"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Plautus

J C wrote: »

His Church is doing very well ... with many people being Saved every day!!!

Do you ever get tired of spouting this mouth-breathing ****e day in day out? We know how happy you are to be 'saved'. Give it a rest, it's of scarcely any relevance to your equally awful argumentation.

fatmammycat

Not just that, notice the lack of response to Oldrnwisr's magnificent take down of JC woo. Spanked solid.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, this would be Mats Molen the geologist. A man with no education in morphology, genetics, taxonomy etc. commenting on the evolution of Eohippus doesn't add anything to this debate. Especially not from a man who claims that the earth is 10,000 years old and that T. Rex was herbivorous.

The morphology of the 'Horse Series' does indicate that the 'series' is more a product of the imagination, than it is of the reality that we are dealing with ... i.e. different Created Kinds placed into a 'series' that never actually happened.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't suppose that you'd care to actually define what a kind is and list some examples.

I have done this repeatedly on this thread ... but the truth of Creation Science bears repeating:-
A Kind or Baramin are all of the descendants of an originally Created Pair.
The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

Many members of Baramin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

The Dog Barmin approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive scientific test for membership of a Created Kind.

We see evidence of very significant speciation (recently and rapidly) within Created Kinds all around us. The Cattle Kind has over 100 different species with different degrees of cross-fertility between them ... ditto the Horse Kind, the Cat Kind, the Camel Kind, etc.

Most of the major speciatiation events appears to have already occurred and speciation is now very limited in its extent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQAJnF6ST8

.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Not this again. You shouldn't keep repeating the same arguments once they have been shown to be full of **** JC. As for the "how nothing could blow up to produce everything" comment, I have already asked you not to introduce any more strawmen. That is not what the big bang theory says and I don't know whether it's deliberate ignorance or simple misunderstanding that causes you to say that it does. My generosity in giving you the benefit of the doubt is wearing thin.

... so what exactly is supposed to have blown up at the Big Bang ... if it wasn't effectively nothing!!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First off all, it's perfectly possible to have a physical effect without a cause.

Casimir Effect

Radioactive decay

The Casmir Effect is a quantum mechanics effect involving virtual particles ... and virtual phenomena, like intelligence is the cause of many physical effects.
Radioactive decay is also a cause of physical effects.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sometimes, the only appropriate response is ridicule.

... reasoned argument is much better ... if you want to be taken seriously!!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Again, can we leave out your spurious religious claims until we've dealt with your spurious scientific ones.

... quite difficult to do ... given the title of the thread, and the fact that Evolution is both a spurious religious and scientific claim!!!:)

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First of all, while there is some debate about whether the universe can be considered an isolated system from a thermondynamical point of view, for the sake of argument, however, let's assume that the universe is an isolated system. The overall entropy of the universe tends to increase. The heat death of the universe is inevitable, no one is denying that. However, you are tacking on this requirement of uniformity where none exists. The overall entropy of the universe will increase but this does not mean that entropy everywhere always increases. It's perfectly possible to have a local entropy increase balanced by a decrease somewhere else.

... I accept what you say ... with one proviso ... that local entropy decrease requires energy to be harnessed by an intelligently designed process ... as well as a balancing entopy increase somewhere else, where the energy was released.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Just stop now before we have to get into the maths of this and you really embarass yourself.

Love you too!!!:)

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Atheism is as much a religion, as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I wasn't arguing about the validity of Atheism as a religion ... and your assessment that its about as valid as not collecting stamps as a hobby ... is interesting, to say the least!!!:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

I wasn't arguing about the validity of Atheism as a religion ... and your assessment that its about as valid as not collecting stamps as a hobby ... is interesting, to say the least!!!:)

Interesting, and also accurate - unlike your fictitious claims.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Interesting, and also accurate - unlike your fictitious claims.

... so you are saying that Atheism has no validity, as a religious belief system ... fair enough!!

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... so you are saying that Atheism has no validity, as a religious belief system ... fair enough!!:)

Precisely, because atheism isn't a belief system. It's a statement that one does not believe in a God. I hope I have clarified this for you.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Precisely, because atheism isn't a belief system. It's a statement that one does not believe in a God. I hope I have clarified this for you.

