Leading Atheist Philosopher Concludes God's Real

[Urban Ranger]

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Agathon

Agathon: The dinosaurs only existed once in the history of the world (as far as we know) and no-one experienced them... Does that mean they didn't exist and is therefor silly?

No. And that is a really sad answer by the way.

We have evidence of the existence of dinosaurs: fossils and the like. Given what we know about animals, geology and suchlike, which is based on countless examples, it is a reasonable assertion.

How do we know that the laws of nature were the same 50,000,000 years ago? We don't. One of the irrational things we do is engage in inductive inferences, we can't live without them.

Difficult,
as the Dinosaur Bones could have been buried by the Planet Builders of Magratea, as they created earth.
(see HHGTG for Reference )
(although it seems to be very unlikely )

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Haven't we been here before, Lincoln?

For starters, stop confusing atheists with evolutionists, and evolution with abiogenesis.

Yep, there are big differences in the thiongs people believe.
I for my part believe that there is such thing as a god (although not in a strict christian manner) and an afterlife, and can even accept that Jesus was some kind of Prophet for God,
but I strictly deny that the Bible is a holy book which has to be taken literally (especially in case of Creation vs. Evolution).
(after all the bible is a collection made by a human organization of books written by several human authors. and even if I think that the things Jesus said and did were inspired by some kind of god, all other testimonies within the Bible IMHO have to be taken with a grain of salt (and Jesus AFAIK never said, that he would give the people a holy book which they should take literally; instead he gave people examples of proper behavior through the things he did))

(I also believe, that all Religions only grasp a partt of the truth, but that no Religion could claim to possess the whole truth [which is a thing many religions do])

[RGBVideo]

Big news, yeah right.

Almost every single HC-atheist in the western world becomes a devout christian after the age of 60, just before dying because of their age. Those few who don't will soon find themselves from the signatures of the next generation of HC-atheists at Apolyton.

Most 'atheists' are just some sort of college frat boy pussies, looking for an excuse to **** around and live recklessly.

In other words: Spam thread! Yay!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by VJ
Most 'atheists' are just some sort of college frat boy pussies, looking for an excuse to **** around and live recklessly.

Uh huh.

No belief in god != no ethics.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by VJ

Most 'atheists' are just some sort of college frat boy pussies, looking for an excuse to **** around and live recklessly.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Uh huh.

No belief in god != no ethics.

UR!!! You just turned yourself in!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

You too Guynemer!

[Guynemer]

I don't tell Christians and other theists who and what they are; I don't think it is out of line to expect the same in return.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Philosopher.

Based on scientific evidence.

This is just stupid....

I will join Ramo and Krazyhorse with this one :

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
He makes a good case, but exactly why did some animals develop hollow bones and with that the ability to fly?

Someone has to come forth with the case for intelligent design. It sure as hell ain't explained by Darwin.

I'm curious if you have actually read any papers from evolutionary biologists about the development of flight in animals. Because evolutionary theory certainly has explained the development quite convincingly.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

The "case" for intelligent design is a poor one. It is simply a "God in the Gaps" argument--if we can't immediately explain how something came to be, then an "intelligent designer" did it. It's no different than the ancient belief that magnetism was magic.

There is no scientific evidence for ID--not a bit. It's biggest proponent with any scientific credibility, Michael Behe (a molecular bilogist), has presented the "Irreducible Complexity" argument, but evolutionary biologists have routinely shown that Behe doesn't know what he's talking about and makes scads of unjustified assumptions.

Speaking of explanations, how does ID explain the abundant evidence for jury-rigging in nature?

Flews argument is specious, and any cosmologist can easily poke huge fat holes in the whole "causation" nonsense (ie, cause and effect require a temporal relationship. Time did not yet exist at the moment of the Big Bang, so the idea of a "cause" or something preceding it at all is simply a wrong way of thinking of it).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I don't tell Christians and other theists who and what they are; I don't think it is out of line to expect the same in return.

Indeed. VJ's comment was as asinine as someone asserting that most "Christians" are x, y, z. I doubt VJ has met most atheists.

[Lul Thyme]

What are you talking about Boris?
Surely youre not saying lightning is a natural phenomena!
And disease always come when Im not nice with my faimly...

I dont see any other explanation than Zeus is mad!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Is the notion of god less silly than elves dancing on electrons, an invisible purple with pink polka dot unicorn, or an unseen, noncorporeal dog that follows you around?

Yay for the dancing elves

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tuberski
We do? Godzilla doesn't count neither do bones.

ACK!

Bones certainly count as evidence.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Flews argument is specious, and any cosmologist can easily poke huge fat holes in the whole "causation" nonsense (ie, cause and effect require a temporal relationship. Time did not yet exist at the moment of the Big Bang, so the idea of a "cause" or something preceding it at all is simply a wrong way of thinking of it).

Uh, yes it did. The Big Bang wasn't a moment of creation, that's the whole idiocy of their point.