Quote# 40049

based on what we know about complex designs and blueprints and laws, it makes infinitely more sense to suppose that the complex, law-bound universe and life must be linked to an Intelligence source. That's *way more reasonable* than the atheist's stupid "self-creating universes" mythology supported by nothing but alchemy.

Preteristvision, aol news 48 Comments [5/29/2008 2:27:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

BreeStar

Nothing... but... alchemy... You really believe this crap, don't you?

5/29/2008 2:32:29 AM

Illuminatalie

And what's wrong with alchemy?

5/29/2008 2:33:33 AM

anonymous_troy

So how did God evolve?

5/29/2008 2:37:14 AM

Eden

Maybe someone whose model of the origin of life is based on nothing but a collection of 2-4000 years old books is the wrong person to make witty remarks towards theories about the origin of life developed by scientific process ;)

5/29/2008 2:38:16 AM

Sofia.

Yet another misunderstanding of what atheism is. Being skeptical of God and religious deities does not equate absolute certainty that the universe did not have a creator.

5/29/2008 2:46:36 AM

Beeblebrox

That's just great. Why don't you lay some more of that good stuff on us about the flat Earth, cud-chewing rabbits, and camels that don't "divide the hoof".

5/29/2008 2:56:17 AM

Mike

Argument from complexity. YOU FAIL.



That's right Ed, he fails.

5/29/2008 3:03:26 AM

Adrian

Until priests get the ability to transmutate arcanite, I'll stick with my alchemist mage, thank you very much!

5/29/2008 3:14:48 AM

Wet Walnuts

Based on what we know about quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and emergent phenomena, it is way more reasonable to believe in these than in the stupid theists' "grumpy old man in the sky" theory based on nothing but Semitic fables.

5/29/2008 3:17:04 AM

nfp

Except, see, we've got evidence.

And your words there are evidence that you FAIL.

5/29/2008 3:29:28 AM

Allegory for Jesus

Complexity does not prove design.
The "laws" of nature are merely observations of the ways that matter tends to behave. In your view, the only universe in which we could exist that wouldn't be proof of God would be one of complete and utter chaos, that was completely inconsistent in its organization and movement, and is also inconsistent in its inconsistency. Yet, then you would just adopt a different argument ("only God could create an existence that can miraculously change in such a fashion!")
Oh, and atheists don't posit a self-creating universe, they posit a universe that came into existence due to the Big Bang, with complete origins being unknown.

5/29/2008 3:32:55 AM

Detrs

Newton was an alchemist, dipshit.

Oh...and no atheist believes that, but I don't expect you people to actually understand atheists and atheism any more than you understand homosexuals and homosexuality.

5/29/2008 3:57:10 AM

SeenAndNotSeen

The argument goes something like this:
1. Everything complex had a more complex, intelligent designer.
2. Cars are complex.
3. Therefore, cars had a more complex, intelligent designer: humans.
4. Therefore, humans had a more complex, intelligent designer: God.
5. Therefore, God had a more complex, intelligent source: ?
Oh, wait. that doesn't work. Scratch that last step.
*5. God doesn't need a designer.


5/29/2008 4:13:40 AM

Osiris

Here's the problem with your logic. If the Universe needs a more complex, intelligent designer, then where did that intelligent designer come from? Either it came from nothing, at which case, why can't the Universe not come from nothing but the super intelligent designer of the Universe can, or the super intelligent designer of the Universe had itself and even high super super intelligent designer? But then where did that one come from? You see the hideous gapping hole in your logic.

5/29/2008 4:16:29 AM

DarkfireTaimatsu

Alchemy, eh? Well, that's a new one on me, at least...

5/29/2008 4:17:55 AM

pete

Blueprints? Freakin' blueprints are proof of God? Drawings are proof of God? Arrrrrrrgh!

And WTF are these "self-created universes" you refer to? Human observations have detected only one universe and we have formulated "laws" and theories to describe the things we observe. These observations have led us to conclude that the observed universe has operated under the same "laws" since a few milliseconds after the beginning of the Big Bang. Human observations don't go back before the Big Bang, but, that doesn't mean that there was nothing before it. Whatever existed before the Big Bang is simply unexplained.

How committed to ignorance must one be to deny these observations? I don't think it's dependent on I.Q.
I know lots of people, "dumber" than me, who have no problem grasping this concept. And I'm sure there are plenty of people, "smarter" than me (though I've yet to meet one), who refuse to accept the obvious facts.

I can only conclude that these idiots are committed to keeping themselves ignorant out of fear. They are simply afraid that God will smite them if they "eat the fruit of knowledge". What a waste.

5/29/2008 4:22:43 AM

Fanatic-Templar

Wow, I never thought I'd get to see this image on this site again.


5/29/2008 4:44:03 AM

approximate

This intelligent source really fucked up in your case.

5/29/2008 4:44:46 AM

Ambrielle

The laws (I'm assuming you're talking about laws of physics) describe how the universe works. The laws didn't come first!

5/29/2008 5:18:39 AM

BoxerShorts

...alchemy?

5/29/2008 5:34:38 AM

FMG

We call alchemy chemistry now. And its physics that determines the theory. Its more sensible than yours since it does not suppose the existance of the supernatural.

And from what we know of laws , snowflakes must have a creator!

5/29/2008 6:34:03 AM

toothache

Yes, because magic is *way* more reasonable than science...

5/29/2008 8:34:58 AM

apYrs

the first thing a problem solver learns is that complex things are made up of (lots of) simple things.

While a cell couldn't have sprung fully formed from the swamp, accumulations of structures did lead to the point where self-replication began*. The rest is history.

(*Disclaimer according to current theory)

5/29/2008 9:24:07 AM

Freboy

Reason isn't a thermodynamical law.

Therefore what is reasonable is irrelevant.

5/29/2008 9:37:03 AM

bonzo

this is the first thing I've seen this morning, have I woken in the dark ages?

5/29/2008 9:39:56 AM

1 2 | top: comments page