... it is much more than a statement that you don't believe in God ... like all other religions, it colours your beliefs about the world ... beliefs like materialistic processes are all there is ... and a refusal to accept that life is intelligently designed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was!!!:)

... I respect your right to hold these views ... but you do not have the right to impose them on other people ... or to discriminate against other people who don't share your worldview ... and all of the beliefs that follow on from it.

The Quadratic Equation

dlofnep wrote: »

Precisely, because atheism isn't a belief system. It's a statement that one does not believe in a God. I hope I have clarified this for you.

Would you say thats a common belief ?

The BBC now list atheism under their religion section and list it's typical beliefs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.

What do you think about atheist "ministers" and the First Church of Atheism ?

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/atheist-minister-in-your-area/

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... it is much more than a statement that you don't believe in God ...

No, it isn't. I implore you to buy a dictionary.

noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

It does not make a claim beyond that.

dlofnep

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Are you sure thats what you believe ?

No, it's not a belief. It's a matter of fact.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... it is much more than a statement that you don't believe in God ... like all other religions, it colours your beliefs about the world ... beliefs like materialistic processes are all there is ... and a refusal to accept that life is intelligently designed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was!!!:)

Not quite.
Life could have been designed by time travellers. See in the year 54,712 Mankind finds that it must travel back in time to start the universe or risk creating a paradox. But they exist... So they must have already gone back.... But they didn't, but they exist. And so on.

Could have been fairies.
Could have been an old man in a cave on the edge of the galaxy.
We could be in a computer.

Atheism says nothing about anything except if you believe in a deity or not.

dlofnep

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

What do you think about atheist "ministers" and the First Church of Atheism ?

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/atheist-minister-in-your-area/

It has no bearing on what the description of atheism is. Atheists reject the propositions of a God. No more, no less.

[-0-]

Can we stop debating what atheism is / is not and get back how JC was owned like a little kitten and ask him to debunk the paper.... kthanksbai

Sarky

Yes J C, come on and debunk that paper. Your attempts to dodge questions and change subject remain utterly transparent. You're just not going to suddenly become clever enough to make us think you answered our questions, no matter how hard you pray.

Man up for a change. Face being wrong about something.

[-0-]

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/quantum-locking/

dead one

dlofnep wrote: »

Precisely, because atheism isn't a belief system. It's a statement that one does not believe in a God. I hope I have clarified this for you.

Dlofnep, It's not just a statement that one does not believe in a God. It takes a huge leap of faith to not to believe in God --- only a believer can make huge claims of such absolute knowledge ---
Atheism is a religion. Here are some points
1.Atheism has its own worldview :
Atheists put worldview in the prism of materialism
2. Atheism has its own orthodoxy :
orthodoxy "generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion " In simple words, EVERYTHING can be defined as the amount of accidental,inadvertently, incidentally, purposeless materialistic evolution. No truth is acceptable ---- Even some time they attack on science with their orthodoxy
3. Atheism has its own own brand of apostasy:
Antony Garrard Newton Flew

Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[3] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.

but

However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, stating that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believes in God.[5] He later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with contributions from Roy Abraham Varghese.

tolerant atheists didn't show mercy on Flew and he was vilified. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
Atheism has its own messiah :-
Oh messiah you saved us:
Charles Darwin. in atheism view – provided a complicated explanation of life that never needs source
Atheism has itsown preachers and evangelists:
dlofnep and sarky and don't want to waste my listing more names --- My time will end the list will not end
Faith ;;;
No, one can prove or disapprove God's existence-- It takes huge leap of faith to deny God -- only he can do who has wandered and seen every part of universe --- only a believer can make such huge claim---
Materialistic Evolution can't ex-plane why this universe is orderly, predictable, measurable --- They can't explain self-awareness? what is conscious? from where comes universal sense of right and wrong? It's all about faith

Doc_Savage

Dead One,
if someone proposes that "X" exists, the burden of proof lies with them.
if another person agrees that "X" exists, without the need for proof they are said to believe in "X".
Now if a third person does not agree with the first two people there's no burden of proof and no belief.

seriously how hard is that to get?

dead one

Doc_Savage wrote: »

Dead One,
if someone proposes that "X" exists, the burden of proof lies with them.
if another person agrees that "X" exists, without the need for proof they are said to believe in "X".
Now if a third person does not agree with the first two people there's no burden of proof and no belief.

seriously how hard is that to get?

