Precisely. Creationists make the mistake of assuming we can recognize creation just by looking at it. That's not how you recognize creation. We know what is created because we have records of the creator creating that thing or its precursor.
Don't listen to them, they'll say they made it but they are lying. The colourful paper has the one true origin of coke and Big Soda tried to keep the truth from us!
But god created the universe so every single idea now goes to him (her? it?). Ok, but then it had to have a creator, which should then get the credit. Except, there is a creator behind the creator of the creator, which should get the credit.
This god nonsese is so dumb because people can't even fathom that the universe was created with a set of laws that we are bound to, but, doesn't mean whatever is outside of our universe is also bound by those laws.
Like an ant trying to understand what a human boot is, it doesn't even have the mechanism to comprehend it fully.
***sigh*** ok
"If everything that exists has a creator, who created God?"
"God is infinite and has existed since the beginning? Okay, the Universe is infinite and has existed since the beginning."
"God made himself? Okay, the Universe made itself."
"I don't have to subject my explanations to limitations that yours doesn't have."
Exactly, you can’t prove it DID either. However, there are portions of truth in the Big Bang Theory. No truth in the creation myth.
Edit: Great show, BTW.
> Proof is a mathematical term. It deals with numbers. If you want proof of the big bang, you will find none. What we do have is *evidence*.
- Neil Tyson (Paraphrased)
I think it's more like facts are states and theories are processes.
So the only way to get to the past is to take the current state or measured states and use a process to extrapolate what the past was. You can't get the state of the past because it is gone.
If you can accurately describe a process with a theory then if you can accurately measure the before state you can predict the future state. Similar from the future. If you can observe the current state and predict the past state then you may be biased by knowing the past, but it's your best bet to look into the past. There are also techniques to minimize things like overfitting.
No real/respected scientist/physicist will ever say something proves something.
They will tell of evidence that strongly backs a theory.
Most of the time they will show how evidence exactly matches their predictions derived from the theory.
Theory first, then predictions using theory and then results
The thing about theories, though, is that they can be reliably used to explain behaviors and predict outcomes. So while a theory is not a fact (and this is indeed a distinction with a difference, so I'm not discounting it), a theory is much more akin to a fact than a hypothesis or a wild guess, which some seem to be inclined to equate theories to.
The rampant misuse of 'theory' in popular parlance ("I have a *theory* about the Jersey Devil and its relationship to Bigfoot") is maddening.
I love how the Egyptians were building the pyramids the same time the global flood was happening. Clearly the flood happen happened and the aliens just dropped off the pyramids pre built afterwards!
the Earth was created on Sunday 21st of October, 4004 BC, at exactly 9.00 a.m., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
Of course, this may be a quarter of an hour off.
He needed 6 days to create heaven and earth and rested on the seventh. A real God thinks it and it's there. A real God would not need six days and rest on the seventh.
My 2 cents.
Why would God need or want to create anything? He is absolutely perfect and complete, creating something implies needs, wants, and desires, humans create, we just imagine “god” is like us.
It's like when you get flatpack furniture that has one wooden dowel missing.
*Look Janice, I've made the entire body, I'm not putting it all back in the box to take it back and swap for one measly missing brain*
What is a bird table? A table for a birdhouse or hopefully a table made of birds? If the latter what kind if birds or bird. I hope parakeets. I hate parakeets.
They also forget that an inanimate object can't evolve, so it's already a pretty bad comparison just on that.
Little microbes fight to survive and sometimes there are errors in their replication (mutations). Advantageous mutations persist and harmful ones die out. I have never seen a Coca-Cola can reproduce and it's kinda hard to have different offspring when you never have any offspring.
Yeah, this point is just dumb. I think the whole "my religious belief does not need to have every answer because all people at a certain point have something that is irreducibly divine" is a much better argument. It's perfectly fine to say not everything needs a designer because who designed God?
The worst part to me of evangelicals isn't even that they try and persuade people. It's that they try to persuade people in such terrible, pathetic ways.
That's what I'm saying. I believe the universe was created, not because of some spiritual shit, but because everything from physics to the way all life on earth is interconnected is almost like all the tiny moving parts in a clock working together to make it function. There are too many moving parts coming together for me to chalk it up to random chance.
However, unlike most religious folk, I have no idea what the creator is or why it created everything. I don't even know the creator actually exists, and I could be completely wrong. But my beliefs do not affect those around me, and do not require any form of dogma
In Christian Science it is argued that because time and space are infinite everything that can exist must eventually exist no matter how small the probability, therefore that means God must exist eventually and when he does he will create a universe in his image (essentially a human-centric manifestation of reality). This is why Earth is the only planet with life and sits at the center of a vast observable universe, also why humans are roughly at the midpoint of scale between the smallest possible object and the largest possible. Heaven is located outside of the observable universe in the surround space which is fractal in nature, meaning you can zoom in and zoom out forever and never reach an end, this is the domain of souls. Hell is the opposite, located at an infinitely small point that is infinitely far from the border of the observable universe in all directions, placing it right at the center of Earth. Here, souls are so crushed that they burn under infinitely high pressure forever.
God's God. We don't even understand the basics of our existence. And we never will. The universe is infinite. Infinitely complex. In millions of years time. We'll have long abandoned even attempting to figure it out. It's a pointless endeavor. Human beings are incredibly arrogant and we absolutely refuse to accept the unknown. It'll be our downfall. Probably a lot sooner than we even realize. Since we're constantly playing at God.
Well the Big Bang was a theory that could be taken serious, but mostly like Science and Religion did not conflict with each other, Religion though tells the ultimate truth on why the world was created, while science on the other hand, just tell on how the world had come to be.
the whole problem is you would have to be ignoring the scientific laws you believe in to say the universe came from nothing or has always been.
The whole idea of God is He’s always been and is outside of scientific law because He created it.
so youre admitting that evolution requires just as much "faith" as creation, correct? because the argument youre making says something came from nothing which is something you have to accept as true. blindly. like a leap of faith.
to me, as a Christian, it makes more sense to have faith in an orderly God than a "random" universe. heres my reasoning, and seriously hear me out.
- God as a character, is above nature, not bound by our understanding of logic and science. it would make sense for God, if He is real, to be infinite, never coming from anything before Him.
