Atheism Destroyed With One Question

This is my response personally and what I think is wrong with what he's saying. I guess what he's saying that animals can't have come from some kind of circular cycle or created themselves, and that the world can't have, and, in his mind "and my god is immune to this because he doesn't need to create himself because it says he doesn't". You can't use something that comes from the assumption that god exists as he does in the bible to support it like that (the 'god doesnt need to etc etc' part). Religion can use exemptions and loopholes and science cant I guess. Cant say "the world is eternal"? xD

What I mean by the underlined part is that you can't take from the bible saying that god is  a supreme all powerful being and doesn't need to have created himself. You can say that IF he does exist as he does in the bible, he would not need to have been created, but you're trying to prove it.

Also, to me saying anything was simply always sitting there or was born from nothing are both ideas that are hard to imagine. I don't support picking one and saying the other one is just too dumb or makes no sense.

So, with that "destroyed" all he has left in his "proof" are well, any other arguments.

This post was last modified: 05-09-2012 12:36 AM by mels8780.

That reminds me of the Peanut Butter Vs Atheism video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

This post was last modified: 05-09-2012 12:40 AM by Gallstone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0asG-8HbxGc

Dude, that's awful. The fact that you don't get life from nowhere in a jar of  ****** peanuts (aka, smashed, ******, cant even grow) isn't enough to disprove evolution. Is he serious? Holy crap!

I can't look at it now. Will try later.

Science is a work in progress. It doesn't have the answers for everything. Yet. That doesn't mean that the answers are not out there somewhere. We just need to keep questioning, keep searching, keep thinking, keep learning.

Just because a religion has all the "answers" doesn't mean that it is correct. Saying "my religion is correct because it has the answer to question X: God did it, question Y: God made it, and question Z: Because God said so. Therefore my religion is better than science" is probably logical to some people. Increasingly, though, people are seeing the flaws in this way of thinking and atheists are growing in number.

I'm starting to get annoyed of Religion

I couldn't watch the whole thing.  He's not being serious, is he?  I am thinking of the guy who tried to disprove the statement "with god, all things are possible" by asking, "what about impossibility."

He's either going to regret posting that once he sobers up, or he's deliberately presenting an idiotic proof of a statement to destroy it's credibility.  

This post was last modified: 05-09-2012 03:59 AM by Lang.

Surah isn't a book in the bible..... Is it?

No it's from the qu'ran

My take on this, is an idiot. That question has been answered many time.

Oh...

The proof against the existence of God is in the very claim that he's all-powerful. To be all-powerful, he would have to be omnipotent and omniscient, that is to say, he would know at any given time everything that had happened AND everything that was ever going to happened. But if he knows what's going to happen, that means he is powerless to change the future, and is therefore not omnipotent, because by definition the future fall outside his power. In fact, if he knows everything that's going to happen, he actually has no determinitive power at all.

It is a very simple answer to the chicken and egg question. In evolutional terms, a long time ago a creature that was very chicken like laid an egg from which a chicken as we know it was hatched. Boom. The big confusing question Atheists supposedly fear is answered and dork looks like as big a dork he always was.
But let's be honest here. There are cleverer questions. Some questions to which Atheists have to say "I simply do not know and can not vouch a defined answer yet and that Christians will call as a flawed argument. These arguments are fairly much a stalemate. The best one is the something out of nothing argument. I don't believe there will EVER be an argument for and if Christians want to hang their hat on this that is fine by me and I actually think a good thing.I hope we never get answers.
The other thing is of course that science has blown that many holes in Christian beliefs because they were developed by a Bronze age tribal people and that is actually fine. They explained things great for the time they existed.
A few small bastions of belief that Atheists can not prove but only refute is good.

The actual answer to the question you allude to (What came first - the chicken or the egg?) is 'the egg', but at a far greater remove than you envisage. Fish and dinosaurs laid eggs millions of years before evolution produced anything like a chicken.

..and it's interesting that peanut butter should have been mentioned here. If one looks at a peanut, it's quite clear that it is a primitive ancestor of what we now know as an egg. Proof positive that plants and animals have a common source.

Exactly. Sorry did i not make that clear in my waffle?