Thread: Top youtube Muslim starts being rational

What makes religion bullshit? You can't call bullshit unless you have proof the God(s) doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

What makes religion bullshit? You can't call bullshit unless you have proof the God(s) doesn't exist.

Seriously, aren't we past this? Are we seriously not past the teapot agnostic argument?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Seriously, aren't we past this? Are we seriously not past the teapot agnostic argument?

Well, I don't really see the teapot argument being any good since we're able to observe Mars and could see if there's a teapot orbiting the planet. You can't observe God(s). Should I say evolution (the form of humans evolving from monkeys) is false since it hasn't been observed?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Actually that isn't how the game works. See, a person calls BS, then you have to prove to them that you have the cards, and if you don't you have to pick up.

I think the game history so far has gone like this...2 3 4 5 (god), "BS!"

And this is where you have to show us the God card. If you can't show us the God card we've accurately called BS.

That doesn't prove how religion is bullshit, neither of the statements above from either of you two proved how religion is bullshit. It just shows why atheists don't believe in a God(s). Should I call bullshit on the theory of humans evolving from monkeys? I'm glad scientists don't think like some atheists, if they did we'd never know much of anything in the science field.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

That doesn't prove how religion is bullshit, neither of the statements above from either of you two proved how religion is bullshit. It just shows why atheists don't believe in a God(s). Should I call bullshit on the theory of humans evolving from monkeys? I'm glad scientists don't think like some atheists, if they did we'd never know much of anything in the science field.

Right...cause skepticism isn't the scientific perspective on all claims presented...before evidence is provided.
First off, you should call bull shit on "evolving from monkeys." Lol check your science.

Secondly, that is how scientists think, it is called evidence. You don't have to show me a previous being changing to a new one to prove to me it happens. You just have to show me fossils...and other evidence which we can draw conclusions on.

The difference between evolution and God is that we actually have evolution cards, it is called dna and fossil records.

However what do we have for God? The only answer any theist can give is "existence" which is flawed because God himself would have to exist...thus negating the idea that for anything to exist a being need create it.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Right...cause skepticism isn't the scientific perspective on all claims presented...before evidence is provided.
First off, you should call bull shit on "evolving from monkeys." Lol check your science.

Secondly, that is how scientists think, it is called evidence. You don't have to show me a previous being changing to a new one to prove to me it happens. You just have to show me fossils...and other evidence which we can draw conclusions on.

The difference between evolution and God is that we actually have evolution cards, it is called dna and fossil records.

However what do we have for God? The only answer any theist can give is "existence" which is flawed because God himself would have to exist...thus negating the idea that for anything to exist a being need create it.

Uhm, no. Atheists "call bullshit" and tell the theist to prove it, atheists do nothing to find out for themselves. So from your statement let's take for example, evolution, a scientist "calls bullshit" so from what you say he must find someone that believes in evolution to prove it? We both know the scientists will go prove it for himself and do his own research.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Secondly, that is how scientists think, it is called evidence. You don't have to show me a previous being changing to a new one to prove to me it happens. You just have to show me fossils...and other evidence which we can draw conclusions on.

Haha, I don't have to actually show you a monkey evolving to a human for you to believe they did. I just have to show you a fossil and tell you that's how it happens. Aw, how cute. Fossils don't prove evolution (reptiles to mammals, or what have you), they only can let you make assumptions.

Seems hypocritical that you criticize theists for believing a God must exist but never provide actual proof, yet you don't criticize evolutionists for believing reptiles evolved into mammals when they have no actual proof.

What would you say if I showed you a fossil layer from the Cambrian explosion? I mean, you go from the layer before the Cambrian explosion and there's a few different organisms, then you hit the Cambrian explosion layer and there's great quantity and diversity of organisms. Did evolution just speed up and go ridiculously fast at that point and a shit load of organisms just started evolving from each other?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Haha, I don't have to actually show you a monkey evolving to a human for you to believe they did. I just have to show you a fossil and tell you that's how it happens. Aw, how cute. Fossils don't prove evolution (reptiles to mammals, or what have you), they only can let you make assumptions.

And you failed to understand my statements earlier, we didn't evolve from monkeys, only a moron with no understanding of evolution would believe that. Go to the zoo and you will see what we didn't evolve from.


You are inherently wrong. Look up the definition of evolution (change in inherited traits) and then look at a fossil record and tell me that doesn't prove evolution.

Morons are so quick to say "there are missing records in the fossil record thus evolution must be wrong." They say this inspite of everything else that the theory is proven to be true about.

Hell didn't we just have a thread that spoke about how birds have dna in them from dinosaurs?

Didn't I make a thread about the ever famous crocoduck?
Archaeopteryx

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Uhm, no. Atheists "call bullshit" and tell the theist to prove it, atheists do nothing to find out for themselves. So from your statement let's take for example, evolution, a scientist "calls bullshit" so from what you say he must find someone that believes in evolution to prove it? We both know the scientists will go prove it for himself and do his own research.

Lol. I suppose all scientists rely on research that they have done themselves, and it is not a collaborated effort.
Meanwhile what evidence do you have that atheists don't look for it themselves? We look all the time for the TRUTH. We simply ask other people to show us what proof they have so that we can see if that is proof enough for us.

Look up what "peer review" is and then maybe you'll understand the purpose of asking other people for their proofs.

We have already examined the evidence that is available to us, and we find the evidence LACKING. We ask others because hey, perhaps we're wrong, perhaps our thesis could use a bit of sprucing up, we've used up all our possible resource for evidence, maybe they have some new stuff.

More often than not the proof other people have is something we have ALREADY heard, and we happen to think that "go outside and look at the trees" isn't good enough.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Seems hypocritical that you criticize theists for believing a God must exist but never provide actual proof, yet you don't criticize evolutionists for believing reptiles evolved into mammals when they have no actual proof.