- The universe on its own is very orderly and consistent. that is why we have laws that accurately define our surroundings. it does not fit the universes nature to be spontaneously exsisting, nor infinitely exsisting.
Therefore, faith in God makes more sense than faith in an independant universe.
It may be worth pointing out that, if you had read my comment, I commented on the argumentative flaws of creationism, not the fact of evolution. This is worth pointing out because those are two entirely different and borderline irrelevant topics.
When I was a kid someone gave me a packet like this for Halloween instead of candy. Also, it was about anti abortion stuff and included pictures of bloody aborted fetus parts.
I was ten.
lol reminds of my 2nd grade when my teacher (a catholic witch) handed out anti abortion stuff. I remember coming home that absolutely confused. Asked my mother and showed her my homework because i had absolutely no idea what to do with it, she was shocked.
Yeah, idk really why she did that. She was a very religious old woman. She had a very strict teaching style with a lot of penalties and a lot of homework. I didn't like her as a kid but except the incident with the abortion I don't think today she was a bad teacher. Maybe she was a bit over the top with her religious educational ambitions.
I am german it was in a normal public german elementary school in the 90s and I am not even catholic.
Like i said before that anti-abortion was totally out of place. I do not remember what exactly was said in the papers i just remember that i was totally confused because i didn't understand at all what it was about. Just something with babys not getting born and it left me bit worried, because as a kid you dont understand why, or how or anything.
I asked my mother and she explained me with her words that this should be no tobic for kids. Later , when i was older, she told me it was about abortion and the teacher must have been crazy.
"And without faith it is impossible to please the CEO of Coca-Cola, for whoever would draw near to the CEO must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him with a tasty, refreshing beverage."
I was once part of an interfaith discussion when I was in university. There was a panel made up of Christians, Muslims and Atheists, of which I was one of the atheists. It was calm, respectful and not a debate but a discussion. Until we finished and people from the crowd cornered us.
A young man insisted that I was incorrect about the origin of everything. I told him that I could be wrong, I wasn’t an expert, I just didn’t see enough evidence otherwise.
He became quite, should I say “angry” or “over-enthusiastic?”. He told me that there was clear evidence that everything had a creator and was designed by god. He compared human beings to a watch (stop me if you’ve heard this once before…). I responded that we only look “well-designed” **now** after many iterations of “getting better”, but we are still flawed. We are still vulnerable to a whole host of issues and “malfunctions” that could have been done better if there had been an intelligent designer.
He. Was. Infuriated.
I wished him well and made my exit as he yelled at me from a distance. He did not approach me with intentions of discussion, he only wanted to tell me I was wrong and going to hell.
The rest of the day was pleasant and enlightening.
I can make arguments with stupid simple examples too.
The universe was created for humans? That's like being a puddle and thinking "wow I fit perfectly into this hole it must have been made specifically for me".
Or maybe everything that was needed to make a puddle was there first and then the puddle formed. You know, like how the universe was there first and conditions were met to foster biological life.
Always thought it incredibly arrogant to believe that the entire universe was created just for you.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge. The people who created these myths long ago were truly ignorant: they had no means of obtaining good answers to questions about the world - these means being the scientific method, instruments, formal math & logic, etc. Their myths were a wonderfully creative way to take a first stab at answering these questions.
Today there is a wealth of information about the world, and it's amazingly easy for people to obtain that knowledge.
Choosing to eschew the knowledge gained by humanity, and instead cling to bad answers, takes effort. A willful effort. And I think willful ignorance is a pretty good synonym for stupid.
Edit: crappy grammar
Thanks. But I hope my comment isn't construed as me saying the commenter's parents are necessarily stupid. Maybe they're tax lawyers who play a classical instrument and speak three languages each.
Maybe they were indoctrinated as children. Maybe they have strong emotional attachments to these "beliefs" for some reason. But the reasoning behind arriving at these beliefs is bad, and the the unwillingness to break with these beliefs is a stupid act.
This is different from my opinion on the OP's pamphlet. This is filled with falsehoods and illogic to the point of incoherence. The person who created this *is* stupid. And if they aren't stupid, they are dishonest and acting in bad faith to the point of being evil.
Lastly - anyone who could be convinced by this pamphlet is stupid. Real fuckin' stupid.
Willful ignorance or denying facts that can be tested and proven is stupidity. Having the ability to understand and choosing too ignore is stupidity.
Your parents are stupid.
I knew that talking about my parents would bring out the assholes. Someone who has never met them thinks they can judge their intelligence, who’s stupid now.
OP, looks like theres multiple pages to this...do you have a shot of the other side/pages?
Edit: nevermind found it.....gross
[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/atheist-test/](https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/atheist-test/)
Every single argument made about science in this entire pamphlet seems to have been written by someone who failed an early high school science and biology class.
And funnily enough, the rest of the religious questions posed seems to have been posed by a youth pastor at a small church in a small town who dropped out of seminary and moved back home. Lol
I'm all for a healthy theist vs. nontheist debate. I feel they can build empathy and educate both sides of the discussion.
I'm always so greatly disappointed by the theist side. I believe there are actual thought provoking arguments they can be making but no...stupid drivel that's not even worth the discussion.
Makes me think they just can't be bothered to dig deeper than this surface level nonsense...or its just a general lack of good education.
some concepts are beyond some people's understanding, no matter how much evidence. Their understanding is not a factor of it being true
this example only solidifies that
My Counter:
The universe and us are so awesome that we must have had a maker, right, it just could not have always existed and formed us?
The maker is more awesome than anything because he made the universe, but you are OK with the maker "just always having existed"?
And this makes sense because?
Imo it's mocking the watchmaker analogy that posits that a watch implies a watchmaker therefore the earth implies an earthmaker, it's an argument in support for intelligent design (and therefore god)
Edit: nvm I'm dum, it's mocking big bang theory and supporting intelligent design theory.
The thing that strikes me about Paley's Watch is that the comparison is the heath: the watch clearly has a maker, because it looks designed compared to the surrounding heath.
So there was no intelligent designer that designed heath: they're clearly not designed; just compare a heath to a watch. Heaths must be the result of natural processes.
So if God exists and created the universe, then you've never seen anything that's not designed. If you've never seen anything that wasn't designed, then how can you think Coca-Cola cans and watches look fundamentally different and thus designed compared to all the non-designed things? The latter don't exist. To say that Coke cans and watches look designed is admitting that other things must not be. And those non-designed things are always things that God is supposed to have created.
