Victor B

Why is there still water?

Checkmate, Christians.

Supposedly, by then the world's oil resources will be exhausted and everyone will stop paying attention to the islamic countries in the middle east, letting them fight one another over desert sand until they come to their senses.

God is all-knowing, God is all-seeing,

Just who do you think you are to change His mind?

He already knows what you want, and decided that you didn't need it.

So stop asking for cures or an answer,

God is the one that gave you the cancer.

Agree, Y/n?

(*if he exists at all, that is. Also, thanks Voltaire.)

This baffles me.

Ok, so we are in AD 2012. Or 2012 CE. Why would usage of this calendar even by atheists be proof of God? That's utterly moronic.

A thought experiment.

Most computer keyboards in the world use the QWERTY standard, despite there being no compelling reason to do so anymore. This standard arose in the era of typewriters, when mechanical pieces could get entangled and stuck on fast typing. The first computers kept the standard not out of necessity, but because it was traditional, and because most typists would not need learn another standard.

The same goes for the calendar. The benefits to using an religious-based calendar are *not* because of religious reasons, but out of practical reasons.

In essence this kind of behavior is akin to the 'dollar auction' in economics, in which locally optimal moves lead to a global suboptimal solution.

So, then, why do some people insist that atheists are hypocrites, or some other nonsense?

Often, we are presented with quotes from so and so who said this and that. Some times, they're taken firmly out of context, and sometimes they are fabrications, but that's not my point.

You are appealing to authority when you're trying to bring quotes as an argument. This appeal to authority is an informal fallacy.

At best, appeal to authority is a crutch to lean on if you lack expertise in that particular field, and need an expert to lend credence to your argument. This, however, sinks in the face of the fact that most quotes presented are personal opinions, and as I hope we all know, no one can be an expert on personal opinions.

Now then, I am baffled because of this practice. What's the point? When you debate within your own theistic circles do you all just quote scripture passages to and fro until you're blue in the face? Because if you are, that is not what science does.

A scientist is not judged based on the fact whether or not they believe in sky pixies, but on their works. Isaac Newton was a religious nut, but doesn't make his calculus any less valid because of it. I, personally, I'm not impressed of any personal opinion Newton might have held, quoted at me, when I know what his actual scientific work is.

So yeah. Enlighten me. What's the point? Appeal to authority is a flimsy excuse, and no one who's scientifically minded follows X because they said Y. Passing off personal opinion as an authoritative expertise is also disingenuous at best.

I need to know this. As an atheist, I'm usually called a 'son of Satan' or a 'devil worshiper' or such other trite idleness.

Since supposedly, Christians spend time building a relationship with god and observing rituals, praying to get into contact with him, while following his revelation in the bible, while following his commandments, I would take that those things are mandatory for one to be considered a follower of god.

Since I don't worship satan, nor pray for him, not observe any rituals tied to him, nor read his scripture (I'm not even aware of such a scripture existing), not pray to him, nor obey any of his supposed commandments, the logical deduction would be that satan is more powerful than god, since god needs all those things, while satan can just go fine without them.

What sayeth thou?

I figured out what would be enough proof for God. He should just come out of the sky and show himself to everyone on the planet at the same time. He should say, in their native language, directly into the aural pathways in their brain: "Hi. I'm God. I know you will think this is a hallucination, so here's your copy of the Theory of Everything. Everyone on the Earth gets one at the same time, so don't fret if you lose it. Spoiler warning: It involves 11-dimensional mathematics. See you later, ok? Oh, and btw, I didn't really want to kill My Son. He insisted. I said I could just forgive all of you without the whole killing and crucifixion thing, since I am all-powerful, but He just mumbled something about that not being much fun."

*poof*

Then in your hand there should be a copy of an grand unified theory, complete with valid proof. What's more, everyone on the Earth should have one at the same time.

That would convince me, what about you?

We just need lots of chariots made of iron.

Judges

1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Thank you. You may now appoint me as military adviser against god.

The bible says they should!

2 Timothy:

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Technically, that pretty much include all female school teachers, Germany's Chancellor, Argentina's President, the British Monarch, among others.

Cue mental gymnastics below this line.

_________________________________

Pot, kettle, black?

Of streptomycin and tetracycline to the very pious inhabitants of 14-th century Europe?

I mean, surely, they could have used it back then.

Thought experiment. Suppose you have a coin, and flip it 100 times. After each flip, write down the result.

After 100 flips, calculate the chance of obtaining that *exact* sequence. I trust you'll find that the chance is very low. Yet it still happened.

Not only that, but the same can be said of *any* exact sequence of 100 flips. They are all equally probable.

This is the danger of calculating probabilities in hindsight. You risk of simply glossing over the fact that *any* sequence of such events is equally improbable, but one of them simply *must* occur.

Now, the second part to that argument is 'notability'. If you got a string of 100 tails that would be notable, right? What if your flips end up with the first 100 digits of pi in binary? Is that notable? What if your flips are perfectly alternating? What if the flips end up with the number of years since Kurt Kobain's birthday in binary?

What constitutes notability? Any sequence is notable in some way or the other. Are some more notable than others? If evolution would have had us evolve with say, two pincers instead of feet would that have been more or less notable? What if we evolved with four eyes? Since the eye is (wrongly) given as an example of irreductible complexity (hint: it isn't), then having more of them would have been more notable, and even more unlikely, right?

Now let's assume that sentience is notable, for the sake of argument and that there is no superior way in which sentience could occur. What now? Well, now this brand of notability is insidious. For such characteristic to be notable, it is imperative that it exists in the first place. If you weren't sentient, you could not meta-recognize your own sentience.

Like the ones in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_...

And then claim that goddidit, since science doesn't answer everything? How do they know that god did it? Why are they sure it was a particular brand of god (namely, *their* god), and not some other type of god that did it? Why do they assume that such a god, if existing, must necessarily be known and/or knowable and intelligible?

Why do they dismiss currently accepted (yet still problematic) models *completely* and then replace it with whatever hodgepodge theory they got out of a book written by fallible men? I mean, surely, if you solve 2+2 and get 5 one would think you'd try and refine the process so that it's closer to the truth, instead of throwing everything out and writing '2+2=cabbage' because some old book said so.

Also, why do they believe that such a god, if it exists, needs worship? An eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being needing worship or else his ego gets hurt. Absurd?

Seriously, I'd like at least some coherent explanation.

Does that mean that the triple-anti-retro viral therapy was sent by Satan to make sure those suffering from AIDS live an almost normal life?

I mean, it obviously kinda sends the whole 'punishment' plan swiveling, doesn't it?

Did you know that recent studies have shown there's a big ball of flaming gas over our heads? We call this novel discovery "the sun".

Since he is omniscient and all.