At 11/9/09 05:42 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/8/09 07:05 PM, vgfa287 wrote: no of course not. I don't think the bible deserves any respect what so ever. I really wasn't talking about myself before. all I was saying is that a creationist is someone who takes the creation account in the bible literally.

I believe in Creationism but not in God!

I'm sorry how is that even possible ?, can you please define what you think creationism means?

At 11/9/09 05:42 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/8/09 07:05 PM, vgfa287 wrote: no of course not. I don't think the bible deserves any respect what so ever. I really wasn't talking about myself before. all I was saying is that a creationist is someone who takes the creation account in the bible literally.

I believe in Creationism but not in God!

That makes no sense mate, if someone, something created us, by your belief...who created it?

At 11/9/09 06:05 PM, vgfa287 wrote: I'm sorry how is that even possible ?, can you please define what you think creationism means?

Creationism is that the universe was created, not specifically by God.

Allow me to present my arguement;

Callum's Arguement For Creationism

God can't exist because, if a creator were in our existence, he/she or it (lets make it a 'he') would have to create energy. Which means that that this energy would have to suddenly move along a still timeline.

This suggests at one point, our universe was static and no energy was moving which defines the beggining of creationism, and the creator got this energy moving.

So something has to act as an engine to drive this static energy, but the creator can't do this in our existence because he would be in a standstill along with the rest of static existence. Like the way a battery conserves energy and uses power to drive the energy around the circuit. Something needs to act as the engine for time which dictates that energy can make matter move around the cosmos.

Subjectively this means that if there was a creator, he would have to be in another existence to create our own existence, otherwise time would = 0, T=0, and thus the creators energy would be locked in static within the rest of time. So the creator in the other existence would have to give an energy input into our existence. But the starting point for that creators existence would have to also draw energy from another existence; and this would create a series of infinate timelines.

TIMELINE BELOW

Logically this means that the universe needs an engine that has been moving, and has therefore always been moving, and will never stop moving. Infinity is based upon this forever moving, and that the timeline of the past stretches on to infinity.

Our present needs to have arisen from an infinite past, which leads to an infinite future; thus there never was a very original 'creation', so it is false to envision God as the creator of the universe, because he could not create himself in our, or any mode of existence.

The only way that my philosophy teacher found to critisise my theory (from a Theists perspective) was that, God is outside the realms of all time, space, and matter; he also said something about a guy who shown Time and Energy are not fully dependent, but i'm looking for ways around that... You can't disprove God, and it sounds stupid, but it's God right? He has the infrerence of the best explenation on his side. It's freaking, rediculous ¬_¬ Although we all know he can't exist, people continue to argue it.

Yes all you Atheists out there... I am a man... Of Science.

Note to self, post this on the Philosophy club, which I neglected to do...

At 11/9/09 06:23 PM, Master117chief wrote: That makes no sense mate, if someone, something created us, by your belief...who created it?

By the way, if you take some notes. The idea from Creationism, but not from God, came from non other then 'The Matrix', I do believe. You know, living in computers and stuff.

KEANU REAVES YEAH!

BUT WHO WAS PHONE?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

At 11/9/09 06:54 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: BUT WHO WAS PHONE?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Keanu Reaves says don't praise God, eat corn flakes!

Nom Nom All Hail! If I eat corn flakes he'll save me from the Matrix and I'll turn into the one =3

At 11/9/09 06:56 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/9/09 06:54 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Keanu Reaves says don't praise God, eat corn flakes!

Nom Nom All Hail! If I eat corn flakes he'll save me from the Matrix and I'll turn into the one =3

Just remember... THERE IS NO CEREAL BOX!

At 11/9/09 06:54 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: BUT WHO WAS PHONE?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Lmao. I'm gonna go find that now. The first time I saw that I laughed my ass off.

Yo man atheist to the core.
//nope, dont respect the bible!! as far as i know, its the most borring bed time story there has ever been//

At 11/9/09 10:04 PM, aliaspharow wrote: Yo man atheist to the core.
//nope, dont respect the bible!! as far as i know, its the most borring bed time story there has ever been//

Word.

At 9/26/09 04:20 PM, TheFreedMan wrote: God is not a floating man on a cloud that shoots lighting at those who oppose him, but an image created by humans, and seen in the eyes of humans that drives people to do better things.

Nope, if God was real, he'd be a hilbilly floating on a cloud with a sniper rifle. That is also natural selection for you.

At 11/11/09 09:10 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 11/9/09 06:47 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: TL;DR

That was the most incomprehensible picture I've ever seen. Learn to draw you godless swine.

No, this is the most incomprehensible picture ever seen. Plus, trolling might not be your thing lad.

Anyone ever checked ph0ne's post history? WELL LOOK AT THAT.

Next person to get in a proper argument with ph0ne gets thrown out of the club. Also next time he starts being a dick then call a mod, don't fucking reply.

At 11/12/09 10:43 AM, JesusBukkake wrote: Anyone ever checked ph0ne's post history? WELL LOOK AT THAT.

Next person to get in a proper argument with ph0ne gets thrown out of the club. Also next time he starts being a dick then call a mod, don't fucking reply.

May I ask what authority are you, besides, it's just fun how he can't take any criticism. Or dish out any!

You guys still haven't answered the question I posed earlier:

God damn it, mich, WHO WAS PHONE?