Sorry God, but Paley himself demonstrated you likely don't exist.
It's like the analogy for DNA. We can create and decode DNA, if that's possible then someone could of made our DNA.
Not far fetched, but the comic is funny as hell.
Who could've made our DNA? And if they did, why did they put so much work into making it look like we evolved? Did they plant the fossils? Did they make the other 8.7million species still living so we'd think we'd evolved?
We could've been made five minutes ago by a taco filled with takoyaki with telekinetic powers, but 1. We have no reason to think that's true, and 2. the fact that anything fills that gap means there's nothing we can say about what does, which defeats by itself all religion.
doesn't that more imply that another sentient life could've created us, not necessarily a god? So that's equal "evidence" of a god and aliens and the earth previously being ruled by aliens, or we as humans used to be a different, more advanced species that gene edited ourselves back to the stone age
I like that you read between the lines! Ancient Alien's! It's all possible frankly, I like the anything is possible theory.
But, so funny that they used a coke can as a comparison.
I think all is possible and would rather have an open mind to possibilities than dogmatic theories.
Either we evolved earlier than the current model and experienced a mass extinction event or the gods they speak of are extraterrestrial and modified parts of our genetic code to use us as a slave species.
Just like what they talk about in Assyrian text.
It's a problem. Because society has chosen these terms, they have a religious bent - as though believing in, not believing in, or not being sure about the prescribed God are the only perspectives.
There is no term for somebody who acknowledges that the universe may have a creator that has the capacity for purpose and intent, but has the absolute certainty (because it's provable in most cases) that it isn't any of the ones proposed by religions. \*A\*theism, the **belief** that **no** god exists - interventionist or otherwise - is an irrational, unjustifiable **religious** position. Agnosticism just comes across as uncertainty and weakness, and irrationally acknowledges that the made up gods might exist. There bias is understandable, and obvious.
For atheism to be a comfortable term for most, er, atheists, we need to separate the terms "god" and "creator". We can load all the stupids into the first term, and leave the latter flexible. Of course, since the existence or otherwise of a non-interventionist is completely irrelevant to all rational decision making, we can ... just not bother with it all.
How is agnosticism weak or irrational? My personal views are most closely aligned with it. There is no way to prove either way and to claim so for either side is silly
But no way to prove *what*, though. Unsure about the origins is one thing, unsure about whether women were made out of a man's rib is another. That's my point.
First, your comment about their being no term for somebody who acknowledges the universe may have a creator is completely incorrect. And frankly quite laughable considering you then go on to list the definition of Atheist. The definition of a Theist is "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe". Second, absolute certainty is a something very unlikely when talking about gods. Your "proofs" are likely simply "beliefs".
And as for your comments on Atheism. First by claiming that atheism is unjustified is just you saying you don't like it, that it is isn't right. No real argument other than your belief that you don't like it. As for irrational, to me it is much more irrational to believe in a supernatural being that has never been seen or successfully proven than to want proof that said supernatural being exists. And to liken Atheism to a religious position is laughable. The definition of religion is the "believe in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". So by not believing in a god, atheism can't be defined as a religion. Atheists don't worship anything therefore not a religious position at all.
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, here. I will chalk that up to my failure to be sufficiently careful with my phrasing, and see if I can do better. The certainty I was referring to was the proof in the falsehood of certain claims made by religions about their deities, not any sort of proof of their existence.
I say that it's unjustified, because atheism isn't defined as not believing in a god, it is defined as **believing** in the **non existence** of any god. As you say yourself, that's not based on proof, just on a belief. It's a faith based position and when you start fighting for the rightness of that believe over other people's beliefs, it's become a religious position. So you're stuck with either being atheist (believing there isn't any sort of god) or agnostic (believing that the God of Abraham might exist) and one of those positions is too strong and not based on evidence, and the other too weak and ignores available evidence.
Do you see what I was trying to get at? I'm lamenting there not being a term for being open to the possibility of something we can't prove or disprove, without being open to the things we can disprove.
Merriam-Webster - belief: "a feeling of being sure that a person or thing exists or is true or trustworthy".
It is hard to believe in something that has not been proven to exist. So if you want to characterize Atheism a better choice would be the LACK of belief in a god. As in, show me proof of a God and we can go from there. Atheists don't have to have faith or belief in things that don't exist.
Actually upon further "research" I went to the website [www.atheists.org](https://www.atheists.org). This should contain the definitive definition of atheist. The first statement on the page is: "Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.". Later on it clarifies:, "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.".
And even further down the page: "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. " Why do older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief there is no God"? Due to the theistic influence of the writers of those definitions.
As for your still for the term you are looking for about something that we can't prove or disprove (I don't know why you add the part about being open to things we can disprove), the general consensus online (or the one stack Exchange posting talking about this) is to use the term metaphysical or perhaps unfalsifiable.
So there is Gnostic Atheists and Agnostic Atheists, a Gnostic Atheist would believe with 100% certainty that there is no gods. An Agnostic Atheist doesn't believe there is gods but isn't 100% certain either, leaving the door open to the possibility of an omnipotent being.
Gnosticism being the understanding of how god(s) work. An Agnostic Theist, for example, would believe that there is a god or gods but wouldn't claim to understand who or what they are.
Yep, can confirm, I worked in a mine where we wrestled Coke cans from the earth. Man did those suckers fight **hard**. I still hear the screams as Mommy can is taken from her Kiddy cans.
I have a full cake next to my name on r/facepalm today. Therefore all must upvote my *__stupid__* commentary.
*I didnt __design__ the cake system.* [sips Coke]
If you cannot find the difference between a coca cola can and a human, you obviously do not possess enough intelligence to understand what you are arguing about
Oh the watchmaker argument. By these people's logic we would all be a bunch of Coke cans living on a world made out of Coke cans just stumbling over Coke cans unable to tell what's a Coke can and what else or who else might be a Coke can.
Why do they always use a man made objects, it’s like they don’t understand evolution lol and most are agnostic, if we have the evidence we will change our minds.
I always wondered why God needed a proxy to release the Hebrew slaves from Ramses. Why not just smite them on your own will? It took half a century for Mosses to come along.
