Atheists and theist

[pyramid00]

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]

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]

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]

atheist try to prove nothing haha

[Monseratto]

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

[Monseratto]

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

[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.

[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.

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]

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]

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.

[minicarph]

ang atheist kelangan lang iprove exitence of nothing. coz the universe came out of nothing.

what so smart with that haha. if you ask me they re all lazy wannabee smart

[MR_BIG18]

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

how about NDE? how does one explain that?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[n_spinner06]

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.

Isn't this true for 'science' as well? Proteins floating in an ocean eons ago in a 'primordial soup' suddenly burst into life? Fairy tale? [emoji3] nobody can prove it. Nobody has evidence of it. Nobody can replicate it.

*buti pa nga theists in this respect at least they believe what they believe...live and let live kung baga unlike some athiests who try to shove their beliefs down your throat e wala naman evidence sa life coming from non-life. Bottomline belief lang din naman kasi hindi naman proven fact yan.



Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[niky]

how about NDE? how does one explain that?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tsikot Forums mobile app

Oxygen starvation leading to erratic neural activity.

Anyone with sleep apnea can tell you how vivid and real your dreams become when you can't breathe in your sleep.

Isn't this true for 'science' as well? Proteins floating in an ocean eons ago in a 'primordial soup' suddenly burst into life? Fairy tale? [emoji3] nobody can prove it. Nobody has evidence of it. Nobody can replicate it.

*buti pa nga theists in this respect at least they believe what they believe...live and let live kung baga unlike some athiests who try to shove their beliefs down your throat e wala naman evidence sa life coming from non-life. Bottomline belief lang din naman kasi hindi naman proven fact yan.



Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

No they don't "suddenly burst into life". It took a very long time for organisms to develop. We have proof that organic molecules and organic precursors can form and have formed off of Earth. We also understand how these molecules can and do assemble into coherent membranes.

Basically, organic molecules are like LEGO blocks which can "snap" together in certain orientations. Think of magnetic building blocks. Mix them together in an organic soup for billions of years and there's bound to be some sort of organization. Any form of organization that perseveres and then replicates will spread, eventually.

Admittedly, there are many steps that still have to be fleshed out, but scientists have recreated many of the steps needed for abiogenesis. It's too much to ask that they complete all the steps. You can't compress a billion years of evolution into a single lifetime.

-

Also... theists don't shove their beliefs down people's throats? Are you kidding me? Bibles for Marawi? The Spanish Inquisition? The colonization of the Philippines? Have you never actually LISTENED to the sermons in a Catholic Church where they lambast the Born Again and Protestants? (I have and do, because my Mother is Protestant) Are you not aware of the movement in the US to introduce Creationism into classrooms?

SOME Atheists proselytize. But this is the truth: Our concept of the beginnings of life is incomplete, and scientists will admit that there is much they don't know. But they will state what they do know. And this is what's taught in schools. Trying to shove alternate explanations down our childrens' throats without any proof or rational theoretical framework teaches them magical thinking. Not logic.

Simple lang yun. Parang math. Show your solution. Scientists do. If you can't understand the solution, then study the science until you can.

[nyvlem]

"Pascal's Wager
1.If you erroneously believe in God, then when you die, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end and there is eternal “nothingness”);
2.If you correctly believe in God, then when you die, you gain everything (a heavenly, infinite existence);
3.If you correctly disbelieve in God, then when you die, you gain nothing (death is absolute and ends all)
4.If you erroneously disbelieve in God, then when you die, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."

[Vodka]

"Pascal's Wager
1.If you erroneously believe in God, then when you die, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end and there is eternal “nothingness”);
2.If you correctly believe in God, then when you die, you gain everything (a heavenly, infinite existence);
3.If you correctly disbelieve in God, then when you die, you gain nothing (death is absolute and ends all)
4.If you erroneously disbelieve in God, then when you die, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."

the WEAKEST argument in town but some do think it's valid reasoning LOL

the quickest way to kill this argument is to ask which god/s. there are thousands. if you could believe & worship all of them then yes pascal's wager might make sense for you. but i bet you believe in just one god, so what if you picked the wrong god

[nyvlem]

the WEAKEST argument in town but some do think it's valid reasoning LOL

the quickest way to kill this argument is to ask which god/s. there are thousands. if you could believe & worship all of them then yes pascal's wager might make sense for you. but i bet you believe in just one god, so what if you picked the wrong god

hahaha.. your are correct, what if I pick the wrong God? I did asked those question a long time ago.. but the God I know sees the heart of the person rather than their intellect and outward appearance..

[Vodka]

hahaha.. your are correct, what if I pick the wrong God? I did asked those question a long time ago.. but the God I know sees the heart of the person rather than their intellect and outward appearance..

good luck to you. what you said there made absolutely zero sense but i guess it's the type of thing that the religious find very profound. it would be best to keep out of rational discussion

[Flipo]

Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God?

Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube

[nyvlem]

good luck to you. what you said there made absolutely zero sense but i guess it's the type of thing that the religious find very profound. it would be best to keep out of rational discussion

Actually pascal's wager makes sense..
1. If i belived in wrong God and there is God, then i will be the same with the group of people who does not believed in God. But there is probability of choosing the right God. If you dont believed in God. Then your probability will be zero
2. Blaise Pascal is more intelligent than me and he believed in the existence God and most probably he is more intelligent than bart simpsons.