Christianity For Morons

Desdamona, I am not saying that I can prove that God doesn't exist. I am saying that there are no solid evidence that God exists. The only evidence of its existence is your so-called personal evidence, which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways besides divine revelation.Like I said before, you can't use "personal evidence" to prove the existence of God. If that is the case, then technically Buddha exists, so does Thor, Ra, and 10 million other deities out there. Your religion is not the only one that exists, and your personal evidence isn't the only one out there. Many many people have personal evidence to prove their Gods. This is why we can't start using personal evidence in a debate like this.Again, I ask you for any evidence you could give us that doesn't base on your faith or "personal evidence." Anything at all.

---

The Laminator

​

This is the typical argument used by Christians that have never even heard of the existence of moral theories. I recommend you look up the following moral theories before you say something as ignorant as this again. Your statement there not only offends me but also offends many people on these boards, who are atheists but have as strong moral codes as Christians if not stronger.Non-normative: Virtue Ethics and Feminist EthicsNon-consequencialist: Social Contract and DeontologyAuthoritarian: Theological, Social, and SubjectiveUtilitarian: Act and RuleEgoism: Psychological and Ethical

---

The Laminator

​

proof to me that we can both look at the same thing and both get,
a very different opinion about it.

---

Desdamona*

How do you feel this way when you claim that God doesn't exist,
according to your understanding.Do you not offend christians?
If you do have a moral code,how did you get it since evolving,
seems to have happened by random chance?

---

Desdamona*

again Lam,I ask you to show your evidence.

---

Desdamona*

I don't believe that this is typical at all.
You want others to believe that your view is truth.
To me that is not evidence.
You claim that there is support that helps your claims,
appear true.
The evolution idea has not been proven.
Evolutionary ideas can also be considered a religion and/or,
belief system.
How you look at things,and what books,ect...you choose to believe,
or what teachers you choose to trust is again a matter of personal-
choice.I have not seen your evidence or your support for your claims.

---

Desdamona*

Exactly! Now you are getting the hang of it! This is eerie, Desdamona. It's almost verbatim what the Grand Inquisitor said to Jesus in Dostojevski's fantasy about the second coming of Christ (see his "The Brothers Karamazov"). You are not taking me for a ride, are you? Ah... DNA is not just any molecule, eh? It's a molecule with an attitude!
Come on, don't be silly, girl. You seriously want me to respect a molecule? I am glad that you're finally giving us a glimpse of what you've learned from DNA, although I think you need to work on the details a little more. What I find so amazing is that you fail to see what is right there in front of you. You even mention one of basic facts of evolution: yet you don't recognize its implication. Don't worry, I'm perfectly happy with it. I just hope you are OK feeling the way you do about me. (And I'm sorry I'm not in your signature quote.) Glad to be of service. What claims have I made?Hey, Des, try smiling when you write. If it works on the phone, why not give it a go on the net?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." Desdamona, home school teacher, licensed CNA, flying colours passer, easily educated in school.

It appears that you think you are very wise,but I cannot understand,
why you do.
So far,you have shown yourself to be a mocker,and someone who leaves,
a message board,only to return so you may argue.
I don't have to display your user name,and mock you.
I do believe you have shown that you came here for all the wrong,
reasons.
Whatever,the right reason for you to debate evolution is to have -
proof that evolution is better than disbelief in evolution.
What is your version of DNA,and lets see if it proves what,
you believe.
Good Luck,you are gonna need it sir.