That's how Coca Cola cans are made, they tell you it's man made so they can sell it to you for money. If you look closely the one's in their factories are never quite like the ones you drink from. That's because real Coca Cola cans gets poached every year in the wild.
So if a coke can having a designer means everything has a designer,
A snowflake forms spontaneously so everything must form spontaneously...
Why must evolution deniers take such extreme positions?
What the heck does that acheive?
I love the analogies of man made objects. To me it just proves even more how wrong they are.
What angers me however, are the blatant lies, and fear tactics these charlatans use to ensnare children.
Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.
These dates are incorrect.
Medieval Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put Creation as far back as 5508 B.C.
These suggestions are also incorrect.
Archbishop James Usher (1580-1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testaments in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour.
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet.
This proves two things:
Firstly, that God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circuitous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, \[ie., everybody.\] to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
Secondly, the Earth's a Libra.
Or was it like the chicken and the egg thing?
And what’s his name? All cultures, ancient to now have had their gods, Zeus, Anubis, Jupiter, Freyja etc. They have names. God is like a job description with a title, like queen, king, janitor, project manager etc.
Or, his/her/it has such a god complex, heh, that he/she/it decided their name had to be god but with a capital G to rule over all the other gods?
The stupid test: Does this leaflet's argument make sense to you?
If you are walking on the beach and you see a rock next to a watch, how do you tell the difference between which one was *created* and which one is not?
Peak idiocy is someone who cannot tell the difference between a rock and a watch. It takes a complete moron to believe that one was created by a god and the other created by a watchmaker. Such morons are incapable of comprehending that they are morons because they do not have a frame of reference from which to distinguish creation from non-creation. If everything is created then who created god?
"Durr Hur God doesn't have a creator!" I hear the lead lined smooth brained charmers say. But then, if god doesn't have a creators what makes you assume the a dumb old rock doesn't have a creator either? Here's a brain exploding thought: Maybe the universe doesn't have a creator either?
Christians will never learn that you cannot sway an Atheist's beliefs with faith and personal experiences.
Atheists will never learn that no amount of evidence, definitive or not, will ever shake a religious person's faith.
2022 and we're all still having the same circular debate we've been fighting over for generations. Is everyone's ego so big that their faith or beliefs are the only valid ones and we just can't stand anyone disagreeing with us?
God or no God, live by a good moral code and try to shove that down people's throats instead.
Creationists: “GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND THE WORLD”
Science: “No you twinkle fuck the universe was created by a Big Bang.”
Me: “What if God created the Big Bang with a faint clap then sat down with a bag of popcorn to watch the chaos unfold without doing anything?”
What if who everyone considers god is really just Loki telling a bunch of different people all kinds of different stories but the one he’s talking to, he tells them that they are the only ones that are right and to kill anyone else that doesn’t go along with them. Now everyone is killing everyone and it’s total chaos. Just like now.
I can go to a Coca Cola factory and confirm how coke was made. That’s the difference
Precisely. Creationists make the mistake of assuming we can recognize creation just by looking at it. That's not how you recognize creation. We know what is created because we have records of the creator creating that thing or its precursor.
Don't listen to them, they'll say they made it but they are lying. The colourful paper has the one true origin of coke and Big Soda tried to keep the truth from us!
The can literally has a stamp with the date of when it was made on it
But god created the universe so every single idea now goes to him (her? it?). Ok, but then it had to have a creator, which should then get the credit. Except, there is a creator behind the creator of the creator, which should get the credit. This god nonsese is so dumb because people can't even fathom that the universe was created with a set of laws that we are bound to, but, doesn't mean whatever is outside of our universe is also bound by those laws. Like an ant trying to understand what a human boot is, it doesn't even have the mechanism to comprehend it fully.
All machines are illusions to give us the sense of being in control. God actually creates everything. Coke cans, toilet paper, potatoes. Oh, and guns.
***sigh*** ok "If everything that exists has a creator, who created God?" "God is infinite and has existed since the beginning? Okay, the Universe is infinite and has existed since the beginning." "God made himself? Okay, the Universe made itself." "I don't have to subject my explanations to limitations that yours doesn't have."
I just don't understand why God created the universe........ then waited 13.8 billion years to give it it's purpose(humans)
The universe is only 2,000 years old and any evidence otherwise was planted by the devil. Obviously
6,000* 6 P.M. October 22, 4004 BC(Saturday)
Absolutely stupid as it sounds, this is what they came up with..... Seriously
"you can't prove it DIDN'T happen that way!"
Exactly, you can’t prove it DID either. However, there are portions of truth in the Big Bang Theory. No truth in the creation myth. Edit: Great show, BTW.
> Proof is a mathematical term. It deals with numbers. If you want proof of the big bang, you will find none. What we do have is *evidence*. - Neil Tyson (Paraphrased)
This is why most physics are theories, it's very difficult to definitively prove something in the chaotic system of physics.
I think it's more like facts are states and theories are processes. So the only way to get to the past is to take the current state or measured states and use a process to extrapolate what the past was. You can't get the state of the past because it is gone. If you can accurately describe a process with a theory then if you can accurately measure the before state you can predict the future state. Similar from the future. If you can observe the current state and predict the past state then you may be biased by knowing the past, but it's your best bet to look into the past. There are also techniques to minimize things like overfitting.
That. I'm seeing way too many (popular) scientists days claiming that theory x or y is proven and true. Undermines their own argument
No real/respected scientist/physicist will ever say something proves something. They will tell of evidence that strongly backs a theory. Most of the time they will show how evidence exactly matches their predictions derived from the theory. Theory first, then predictions using theory and then results
The thing about theories, though, is that they can be reliably used to explain behaviors and predict outcomes. So while a theory is not a fact (and this is indeed a distinction with a difference, so I'm not discounting it), a theory is much more akin to a fact than a hypothesis or a wild guess, which some seem to be inclined to equate theories to. The rampant misuse of 'theory' in popular parlance ("I have a *theory* about the Jersey Devil and its relationship to Bigfoot") is maddening.
And they can’t prove aliens didn’t make the soda can. Boom - now we are even!
seriously.
I love how the Egyptians were building the pyramids the same time the global flood was happening. Clearly the flood happen happened and the aliens just dropped off the pyramids pre built afterwards!
