Atheists and theist

**pyramid00** · July 8th, 2017 02:13 PM

the created and the uncreated; made and unmade.

Creation, according to an atheist: “ In the beginning, there was nothing. After 14 billion years, there will still be nothing; nothing begets nothing”

Creation according to a theist: “In the beginning, there was something, then, something created everything.”
(Something is a convenient word for the great source, nature, the unseen power, super consciousness or God. )

Consider my wrist watch, I know that it was created/made by someone or a group of people.

The heavens, with the billion stars and galaxies, was made by an unseen hand; giving it the beauty
and harmony that even the hardened astronomers express their awe in wonder.

**minicarph** · July 16th, 2017 04:45 AM

isa lang term dyan intelligent design.

yan naman mga atheist bobo talaga mga yan hindi naman science yan eh , pag sinabi ang utak walang laman ano ibig sabihin nun nothing. eh silamga atheist puro basing on nothing. eh di hindi sila science kasi mga scientist utak may laman

**Vodka** · July 16th, 2017 02:32 PM

theist: god or gods created everything. but doesn't know who created those god/s

god can't pop out of nowhere LOL

atheist: god doesn't exist. still doesn't know what created our known universe

but as science improves the atheist gains more and more knowledge. while the theist is still stuck in the stone age still not knowing who created god

now please don't say god created himself coz that's the most retarded thing you could say

**minicarph** · July 16th, 2017 05:05 PM

atheist try to prove nothing haha

**Monseratto** · July 16th, 2017 05:40 PM

Best explanation... Colbert is a Roman Catholic btw...

**Monseratto** · July 16th, 2017 05:47 PM

If it was really is creationism. this so-called intellegent being has so far been really incompetent one.

**makelovenotwar** · July 17th, 2017 11:43 AM

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) - YouTube

This is a nice debate about creationism.

I liked the argument of Ken Ham (pro-creationism) that the term "science" has been hijacked by the anti-creationism.

**niky** · July 17th, 2017 02:01 PM

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the former knows for certain what he doesn't know, while the latter is confident that he knows it anyway.

Originally Posted by makelovenotwar

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) - YouTube

This is a nice debate about creationism.

I liked the argument of Ken Ham (pro-creationism) that the term "science" has been hijacked by the anti-creationism.

It's ironic, that Intelligent Design has hijacked the word "Intelligent".

Creationism is not a thing. It's not a science. It's not a valid theory for anything. It's a fairy tale, with long and convoluted self-referencing arguments built around it to support it.

The Vatican has already declared that Genesis is not to be taken literally, but allegorically.

Scientific consensus only supports that which is backed by evidence. And evolutionary theory is backed by historical/paleontological evidence, as well as by laboratory studies and modern day case studies looking at ongoing evolutionary action.

-

If a better explanation is found, then it will be accepted. Though this is highly unlikely. The statement: "Fitter organisms survive to pass on their traits to their offspring" is about as basic as "things fall down when you drop them."

**Vodka** · July 17th, 2017 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by niky

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the former knows for certain what he doesn't know, while the latter is confident that he knows it anyway.

haha but it's a bit more nuanced than that. the sophisticated atheist is still partially agnostic. while the theist is 100% sure

that's the difference between a mind that's open to evidence and one that's totally closed

**niky** · July 17th, 2017 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Vodka

haha but it's a bit more nuanced than that. the sophisticated atheist is still partially agnostic. while the theist is 100% sure

that's the difference between a mind that's open to evidence and one that's totally closed

Well, you can be TOO sure that there is no God. The correct answer is that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity, even if we can disprove the existence of specific deities.

-

Morality is so much simpler when you are left to base it on rational principles. "Do unto others..." (quoth Confucius, a few hundred years before Jesus) is all you really need to remember. Recognize the basic right to life, first and foremost. Extrapolate all other ethical principles from that and you're all set.