Just lookin for good conversation, and fun times, and goofin off...and ...and...CHEESE!!!
coolfiree: . there is a creator and you are still really bad at trying to convince me or anyone that there is not.jjust because you sit in front of your computer stating God is not real
doesn't make it so ! it proves nothing...so case closed!
Crash: //there is a creator//
That's a claim.....got any demonstrable evidence to back it up?
Furthermore, even if there WAS a "creator" It doesn't then follow that said "creator" is any supernatural entity....let alone a SPECIFIC supernatural entity. All your work is still ahead of you to demonstrate that.
//you are still really bad at trying to convince me or anyone that there is not.//
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.....that's your bag. I'm simply asking you and ppl like you to DEMONSTRATE your claims to be actually true.....not just SAY they are. So far.....you have failed to do this.
//jjust because you sit in front of your computer stating God is not real//
I have never said "god is not real." So...that's just a flat out lie. Thanks you for once again illustrating you're dishonest.
//it proves nothing..//
You know what ALSO proves nothing......claiming "god IS real." LOL
I do enjoy watching you constantly embarrass yourself little girl.
//so cased closed.//
Nope....case open. You claiming the "case is closed" and running from the conversation like the coward you are means nothing.
Good talk cupcake.
My new discord channel.
If anyone knows how to do discord....I would greatly appreciate the help!!!
Crash: The argument AGAINST design!
Have you ever thought about how “perfectly designed” the human body is? If you’re a theist, you probably have! And you’ve probably attributed the success of the human body to an intelligent creator. It’s an age-old argument, eyes for seeing, hands for grasping, it’s all so perfect it must have been created by a perfect being, right? Unfortunately, this perfect being must have preferred the Greenland Shark to the human being, because even in the supposed fallen world of animal death, this species has at least five times the natural human lifespan! If humans are the pinnacle of creation, then why are so many other animals BETTER designed than we are? In fact, if we presume an intelligent designer at all, then the human body in many ways isn’t just of lesser design quality – but it’s actually a poor design in general. Compare the so-called “designs” of some other species…
Eagles have the ability to fly (as do many other creatures in this world). Flight is a huge advantage in terms of survivability. The ability to traverse great distances in a relatively short amount of time is obvious considering our reliance on air travel these days. But just the ability to not fall to our death from a great height would seem to be a design component that you’d want to incorporate into your “greatest creation”.
How long does it take you to notice if there is a gas leak? What if you had the nose of your dog instead of your human nose? How much quicker would we be in detecting dangerous situations, or identifying helpful clues if we had a dog’s sense of smell? If you could detect chemicals (or cancer) or tell who has been in a room in the last 24 hours just my sniffing the air, that might be an ability that comes in quite handy.
What about your sense of hearing? What if we could hear frequencies high enough to warn us of seismic tremors much earlier than the earthquake hits? Or to use echolocation allowing us to navigate in complete darkness like bats? How about vision? The aforementioned eagle has eyes sharp enough to see fish swimming underwater from hundreds of feet above the air. Hummingbirds and bees can see ultraviolet light, while vipers can see in infrared. We can’t do any of that shit!
Have you ever choked while eating or drinking? Why is there a “wrong way” for food to do down? Maybe if our airway wasn’t shared at the terminus by our piehole we wouldn’t have that issue. Dolphins who have a blowhole on the back of their head don’t seem to have the choking problem that we do. That’s obviously a superior respiratory design compared to what we have. What about lizards can regenerate limbs? Why weren’t humans designed with that ability? Especially when accidental amputations, intentional amputations (cancer), and birth defects contribute to the loss of limbs which can never be replaced? How is that a good design? Oh, and why exactly are the “fun bits” collocated around the waste disposal area? What kind of idiot would intentionally design something that way other than for shits and giggles? (pun intended)
Some might argue that humans have compensated for most of these design flaws by utilizing our superior brain to take advantage of science and come up with inventions that allow us to match or surpass animals who have these abilities. After all, while we can’t run 60 miles per hour like a cheetah, we have cars that allow us to drive this speed to work every day. Airplanes allow us to fly, radar and sonar allows us to navigate in invisible conditions, and so-on. Some theists might be tempted to credit “God” for all of these things that we have today, but there’s a couple of major problems with this argument.