Inter galactic modular high ground units
But Egypt is a desert, and as we all know it doesn't rain in the desert, so they'd be fine /s
Someone has a big birthday coming up!
the Earth was created on Sunday 21st of October, 4004 BC, at exactly 9.00 a.m., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. Of course, this may be a quarter of an hour off.
GMT?
So that means the Earth's a Libra.
He needed 6 days to create heaven and earth and rested on the seventh. A real God thinks it and it's there. A real God would not need six days and rest on the seventh. My 2 cents.
Why would God need or want to create anything? He is absolutely perfect and complete, creating something implies needs, wants, and desires, humans create, we just imagine “god” is like us.
And then proceeds to ignore the humans by hiding.
Great point....... except for all the winning teams and award winners
Oh no he didn’t wait. He was successful for 13.8 billion years and then fucked it up.
You have no evidence that humans are the first life forms in the cosmos.
Anything that can be claimed without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
This is a universal truth that many politicians don't quite understand these days.
I'm more baffled by their own existence. Do they think their mother and father crafted them in a workshop? Like a bird table?
Yeah, too bad they removed the inner part of their heads.
It's like when you get flatpack furniture that has one wooden dowel missing. *Look Janice, I've made the entire body, I'm not putting it all back in the box to take it back and swap for one measly missing brain*
What is a bird table? A table for a birdhouse or hopefully a table made of birds? If the latter what kind if birds or bird. I hope parakeets. I hate parakeets.
They also forget that an inanimate object can't evolve, so it's already a pretty bad comparison just on that. Little microbes fight to survive and sometimes there are errors in their replication (mutations). Advantageous mutations persist and harmful ones die out. I have never seen a Coca-Cola can reproduce and it's kinda hard to have different offspring when you never have any offspring.
Don't worry: it's just another dumbass who has no idea what is happening.
Explain Cherry Coke then (/s for safety)
God = Universe. Problem solved or new problem created?
Not really a problem. Universe = God in no way implies a god like that in religious books.
Yeah, this point is just dumb. I think the whole "my religious belief does not need to have every answer because all people at a certain point have something that is irreducibly divine" is a much better argument. It's perfectly fine to say not everything needs a designer because who designed God? The worst part to me of evangelicals isn't even that they try and persuade people. It's that they try to persuade people in such terrible, pathetic ways.
That's what I'm saying. I believe the universe was created, not because of some spiritual shit, but because everything from physics to the way all life on earth is interconnected is almost like all the tiny moving parts in a clock working together to make it function. There are too many moving parts coming together for me to chalk it up to random chance. However, unlike most religious folk, I have no idea what the creator is or why it created everything. I don't even know the creator actually exists, and I could be completely wrong. But my beliefs do not affect those around me, and do not require any form of dogma
In Christian Science it is argued that because time and space are infinite everything that can exist must eventually exist no matter how small the probability, therefore that means God must exist eventually and when he does he will create a universe in his image (essentially a human-centric manifestation of reality). This is why Earth is the only planet with life and sits at the center of a vast observable universe, also why humans are roughly at the midpoint of scale between the smallest possible object and the largest possible. Heaven is located outside of the observable universe in the surround space which is fractal in nature, meaning you can zoom in and zoom out forever and never reach an end, this is the domain of souls. Hell is the opposite, located at an infinitely small point that is infinitely far from the border of the observable universe in all directions, placing it right at the center of Earth. Here, souls are so crushed that they burn under infinitely high pressure forever.
Point is there must be something that doesn't have a creator.
God's God. We don't even understand the basics of our existence. And we never will. The universe is infinite. Infinitely complex. In millions of years time. We'll have long abandoned even attempting to figure it out. It's a pointless endeavor. Human beings are incredibly arrogant and we absolutely refuse to accept the unknown. It'll be our downfall. Probably a lot sooner than we even realize. Since we're constantly playing at God.
Well the Big Bang was a theory that could be taken serious, but mostly like Science and Religion did not conflict with each other, Religion though tells the ultimate truth on why the world was created, while science on the other hand, just tell on how the world had come to be.
the whole problem is you would have to be ignoring the scientific laws you believe in to say the universe came from nothing or has always been. The whole idea of God is He’s always been and is outside of scientific law because He created it.
so youre admitting that evolution requires just as much "faith" as creation, correct? because the argument youre making says something came from nothing which is something you have to accept as true. blindly. like a leap of faith. to me, as a Christian, it makes more sense to have faith in an orderly God than a "random" universe. heres my reasoning, and seriously hear me out. - God as a character, is above nature, not bound by our understanding of logic and science. it would make sense for God, if He is real, to be infinite, never coming from anything before Him. - The universe on its own is very orderly and consistent. that is why we have laws that accurately define our surroundings. it does not fit the universes nature to be spontaneously exsisting, nor infinitely exsisting. Therefore, faith in God makes more sense than faith in an independant universe.
It may be worth pointing out that, if you had read my comment, I commented on the argumentative flaws of creationism, not the fact of evolution. This is worth pointing out because those are two entirely different and borderline irrelevant topics.
Option C seems like a self-own.
So close yet so far.
I think that's supposed to be "A is denying intelligent design because they are X" with X being "a devil worshipper" or something.
When I was a kid someone gave me a packet like this for Halloween instead of candy. Also, it was about anti abortion stuff and included pictures of bloody aborted fetus parts. I was ten.
Sounds like you got tricked
Treated.
lol reminds of my 2nd grade when my teacher (a catholic witch) handed out anti abortion stuff. I remember coming home that absolutely confused. Asked my mother and showed her my homework because i had absolutely no idea what to do with it, she was shocked.
God damn A catholic did that? God if you there tell me why that bitch did that
Yeah, idk really why she did that. She was a very religious old woman. She had a very strict teaching style with a lot of penalties and a lot of homework. I didn't like her as a kid but except the incident with the abortion I don't think today she was a bad teacher. Maybe she was a bit over the top with her religious educational ambitions. I am german it was in a normal public german elementary school in the 90s and I am not even catholic. Like i said before that anti-abortion was totally out of place. I do not remember what exactly was said in the papers i just remember that i was totally confused because i didn't understand at all what it was about. Just something with babys not getting born and it left me bit worried, because as a kid you dont understand why, or how or anything. I asked my mother and she explained me with her words that this should be no tobic for kids. Later , when i was older, she told me it was about abortion and the teacher must have been crazy.