See, Doc_Savage --- Let me amend your statement --- There is no someone --- It's prophets, the messengers of God, by them, God communicated to earth --- why didn't God communicate directly to mankind ---

{Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision, and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.}[Quran 6:103]

"This does not negate the evidence of the believers seeing their Lord, as the vision which is negated in this verse is in regard to this worldly life"
We believe these books are from God ---- you don't believe in them --- You, on the other hand, make claim of absolute knowledge by rejecting these Books like quran bible etc
Now let see in your own words
if Religion proposes that "God" exists and You can't disapprove existence of God, then you are believer --- As you have no evidence for your claim --- You disbelief in God without any evidence ---
See, this might help you what i trying to tell, i know carl sagan was athiest but he had written truth, as he himself was believer

Carl Sagan said, You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.

we can't convince you that there is God as your belief of no God is not based on evidence --- it's based on a deep-seated need to believe ---

Doc-Savage --- You have the cure

Doc_Savage

dead one wrote: »

See, Doc_Savage --- Let me amend your statement --- There is no someone --- It's prophets, the messengers of God, by them, God communicated to earth --- why didn't God communicate directly to mankind ---

You assume i meant someone in the singular, it was a non specific example. and taking it as plural or singular has no affect on the original statement.

"This does not negate the evidence of the believers seeing their Lord, as the vision which is negated in this verse is in regard to this worldly life"
We believe these books are from God ---- you don't believe in them ---

evidence does not require belief... it is examinable and independantly verifiable. so it is incorrect to say that believing that those books and accounts are from god, means that they are evidence.

You, on the other hand, make claim of absolute knowledge by rejecting these Books like quran bible etc
Now let see in your own words
if Religion proposes that "God" exists and You can't disapprove existence of God, then you are believer ---

the above is a logical fallacy, in fact there's several of them there!

As you have no evidence for your claim --- You disbelief in God without any evidence ---

Right! so you're starting to get it?

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

Dlofnep, It's not just a statement that one does not believe in a God. It takes a huge leap of faith to not to believe in God --- only a believer can make huge claims of such absolute knowledge ---

What? Are you serious? It requires faith to believe in a god. There's no direct evidence for one, certainly no evidence for a particular one. And no just because someone says there is one that's not evidence. A load of people believing him is not evidence either. There are 100's of millons of Hindus in the world, you don't believe in their gods, because as far as you're concerned there's no evidence for them, so how come you believe in your god? It's not evidence. There is as much evidence for Vishnu as there is for Allah.

Charles Darwin. in atheism view – provided a complicated explanation of life that never needs source

No he didn't. In any case one could imagine a deity that created the laws of physics and evolution to build a universe, so Darwin doesn't disprove a motive force/god for the universe. His theory(and others) make a nonsense of bronze age and medieval notions of a motive force/god though.

No, one can prove or disapprove God's existence--

Well the burden of proof is on those who make the claim a god exists. That burden of proof goes up even more when they make the claim it's their incredibly limited and local in geography and culture god.

Evolution can't ex-plane why this universe is orderly, predictable, measurable ---

The laws of physics can. Where those laws of physics sprung from is another days work and unknowable at the moment, but the structure of the universal laws are pretty well known.

They can't explain self-awareness? what is conscious?

It springs from the brain. Now there is a real gap in our knowledge of how it springs from the brain and I suspect it's either very very complex or very very simple, but one day we'll crack this one too.

from where comes universal sense of right and wrong?