You see, necessity is the mother of invention! None of these things would have been needed but for our inability to do them naturally (due to our piss-poor design). Hey look, we have GPS so that we never get lost. Cool, but so does a fucking pigeon who can navigate by sensing magnetic fields! If God is to thank for all of the science and technology we are able to make use of today, then God is likewise to BLAME for the lack of all of these things in the majority of human civilizations throughout the history of mankind! God didn’t give us airplanes, cars, bionic limbs, or advanced technology. He certainly didn’t give any of that to the ancient Mayan or Egyptian civilizations. No - we gave that to ourselves! Humans discovered all of these things, after thousands of years of inquisitiveness, experimentation, and trial-and-error. And we had to figure all of that stuff out because “God” didn’t give us this shit in the first place!
If any god actually designed the human body (or any other animal’s body), then he designed it very poorly! And a poor design is an argument against “intelligent” design. If humans can come up with better designs than God, then why call him “God” or assert superior intelligence? God supposedly designed humans with wisdom teeth that they don’t need and foreskin that he wanted people to cut off. He also designed males to ejaculate regularly by the time they’re 13, and females to bleed regularly around the same time – yet simultaneously has rules against the natural biological act of coitus unless “married” – because…social/religious reasons? If any god designed these things this way on purpose, then he’s certainly not all “good”. So which one is it theists? Is he an evil trickster god having a laugh at our expense (like he does with the duckbilled platypus), or is he just an idiot who can’t properly design things?
None of the features exhibited in the animal kingdom are indicative of any “designer” (intelligent or otherwise). They are indicative of evolutionary adaptations that provided different survival advantages to different species living in a universe that is constantly trying to kill us! If the universe was actually “designed” intelligently, then astronauts wouldn’t need spacesuits to survive in space.
View all 5 posts
Crash: //One thing I have noticed about you over the years is that you are very determined to prove that God does not exist.//
Incorrect. I am asking theists to demonstrate that a "god" DOES exist. As this is their claim. Hence, the assume the burden of proof. I do not need to attempt to demonstrate something to be "not true" which has yet to be proven "true" in the first place.
//You also seem quite angry to me. I feel strongly you will deny this.//
LOL ....of course I'll deny I'm "angry." That is simply a common cop-out nonsensical assertion theists use to deflect from the argument. "Oh you're sooo angry....what happened that you hate god. blah blah blah."
That is nothing but a red herring / begging the question fallacy.
Ya'll cannot defend your assertions that a "god" exists....so you dishonestly attempt to switch the narrative to something completely irrelevant and fallacious.
It's transparent and sad.
BelgianStrider: That input is very interesting and quite correct.
Concerning the human eye, no engineer would conceive a (digital) camera as it is conceived for the human. The "software" needed to make all the necessary corrections will be too huge.
That is also a clear indication that I.D. can not be validated.
Crash: Why the argument from "design" FAILS!
Theist: "I have evidence of God. Just look at the order in the universe? Look at the trees! They are designed to clean the air. Look at birds! They are designed perfectly to fly. Look at the human eye, and compare it to a camera! Look at how complex it is; it's designed perfectly to allow for vision."
Any skeptic will invariably run into a theist offering similar logic for how things in nature are designed. They may even try to use the cliched (and many times debunked) watchmaker analogy.
Theist: "You can tell design just be looking at something. If you run into a watch on a sandy beach, you'll know it was designed just by looking at it! You can see the complexity, the order, the purpose."
What the theist usually doesn't realize when they make this argument is that cannibalizes itself because it presumes that one can distinguish between a designed thing and a non-designed, while at the same time beginning with a presupposition that there are no non-designed things! The argument destroys itself.
The next time someone tells you that something natural looks designed, ask them "what does a non-designed thing look like?" And when they inevitably fail to answer, that’s when both of you will realize the failure of their argument! 😉
The way we can tell that something looks designed is by contrasting it with that which occurs in nature. Rocks occur in nature; rocket ships do not. Sand occurs in nature; watches do not. Thus, we can presume that when we see these things, one is natural while the other is designed. But in a theistic worldview EVERYTHING "looks designed" because they begin with a presupposition that everything IS designed. Consequently, they have no frame of reference to distinguish between a designed thing and a non-designed thing. From that perspective, a rock would look just as "designed" as a rocket ship!
