Good job. You pissed off quite a few people. I'd have thought we'd all have learned that you're a massive troll by now, but it appears not. Keep up the good work, I guess.

Nice way to take the quote out of context too. This is from a letter he wrote to a philosopher after the philosopher had given him a book called "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter is incredibly clear about his stance of non-belief.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".

He believed that faith was a must, but not religion. When he says religion in the later, he is refering not to religion as an evangelistic organization, but as a sense of awe or wonder.

I don't know if that's true or not. it probably isnt but i don't feel like researching it.

"I don't know if that's true or not. it probably isnt but i don't feel like researching it. "

And this is why we laugh at believers. Instead of figuring out the truth, you'd rather sit around with a smug smile thinking you're right. This quote - to me atleast - has shattered ANY credibility you have on any given topic or argument.

"This quote - to me atleast - has shattered ANY credibility you have on any given topic or argument. "

That's the definition of ad hominem. 'You're wrong about this, therefore your other argument is wrong too.'

What other choice is there? You willingly stay in ignorance instead of researching to see if you may be wrong or not.

but that doesnt mean i havent researched other topics

It can be safely assumed.

no ones ever won a debate by relying on ad hominem

This is a debate? I thought this was just me telling you how stupid you are to ignore something that contradicts you. You're so sure you're right that it's laughably arrogant.

do you always try this hard to impress people on the internet?

If this is a debate i'd tell you that was a nice try at a red herring but, i'm not trying to impress anyone. I just think you're an idiot and I was always good at conveying my thoughts with words.

I guess you're my ultra enlightened, intellectual superior. your sharp intellect has devastated me. I may never recover.

yeah because i represent every Christian in the world.

So the idea is "We can't comprehend it at this moment therefore god." right. K.

we know that certain systems are irreducibly complex, there's nothing they could have evolved from.

Complexity =/= designed.

You believe that biological systems evolved from other more primitive biological systems right?

then explain what irreducibly complex systems such as the bacterial flagellum evolved from. any less complex 'versions' would be completely non-functional

"An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system.
All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently extinct organelle/organism.[citation needed] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Or so says Wikipedia, at any rate.

all of the parts of the flagellum would have had to be functional, and we know that none of the parts have any independent functional.

"It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently extinct organelle/organism."

Speculation. And it just pushes the question back further.

Have you ever heard of abiogenesis?

www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4412907/Science+fuck+yeah/19#19

www.funnyjunk.com/religion/9202#9202

It would probably be better for your argument if you copy pasted that horseshit instead of linking me to the threads full of people refuting your claims.

" full of people refuting your claims"

That's cute.

The beauty of science is that it changes over time. When we find new information we change what we "know". Because we don't have the answer now doesn't mean we won't have it later. So the idea of filling in the blanks with "GOD" until an answer surfaces is assinine. And it could be very possible that a less complex version of the bacterial flagellum could have been non functioning. Look up habiogenesis.

your presupposition is that scientists will definitely find a solution to this problem. your filling the gaps with science that doesn't exist yet.

if the less complex 'version' of the bacterial flagellum was non-functional, it wouldn't be subject to natural selection. it couldn't have spontaneously became functional, that would break the laws of physics.

abiogenesis is not supported by any evidence. The natural occurrence of amino acids essential to life does not constitute life.

Excuse me? Did you just say that entire branch of scientific theory that's been worked on by countless scientists for over a century has no evidence for itself whatsoever? Dismiss all of it out of hand with some simplistic, bullshit handwave that I'm sure any biologist would laugh you out of the room for even attempting? Do you realize how incredibly arrogant it is to think that you, or anyone is this thread whose job isn't working on this, is even remotely qualified to have an educated opinion on something this complex?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells

Here. Read that entire page, and then tell us again that "abiogenesis is not supported by any evidence".

Wikipedia = legit

I know it's not the best source, but it's convenient and you can do a lot worse.

well you got me there :/

you got me there , well played

Your entire first paragraph is an argument from authority.

The wikipedia page just lists hypotheses, none of which are supported by evidence. they contradict each other so even atheists would agree that those explanations are most likely false. also most of those explanations are demonstrably wrong. for example, the "Metabolism first" model makes no sense because a metabolism would have no reason to exist without the existence of living organisms.

I...good lord. You realize hypotheses are SUPPOSED to contradict each other, right? That's how the scientific method wor-no. I'm done here. You have no idea what you're talking about, are utterly convinced that you do, and there's no point in debating with someone like you. Have a nice life.

so then why did you tell me there's evidence of abiogenesis?

Evolution Mutha Trucka

I'm not filling any gaps. You're putting words into my mouth, and then countering what YOU said to fit your argument. Did I say they will definitly find a solution? I said because we don't have the answer now doesn't mean we won't have it later. I have more 'faith' in science than in the archaic and nonsensical beliefs of any religious institution.

so you're admitting that currently the best explanation is that it was designed?

"I have more 'faith' in science than in the archaic and nonsensical beliefs of any religious institution. "

Science supports intelligent design. The Bible is an incredibly reliable historical document. compare it to any other ancient text, the Bible is in a class of its own.it accurately describes places, people, and events in high degrees of detail

The bible is most definitly the most reliable historical document in history. EVER.

The story of the dead rising and marching into the city. That is a pretty significant event. You'd think EVERYONE would have written about or documented it, but it's only mentioned in the bible.

are u referring to Isaiah 26:19?

Again, you are putting words into his mouth, not once did he say science follows design, for as science evolves it changes with the current pattern. It is not a set design like you are trying to force into this conversation.

right now the best explanation is intelligent design.

Did you know the Egyptians actually believed a scarab beetle pushed the sun across the sky? They believed that 100% no matter what, and no one would say they were wrong or their gods didn't exist.

That's you, and the thousands of other religions in the world that 100% claim they are correct and their god is right.

You're assuming that science will contradict intelligent design because you have a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism

I said nothing about science or 'intelligent design'.

Let's go back to the beetle idea. We very well know that the sun is not pushed across by an insect, yet the Egyptians absolutely believed it. Centuries ago, the church spread around that the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe, more that we now know is very wrong, and yet they claimed to be absolutely correct. Actually, people were punished for thinking differently.

Your reasoning of 'we don't know right now so god is the best reason' is like 'you can't prove me wrong so therefore I am right'. There is no proof of a creator or a god existing, why should I believe your religion over the thousands of others who claim the same authenticity as you?

The burden of evidence does not fall on the one proving something wrong, but the one proving something right.

but you're claiming that it absolutely happened without a creator. this is a claim so it needs to be proved. in the scientific community, people are punished for being creationists. they often get ridiculed and mocked but i bet that in a 100 years, evolution will be completely disregarded by scientists


"There is no proof of a creator or a god existing,"

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
the universe began to exist
the universe had a cause

You misunderstand, I am saying you cannot prove there is a god, and you just tried to turn my own argument back on me by saying I have to prove there isn't. That's exactly what I sad you're wrong about, and you just proved it.

Your logic proves yourself as wrong as it proves me. You imply a god created the universe, but what created god then? Did he just come about? But according to you, that can't, as everything has to have a cause. That's a pathetic reason.

And why do you keep ignoring my questions about other religions? Please, explain to me how they are wrong, yet you are right.

God is causeless by definition. it makes no sense to ask what created God.

"everything has to have a cause"

every that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.

"Please, explain to me how they are wrong, yet you are right. "

Other religions are not supported by evidence

Your argument is weak, baseless and downright ignorant. The fact that you believe so blindly is, in fact, sad.

How can you speak for every other religion out there? Please, where is this evidence you speak of? I've seen nothing but speculation and selective belief.