Christians.which atheist argument is most hilarious?
Topic: Do it yourself dna research articles
July 17, 2019 / By Walker Question:
A. Sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.
B. If something can't come from nothing, who made God?
C. Jesus is a copy of Mithra.
D. Anthony Flew only became a theist because his old age caused him to become delusional.
If other, do give everyone else a chance to laugh by telling us what is it, yes?
wow...I was hoping I wouldnt have to do this...
A. Is a direct quote from wikipedia article "evolution of sex"
B. Irrelevant because God is outside of time and space, see definition of "God"
C. No, Mithra's birth has nothing to do with that of Jesus. This is a myth propegated by atheist and islam websites. Go to wikipedia and look up Mithraic Mysteries, they devote an entire section to dispelling this notion. The story of Mithra's birth is this: He was born full adult from a chunk of rock. No virgin (other than the rock?), no cave (other than the hole he left behind!), etc.
4. Do you even know who A. Flew is?
Ps....I was not homeschooled, by parents aren't even believers. Maybe ask before making statements about my youth and such?
Vincent - first off, why the name calling? When you call names, it sometimes causes people to think that you are doing it because you don't have a solid argument...are you aware of this? For now, I will assume that this is not the case with you.
A. Yes, I HAVE heard this argument used, that is when I was first refered to this article
B. Um....I think that was my point. Time and space are a part of this creation. Who are you arguing for?
D. You are missing the point entirely. My point was, it sounds pathetic when atheists turn on someone they formerly stood behind, and grasp at straws to do so. It is a truly sad argument. And a little insulting to Mr. Flew. Will you do the same when Dawkins becomes a theist I wonder?
And appeals to authority - fully agree. And I am holding you to it, so watch out!
Best Answers: Christians.which atheist argument is most hilarious?
Rube | 7 days ago
A: No-one has ever said this. If they did, they were incorrect, and it's certainly not a prevalent argument. Therefore by bringing it up and claiming that it IS a common statement, you are a liar. Genders evolved from asexual reproduction, which came through hermaphroditism on the way. This has been known for over a century, as studies of barnacles, even currently existing ones, show a clear progression from hermpahroditism to dual sex beings, with the transitional species having smaller males that, while being separate organisms, live their lives embedded inside the females. So there's one dumb question down.
B: Your point is? When you guys claim that absolutely EVERYTHING needs a creator, you fail miserably by saying 'everything except God needs a creator!'. It's a logical fallacy, and no matter how much you whine you won't change that.
C: Personally I don't hold to this, and I've heard that Zeitgeist is rather poorly researched, so I won't bother trying to defend this argument; I don't believe it either.
D: Given that his conversion DID come after he was diagnosed with dementia (not just old age, BUT A MEDICAL CONDITION, dummy), you fail at this one.
In other words, your question has proven you to be a moron who needs to do a bit of research. Bye bye now silly little boy.
EDIT: A: Sorry, the wikipedia article said this was something that was being considered, not something that was explicitly stated as accepted by the scientific community. So you're STILL lying kid. And something up for consideration in scientific circles is NOT the definition of 'an atheist argument'.
B: By definition, the CREATION of the universe is not bound by the INTERNAL laws of the universe, so if God is exempt due to being outside of space and time, so is the universe itself; space and time are, by definition, INTERNAL functions of the universe. So again your dumb logical fallacy fails miserably.
D: Yes, I know who Anthony Flew is. Again, he was diagnosed with DEMENTIA. Do you know what that is? And lastly, it's only sad morons such as yourself who seem to think that appeals to authority actually have any worth.
So I take it you'd admit you don't possess a shred of intellectual honesty?
EDIT2: A: As I pointed out, claiming that 'atheists say sex came from cannibalism!' is a complete distortion of what the article says, so that's a LIE. It's one hypothesis under consideration, and judging from the way the article is phrased, one that's considered the least likely. So the way you've phrased it in the question is still dishonest.
B: Yes, time and space as we know them only apply to things inside the universe, therefore NOT to the universe itself. My point is that by YOUR definition, that means the UNIVERSE doesn't need a creator, as the overall thing is not bound by it's own internal laws. So either way, the Christian proposition of 'everything needs a creator except god!' is STILL a logical fallacy.