The other way the argument from design fails is that we can confirm design by demonstrating a designer. The designer of a watch for example can be demonstrated. We can see people designing and constructing watches. But theists cannot show any gods designing or constructing rocks. In fact, a god constructing a rock is the very thing they are trying to prove in the first place. But you don't prove that by showing us the rock, you prove that by showing us the rock-maker! If you can't show the rock-maker, then there is no reason for us to conclude that rocks had a maker, or that they are "designed" by anyone.
Crash: “God did X, Y, and Z for me” does not demonstrate evidence for a god. Not only does this fail as empirical evidence, but it doesn’t even count as anecdotal evidence, and therefore ought not be reasonably accepted as such.
The reasons for this are three:
1) Correlation does NOT imply causation. To reach a conclusion about a cause of something simply by observing an event is called a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (this therefore that) fallacy! It occurs when people explain that a certain event happens because something else (which has not necessarily been demonstrated to be a cause, or even to exist) caused the event to happen.
2) The conclusion that God “did something” is based on an assumption that a god exists to do anything in the first place. If there is no god, then whatever happened cannot be explained by a god (something else must have been the cause). The fact that you don’t know what else could be the cause does not justify assuming that your presumption was the cause.
3) In order to demonstrate causation, one must conduct an experiment which establishes a link between the effect and the presumed cause. Even if a god existed, that doesn’t mean that any effect can be attributed to that god until the cause is tested, under specific controls, and yield repeatable and predictable results. That would give you the anecdotal evidence you need to reach a conclusion about a cause. When someone else using the same methods can independently validate the results, then it would graduate to empirical evidence.
Storytime: My cat “Crooks” has an automatic cat feeder that releases food twice a day. The first few times it went off while he was sitting next to it, it startled him and he jumped as a result. However he quickly realized that each time this happened food ended up in the dish. Now, when he gets hungry he has a habit of purposefully “jumping” next to the auto feeder, as if trying to trigger food to release. He has reasoned (in his cat brain) that because his jumping and the food being released occurred at the same time that his jump “caused” the food to come out. His reasoning is obviously flawed to us because as a cat he doesn’t understand how an automatic feeder actually works, we do! But in his mind he has “evidence” that jumping causes cat food to come out of the feeder.
Crash: It's "moral" because God says so?
(The Failure of Divine Command Theory)
In California, marijuana is legal for recreational purposes, however in New York it is not. If morality was tied to legality (as it is in the Christian model) then you’d have to presuppose that anyone using marijuana for recreational purposes is inherently an immoral person IF they are in New York, but NOT if they are in California. And this model imposes a moral judgement on someone all the while ignoring “intent”, “behavior”, and “consequence”. Morality under this model is dependent on authority, by which something becomes moral because it is allowed by an authority, and it becomes immoral because it is disallowed by an authority. This is the problem with the Divine Command Theory of morality. It’s not a system of morality at all, as there is no means by which to “test” moral claims. They are simply based on laws and commandments.
Well-being (as in the well-being of humans and human societies) is a standard of morality derived from secular humanism, not religion. And while a religion can incorporate this metric of well-being as part of its divine command theory, that does not demonstrate that well-being is in fact the primary goal of the religion. If it were, then we wouldn’t need a god, or a Bible, or a Quran to tell us this. We wouldn’t need commandments or laws, or a “judge” since everyone would be capable of rendering a judgement based on this established standard. We also wouldn’t need “blessings”, or “promises of rewards”, or an “afterlife”, or “punishments”, or “divine retribution”, because none of that stuff is relevant to human well-being in this life. On the contrary, those are all things that de-value the importance of this life. If this life is the important one, then why would there be a second one to replace it? And if the second life is the important one, then what is the value of this one?
Homosexuality has no impact on human well-being, nor does practicing astrology, worshiping other gods, worshiping no gods, or eating shellfish! And yet these are all “laws” in the bible associated with punishment. These things are called “immoral” in the holy scriptures, while having nothing to do with well-being. Moreover, God punishes the innocent along with the guilty (visiting the inequities of the parents to the children to the 3rd or 4th generation). He killed all of the firstborn children of Egypt as a demonstration of his power, not because they were immoral. He ordered the destruction of the children of the Amalekites, not because they were immoral, but because their parents supposedly were (according to him). The bible says that God is a god of justice, and that only God is good. And yet this same god is described as a “jealous” god who executes “wrathful rebukes” and seeks “vengeance” (things that are deemed immoral for humans by the same agency). These are not the attributes of “goodness”, nor are they attributes of “justice”. They are attributes of a narcissistic HUMAN who has made up his own definition of “good” and who hasn’t yet learned the difference between morality and justice.
