The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Atheism doesn't have a gospel.

Correct, gospel means "good news", and there is no good news with atheism. It is a dead end, and even if it, against all odds, turns out to be true, there is no yield to those who believed it anyway because all returns to naught.

A good death is its own reward.

Use your life well and you won't need another one. Or insurance for that matter.

The Drake equation has no fallacy as it doesn't presume to answer any questions, only encourages people to keep asking them.

a reply to: cooperton

What would suffice for you as evidence then? The evidence is everywhere

No it's not! Why are you lying? But please answer me this. Whst evidence is there that your God is real?

a reply to: cooperton

Correct, gospel means "good news", and there is no good news with atheism. It is a dead end, and even if it, against all odds, turns out to be true, there is no yield to those who believed it anyway because all returns to naught.

I think there are a few types of atheists so it need not be a 'dead end' in the manner you describe. There are also many positives to take from atheism.

It must also be said that 'returning to nought' is not the be all and end all. It is really how we live this life that makes it worthwhile and though most would love more time here, it is what it is.

Have you considered how much of a crutch religion is? One needn't face up to one's own mortality, at least atheists have the courage to do so.

I am happy to be a 'mutant monkey', if that's what we are, life is beautiful in all it's forms. Try and find the courage to live without the crutch of God and take responsibility for your own life, thoughts and actions.

a reply to: midicon

I am happy to be a 'mutant monkey', if that's what we are, life is beautiful in all it's forms.

Why is life beautiful?

You think atheism is courage? The only reason why most atheists
choose not to believe in God is because they don't want any authority
over their lives.

They're narcissistic in their concerns. They don't want to answer to God
so they try and assert their selfish view over others in every conversation.
Then claim science vindicates what they do not believe.

When all the while quantum mechanics has almost figured out that
without consciousness nothing would exist. In other words the only
reason the universe exists is because consciousness existed first.
Not the other way around.

You want proof there it is. The double slit test in quantum mechanics.


The Christian will die for what he believes. The atheist will die.

a reply to: carsforkids

The Christian will die for what he believes. The atheist will die.

I think both might die for what they believe. People will die for a cause, such is the way.
Atheists can die at the hands of the religious for being non believers. It is what it is.
The double slit doesn't prove God, that's just silly.
I don't think atheism has anything to do with an abhorrence of authority or is even a chosen path. It's just that many people don't see any real evidence for God. They don't use science to validate anything or disprove God, it's just used to refute outlandish claims.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: midicon

I am happy to be a 'mutant monkey', if that's what we are, life is beautiful in all it's forms.

Why is life beautiful?

You think atheism is courage? The only reason why most atheists
choose not to believe in God is because they don't want any authority
over their lives.

They're narcissistic in their concerns. They don't want to answer to God
so they try and assert their selfish view over others in every conversation.
Then claim science vindicates what they do not believe.

When all the while quantum mechanics has almost figured out that
without consciousness nothing would exist. In other words the only
reason the universe exists is because consciousness existed first.
Not the other way around.

You want proof there it is. The double slit test in quantum mechanics.


The Christian will die for what he believes. The atheist will die.

Oh, so you know every Christian, and Athiest? Are you sure you are not God, because you seem to know people you have not even met! Do you know how arragont and ignorant you sound?

You write BS after BS!

a reply to: Jay-morris

Glad you could work together and find common ground rather than useless insults

a reply to: cooperton

I agree completely. Atheism is a lazy thesis, to think the of the diversity and complexity within the universe, especially when referring to biological science is a very subjective perspective. Exclaiming biodiversity is some king of random chance event is truly ignorant as there is clearly some kind of underlying design to life and all science is achieving is decoding information within the grand design. There's a reason it's called scientific discovery. The physical world follows clear parameters, this mathematical blueprint is eternal, infinite and unchanged since the dawn of time.

There is no real unified theory to explain the link between consciousness, biology and physics. Consciousness can never be described by mathematics and so should have different parameters and language from the physical reality we experience. It can't be weighed, calculated or measured however we can still attempt understanding if we realise this is a different entity entirely.

a reply to: midicon

They don't use science to validate anything or disprove God, it's just used to refute outlandish claims.

That's delusional.
Atheists are diametrically opposed to any religious ideology. They feel they
must assert their view above others because their view is superior. We've seen
this demonstrated constantly thru this whole thread. Atheists have displayed
dogma, narcissism, anger, ad hominem attacks all with a closed mind thru
out the whole thread.

You know what that ads up to?

psychopathy

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So you are cherry picking the bible! Thank you for proving my point! So on one hand, you say the bible is the word of God, but on the other hand, you are saying the bad stuff in the bible, where God commanded the deaths of innocent people, is a lie and written by humans!

You have just proved my point!

Why don't you look at the definition of 'cherry picking', first of all...

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

That is exactly what YOU are doing.

You are picking out small pieces in the Bible, to confirm your specific argument, while ignoring the most significant portion of evidence, which is written throughout the Bible, because it completely contradicts your argument!

So why don't you address all the evidence which contradicts your argument?

How can you explain two different Gods in the same book? There is only one God. It makes no sense for God to contradict Himself, so the only possible explanation for it, is that humans corrupted the Bible, no?