Evolutionary biology for a start. Secondly "right" and "wrong" varies hugely over time. Pick something we would all, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist consider "wrong" and I can guarantee at one time or another a whole culture thought it fine. Child sacrifice? Nope. Loads of pre Columbian cultures lauded it(and a couple of European ones, the Phoenicians for a start). Incest? Goes against morality and biology, yet numerous cultures embraced, nay celebrated it in some groups in their culture. The ancient Egyptian Pharonic lines as an example. If "right and wrong" are so set by a god, how come it varies so much and how come your version is any better than anothers?

It's all about faith

Indeed it is especially when it comes to god.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

The morphology of the 'Horse Series' does indicate that the 'series' is more a product of the imagination, than it is of the reality that we are dealing with ... i.e. different Created Kinds placed into a 'series' that never actually happened.

According to your previous post, here, you stated that the horse series posted by dlofnep contained at least three distinct “kinds”.

Which kinds are they?

What members from the series belong to which kind and why?

J C wrote: »

I have done this repeatedly on this thread ... but the truth of Creation Science bears repeating:-
A Kind or Baramin are all of the descendants of an originally Created Pair.
The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

Many members of Baramin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

The Dog Barmin approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive scientific test for membership of a Created Kind.

We see evidence of very significant speciation (recently and rapidly) within Created Kinds all around us. The Cattle Kind has over 100 different species with different degrees of cross-fertility between them ... ditto the Horse Kind, the Cat Kind, the Camel Kind, etc.

Most of the major speciatiation events appears to have already occurred and speciation is now very limited in its extent.

Your argument, if you can call it that, is inconsistent and intentionally vague. To that end I have some questions to clarify the points you make above.

First of all, there seems to be a major inconsistency in your definitions.

You begin by stating:

“A Kind or Baramin are all of the descendants of an originally Created Pair.”

implying that the terms kind and baramin are equivalent.

You then go on to state that:

“The Dog Barmin [sic] approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.”

This implies that the term baramin is a subclass of the term kind. So which is it? If baramin and kind are not equivalent then please define specifically what each term means and cite specific examples.

Secondly, your opening definition of kind is to encompass all the descendants of an originally created pair. Can you please define a “created pair” and list specific examples along with whatever research substantiates this assertion.

Next, you establish the “definitive” test for a created kind as “the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind” or more simply that all members of a kind must be interfertile. However, two species are defined as distinct when they cannot interbreed successfully. So how is kind different to species and why is it more useful as a descriptive model than species. Again, please list specific examples and research.

Next, you go on to state that creatures are placed in kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype even though they don’t cross-breed within the population. However, since you have already established the “definitive” test of a kind as the “ability” to interbreed, how do you propose to test for such an ability in the absence of actual recorded interbreeding.

Next, what mechanism do you propose that would limit variation within kinds?

Finally, the terms horse kind, cat kind and camel kind are so vague as to be absolutely meaningless. Can you please list specific examples of kinds, listing all members of such kinds as well as establishing the inclusion or exclusion criteria for that kind that would separate it from a similar kind?

Now, in order to continue to demonstrate why your notion of “kind” has no merit and does not contribute to our understanding of the natural world, it is necessary to give you a basic lesson in taxonomy and cladistics. To do this, I am going to use an example of a specific lineage from domain to species in order to show how taxonomic ranks work and how common descent works.

This is the lineage of humans from domain downward. It can be approached in either direction but downward will make it easier (I hope) for you to understand.

• Eukarya
• Opisthokonta
• Animalia
• Eumetazoa
• Bilateria
• Coelomata
• Deuterostomia
• Chordata
• Craniata
• Vertebrata
• Gnathostomata
• Teleostomi
• Osteichthyes
• Sarcopterygii
• Tetrapoda
• Anthracosauria
• Amniota
• Synapsida
• Eupelycosauria
• Sphenacodontia
• Therapsida
• Theriodontia
• Cynodontia
• Eucynodontia
• Probainognathia
• Mammaliformes
• Morganucodontidae
• Hadrocodium
• Mammalia
• Cladotheria
• Theria
• Eutheria
• Epitheria
• Euarchontoglires
• Archonta
• Primatomorpha
• Primates
• Haplorhini
• Simiiformes
• Catarrhini
• Hominoidea
• Hominidae
• Homininae
• Hominini
• Homo
• Homo Sapiens