---

Desdamona*

Many of these issues COULD be spun off into a true topic. This one seems to be just a mishmash of various ideas, one big mud puddle.Someone please propose some threads with actual topics.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

desdemona, Nope, but you said: And: The direct consequence of those statements means you have directly observed Jesus' resurrection, & creation itself. Since you haven't observed them, you therefore haven't witnessed them, you therefore believe in things you haven't seen or witnessed, just like all other Christians professing to have witnessed something they have not. You are a liar just like them. Geddit? But you haven't SEEN the things the bible said happened. Firstly, I have not insulted you. An insult would be to call you a poo-pants, or a shit-head. I have pointed out that you have 1/ Lied. & 2/ Are a hypocrite. It is not my fault that you have met the criteria that defines these words, it's yours. If you don't want to fall into the group of people that are liars & hypocrites, then don't lie, & don't be a hypocrite.Secondly, I have given you evidence of the vast odds of evolution having occurred. That your response was hypocritical makes it a non-sequitur (a non-response). Therefore you still have to make a reasoned & logical & evidentially supported rebuttal. When you talk to God it's called praying, when he talks to you it's called schizophrenia.If the "proof" you speak of is not measurable, then it's non-evidence. All religions have the same "proof" you speak of, & there is absolutely no reason to accept it or yours. Of what? Evolution. Yup, already presented it, & am still awaiting a logical & evidentially supported counter argument. Yes, you said you have seen what you believe in. See above. Another circular non-sequitur. You have to know (& I mean KNOW) creation occurred, in order to infer at least one individual actually created. If you don't know this, then how can you possibly recognise the individual who did or didn't do the thing you have no idea that happened? It's a bit like not knowing whether someone is dead, yet being positive you know who their murderer is. I'm not being aggressive. I'm calling you on lying & hypocrisy. Like I've said above. It's YOUR fault you are in this position, not mine.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

That's just appearances, is all. I don't consider myself particularly wise, but I do think I know a bit more about science than you do. I don't remember having been chained to this site, so I can leave whenever I want and come back whenever I want, I don't have to explain myself to anyone. And also, the last time I checked this was a forum, i.e. a place of debate. Arguing is what goes on here. What else do you want me to do? Take pictures? I mock only those who make a display of themselves first. But, OK, enough is enough, I will retract the mockery in my signature quote. I'll just keep your accurate observation, is that allright? If you must know, I came back in response to one of your writings, I thought I might challenge you to try and do some thinking of your own, instead of repeating what others are feeding you. It proves quite a daunting task, I'll have you know. My version of DNA is basically the same as yours. It is what I conclude from it that's diametrically opposed to what you make of it. I don't see design, like you do. I understand the mechanism that was proposed by Darwin, which is confirmed over and over again by peer-reviewed research all over the world. Also, I implemented the mechanism in a computer programme and now, although it's a simple automaton, my computer can produce a solution, in just a few moments, to a problem that would otherwise take longer than you can imagine. And all of that with the mindless application of the principles of evolution.O, and I don't think you smiled. Try again.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." Desdamona.

I'll take that as a retraction of your earlier claim that a person must believe in the bible to have good morals; thank you.We are getting off topic here. One of the forum rules is that we try to keep to a specific subject on each thread. But just quickly, I am not much into "contraditions"; it is a very superficial approach to the bible. However, I do consider that there are instances where different writers in the bible say things that are plainly contradictory.I have again reformatted your post; to remove line breaks in the middle of a sentence, to space out paragraphs, to add spaces after punctuation, and to remove apostrophes from a possessive "its". I'm not just trying to be snide with this, but to help. If you format your material properly, it becomes much more readable. It would help, truly.Besy wishes -- Sylas

I must admit,you have a very cute way of putting things.
DNA,to serve it's complete purpose,it must always be complete.
An incomplete DNA sequence cannot reorganize itself to a complete-
one.Therefore a DNA cannot evolve,because that requires it to be-
self conscious,a self conscious C,N,O and H molecules!
Thats not possible.
If we argue that a complex molecule like DNA can come into being,
by chance,then it's nothing short of a good laugh.

Thank you Sylas.
I do appreciate your kind attitude.
I don't believe the writers actually contradict one another.
I believe it can appear that way when you first read the bible,but
after more deeper study,you find there are no contradictions.
O.K. Thanks for trying to help.

---

Desdamona*

Did you know that Darwin contradicts himself in "Difficulties in Theory" by Darwin?

---

Desdamona*