question for athiests

[RAVENBLACK]

What is it you want exactly?

An answer to a question that no one has a definitive answer for?

Well thats what you think sonny.

Changing your tune all of a sudden.

 

[xumanah]

Science has provided us with answers to a lot of the questions. Religion has given us no answers.

Answers? Really....until they find out its wrong?

 

[gas]

Oh jolly good, the god threads roll into a 2nd week.

At this rate we`ll still be mass debating the Lords existance as we celebrate his Sons birth in a few months time.

 

[Erik]

Bollocks.

I didn't ask what's between your ears, old man, so please try and control your outbursts.

 

[Erik]

In this case because they are talking bubbles. Furthermore it does not address the question at hand. something has to exist to be passed on. Its how it came into existence that is the issue at hand

again i would emphasise that this is NOT about religion. Its about origin.
What is arrogant is that to suggest a creator = religious nut to some.
also what is arrogant is that we have sex so dinosaurs must have had sex, although there is no 'proof' as to how etc.
yet its seen as ludicrous to suggest that everything has a point of origin and a creator, therefore ........you know the rest

 

[xumanah]

Its that age old debate. No one knows and more importantly does anyone give a ****?
As far as I'm concerned you can believe in what you like until you tell me I'm wrong to believe what I like.
Then I will unleash hell!

 

[thefanwithnoname]

And what is Stage A. If time is a dimension and created at Stage B (Big Bang), how can you go back?

in simple terms stage A is the creation/origins of the things that banged

 

[xumanah]

in simple terms stage A is the creation/origins of the things that banged

Nope...Stage B contained your Stage A so there's no going back from this point of Stage B.
When Stage B came into existence, so did Stage A.

 

[thefanwithnoname]

Its that age old debate. No one knows and more importantly does anyone give a ****?
As far as I'm concerned you can believe in what you like until you tell me I'm wrong to believe what I like.
Then I will unlease hell!

i think 30 pages on GC suggest people 'care' or as you put it give a ****

 

[The Raging Oxter]

Its that age old debate. No one knows and more importantly does anyone give a ****?
As far as I'm concerned you can believe in what you like until you tell me I'm wrong to believe what I like.
Then I will unlease hell!

If you don't give a **** why don't you do us all a favour and **** off?

And it's unleash, not unlease.

 

[thefanwithnoname]

Nope...Stage B contained your Stage A so there's no going back from this point of Stage B.
When Stage B came into existence, so did Stage A.

no

if the big bang was the baby, someone had to ****

 

[xumanah]

If you don't give a **** why don't you do us all a favour and **** off?

I dont give a **** and thats why I'll hang around just to **** you off cocksucker!!!

 

[thefanwithnoname]

Oh jolly good, the god threads roll into a 2nd week.

At this rate we`ll still be mass debating the Lords existance as we celebrate his Sons birth in a few months time.

how very dare you

some will only be celebrating because it has pagan roots

 

[xumanah]

no

if the big bang was the baby, someone had to ****

Nope...thats where your argument falls over. What is time? Is it matter? That is, is it made from atoms, molecules, does it have mass?

 

[xumanah]

If you don't give a **** why don't you do us all a favour and **** off?

And it's unleash, not unlease.

Again, DO I GIVE A RATS ASS WHAT YOU THINK?

 

[Erik]

no

if the big bang was the baby, someone had to ****

Why make such assumptions?

 

[thefanwithnoname]

Nope...thats where your argument falls over. What is time? Is it matter? That is, is it made from atoms, molecules, does it have mass?

time is simply a tool for measuring

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

2 things, one it defeats the purpose of the OP. 2 the theist claims that athiests love to mock etc is true no?

How does my answer defeat the purpose of the OP?
I don't accept any of the current theories.
That's an answer.
I don't have to offer one of my own.

What have I mocked by rejecting every current answer as unproven?

who said anything about 'magicking'. Everything as we know it has a point of origin, a creator

No, it doesn't.
What's the point of origin/creator of the universe or matter?
If you claim god is, then what's the point of origin/creator of god?

based on what we know it certainly does suggest it, as nothing as we know it comes from nothing. What it is can be debated, even the 'big bang' is suggestion of a 'creating force'. so the answer is the key

The big bang doesn't suggest that there's a creating force at all.
It says that the universe was once in a super dense and hot state, before it expanded.

As far as we know, nothing has ever been created.

I was talking from your perspective. I think 'knowing' or seeking to know is the only way to make an informed decision.
you dont?

You weren't talking from my perspective.
You said that you couldn't accept not having an answer, so you've taken god to be that answer.

and based on that we know that for something to 'be' there needs to be a creating force.
or is it a case of accept what suits?

Reproduction and creation are not the same thing.
We have evidence for one of them.

there is plenty of evidence, our very existence based on what we know suggests a creator. as in nothing is created...... you know the rest

Our existence is not evidence of a creator.
This is absolute drivel.

If you accept that is true, then who created god, as his existence is clearly evidence of a creator and who created the creature that created god?
That goes on forever and doesn't make any sense in the first place.

From man. No different to the evolution in terms of height etc

And this grass eating, third eye-lidded man looked like what, exactly?

The use of wisdom teeth was vital in the development of man. Evolutions forgotten

The development of man from...?

the third eyelid (or nictitating membrane) is thought to have shrunk to the little pink bit in the corner of the eye. so is it a 3rd eyelid?

Yes, it is.
Look it up.

Please, this is a classic case of 'making it fit'. The parts of the eye are multiple. According to darwins 'natural selection' It would have had to be multiple evolution processes happening in tandem for that to work, as you may well know some elements of th eeye are useless outside the sum.

None of the parts of the eye are useless outside of the sum.
Please feel free to say what they are, if you believe otherwise.

How do you explain the eye's blind spot, by the way?
Did god miss a bit?

what was the 'right' context?

Read the whole article, rather than skimming it and totally missing the point, then you might know.

in simple terms stage A is the creation/origins of the things that banged

Not with your answer, it isn't.
Then we have to go back to how god came into existence which, according to your train of thought, would require a creator, who would also require a creator and so on.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

no

if the big bang was the baby, someone had to ****

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!

You don't read or understand what other posters tell you!

 

[The Raging Oxter]

Again, DO I GIVE A RATS ASS WHAT YOU THINK?

Well, you've responded to the same post twice so I would have to conclude that you do.