question for athiests

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Will we ever know with 100% certainty which is more painful between getting kicked in the nuts or giving birth?

It's an interesting question since no one can compare the two as no one can experience both.

Hindus can.
 
So some of your beliefs are stated by that fact.

I cant see how that impacts on the question of the OP

Seriously, I've answered this about 10 times.
Everything.
Nothing has a creator, in the sense that you're suggesting.

and what sense is that?


No they don't and you haven't demonstrated that they do, you've merely claimed it, repeatedly.
The universe doesn't need a creator.

so a painting can paint itself?

I already have.

You really havent. you posted a link and i have debunked it

And you'd be wrong.
Again.

antitheism is the active opposition to theism
theism is the belief in a deity/god
anti god is active opposition to god or theism
= same thing


You really don't get how this works, do you?
You're the one making the claim, so it's down to you to prove it.
Sound familiar?

I answered your question is all

You don't read them.
The three-eyed monkey proved that.

Ahh did that give you a hard on?
and that was about my typing rather than my reading

plus define creator, it may save time
 
I accept the unexplained, based on what we know though there is a suggestion of a creator. (bearing in mind this isnt a bearded bloke etc)
"so the explosion is the creator. although what exploded and who put those there is a fair question" A chemical reaction that may cause an explosion doesn't need a living being to place the chemicals together it can happen naturally.
I guess that if you believe an explosion could be the creator then you are in effect open to believing that the big bang theory could have created the universe - hence there is no reason to believe in god.
 
"so the explosion is the creator. although what exploded and who put those there is a fair question" A chemical reaction that may cause an explosion doesn't need a living being to place the chemicals together it can happen naturally.
I guess that if you believe an explosion could be the creator then you are in effect open to believing that the big bang theory could have created the universe - hence there is no reason to believe in god.

Its the God bit we are both having difficulty with imo

I think maybe the image of god is the problem here. As i said to me 'god' just means creator NOT a bloke in a white robe with a big beard ala the current biblical description

What I am saying in this thread is that something caused the universe to exist, that cause is the creator
 
I cant see how that impacts on the question of the OP

I didn't say that it did.

and what sense is that?

In the sense that it was magicked up out of nothing, rather than made out of other things that already existed.

so a painting can paint itself?

I didn't suggest that it could.

You really havent. you posted a link and i have debunked it

No, you haven't.
You said that it's wrong without reading it, pointing out points that it already addressed, as you're just repeating crap that you've read on creationist sites.

antitheism is the active opposition to theism
theism is the belief in a deity/god
anti god is active opposition to god or theism
= same thing

Theism is the belief in a god or gods.
You can be against that belief without having any belief in a god, which your phrase suggests.

I answered your question is all

No, you didn't.
You made a claim that you couldn't back up.
Again.

Ahh did that give you a hard on?
and that was about my typing rather than my reading

No, it wasn't, as you made the same mistake more than once and clearly didn't understand what you were talking about.

plus define creator, it may save time

Creator's the wrong word to use, as I pointed out in my initial comment.
You agreed and then went on to use it repeatedly since.

so the unknowable exists now?

What?
What on earth are you on about and how did you get that from what I wrote?
 
What I am saying in this thread is that something caused the universe to exist, that cause is the creator

And you've yet to back this claim up with any evidence.
Why do you assume that the energy that makes up this universe had a start?
 
Its the God bit we are both having difficulty with imo

I think maybe the image of god is the problem here. As i said to me 'god' just means creator NOT a bloke in a white robe with a big beard ala the current biblical description

What I am saying in this thread is that something caused the universe to exist, that cause is the creator

If anyone creative tried to illustrate God, like Da Vinci. Your brutal faith would order its people to murder the artist.
 
theories and wikki does not fact make

You and Star Wars does not good English make.

PNP, you dont half talk a load of pretentious rubbish

And you, WUM or not, are as thick as pighsit. Even if you have another account on here and are using 'Holt' to try and troll General Chat and annoy people, I would be embarrassed of the ****e you come out with. Thick ****.

as explained I have hidden nothing. The Op was in response to th emany 'slate' religions threads. I asked the question what athiest theories were.
I agree with your point, but me not being to 'prove' what created a creator does not negate that either
Also the evolution argument is almost void, when considering that evolution does not and has never tried to answer the origins of the universe etc

Atheism ≠ 'Belief' in Evolution Theory
Theism ≠ 'Disbelief' in Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary Theory ≠ An attempt to explain the origins of the Universe, Solar System, Planets, Moons, Life or Piers Morgan
Evolutionary Theory = An explanation of the diversity currently seen amongst living organisms on Earth, backed by unimaginable quantities of evidence

most of current 'womens rights' stuff was introduced by Islam

<laugh> The right to look like a black letterbox.

athiesm in its true form is simple 'no deities'. those on here often are anti god

That is all atheism is you clown. People who are anti-God are anti-theism. One can be both, but that does not make them the same.

I like pies. I like trifle. That does not mean that a pie is 'a trifle in its simplest form'.

I know quite a few athiests who could not argue their corner, just do so to be cool

Yes dear. That's why this thread is over 40 pages long.

yes and that source and origin will be the 'creator'

Would it surprise you if I asked you to prove it?

Will we ever know with 100% certainty which is more painful between getting kicked in the nuts or giving birth?

It's an interesting question since no one can compare the two as no one can experience both.

[NSFW]
You must log in or register to see images
[/NSFW]

so the unknowable exists now?

<laugh>
 
ahem the lord has blessed me

if evolution was survival of the fittest/natural selection

wouldnt those with little dicks have died at birth?

and wouldnt time and evolution meant we all had 12 inchers?

1) I thought you were Asian?

2) How does having a big dong equate to fitness?

3) Why would a child having a big dong prevent cot-death?
 
I didn't say that it did.

you mentioned my faith, i just want to know the relevance

In the sense that it was magicked up out of nothing, rather than made out of other things that already existed.

existed how?

I didn't suggest that it could.

so it needs a creator?

No, you haven't.
You said that it's wrong without reading it, pointing out points that it already addressed, as you're just repeating crap that you've read on creationist sites.

yes I have. natural selection theory doesnt fit evolution of the eye. That was a seperate theory

Theism is the belief in a god or gods.
You can be against that belief without having any belief in a god, which your phrase suggests.

I said some people imo are anti god. anti theist is the same as antigod imo

No, you didn't.
You made a claim that you couldn't back up.
Again.

read back, i asked , then answered. simple as

No, it wasn't, as you made the same mistake more than once and clearly didn't understand what you were talking about.

what I said 3 eyes instead of 3 eyelids, and then explained when you picked up on it. Ok then?

Creator's the wrong word to use, as I pointed out in my initial comment.
You agreed and then went on to use it repeatedly since.

I disagree and I have explained early in the thread what it signified

What?
What on earth are you on about and how did you get that from what I wrote?

well can athiesm exist if there was no god?
what was it you said about the unknowable before?