You just said, “everything whch exists is natural”. So, natural would be…that which exists.
If by that (I’m still having to put words in your mouth, please forgive me and try to see why) you mean,
“Do you believe that the universe up to and including the present came to be through purely natural means?”
My answer to that is “Yes.”
What I will not do is claim to understand all those natural means. I’m still learning.
If the human species is in fact “planned”, the planner is a fucking half-wit. The eye, that icon of “intellegent design”, would be better designed by a first-year engineering student rather than the all-knowing all-seeing all-powerful “god”. No one but a fucking half-wit would plan to pull the cable of a sensor grid back through the sensor grid itself, leaving a hole, because the fucking half-wit didn’t think to put the sensors on the front of the grid.
Ah, no, I said “I’m not going to say it isn’t, because I don’t know what it is.”
You quoted it, I would think you would get it right.
And, since I do not agree with the premise, that your Church’s claims are true, and thus do not share your preconditional context, I do not see it as evidence of the Christian claim.
I see something interesting.
You see something paranormal, claim a specific religion, base it all on your coice of church as the specific context, and therefore I’m wrong.
Oooo, I’m so impressed with your use of invective. Such use of invective cannot be the result of natural processes, it must have been inspred by God! That’s it, I’m now a Christian pre-pubescent gnat.
Darn, I looked all around but couldn’t find a {sarcasm} tag.
The eye detects light by having pigments change chemical configurations because of incoming light energy. Over and over and over again. Once thus changed, another input of energy and materials is needed to get the receptors ready to work again. This is a fairly intensive process, which is why the retina seems inverted: it was the only way to get enough energy and materials directly to the cells that need them.
And, before you go around calling the creator(s) of life “fucking half-wit(s)”, let’s see your first-year engineering student build a functional SELF REPAIRING eye, but the self-replicating machines around it. One that can provide continuous video feed for 80 years. Indeed, this eye also will need the machinery around it to obtain all the needed materials and energy for growth and maintenance for itself.
The only “fucking half-wit” here is the one who spouts talking points from angry atheist blogs without having the first idea what the hell he’s really talking about. There are more design considerations involved with the eye than are necessary to take one snapshot.
Also, just because we were designed with a purpose does not mean that purpose would be best served by us all having flawless bodies. Given that you don’t know the purpose our creator had for us, you don’t really know how well the design serves it, do you?
You idiot, do you really not understand the difference between evidence and proof. The specific phenomena occurred in a Roman Catholic Church, under the guidelines of Roman Catholicism. That’s circumstantial evidence and though circumstantial evidence is not proof it is enough to suggest a course by which to walk.
Atheism ftl.
Makes sense. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, after all.
No, I simply disagree with you. If, in your opinion, only idiots can disagree with you, that says far more about you than about everyone else.
Only if you accept the premise of Roman Catholicism. Since I don’t, it only suggests to me that someone took some blood, some heart tissue, and declared, “Look! A Miracle!”
I don’t understand what Faster Than Light has to do with atheism.
They have to show that there is something which prevents. That they claim that there is something is not sufficient. Most statists claim that because they don’t know of any other way, that there isn’t any other way, because only a government can do these things. Of course, they never show what obtains such. But that’s their problem.
Ok. Then the statist has to show that only a government can provide those things.
The statists have the sole burden of proof. I don’t know why you don’t understand that.
I have an idea: let’s take the threadjack by JCFolsom (since he is the one who got all bent out of shape over an analogy) and make another thread out of it, ok? How about that.
Again the militiant atheists are left hiding their heads in sand holes crying out, “LALALALALALA I DON’T ACCEPT YOUR RELIGION, I DONT ACCEPT YOUR RELIGION, I DONT ACCEPT YOUR RELIGIONIDONTACCEPTYOURRELIGION”
I know there’s a new topic for this “God discussion”, but I thought I’d reply by correcting you (dunno if you’re being sarcastic though). FTL means “For the lose”; sucky.
Over and over I see this same assertion, yet without any reality to back it up.
“Statists” point to the fact that there is a state, and it functions. That’s it. Their “burden of proof” is fulfilled.
So, show me a working anarchy. Show me one square inch of this planet that is not ruled by a state. There isn’t one.
You can proclaim how the “statists have the sole burden of proof” all day long, they will ignore you and you will get arrested when you try to use their silence as a reason for not paying taxes.
Statists don’t have to play logic games. They have guns, and prisons, and the IRS.
Of course not. Infants have nothing to say about the subject because they don’t know the first thing about it. You don’t see that as atheistic? They’re not saying “I don’t believe”, but they sure aren’t saying “I believe” or “I’m not sure if I believe or not”.
No, to me that would be agnostic. Personally I can’t recall that I ever didn’t believe in a supreme being. So basically one can assume that I’m born a theist[;)].
But of course I can not speak for other people here.
The church used to be a very powerful/influential institution in South Africa. It became however more politicised over the year. So it also lost credibility, because people started looking through the fact that religion was instrumentalized for certain political goals. This also led to the fact that many people did turn their backs on the church right now. But that the institution went wrong doesn’t say anything about the validity of christianity or the existence of a God.