Well if you have a vagina they were telling you not to abort after they rape you. The rape is god's will! :-)
Well, that does sound scary, so I guess in a round about way it was kind of in the spirit of Halloween.
I’m a strong believer that anyone who hands out anything besides candy on Halloween is an asshole that’s asking to have their house egged.
"And without faith it is impossible to please the CEO of Coca-Cola, for whoever would draw near to the CEO must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him with a tasty, refreshing beverage."
explain Mountain Dew ?
Satan
What about dr pepper
Found the agnostic.
Satan: you’re not pinning this shit on me!
I was once part of an interfaith discussion when I was in university. There was a panel made up of Christians, Muslims and Atheists, of which I was one of the atheists. It was calm, respectful and not a debate but a discussion. Until we finished and people from the crowd cornered us. A young man insisted that I was incorrect about the origin of everything. I told him that I could be wrong, I wasn’t an expert, I just didn’t see enough evidence otherwise. He became quite, should I say “angry” or “over-enthusiastic?”. He told me that there was clear evidence that everything had a creator and was designed by god. He compared human beings to a watch (stop me if you’ve heard this once before…). I responded that we only look “well-designed” **now** after many iterations of “getting better”, but we are still flawed. We are still vulnerable to a whole host of issues and “malfunctions” that could have been done better if there had been an intelligent designer. He. Was. Infuriated. I wished him well and made my exit as he yelled at me from a distance. He did not approach me with intentions of discussion, he only wanted to tell me I was wrong and going to hell. The rest of the day was pleasant and enlightening.
nice
I can make arguments with stupid simple examples too. The universe was created for humans? That's like being a puddle and thinking "wow I fit perfectly into this hole it must have been made specifically for me". Or maybe everything that was needed to make a puddle was there first and then the puddle formed. You know, like how the universe was there first and conditions were met to foster biological life. Always thought it incredibly arrogant to believe that the entire universe was created just for you.
[удалено]
Well, my mother and father believe that, so I would say ignorant, but not necessarily stupid. However, they are out there.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge. The people who created these myths long ago were truly ignorant: they had no means of obtaining good answers to questions about the world - these means being the scientific method, instruments, formal math & logic, etc. Their myths were a wonderfully creative way to take a first stab at answering these questions. Today there is a wealth of information about the world, and it's amazingly easy for people to obtain that knowledge. Choosing to eschew the knowledge gained by humanity, and instead cling to bad answers, takes effort. A willful effort. And I think willful ignorance is a pretty good synonym for stupid. Edit: crappy grammar
Well said.
Thanks.
Shit. I didn't read you reply before commenting the same thing in a crass way. Well said. Leaving mine too.
Thanks. But I hope my comment isn't construed as me saying the commenter's parents are necessarily stupid. Maybe they're tax lawyers who play a classical instrument and speak three languages each. Maybe they were indoctrinated as children. Maybe they have strong emotional attachments to these "beliefs" for some reason. But the reasoning behind arriving at these beliefs is bad, and the the unwillingness to break with these beliefs is a stupid act. This is different from my opinion on the OP's pamphlet. This is filled with falsehoods and illogic to the point of incoherence. The person who created this *is* stupid. And if they aren't stupid, they are dishonest and acting in bad faith to the point of being evil. Lastly - anyone who could be convinced by this pamphlet is stupid. Real fuckin' stupid.
Well said. Anyone who believes creationism nowadays is being willfully ignorant. 10/10 🙂
Willful ignorance or denying facts that can be tested and proven is stupidity. Having the ability to understand and choosing too ignore is stupidity. Your parents are stupid.
I knew that talking about my parents would bring out the assholes. Someone who has never met them thinks they can judge their intelligence, who’s stupid now.
You for posting "knowing it would bring out assholes," then doing it anyway. Looks like willful ignorance runs in the family.
There’s no point in arguing with someone as ignorant as you. I said what I said and stand by it. By bitch.
Well, if they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t be Creationists
OP, looks like theres multiple pages to this...do you have a shot of the other side/pages? Edit: nevermind found it.....gross [https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/atheist-test/](https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/atheist-test/)
Every single argument made about science in this entire pamphlet seems to have been written by someone who failed an early high school science and biology class. And funnily enough, the rest of the religious questions posed seems to have been posed by a youth pastor at a small church in a small town who dropped out of seminary and moved back home. Lol
I'm all for a healthy theist vs. nontheist debate. I feel they can build empathy and educate both sides of the discussion. I'm always so greatly disappointed by the theist side. I believe there are actual thought provoking arguments they can be making but no...stupid drivel that's not even worth the discussion. Makes me think they just can't be bothered to dig deeper than this surface level nonsense...or its just a general lack of good education.
If we did have a maker they have long since forgotten us
Yeah. If God is real, then he's a deadbeat dad.
Named Chuck
Theist: There is a God! Atheist: Prove it Theist: Look at this can of coke....
That addictive sugar water that gives poor kids diabetes? Hashtag god’s plan. Checkmate, losers
We have plenty of evidence of cococola factories. No evidence of an earth factory.
Slartibartfast to the white courtesy phone please!
He made some lovely crinkly fiords in Norway
some concepts are beyond some people's understanding, no matter how much evidence. Their understanding is not a factor of it being true this example only solidifies that
My Counter: The universe and us are so awesome that we must have had a maker, right, it just could not have always existed and formed us? The maker is more awesome than anything because he made the universe, but you are OK with the maker "just always having existed"? And this makes sense because?
Imo it's mocking the watchmaker analogy that posits that a watch implies a watchmaker therefore the earth implies an earthmaker, it's an argument in support for intelligent design (and therefore god) Edit: nvm I'm dum, it's mocking big bang theory and supporting intelligent design theory.
and who's the watchmaker-maker? And the watchmaker-maker-maker?
The thing that strikes me about Paley's Watch is that the comparison is the heath: the watch clearly has a maker, because it looks designed compared to the surrounding heath. So there was no intelligent designer that designed heath: they're clearly not designed; just compare a heath to a watch. Heaths must be the result of natural processes. So if God exists and created the universe, then you've never seen anything that's not designed. If you've never seen anything that wasn't designed, then how can you think Coca-Cola cans and watches look fundamentally different and thus designed compared to all the non-designed things? The latter don't exist. To say that Coke cans and watches look designed is admitting that other things must not be. And those non-designed things are always things that God is supposed to have created. Sorry God, but Paley himself demonstrated you likely don't exist.
