The Atheist Test

The Atheist Test

/troll

heh

interesting page.. reminds me of an analogy i heard one time: take apart a mechanical watch and throw all the parts in a dryer. would you ever expect a fully function watch with all parts to ever form?

It would almost be an appropriate analogy if watches reproduced.

Or if, you know, the very concept of infinity--mind-boggling as it is--didn't in fact say that yes, a fully-functioning watch would eventually form, regardless of what you as a short-sighted human might "expect."

A fully functioning watch would never form in such a small and simple system. Fortunately the universe ain't that simple.

A banana is not perforated.

Further, complete knowledge of China is not necessary to prove there is no gold in China. I may have complete knowledge of gold. Or I may know some consequence of the existence of gold in China which I can demonstrate has not happened. (since the statement is false, none comes to mind).

No one knows if there is a god, no one knows there isn't. Why do we have to know? What difference does it make? If you had irrefutable proof that there was NO god, would you live your life differently?

Do you only do good in hope of reward, or fear of punishment? I don't. I do good because it is good.

lumberjim wrote:

Do you only do good in hope of reward, or fear of punishment? I don't. I do good because it is good.

:love:

I'm trying to work out whether the argument would convince me if I didn't dislike bananas so much....

Perhaps I'll just have to accept them as the devil's fruit.

the creator is natural selection.

bananas don't have legs, so in order to travel, they need to be eaten, carried and deposited elsewhere. does this mean that bananas are intelligent? no. does it mean that GOD had to design them as a finished product? no. it means that bananas have, through natural selection, developed the traits that make them appealing to primates. they fill a niche.

like a puddle that seems to have been created to hold the exact amount of water that fills it up.

creationism is a cop out.

Creationism exists because the human ego holds that humans are *so* much more elevated above the rest of Life as we know it, that we *must* have been designed by someone even higher up the line that ourselves.

Fine. What if that someone was an alien? Would we still believe that it was God, or would the human ego just go, "Well, someone must have created the aliens, then!"?

It just strikes me as odd that the same people who scoff at the notion of a creator wholeheartedly accept the notion that the entire universe came into being from nothingness with no help whatsoever. That seems contradictory to the very heart of the theory of evolution.

For most people -- not all -- it simply boils down to "I don't like Christians, and anything they say should be stricken from the arena of ideas (or at the very least, ridiculed until they give up). God -- yeah right." They've heard enough science to be able to formulate some witty one-liners for forum threads, but by and large, they don't have a clue about either science or God.

The haters like to make all Christians sound like idiots, but we're not. There is no inherent contradiction between the concepts of evolution and a creating God. You can "HAHAHA JEEBUS SUXXORS!!!!!1" all you want.

And don't start this whole "But government can't mandate religion" bullshit. If there ever was a zealous extremist movement, it's that of secular humanism. It's not a matter of protecting people from government-organized religion; for them, it's about shoving it all under the rug so that their voice is the only one heard.

and I meant to put this in the intelligent design thread. There's a joke in there somewhere...

mrnoodle wrote:

It just strikes me as odd that the same people who scoff at the notion of a creator wholeheartedly accept the notion that the entire universe came into being from nothingness with no help whatsoever. That seems contradictory to the very heart of the theory of evolution.

First, evolution says absolutely nothing about where the universe came from.

But anyway, there are four possibilities:

1) An entity came into being from nothingness with no help whatsoever, then created the universe.
2) An entity always existed, and created the universe.

3) The universe came into being from nothingness with no help whatsoever.
4) The universe always existed.

If it is possible for something to always exist or to appear from nothingness, then the simpler explanation is that the universe did it. Adding an extra entity just adds the additional question of where that came from.

So, if the universe just popped into existence, how did that happen? The official scientific answer? Unknown. Science says nothing about it. Could it be God? Sure, maybe. It could be all sorts of things. But that's not science. And it doesn't belong in a science class. Which brings us to:

If there ever was a zealous extremist movement, it's that of secular humanism. It's not a matter of protecting people from government-organized religion; for them, it's about shoving it all under the rug so that their voice is the only one heard.

That's only true if you consider the government to be the only part of life that isn't under the rug. Because that is the common thread to all of the secular movements.

*sighs*
All those traits would aid the spread and success of the banana and thus fit perfectly with evolutionary theory.

And whoever it was wasn't a very bloody intelligent designer, omnipotent my ass - I've got a funny bone, a useless organ that can kill me, my short term memory goes to crap after 5-7 objects and at 1 foot my high-quality vision area is about the size of a thumbnail. Looks like lowest-bidder work to me.

lumberjim wrote:

If you had irrefutable proof that there was NO god, would you live your life differently?

Oh yeah. I'd rub it in the noses of the believers every chance I got.

russotto wrote:

A banana is not perforated.

And not only that, the "common grocery store banana" that this group describes as one of God's special creations tailor-made for man is, in fact, a hybrid which was completly designed by scientists (who no doubt practice those evil Darwinism rites) and is fairly recent in time. National Geographic discussed this in a fascinating article recently. These plantation-grown bananas - basically only one variety is planted all over the world for sale to Westerners - are also in immediate danger of extinction due to an unfortunate weakness for disease, and may soon cease to exist commercially. But never fear, those sneaky Darwinists have already been researching other varieties which can be "evolved" into an acceptable substitute.