Why don't you even address that God speaks of good, and love, and kindness, throughout the Bible?

Are you that afraid to even admit it is IN the Bible?

en.wikipedia.org...

Alright everybody just lighten up for a minute okay.



Nothing says we can't be civil!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So you are cherry picking the bible! Thank you for proving my point! So on one hand, you say the bible is the word of God, but on the other hand, you are saying the bad stuff in the bible, where God commanded the deaths of innocent people, is a lie and written by humans!

You have just proved my point!

Why don't you look at the definition of 'cherry picking', first of all...

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

That is exactly what YOU are doing.

You are picking out small pieces in the Bible, to confirm your specific argument, while ignoring the most significant portion of evidence, which is written throughout the Bible, because it completely contradicts your argument!

So why don't you address all the evidence which contradicts your argument?

How can you explain two different Gods in the same book? There is only one God. It makes no sense for God to contradict Himself, so the only possible explanation for it, is that humans corrupted the Bible, no?

Why don't you even address that God speaks of good, and love, and kindness, throughout the Bible?

Are you that afraid to even admit it is IN the Bible?

en.wikipedia.org...

You just keep on proving my point over and over again! If what you say is true, and the brutal bits in the bible (which there is a lot) had nothing to do with God, then how do you know that's not the case for all the bible?

Don't you think it's logical that is was all written by primitive man? Not just the brutal stuff, but also the stupid laughable stories you find in the bible!

And if you think God loves his children, then do you believe non believers go to hell?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: midicon

They don't use science to validate anything or disprove God, it's just used to refute outlandish claims.

That's delusional.
Atheists are diametrically opposed to any religious ideology. They feel they
must assert their view above others because their view is superior. We've seen
this demonstrated constantly thru this whole thread. Atheists have displayed
dogma, narcissism, anger, ad hominem attacks all with a closed mind thru
out the whole thread.

You know what that ads up to?

psychopathy

And yet all those qualities you ascribe to atheism is exactly how you present yourself in this thread.

The real problem that theists have, and why they are so defensive is that they know that all they have is faith and no real evidence to produce that can withstand scrutiny.
I am thankful that religion plays no part in my family's (and extended family) lives. I have no religious friends and would not suffer to have such.

If people changed God into a loving caring God throughout most of the Bible, then they would have easily been able to change the small remaining parts....which wasn't the case, obviously.

The opposite case works. It is almost impossible for them to change God into a cruel figure throughout the Bible, if you've ever read it, that is. Such a feat would mean basically re-writing the whole Bible - if it was ever attempted.

You're suggesting they managed to change God into a loving caring figure, throughout the Bible, except couldn't revise the last 0.2 % of it, which is really logical, right? Dream on, pal.


The logical argument is that they revised it in small parts, where they could, and that's why it has contradictions in small areas, compared to our real God, within 99.9% of the Bible.

That's common sense, should you ever decide to use it, once in awhile.

And we are ALL God's children, believer or non-believer.

God does not send non-believers to hell, simply for their ignorance, or denial of God's existence.

Atheists simply find out, in the end, that God really does exist, and how special we all are, that he created Earth for all of us to live and learn about ourselves, and others, and find what love means, before we return to Him, afterwards.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If people changed God into a loving caring God throughout most of the Bible, then they would have easily been able to change the small remaining parts....which wasn't the case, obviously.

The opposite case works. It is almost impossible for them to change God into a cruel figure throughout the Bible, if you've ever read it, that is. Such a feat would mean basically re-writing the whole Bible - if it was ever attempted.

You're suggesting they managed to change God into a loving caring figure, throughout the Bible, except couldn't revise the last 0.2 % of it, which is really logical, right? Dream on, pal.


The logical argument is that they revised it in small parts, where they could, and that's why it has contradictions in small areas, compared to our real God, within 99.9% of the Bible.

That's common sense, should you ever decide to use it, once in awhile.

Obviously, you have not read the bible, because if you did, you would know the brutal, horrible verses that are in the bible! You are just making excuses on why they are in there!

And you ignored my question!

originally posted by: turbonium1
And we are ALL God's children, believer or non-believer.

God does not send non-believers to hell, simply for their ignorance, or denial of God's existence.

Atheists simply find out, in the end, that God really does exist, and how special we all are, that he created Earth for all of us to live and learn about ourselves, and others, and find what love means, before we return to Him, afterwards.

Ok lol

For Paul, the faithful will enjoy eternal life, but those who don’t know Christ will "be punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9). Hence his urgent call: "How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14).

One cannot face 'eternal destruction', first of all. If one is destroyed, it's a one and done thing... right?

It's a nonsensical statement, written by nonsensical humans, I'd say.

I suppose you think God would destroy all the Asians, because Christ didn't visit China?


Think about how stupid this sounds - use some common sense

originally posted by: turbonium1
One cannot face 'eternal destruction', first of all. If one is destroyed, it's a one and done thing... right?

It's a nonsensical statement, written by nonsensical humans, I'd say.

So, you are cherry picking! I thought the bible was the word of God? Or am I wrong? So, you have a God who would condemn "his children" to eternal pain in hell, just because they do not believe in him.

Would you condemn your own children to a life of pain because they did not agree with you? But with God, it's okay?