Each taxonomic rank acts as a filter to sort a larger groups into smaller ones differentiated by traits which are shared by all members of one group and none of the other. This allows biologists to get a handle on the vast number of species both alive and extinct. Some examples of this filter mechanism include:

• Animalia is separated from the other subgroups of Opisthokonta, namely, fungi and choanoflagellates by the characteristic of requiring the digestion of another living organism in order to survive.
• Within Coelomata, the group of organisms characterised by a tubular internal digestive cavity, deuterostomia is differentiated by protostomia by the blastopore (passage from mouth to anus) develops with the anal orifice opening before the mouth.
• The subphylum craniata is differentiated from other groups within chordata by the characteristic of having a skull. This separates them from cephalochordata and urochordata.

The cumulative effects of such filtering is that we can describe orders and genera and other taxonomic ranks in terms of the characteristics obtained from being placed in each daughter taxonomic rank. Thus, for example, a primate can be defined as any “gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.”

The taxonomic system originally developed by Carolus Linnaeus and expanded upon by the massive body of research since then has provided a descriptive hierarchical model which enables us to understand the evolutionary relationships between all organisms alive and extinct. However, it should be pointed out at this juncture, that the superior taxonomic ranks of genus, family, order etc., while useful for illustrative purposes is meaningless in evolutionary terms because the only level with any meaning is species. Speciation is the only taxonomic division which can be objectively determined and is genetically significant. Since you have already acknowledged the existence of speciation it is unclear what you are trying to claim with your use of the term “kind”.

There is no point in the entire phylogenetic tree where one creature cannot be shown to be evidently related to any other organism.

In summary, JC, in order for you to prove your notion of kinds you must provide conclusive evidence for the created pairs which you claim are the source of all the extant species listed in each kind.
In tandem with this, you must also show why eukarya could not have diverged through natural selection to produce the range of species that we see today.

J C wrote: »

... so what exactly is supposed to have blown up at the Big Bang ... if it wasn't effectively nothing!!!

The Big Bang theory states that the universe expanded from an initial hot, dense energy state 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years ago. Where are you getting this ridiculous idea of nothing from?

J C wrote: »

The Casmir Effect is a quantum mechanics effect involving virtual particles ... and virtual phenomena, like intelligence is the cause of many physical effects.
Radioactive decay is also a cause of physical effects.

Are you trying to be intentionally thick or something? You made a comment in this post that you cannot have a physical effect without a cause. The casimir effect and radioactive decay are both effects without causes. Now you’re just peeing on your own feet by saying that radioactive decay is a cause of physical effects. Way to miss the point. Now address the issue at hand.

J C wrote: »

... reasoned argument is much better ... if you want to be taken seriously!!!

I have tried reasoned argument but it doesn’t seem to have had any effect on your repetition of the same debunked crap. I would wager also that my little contribution to the thread thus far is taken just as seriously as anything you’ve posted.

J C wrote: »

that local entropy decrease requires energy to be harnessed by an intelligently designed process

Please cite your research to back up this assertion.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

It (Atheism) does not make a claim beyond that.

Oh yes it does ... and, as this thread proves, some atheists do so quite agressively!!!!

Quote from BBC Site on Atheism:-
"... atheists might argue that since the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, we don't need the existence of another entity called God."
... and that is why you guys are so 'twitchy' about Creation Science ... because it has scientifically invalidated the unfounded Atheistic belief that the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology.

liamw

dead one wrote: »

we can't convince you that there is God as your belief of no God is not based on evidence --- it's based on a deep-seated need to believe ---

You are seriously dumb if you can't see the flaws in that statement.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Oh yes it does ... and, as this thread proves, some atheists do so quite agressively!!!!

Quote from BBC Site on Atheism:-
"... atheists might argue that since the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, we don't need the existence of another entity called God."
... and that is why you guys are so 'twitchy' about Creation Science ... because it has scientifically invalidated the unfounded Atheistic belief that the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology.

