieve gods exist or believe gods don't exist. There is quite a lot of 'evidence' out there about gods and for the existence or lack of existence of gods, so atheism and theism, in my opinion, is, or rather, should not be about "evidence", unless we mean a lazy person who has not bothered to check (and consider) the available evidence. It is also very lazy to believe or disbelieve the available or lack of available evidence once checked, in my opinion, instead of attempting to understand what the evidence or lack of evidence might mean or imply.

The intellectually robust and unequivocally honest ought to know either way and understand, instead of believing or disbelieving the crap they think up in their own heads, is my point, and if I were to ask you to believe or disbelieve anything at all, then I am intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest and would be insulting your intelligence and you must treat me with the contempt that I deserve for believing or not believing it myself and moreso for attempting to make you ignorant and dishonest like I would have been being myself.

It is the religious education most get that allows them to use words like believe and disbelieve, is the point I'm making here. Intellectually robust and unequivocally honest people ought to know, either way, instead of believing and or disbelieving. Or does one believe or disbelieve or know or not know about Pythagoras and his theorem, and would the use of either of those words say nothing about the one who used it?

joseph1013:


Again, much ado about nothing.

Too many people seem to have issues with expressing their thoughts simply.

You say there is quite a lot of 'evidence' out there about gods.... Can you provide these?

It's also interesting how you keep keeping up with this strawman. You seem to have a penchant for creating your own argument and running with it.

The Christian proclaims Yahweh exist. The Muslim proclaims Allah exists. We request for evidence. They don't provide. We say it is intellectually sound to reject these claims. You turn up to say it is not good enough.

Perhaps it is because you don't know the meaning of the words you use.

A quick look at the DISBELIEF in the dictionary shows,

"inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real."

Disbelief is not necessarily in the business of searching or knowing. It is about considering the evidence or lack of evidence brought forward.

But then, we have you to obfuscate issues.

budaatum:

The evidence for gods (not existence, mind), is the vast amount of written word that exists on the topic. It's probably insufficient for you if you expect physical material evidence that you can weigh and measure. The tortoise and the hare in Aesop Fables does not exist, yet we learn quite a lot from the fables about them. Philosophy too cannot be measured or weighed, yet no sane person would claim philosophy does not exist.

"Disbelief (and belief) is not at all in the business of searching or knowing". It is about making things up in ones head usually with very little attempt to understand before believing or disbelieving it, and is what I've called "intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest". An "intellectually robust and unequivocally honest" person would first seek an understanding of what is meant instead of discarding it as you are so swift to do. It is afterall in no way intellectually sound to reject (or accept) claims one does not understand. And asking 'Christians' and 'Muslims', who can only proclaim what they believe, is like asking random people in the street about calculus. But then, your question is about "exist", so you're probably asking the right people. You'd go elsewhere if you were seeking to understand.

As to straw, I'm relying on the fact that unlike your belief about me, you yourself "know the meaning of the words you use". If you did, you'd see this thread is all about strawmanning, as in stating the beliefs of some and equating it to the understanding of all then whacking it all down. Nowhere have I found you seeking to understand the obfuscated complex issue called gods which have existed even since humans have reflected.

And yes, "not good enough" for someone of your intellectual ability. Though I confess that's just a belief of mine.

joseph1013:
WISDOM FROM THE BIBLE

The Bible was inspired by God himself, so we can expect to find much wisdom within its weighty pages. Here are some things we've learnt from it:

Holding people as slaves is ok. So is passing your slaves to your children when you die. You can also sell your daughters as slaves with God's blessing.

Beating your slaves, even if you kill them is ok too, so long as they live for a few days after the beating. It's only fair, after all, they are your property.

Raping a virgin girl is a crime. But it's not a crime against the victim, it's a crime against her father because her value will be diminished if she's not a virgin.

The best way to punish a man who rapes an unmarried girl is to have him pay her father compensation, force him to marry the girl and never allow him to divorce her. That will teach him.

A bride who is thought not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death. Obviously.

The Earth was created before the stars. Stars are lights in a dome covering the Earth. The dome has water above it with windows that open to allow it to rain. Suck on that science!

These are all things we learnt from the Bible... but had to unlearn. And there is much, much more where that came from.

Wisdom from the Bible is hard to find, but utter nonsense and appalling moral values are easy.

Amujale:
Abrahamic religions are all false, fake and counterintuitive.

joseph1013:
When theists say atheists are close-minded, remind them almost ALL atheists have changed their minds, but almost NO theists have.

LordReed:


Huh? Are you forgetting conversions?

joseph1013:


You use words flippantly.

How can evidence be about how much has been written about a subject. Does the fact that there is an avalanche of material about the flat earth theory show that it exists? Does the oral tradition of twins being witches prove that twins are evil?

You equate the fable of tortoise and hare with the Bible yet its adherents do not see it as so. So what's your point?

Your insertion of philosophy into the discussion is laughable. Another strawman. No one says religion does not exists. What is under scrutiny are the elements therein - gods, spirits, devils...

If you choose to treat them as figurative expressions, you are welcome. Revisionism is all religion has been reduced to anyway.

Belief is about knowing for religionists. They KNOW that Allah exists. They KNOW that Christ was crucified to save you from hell. They know that nothing you do on earth is good enough if you are not a christian like them. Some of them KNOW that blood transfusion is unacceptable.

You have said so much about the complex issue of god but said nothing about them. Is this a gerrymandering exercise?

I have met people like you whose understanding and acceptance of gods is nothing like the accepted dictionary definition, but rather a philosophical twisting of words.

What they do not put on the table is tangible evidence of what they proclaim. I do not pretend to be surprised by it all.

Amujale:
If religion means Abrahamic religions, then religion is bad and should be banned anywhere on the African continent.

On the other hand, if religion means the experiencing, aspiring and working towards virtuousness; an attempt to attain a high moral and ethical standard, then religion is a nice and cool invention.

Religion is supposed to make us relative to virtuousness.

Virtue is a nice and fun quality to have.

All the authors of Abrahamic religious text are untustworthy, dubious, liars and fakers; and are never the virtuous type.

joseph1013:


Your own understanding of the Bible is that Jesus is a son of Joseph. How can that be your understanding when the Bible DIRECTLY teaches against that? The Bible says Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit.

budaatum:

You decide whether religion makes you virtuos or not. But imagine what the rest of us would have been like if we had not been religionised at all.

Hint: Education as we know it today evolved from religion