The Athiest Thread

[UnseenWombat]

I think referencing events we all know about already was a little patronising myself, lol.

It might have been if someone hadn't asserted that no one had ever killed in the name of science.

THAT'S THE JOKE.

I'm sorry then that I mistook you for someone who wanted to have an intelligent discussion. I won't make the mistake again.

ONCE AGAIN, IT'S ASTONISHING YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION MY MAIN POINT. "DURR, EVIDENCE, THAT'S FOR SUCKERS. I LIKE TO MAKE WEAK ASSUMPTIONS INSTEAD. THEN I CALL IT REASONABLE FAITH."

Already addressed it. There is plenty of historical evidence for the tenets of the Christian faith if you're willing to look outside of Infidels.org to find it. Not only that, but Christianity is philosophically defensible, as has been demonstrated for 2 millenia now by people much smarter than either of us, despite all your bluster and blather about it not being so.

Like a study that I cited earlier in this thread, turns out our body is only really about 1/10th actually ours. Scientists did an audit of cells in/on the human body and found that we have ten times more microbes/bacteria cells than actual human cells. But anyway, as far as the brain goes when a part of it is dead or damaged there's no evidence that information is retained through some "upload" to a spiritual plane. Stroke victims have to relearn speech and motor functions. The damaged tissue doesn't get repaired. New pathways are formed in other parts of the brain if the victim's lucky. If information was part of the soul and the person's still alive, then they would still have their soul and that information right ? If they still had their soul they should be able to identify loved ones but that's not the case.

Christianity asserts that we are spirit and flesh. If either one is damaged, the other will suffer. You mentioned an example of the process going in one direction. I'm sure if you think about it, you can imagine examples of the other.

 

[damn-I-Suck]

Explain to me how evolution disapproves God? You can have your way with the Religious folk. But bring it over here, against someone how has absolutely no problem with Science, yet still affirms God.

That is a perfectly reasonable philosophy. The problem is that 9/10 people are referring GOD to a certain religion.

 

[TerminatorCortez]

In the bible, it says that we do not know God because we don't know the World. By knowing how the world works its easy to conclude that someone is behind everything.

 

[damn-I-Suck]

Look, I understand that wikipedia is not 100% reliable.

However, for the purpose of this discussion: Heart surgery wasn't invented until around 1850-ish. You can back that up with anything credible.

And besides, if something in Wikipedia isn't correct, they get scrutinized and someone comes along and corrects it. At best, there may be some wrong information in there for a week or so.

 

[damn-I-Suck]

In the bible, it says that we do not know God because we don't know the World. By knowing how the world works its easy to conclude that someone is behind everything.

The irony in that statement is that, as knowledge has advanced, less and less people believe in god.

People like to use the concept "GOD" to fill in the gaps of knowledge, or to attempt to explain something unknown.

Does this sound familiar? "Why is the world this way?", "Because GOD did it and we will never understand his reasons". Sure sounds like a cop-out to me.