I'm sorry, but was another creationist posting on this thread? because you've consistently failed to give any evidence for the creation myth, and that's before we even get to discussing your inability to debunk/disprove anything from any papers/videos/links that have been posted showing the abundance of evidence for evolution.

dead one

Doc_Savage wrote: »

evidence does not require belief...

right, what is evidence "there is no God" please show me --- You are badly trapped in your own statement --- Can you show, why should i not believe in god, is there any evidence which disapprove existence of God? --- If you can't then you got beliefs

Doc_Savage wrote: »

it is examinable and independantly verifiable. so it is incorrect to say that believing that those books and accounts are from god, means that they are evidence.

---
i ain't saying they are evidence, Doc, you are saying that --- as you have no evidence to counter their claims --- Like God --- You can't disapprove God ----Like After life--- You can't disapprove after life---

Doc_Savage wrote: »

the above is a logical fallacy, in fact there's several of them there!

That's what you think, why should i believe in you?

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

What? Are you serious? It requires faith to believe in a god.

Yes i am serious, It requires faith to believe in God and It requires faith to disbelieve in God --- as you had already made point --- see, in your own language

Wibbs wrote: »

There's no direct evidence for one, certainly no evidence for a particular one.

as there's no direct evidence which approves or disapproves existence of God --- So belief and disbelief in God is always matter of faith --- SO, when atheists say no to God, It is pure act of faith which make them a follower of religion --- That's my point

Wibbs wrote: »

There are 100's of millons of Hindus in the world, you don't believe in their gods, because as far as you're concerned there's no evidence for them, so how come you believe in your god? It's not evidence. There is as much evidence for Vishnu as there is for Allah.

You don't know, Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses, at the same time they also believe in the existence of one supreme God and that supreme God is one --- It doesn't matter, by whatever name you may call him --- Majority of people, in the world, have faith in one God

dead one

liamw wrote: »

You are seriously dumb if you can't see the flaws in that statement.

You are ----... See, i don't want to break your innocent heart --- You are that cute who is living in a garden full of flowers --- You haven't ever visited to jungle -- The jungle is so rough and full of beasts -- They pluck flower like you from its roots --So, i hope, next time, your bigotry will see points in my statements--
All this is because, i love your innocence --- I don't want to make you cry

dlofnep

dead one wrote: »

right, what is evidence "there is no God" please show me

What is the evidence for "There is no unicorn", or "There is no Thor, god of thunder"? You simply don't understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

We are not stating that there is no God - We are stating that there is no evidence to suggest that a God exists. There is no onus on us to provide you evidence that there is no God. It is you who has to prove it.

dead one

dlofnep wrote: »

What is the evidence for "There is no unicorn", or "There is no Thor, god of thunder"? You simply don't understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Right, now, you are on right track --- What is the evidence for extraordinary evidence for these extraordinary claims
1. God didn't create life on earth (Were you present there)
2. God isn't creator of universe (Were you eyewitness of it)
3. Accidents / chances created life on earth (Are you product of accident)
etc
If accidents / chances can create life, then why, others planets, in this solar system, don't support life.

dlofnep wrote: »

We are not stating that there is no God -
We are stating that there is no evidence to suggest that a God exists. There is no onus on us to provide you evidence that there is no God. It is you who has to prove it.

There is no direct evidence to prove or disapprove God --- We believe in God because of an indirect evidence --- I mean we believe in God because of revelation of God --- Revelation of God suggests, that this whole universe/life/perfect system is evidence for perfection of Maker/Creator

---

on the other hand you suggest something else, so keeping that something else in mind, you say there is no evidence for existence of God, if that is case, then you must show, is there any evidence which disapprove God's existence....

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no onus on us to provide you evidence that there is no God. It is you who has to prove it.

Now, it's up to you to disapprove God, as you say, there is no evidence to approve God --- It is you who suggest, this perfect system of universe, isn't evidence for handwork of God --- It is you who has to prove it --- what is evidence to disapprove God

---

We have an indirect evidence, that this universe and it perfection, this great system is evidence for God --- why we can't see him --- here is indirect, evidence for it---

{Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision, and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.}[Quran 6:103]