If morality was “objective” as is often claimed by the religious, and it was also based on “well-being” as is now claimed by the religious, then God now becomes subject to the same moral judgments based on the exact same standard he created. Morality couldn’t CHANGE based on God’s mood. God being a triggered snowflake wouldn’t invalidate the standard when it’s convenient for him, and then replace it to be used as an example for others. It would be consistent, otherwise it couldn’t ever be tested. If morality changed based on God’s mood and preferences and killing the innocent becomes okay sometimes, then it’s not only subjective, but also relative!
The reality is, well-being is NOT the priority (nor even the purpose) of morality under the Divine Command Theory as practiced in religious traditions such as Christianity and Islam. The purpose of what they are calling morality is to glorify God. “All things were created through him, by him, for him”. Humans are commanded to praise him, give all thanks to him, give all devotion to him, and give all credit for anything good to him. Conversely, we are to never question him, never test him, never worship gods other than him, and never blame him for anything bad. He supposedly created “free will”, but he gets to take credit for everything good that anyone does in accordance with that will, but never be held accountable for anything bad that anyone does with their will. Got that one wrapped up in a nice little bow - but that's not "moral system", (and if it were you'd have to call that "Trumpism". True moral systems enable us to determine what is moral under a set standard that doesn't change. And if we agree that the standard is well-being, then God could never be described as "all good" according to that standard.
Crash: I can’t wait to play final fantasy 7 remake: complete edition, remastered on my PlayStation 6 Pro in summer of 2033!
florecitacol: I am serious belefe I love to this man. Is hansome. Is beatiful. Is smart. Is inteligente
Crash: The Flying Car Analogy
A person comes up to you telling you the wonders of their new flying car (Jesus). They tell you it is very fast, very durable and completely safe. It is so safe the company pays your insurance for you.
They produce a brochure (Bible) full of accolades about the car, which they know so very well. They tell you of their friends who now have flying cars, and how much happier they are for buying them.
I ask for a test drive, but am told no flying cars are available to test drive now. I have to instead make payments (tithing) until I die and after my own demise I shall receive my very own flying car.
I reply “No thank you” as such a contract makes no sense.
I am then told if I fail to enter into the contract the maker of the car (God) will be so angry he will dump me into a volcano if I refuse to enter into the contract.
I see no evidence of the car’s maker (God) or the car (Jesus).
With no evidence to support the reality of the car (Jesus), or maker (God) why should I not think this is a confidence scam?
View all 31 posts
Crash in reply to rochelleforsberg: ONCE AGAIN....as you seem to have a hard time understand this ....I'll repeat it for you.
Something isn't "true" simply because you believe it is ....or claim it is!!
Please try to get that. Otherwise you simply appear ignorant or dishonest.
Crash: According to the bible, God does things for his own glory. Everything was made by him (FOR HIM). He uses man to gain glory for himself. He kills men (and their children) for NOT glorifying him. He is a jealous god, punishing the children for the sins of their parents of those who hate him. And if men love their own family more than him, they are not worthy of him. The god of the Bible is a fucking narcissist! Everything he does, he does for HIM (whether it’s helping man or hurting him). Nothing is done with humans being the priority; man is a secondary afterthought in Christianity! Read the Bible: (Exodus 14:17-18; Exodus 20:5; Isaiah 48:9-11; Matthew 10:34-38; Luke 14:26; Philippians 2:12-13; Colossians 1:16).
This is not mine. This was a snippet of a conversation that a friend of mine was having with another individual. However, it was so spot on I thought I would share it with ya'll
Crash in reply to rochelleforsberg: Did that........nothing happened....still in pain.
Also.....I don't see how a long dead rabbi can "love" anyone? There is shaky evidence at best that the biblical jesus even existed. Even if he DID ....there is absolutely NO evidence he was raised from the dead or what the "son" of any "god."
The bible is a CLAIM....not "truth."
Simply claiming something is "true" because you believe it is , means absolutely NOTHING.