What do you want a video recording of events that happened in the span of millions of years?

"No actual proof."

Try medicine.

Well evolution btw is a fact...the evidence is there. It isn't "just" a theory as some people would say. It is a THEORY. That means its GOOD. When something is a scientific theory, that means it is the best possible explanation we can have at our current understanding of the world around us.

Originally Posted by http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations


The Fossil Record


Geological strata containing an
evolutionary sequence of fossils
Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens.


Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.

All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.

All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.



section of a DNA molecule

These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.



simple protein molecule

All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.


Human arm bones
(typical vertebrate pattern)

In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.

Originally Posted by Justin

What would you say if I showed you a fossil layer from the Cambrian explosion? I mean, you go from the layer before the Cambrian explosion and there's a few different organisms, then you hit the Cambrian explosion layer and there's great quantity and diversity of organisms. Did evolution just speed up and go ridiculously fast at that point and a shit load of organisms just started evolving from each other?

Originally Posted by wiki

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.4

There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian.[69] However recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing.[72] In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.[69]

Originally Posted by Sandform

And you failed to understand my statements earlier, we didn't evolve from monkeys, only a moron with no understanding of evolution would believe that. Go to the zoo and you will see what we didn't evolve from.

Hominids evolved from monkeys and we evolved from hominids, they were basically monkeys and technically we did evolve from monkeys.

Originally Posted by Sandform

You are inherently wrong. Look up the definition of evolution (change in inherited traits) and then look at a fossil record and tell me that doesn't prove evolution.

Morons are so quick to say "there are missing records in the fossil record thus evolution must be wrong." They say this inspite of everything else that the theory is proven to be true about.

Hell didn't we just have a thread that spoke about how birds have dna in them from dinosaurs?

Didn't I make a thread about the ever famous crocoduck?
Archaeopteryx

I'm not denying evolution, I'm saying fossils don't show actual proof. You can't look at a fossil and see a reptile evolving into a reptile-like mammal.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Lol. I suppose all scientists rely on research that they have done themselves, and it is not a collaborated effort.
Meanwhile what evidence do you have that atheists don't look for it themselves? We look all the time for the TRUTH. We simply ask other people to show us what proof they have so that we can see if that is proof enough for us.

Look up what "peer review" is and then maybe you'll understand the purpose of asking other people for their proofs.

We have already examined the evidence that is available to us, and we find the evidence LACKING. We ask others because hey, perhaps we're wrong, perhaps our thesis could use a bit of sprucing up, we've used up all our possible resource for evidence, maybe they have some new stuff.

More often than not the proof other people have is something we have ALREADY heard, and we happen to think that "go outside and look at the trees" isn't good enough.

I know scientists look at other findings too, but I've never seen an atheist on here try to give proof for God not existing, they say they don't have to. That's stupid. If a scientist thought like that then they'd never find evidence of anything. I've looked up proof of God(s) not existing, you know what people state as proof? "Prayer doesn't work," "the bible contradicts itself," etc. etc., that's shit for proof. But, all the same for "we exist," "creationism," or what have you are shit for proof for God existing.

Originally Posted by Sandform

What do you want a video recording of events that happened in the span of millions of years?

"No actual proof."

Try medicine.

Well evolution btw is a fact...the evidence is there. It isn't "just" a theory as some people would say. It is a THEORY. That means its GOOD. When something is a scientific theory, that means it is the best possible explanation we can have at our current understanding of the world around us.

Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's good. People can look at creation (not creationism) as a theory, does that mean it's good? Not to your standards. There are multiple theories for a lot of things.


PBS: FAQs about evolution.

Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began, most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense -- over 10 million to 25 million years. These Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ch...ime/index.html
The Cambrian period was from 530 to 520 mya, the basic body plans of the major animal phyla are established over a relatively short period of roughly 10 million years. All the major animal phyla in existence today (about 3 dozen), evolve from these Cambrian faunas.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Uhm, no. Atheists "call bullshit" and tell the theist to prove it, atheists do nothing to find out for themselves. So from your statement let's take for example, evolution, a scientist "calls bullshit" so from what you say he must find someone that believes in evolution to prove it? We both know the scientists will go prove it for himself and do his own research.

I just wanted to point out that actually yes, first someone has to believe it or state it before he could disprove it (or rather prove that someone stated a false claim). So technically though he doesn't have to converse with this person, he first has to become acquainted with the theory, which is proposed by another person.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Well, I don't really see the teapot argument being any good since we're able to observe Mars and could see if there's a teapot orbiting the planet.

You don't know that there isn't a teapot. The teapot could be in an antipodal orbit to the satellite in question, rendering it undetectable. At any rate, you completely missed the point. The point is, not being able to prove something doesn't exist, if used as an argument, can be used to argue that anything exists, not just gods.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

What makes religion bullshit? You can't call bullshit unless you have proof the God(s) doesn't exist.

Actually that isn't how the game works. See, a person calls BS, then you have to prove to them that you have the cards, and if you don't you have to pick up.

I think the game history so far has gone like this...2 3 4 5 (god), "BS!"

And this is where you have to show us the God card. If you can't show us the God card we've accurately called BS.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

What makes religion bullshit? You can't call bullshit unless you have proof the God(s) doesn't exist.

Indeed, are we not past this? But I can however with absolute certainty tell you about how many religions are bullshit.

((The amount of different religions) + (their thousand of variations like Mormonism, Church of latter day saints, and so on) - 1) = The amount of religions or beliefs that are certainly bullshit.

Leaving one possibly true, the other about 10.000 religions or different views on god(s) as complete bullshit.

I just say one more religion is bullcrap. Statistically, that isn't so weird, since they are pretty much all certainly bullcrap.