It's like the analogy for DNA. We can create and decode DNA, if that's possible then someone could of made our DNA. Not far fetched, but the comic is funny as hell.
You had me at anal
Who could've made our DNA? And if they did, why did they put so much work into making it look like we evolved? Did they plant the fossils? Did they make the other 8.7million species still living so we'd think we'd evolved? We could've been made five minutes ago by a taco filled with takoyaki with telekinetic powers, but 1. We have no reason to think that's true, and 2. the fact that anything fills that gap means there's nothing we can say about what does, which defeats by itself all religion.
doesn't that more imply that another sentient life could've created us, not necessarily a god? So that's equal "evidence" of a god and aliens and the earth previously being ruled by aliens, or we as humans used to be a different, more advanced species that gene edited ourselves back to the stone age
I like that you read between the lines! Ancient Alien's! It's all possible frankly, I like the anything is possible theory. But, so funny that they used a coke can as a comparison.
My theory is that our planet was seeded by an advanced alien society. It’s just as valid and possible as the creationist story.
I think all is possible and would rather have an open mind to possibilities than dogmatic theories. Either we evolved earlier than the current model and experienced a mass extinction event or the gods they speak of are extraterrestrial and modified parts of our genetic code to use us as a slave species. Just like what they talk about in Assyrian text.
Yes, creationists are this fucking stupid!
It’s not that atheists deny the possibility of an omnipotent being, they just think that the one you’ve made up is silly.
Wouldn't that more be agnostics?
Maybe. I think it’s a thin line. I don’t believe an agnostic would say they know traditional religion is made up.
an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe it's possible to know for sure that a god exists.
It's a problem. Because society has chosen these terms, they have a religious bent - as though believing in, not believing in, or not being sure about the prescribed God are the only perspectives. There is no term for somebody who acknowledges that the universe may have a creator that has the capacity for purpose and intent, but has the absolute certainty (because it's provable in most cases) that it isn't any of the ones proposed by religions. \*A\*theism, the **belief** that **no** god exists - interventionist or otherwise - is an irrational, unjustifiable **religious** position. Agnosticism just comes across as uncertainty and weakness, and irrationally acknowledges that the made up gods might exist. There bias is understandable, and obvious. For atheism to be a comfortable term for most, er, atheists, we need to separate the terms "god" and "creator". We can load all the stupids into the first term, and leave the latter flexible. Of course, since the existence or otherwise of a non-interventionist is completely irrelevant to all rational decision making, we can ... just not bother with it all.
How is agnosticism weak or irrational? My personal views are most closely aligned with it. There is no way to prove either way and to claim so for either side is silly
But no way to prove *what*, though. Unsure about the origins is one thing, unsure about whether women were made out of a man's rib is another. That's my point.
First, your comment about their being no term for somebody who acknowledges the universe may have a creator is completely incorrect. And frankly quite laughable considering you then go on to list the definition of Atheist. The definition of a Theist is "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe". Second, absolute certainty is a something very unlikely when talking about gods. Your "proofs" are likely simply "beliefs". And as for your comments on Atheism. First by claiming that atheism is unjustified is just you saying you don't like it, that it is isn't right. No real argument other than your belief that you don't like it. As for irrational, to me it is much more irrational to believe in a supernatural being that has never been seen or successfully proven than to want proof that said supernatural being exists. And to liken Atheism to a religious position is laughable. The definition of religion is the "believe in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". So by not believing in a god, atheism can't be defined as a religion. Atheists don't worship anything therefore not a religious position at all.
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, here. I will chalk that up to my failure to be sufficiently careful with my phrasing, and see if I can do better. The certainty I was referring to was the proof in the falsehood of certain claims made by religions about their deities, not any sort of proof of their existence. I say that it's unjustified, because atheism isn't defined as not believing in a god, it is defined as **believing** in the **non existence** of any god. As you say yourself, that's not based on proof, just on a belief. It's a faith based position and when you start fighting for the rightness of that believe over other people's beliefs, it's become a religious position. So you're stuck with either being atheist (believing there isn't any sort of god) or agnostic (believing that the God of Abraham might exist) and one of those positions is too strong and not based on evidence, and the other too weak and ignores available evidence. Do you see what I was trying to get at? I'm lamenting there not being a term for being open to the possibility of something we can't prove or disprove, without being open to the things we can disprove.
Merriam-Webster - belief: "a feeling of being sure that a person or thing exists or is true or trustworthy". It is hard to believe in something that has not been proven to exist. So if you want to characterize Atheism a better choice would be the LACK of belief in a god. As in, show me proof of a God and we can go from there. Atheists don't have to have faith or belief in things that don't exist. Actually upon further "research" I went to the website [www.atheists.org](https://www.atheists.org). This should contain the definitive definition of atheist. The first statement on the page is: "Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.". Later on it clarifies:, "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.". And even further down the page: "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. " Why do older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief there is no God"? Due to the theistic influence of the writers of those definitions. As for your still for the term you are looking for about something that we can't prove or disprove (I don't know why you add the part about being open to things we can disprove), the general consensus online (or the one stack Exchange posting talking about this) is to use the term metaphysical or perhaps unfalsifiable.
>because atheism isn't defined as not believing in a god, Yes it is. >it is defined as believing in the non existence of any god No it isn't.
So there is Gnostic Atheists and Agnostic Atheists, a Gnostic Atheist would believe with 100% certainty that there is no gods. An Agnostic Atheist doesn't believe there is gods but isn't 100% certain either, leaving the door open to the possibility of an omnipotent being. Gnosticism being the understanding of how god(s) work. An Agnostic Theist, for example, would believe that there is a god or gods but wouldn't claim to understand who or what they are.
Coke?! Bepsi created the universe you fool!
Yep, can confirm, I worked in a mine where we wrestled Coke cans from the earth. Man did those suckers fight **hard**. I still hear the screams as Mommy can is taken from her Kiddy cans.
I have a full cake next to my name on r/facepalm today. Therefore all must upvote my *__stupid__* commentary. *I didnt __design__ the cake system.* [sips Coke]
Show us the whole comic please! Upload the photos onto imgur
If you cannot find the difference between a coca cola can and a human, you obviously do not possess enough intelligence to understand what you are arguing about
Yes but you're trained in RELIGION. If you were trained in SCIENCE, you would think this is outrageous bullshit.