At 11/12/09 10:43 AM, JesusBukkake wrote: Anyone ever checked ph0ne's post history? WELL LOOK AT THAT.

Ever checked it? Shit, all we've done is fuck with ph0ne for the last 30 pages. I AM ph0nes post history.

Next person to get in a proper argument with ph0ne gets thrown out of the club. Also next time he starts being a dick then call a mod, don't fucking reply.

I've got him banned twice already, but he doesn't learn. It's whatever. Also, I don't think we've met. Welcome to The Atheist Army! And I still dnt know who was phone MultiC. :( I'm looking into it.

I believe he's saying that the Bible simply took innate human morality and claimed it was from a god being.

Pretty much I'd say, MultiC. Humanism, as I mentioned earlier, is the idea that you don't need religion as a guide to live a moral life. But, you know, it's just such a fascist idea of course.

At 11/13/09 10:09 PM, PabMo wrote:

Don't bother with Phone, he is the biggest retard/troll/thing, in the club! He say's nothing of value, never backs up his arguement, never wins an arguement, never contradicts an arguement, and never supports any of his claims with anything that can be transcribed as 'evidence'. Ultimatly he is one of them brainwashed folks, and his purpose in an Atheist club is fuitile.

Also he looks like a douche. LOL

Jesusbukkake's authority is my authority

At 11/17/09 04:27 PM, ph0ne wrote: No need to rage. Calm down and think of more constructive things to say other than "douche."

Douchebag

If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

At 11/28/09 02:52 PM, Patton3 wrote: If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

are you going to be debating this professor? if so what is the topic of the debate? in any case I usually find it helpful to write out what I want to say before hand so that I don't forget get it latter on.

At 11/28/09 02:52 PM, Patton3 wrote: If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

I'm going to do a quick nuttshell here.

Be objective when addressing his argument, don't be an idiot! Don't be a phone! He'll be somewhat clever, and will stratify when approaching the argument. I suggest you do the same. Look over some Theist, and Atheist debates.

As a matter of fact I had a theist lecture the last week. You may see that all Theists argue god from an emotional point of view, rather than a mechanical one. You must approach the argument mechanically, not to let any emotions get involved in the thinking process, otherwise the conclusion becomes subject to opinion.

If he starts babbling on about the beauty of nature remind him why he isn't an accepted member of the scientific community for me will you. There is no pro-theist theory to date which has not been disproven scientifically, or logically. You know you have won when he finally explains. God exists outside the realm of all space and time.

That is the final defensive status. Even then that infers his non-existence in our ultimate existence.

So debating and talking is all about winning now? I don't consider myself a Theist, but it always strikes a nerve when people debate about it. See that nutshell? That's what it ALWAYS turns into, nothing more and nothing less.

The Theist uses personal experience and uses logic to deduce from that experience the existence of a higher being, and the non-Theist tell him/her that he/she is delusional. Why, that's how it goes, right?

Well... considering it was posted here, I thought that it was obvious the topic. Anyway, thanks for the points. It's been an e-mail back and forth for a while. and yes, Griffin, you're right in the regard that he likes to take an emotional point of view.
However, a point that the only logical explanation for the universe's existence is god... Any points anyone here would like to make on this.

At 11/28/09 09:55 PM, Patton3 wrote: Well... considering it was posted here, I thought that it was obvious the topic. Anyway, thanks for the points. It's been an e-mail back and forth for a while. and yes, Griffin, you're right in the regard that he likes to take an emotional point of view.
However, a point that the only logical explanation for the universe's existence is god... Any points anyone here would like to make on this.

No, God, has the IBE, the inference of the best explanation, which means that it is the simplest way of explaining the fundimental logic of the universe. That does not necessarily mean that he is the best explanation for the universe. Has he ever watched the matrix!

Also watch out for this trap, it's called the arguement for irruducable complexity. The simple answer to that is science can explain everything. Without science there would be no fundimental logic to anything.

Here is some copypasta from something I wrote a long time ago, put it into context.

The commonly accepted answer before the 19th century was that God created the universe, all that is present was crafted by an almighty hand, somehow transcendent to the people we are today. Now this answer is rejected, and over the fluctuation of time and space mankind has evolved and unveiled countless findings; science does not attempt to disprove God, as it is commonly perceived, but only wishes to unravel the mysteries that have boggled our minds for practically countless years.

There is the argument for irreducible complexity, which suggests something like, the human eye is so complex that it must have been created, because it has been created perfectly and functions co-existentially with the human body; blahblahblah.

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is invalid, it simply claims that you do not understand the eye comprehensibly enough. You'll have to phrase that in your own words if it comes up, but basically; 1/2 does not = irreducible complexity. No, 1/2 = 0.5 / 2 = 0.25 .etc Its our understanding which defines the complexity of a structure.

Um. Just tell me what he says and I'll start pulling the guns out of my hat.

Ah! Here is what i'm looking for!

Hundreds of years ago we were unable to diagnose the common cold so we turned to God, once science had progressed when we were unable to diagnose the common cold we turned to the microscope.

That is a particularly good counter-arguement of the complexity crapola. Given a short space of time I quickly pulled some crap out of my box of wonders which is my computer. Hope it helps!

At 11/29/09 06:14 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

That is a particularly good counter-arguement of the complexity crapola.

I'm so close to stating that complexity is subjective I can taste it.