D: I've never read any Dawkins in my life. And again, what part of 'dementia' aren't you getting here? What do you think is the more likely explanation for what occurred; someone who's spent their life arguing against religion suddenly changed his mind of his own free volition one day and just happened to be developing a degenerative mental illness completely coincidentally to this major personality shift, or that one was the product of the other? Be honest?
And you got insulting names because the tone of the question overall, ESPECIALLY the title, was a direct insult. Don't try and pretend you're being civil, too late for that kid.
👍 282 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Christians.which atheist argument is most hilarious?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Do it yourself dna research articles
Originally Answered: Can you spot the flaw in this atheist argument against the existence of God?
The flaw is in the misuse of the concept of being able to do "anything."
Mathematically, finding X such that 3>X>5 is NOT doing anything, so if God doesn't do it, it doesn't violate the notion that God can do anything.
God can, in fact, win a game of tic-tac-toe if you're allowed to draw two X's for every one of his O's. Not being temporally limited, God could simply take a diagonal row of O's--you get the other six spaces, but he still wins. (That one was simply not written clearly enough. But clearly "winning" a game designed to be unwinnable comes under the same general class as finding X, above--it can be defined to not be anything.)
As to the philosophical issues of the laws of logic, my view is that God makes those laws in the first place. But he obeys them so that they will BE laws. The logical consistency and scientific comprehensibility of the universe is a constraint God puts on himself for our benefit. He allows logic and science just as he allows free will; they are gifts to us, by divine Providence.
There's a certain circularity to that approach--but only because it's a necessary consequence of the notion. It's perfectly valid to regard logical consistency as a characteristic of the universe itself, without the need to bring God into it. But if we choose, as I do, to bring God into it, that doesn't necessarily disrupt the consistency (unless, of course, the believer in God insists on the disruption). If the validity of logic, math, and science are among God's gifts to us, the consistency is there either way.
I can't claim that it proves God's existence, but neither can an atheist claim that it disproves it. God, being able to do anything, could appear to us as a talking platypus on a pogo stick. But the fact that he hasn't done so doesn't prove he can't do it--it can simply demonstrate that he's got more sense than someone who claims they'd find a God who did so convincing.
A) is a lie, I've never once heard this used as an argument.
B) This is a valid argument, you say that everything must have had a first cause (i.e God) so what was your God's first cause?
Edit: Well, since time started with the big bang this was also technically outside time and space. It's just more Christian squirming to avoid the question.
C) The story of Jesus' birth does bear a striking resemblance to that of Mithra, not saying that means anything though.
D) It is possible that he was spoken to by god and convinced of his existence. However, it is more likely that he became afraid of his own mortality when he became near death.
Edit: Yes. Your point?
👍 120 | 👎 6
A. Never heard this one, and it's not very plausible (no matter who came up with it). At any rate, it's some kind of hypothesis regarding evolution, and has nothing to do with atheism.
B. And your answer is...?
C. And your answer is...?
D. What do I care what somebody else thinks? I don't hold any stock in appeals to authority, and I'm rational enough to evalutate the evidence on my own.
E. Where's your evidence that god exists?
👍 114 | 👎 5
You poor boy. Is it tough not understanding how humour works?
If you find "If nothing can come from nothing, where did God come from?" hilarious, perhaps you could answer the question. You know, without making him the only exception to a rule that you have created. Can you do that?
No, I didn't think so.
👍 108 | 👎 4
You DO realize
this has backfired at you?
The *A* option is so idiotic
no mentally sound atheist would come up with anything even remotely similar
It must be the god´s influence in you
👍 102 | 👎 3
Laughing at other people because they don't believe in what you do? How very Unchristian of you. Shame on you, go repent while the rest of us try to better the world.
👍 96 | 👎 2
Originally Answered: Christians: I am an atheist. Can you help me to understand why you believe?
If you judged solely based on your own intellect, you would believe a lot of lies, and you wouldn't know a lot of truths. I have come to know of God's existence for myself. I can't prove it to you, just the same as I can't prove anything else to you without your desire to know it too.
You asked, "What do you see that I don't?" And my answer is that it's what I feel that you don't. I don't have to see God to know that He exists. If you look around you at the world, I think that's physical proof that God exists. I don't believe that all of this and us could be created, and so many miracles, without the hand of a divine being.
Please don't judge your belief in God simply on whether science can prove it. There is so much more to life than what you can recognize with your five senses.
I never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.
I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.
You are welcome to e-mail me if you want to continue this topic in conversation. [email protected]