Atheism

[Six Pack]

and where is your evidence for such a claim?

lol indeed!!

i wouldn't be looking to the old testament as some sort of historical record.

 

[Curtiger]

Since Atheism is the belief that there is no God, I want you to prove that He doesn't exist. On the Christianity thread, I have been told constantly that I am the one proclaiming He lives so it is my responsibility to prove His existence. Well, now you have an Atheism thread based on your beliefs, or lack of them, and the ball is in your court to 'prove' that God doesn't exist. After all, that is what your belief system bases itself on - the lack of existence of a God.

Well, Sartre gives it a red hot go in his text 'Existentialism is a Humanism'. Some very tricky logic in there. I have to relearn it every time I read it - it never sticks. You can check out this site for the text itself, and this one for a very well laid out summary and good explanation of Sartre's argument. I'd give you the gist but I don't really have the time now to read and paraphrase. I can remember thinking it's not really sound, and that a Christian would likely not accept all the premises. Tell me what you reckon, Jay, et al.

 

[evo]

Satre,Curtis,pulling out the big guns.

The last few sentences say it all.

Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.

 

[t-rob]

Satre,Curtis,pulling out the big guns.

The last few sentences say it all.

Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.

words

 

[Curtiger]

words

Word.

 

[t-rob]

words

Word.

Interesting use of the full stop there.

Full stops are usually used at the end of a sentence.

Can one word constitute a sentence?

God only knows.

 

[Freezer]

Can one word constitute a sentence?

Yes.

 

[Curtiger]

Can one word constitute a sentence?

Go!
Shortest sentence possible.

 

[Freezer]

Can one word constitute a sentence?

Go!
Shortest sentence possible.

Question:

What letter is the first in the alphabet?

Answer:

A.


Does the answer constitute a sentence? I think it would.

 

[cooltiger]

Eden? Nah, that didn't exist!

Yes it does ...On the NSW south coast ..great fishing spot ;D

 

[tigerdave]

Logic proves God does not exist

The female of every species is the dominant of that species - the male thinks he is but in truth it is the female who truly rules

Therefore if there was a God that God would be female and if that was so then

Cum would taste like chocolate.

And as the women in my life tell me it doesn't then God cannot exist......... :hihi

Remote,That is without doubt one of the funniest things i've ever heard! :rotfl

 

[jayfox]

One for the evolutionist Atheists - As a Christian I believe that God created all animals in the first place and allowed them to breed. As an evolutionist can you please tell me which came first - the chicken or the egg?

 

[Disco08]

The chicken.

 

[jayfox]

The chicken.

Can I get an explanation with that please? Was the first chicken born from an egg or did it somehow evolve from an eggless origin IYO? Did this first chicken then all of a sudden start laying eggs to create more chickens and, if so, how did that happen so quickly?

 

[Disco08]

The first chicken evolved from another creature, more than likely one that was already laying eggs. The first egg laying creature (probably very small) would have evolved from another animal when nature made it apparent that a shell around their fetuses was beneficial to the species and the first egg-laying DNA was 'created' by natural selection.

Here's an interesting tidbit from science about the chicken and it's genetic relations for you:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041215/news_2m15genomes.html

 

[jayfox]

The first chicken evolved from another creature, more than likely one that was already laying eggs. The first egg laying creature (probably very small) would have evolved from another animal when nature made it apparent that a shell around their fetuses was beneficial to the species and the first egg-laying DNA was 'created' by natural selection.

Here's an interesting tidbit from science about the chicken and it's genetic relations for you:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041215/news_2m15genomes.html

Thanks for your opinion. So when the nature made it apparent that a shell around the first egg-laying creatures fetuses were beneficial, how did this come about? I can't imagine that all of a sudden a creature went from giving birth to their young without a shell and then next time their young were born with a shell. How did the shell come to be? Do we ever see this kind of change in today's world or in creatures that we have studied over the thousands of years of mankind? Is there any creature that science can positively identify as having changed from a non-egg layer to an egg layer?

 

[shawry]

I love the old chicken/egg debate. Personally I reckon chicken how it got there I dont know, but you need a chicken to lay an egg and that is all I am going to conclude.

 

[jayfox]

The first chicken evolved from another creature, more than likely one that was already laying eggs. The first egg laying creature (probably very small) would have evolved from another animal when nature made it apparent that a shell around their fetuses was beneficial to the species and the first egg-laying DNA was 'created' by natural selection.

Here's an interesting tidbit from science about the chicken and it's genetic relations for you:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041215/news_2m15genomes.html

Thanks for the link too Duckboy. I have to say though that the biblical explanation for the differences in creatures genomes is that God made all of the animals at on sitting and was making a companion for man. When He saw that none of the creatures He had created were an odeal companion for man, including the reasonably similar Chimpanzee, He took a rib from Adam and created the perfect companion for man, in woman. I guess that this is another reason why Christians believe that Homosexuality is wrong. God didn't create another man to be man's companion and lover, He created a woman. And the two genders are needed to breed for the continuation of the species.

 

[Disco08]

Thanks for your opinion. So when the nature made it apparent that a shell around the first egg-laying creatures fetuses were beneficial, how did this come about? I can't imagine that all of a sudden a creature went from giving birth to their young without a shell and then next time their young were born with a shell.

It could have easily happened the other way around of course. All vertebrates could have begun as egg-layers and the egg itself could have become redundant whereupon natural selection would have removed that DNA from those creatures who no longer needed to lay eggs.

How did the shell come to be? Do we ever see this kind of change in today's world or in creatures that we have studied over the thousands of years of mankind

If you mean 'do we see creatures' DNA changing in today's world?' the answer is an obvious yes.

You also have to remember that science believes (and believes it can prove quite comprehensively via multiple sources) that the earth is billions of years old. The evidence for evolution comes from Geological strata that are millions of years old and millions of years apart.

Is there any creature that science can positively identify as having changed from a non-egg layer to an egg layer?

Archeology shows that early mammals (200 million years old) were egg-layers. But as more advanced mammals evolved almost all of them have the trait of giving birth to live babies. Exceptions to the rule prove that only where egg-laying was beneficial did it become part of the species' DNA.

 

[jayfox]

Thanks for your opinion. So when the nature made it apparent that a shell around the first egg-laying creatures fetuses were beneficial, how did this come about? I can't imagine that all of a sudden a creature went from giving birth to their young without a shell and then next time their young were born with a shell.

It could have easily happened the other way around of course. All vertebrates could have begun as egg-layers and the egg itself could have become redundant whereupon natural selection would have removed that DNA from those creatures who no longer needed to lay eggs.

How did the shell come to be? Do we ever see this kind of change in today's world or in creatures that we have studied over the thousands of years of mankind

If you mean 'do we see creatures' DNA changing in today's world?' the answer is an obvious yes.

No, with this one I meant have we ever seen, in human history, a creature change from giving birth to live young to being an egg layer?

Is there any creature that science can positively identify as having changed from a non-egg layer to an egg layer?

Archeology shows that early mammals (200 million years old) were egg-layers. But as more advanced mammals evolved almost all of them have the trait of giving birth to live babies. Exceptions to the rule prove that only where egg-laying was beneficial did it become part of the species' DNA.

How did they show this? Did they find fossilized mammal eggs? Can you provide evidence for this please?