Even the God Squad ought to check their facts occasionally, just in case :redface:

Who would have thought? Anne Rice has returned to her faith.

neener neener neener :D

jaguar wrote:

*sighs*
I've got... a useless organ that can kill me,

Someday, you'll find someone who will love you just as you are.

mrnoodle wrote:

Who would have thought? Anne Rice has returned to her faith.

neener neener neener :D

No one ever accused her of being especially bright.

in the end of our lives, we relive our youth
the world a new joy to our eyes
disregarding days when we saw the truth
in fear or dread of life's demise

what did I do to deserve that? Go fuck yourself, it sounds like you're not getting many other takers.

"The banana-the atheist's nightmare."

Really???

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

The pineapple the creationist's nightmare. ;)

Note the pineapple

Is NOT shaped for the human hand
Is damn hard to hold on to
If you've never seen one before, wouldn't know what was inside
Greenish-yellow-too early
Greenish-yellow-just right
Greenish-yellow-too late
Bloody hard to get into
Likely to cut off own finger while trying to get into
3 pounds of wrapper 1 pound of food
Good luck getting the whole thing in your mouth (and if you can... :love: )
Ease of entry... to WHERE??
Is pleasing to taste buds
Likely to leave juice running down your chin :eek:


A good rebuttal to the whole "test" here:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-atheist_test.html

And besides I can think of some other and more fun things that the banana might have been conveniently "designed" for... ;) and some of them might even loosen up a creationist :lol:

Troubleshooter wrote:

No one ever accused her [Anne Rice] of being especially bright.

Or an especially good writer.

Popular, yes. Good, not by a longshot.

jaguar wrote:

what did I do to deserve that? Go fuck yourself, it sounds like you're not getting many other takers.

Inability to take a joke: first sign of impending trend to vote conservative. My but you're touchy for someone so young.

An interesting quoate from Richard Dawkins on the banana question:

"A banana is one of the wonders of the world. You could say that of any living object, and I could stop there. But I won't. A banana is a fruit, shaped by natural selection to be palatable, hence eaten and its seeds dispersed. But the bananas we eat are seedless. Artificial breeding has enhanced nature's means (palatability) while eliminating nature's end (seed dispersal). It's a metaphor for much that is special about humans. "

I think I'm just too used to be randomly attacked. It's like that reflex thing where if someone taps you on the shoulder you elbow them in the nose and.....you mean not everyone does that?

...concerns the vast pool of creation myths in existance. Do we only teach one? Two? Two hundred?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/#28111

What about Vishnu?
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 10, 2005 at 2:36 PM.

Two points here. First, I don't see the need for a drawn out argument about whether or not "intelligent design" is legitimate science.

By definition, it's not. Central to the scientific method is the dispositive principle - every theory can be disproved. Evolution, like gravity, is a theory that has withstood the test of time and numerous challenges. But if empirical evidence (that could be tested repeatedly) emerged tomorrow which disproved evolution or gravity, scientists would accept those data. They'd have to.

ID begins with a given that can't be shaken. There's a designer, argue its advocates, and that's the end of the story. It's an article of faith.

But more to the point, I've long believed that the way to fight these ID hacks is on their own terms. Allow me to repost part of an old argument, edited slightly:

...more...

Bananas;
a - Has a tab for removal of wrapper
b - Has a point at top for ease of entry
Actually, most of the other primates eat it from the opposite end than Humans do. ;)

Most other primates fling their poo. So?


Of course, we have scat porn.

(if you have to ask, you don't want to know).

mrnoodle wrote:

Most other primates fling their poo. So?


Of course, we have scat porn.

(if you have to ask, you don't want to know).

Huh? What's that got to do with anything? Look here. All life forms are commanded by a single simple law: "Thou shalt reproduce your gentic code." This command could have arisen by the laws of chemistry as much as by the laws of God.

The complexity of the human eye is simply a manifestation of this law. In order to survive and reproduce; humans, other primates, other mammals, fish, reptiles, and birds all have a one up if they have eyes to tell them that a predator is bearing down on them, eyes to find food with, eyes to find partners in the task of preserving their DNA with. The better your eyes, the better you out-competed every other mammal on the block. Bingo! You win! The prize is that you get to survive to sexual maturity, find a mate, and pass on your amazing vision to your progeny who then have that same advantage.

Consider that this has been going on for far longer than 6,000 years, and, its no great wonder that eyes function as they do or that the bannana plant in NATURE has evolved to be a tasty treat whose seeds get dispersed in the poo of those who eat bannana's. We think we got the last laugh on the bannana; actually, it is the bannana which got the last laugh on us. By surrounding its seeds with yummy fruit, it gets us to eat it and do the work of seed dispersal for it. So actually, the human being was created as a clever devise that helps propagate bannana's. Any further questions?