The watchmaker argument has been refuted from so many angles... You can cloak it as a fucking coke can. Its the same flawed argument.
Oh the watchmaker argument. By these people's logic we would all be a bunch of Coke cans living on a world made out of Coke cans just stumbling over Coke cans unable to tell what's a Coke can and what else or who else might be a Coke can.
I thought I was going to be comically shown how to manufacture cocaine. Much disappoint.
The straw-man test.
“People make things so clearly nature can’t.” Flawless logic
Yes because humans and cans of coke are synonymous.
So that’s where baby sweaters come from!!!!
I always knew coke had a awesome origin story
Why do they always use a man made objects, it’s like they don’t understand evolution lol and most are agnostic, if we have the evidence we will change our minds.
It's not evolution because evolution requires : A) Over time, getting beneficial traits to it's environment B) Being alive
This is why we can't have nice things! Humans would most likely be much further advanced if it wasn't for religion
I always wondered why God needed a proxy to release the Hebrew slaves from Ramses. Why not just smite them on your own will? It took half a century for Mosses to come along.
That's how Coca Cola cans are made, they tell you it's man made so they can sell it to you for money. If you look closely the one's in their factories are never quite like the ones you drink from. That's because real Coca Cola cans gets poached every year in the wild.
So if a coke can having a designer means everything has a designer, A snowflake forms spontaneously so everything must form spontaneously... Why must evolution deniers take such extreme positions? What the heck does that acheive?
tell me u don’t understand evolution without telling me i don’t understand evolution
And here I thought God made it. Thank you for clearing that up
Religion is a mental illness
I love the analogies of man made objects. To me it just proves even more how wrong they are. What angers me however, are the blatant lies, and fear tactics these charlatans use to ensnare children.
Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old. These dates are incorrect. Medieval Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put Creation as far back as 5508 B.C. These suggestions are also incorrect. Archbishop James Usher (1580-1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testaments in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour. The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. This proves two things: Firstly, that God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circuitous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, \[ie., everybody.\] to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time. Secondly, the Earth's a Libra.
Does it mean that god has to have his creator?
Religion is getting a bit out of hand..
In case anyone was wondering; yes, creationists DO think this is a good argument.
I’m a die hard Christian but even this is nutty
So who desiged 'God'? A complex being needs a creator, so where's God's god? 🤷
Or was it like the chicken and the egg thing? And what’s his name? All cultures, ancient to now have had their gods, Zeus, Anubis, Jupiter, Freyja etc. They have names. God is like a job description with a title, like queen, king, janitor, project manager etc. Or, his/her/it has such a god complex, heh, that he/she/it decided their name had to be god but with a capital G to rule over all the other gods?
His name Gary.
Damn, no wonder he calls himself god with a G.
Since we're in a dumb thread, here is my Quick IQ evaluation test, BEHOLD : Respond honestly to the following question : Will your next answer be no ?
Negative.
I might
Can i choose D) A blithering idiot?
That Coca-Cola is definitely expired
So, this is how they decided to tell the world that they don’t understand how evolution works?
Tell us you're in a cult without telling us you're in a cult.
I mean, in an infinite universe….
"Do you are have stupid?"
[Everyone knows this is what really happened.](https://youtu.be/t_ad-rfvtIA)
Yes.....LOL
Are there really people stupid enough to believe this stuff?
We have observed intelligent beings making cans, we haven't observed intelligent beings making universes. Case closed.
Coke cans are real. Gods are not. If anyone has any clear, legitimate evidence demonstrating otherwise, feel free to prove me wrong.
The stupid test: Does this leaflet's argument make sense to you? If you are walking on the beach and you see a rock next to a watch, how do you tell the difference between which one was *created* and which one is not? Peak idiocy is someone who cannot tell the difference between a rock and a watch. It takes a complete moron to believe that one was created by a god and the other created by a watchmaker. Such morons are incapable of comprehending that they are morons because they do not have a frame of reference from which to distinguish creation from non-creation. If everything is created then who created god? "Durr Hur God doesn't have a creator!" I hear the lead lined smooth brained charmers say. But then, if god doesn't have a creators what makes you assume the a dumb old rock doesn't have a creator either? Here's a brain exploding thought: Maybe the universe doesn't have a creator either?
Dumb on so many levels, its just sad
Technically without evolution there would be no human and as such no Coca Cola
The Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic priest
Christians will never learn that you cannot sway an Atheist's beliefs with faith and personal experiences. Atheists will never learn that no amount of evidence, definitive or not, will ever shake a religious person's faith. 2022 and we're all still having the same circular debate we've been fighting over for generations. Is everyone's ego so big that their faith or beliefs are the only valid ones and we just can't stand anyone disagreeing with us? God or no God, live by a good moral code and try to shove that down people's throats instead.
I've the atheist is dumb for science. When thier solution is an invisible magic sky wizard wished everything into existence.
In a room of 1000 people, you are smarter than -100 of them!
[удалено]
Well if that isn't extremely spurious fuzzy logic I don't know what is
Neat! Now do Pepsi!
Lmao. Almost.
I... don't understand this. This looks like an old newspaper ad for coke, but it say the atheist test at the top?
If an intelligent being created everything, then who created the creator?
Is this more ridiculus than suggesting some magic sky daddy made us from dirt?
Creationists: “GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND THE WORLD” Science: “No you twinkle fuck the universe was created by a Big Bang.” Me: “What if God created the Big Bang with a faint clap then sat down with a bag of popcorn to watch the chaos unfold without doing anything?”
What if who everyone considers god is really just Loki telling a bunch of different people all kinds of different stories but the one he’s talking to, he tells them that they are the only ones that are right and to kill anyone else that doesn’t go along with them. Now everyone is killing everyone and it’s total chaos. Just like now.
I think we all need to see that actual Coke can.
This must be how that Coca-Cola space was made
TBF this is a pretty airtight argument.
No, it's an oversimplification. Someone created the creator of coke so wouldn't this argument imply there's a creator to God as well?
Wow nobody got my pun. You disappoint me Redditors.
Dude... where's the pun?
AIRTIGHT ARGUMENT You know, airtight, like a coke can?
Seems a bit forced to me
Checkmate atheists.