Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Atheist Test
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > The Water Cooler > The Boiler Room
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Assington
About a week ago people were handing out these little booklets at uni titled 'The Atheist Test'. I didn't have time to go through it then but after reading through the whole thing, I've decided to share the laughs with the general CN rabble.

While we're at it I'd also encourage those with religious belief to voice their opinion on this sort of thing. Faithful or not, I'd imagine a lot of people find the following pretty damn idiotic and backwards but let's not assume as that as how these things get started to begin with.

QUOTE
BANG! The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words 'Coca Cola... 12 fluid ounces.'

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that is happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana - the atheist's nightmare

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward contents: green = too early, yellow = just right, black = too late
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test One
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:


A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Did you know that the eye has 40 000 000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100 000 times a day and the retina contains 137 000 000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said, 'To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop... but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician said, 'I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.

Albert Einstein said, 'Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.'

Test Two

Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

If you answered yes for any of the above, give details.

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind boggling, let alone ten rows of five.

Test Three

From the atom to the universe, is there order?

Did it happen by accident or must there have been an intelligent mind?

What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges?

The declaration, 'There is no God,' is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge. Here is another absolute statement: 'There is no gold in China.'

Test Four

What do I need to have for that statement to be true?


A. No knowledge of China

B. Partial knowledge of China

C. Absolute knowledge of China

'C' is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say, 'There is no God,' and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered. Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

God is not flesh and blood. He is an eternal Spirit-immortal and invisible. Like the television waves, He cannot be experienced until the 'receiver' is switched on. Here is something you will find hard to believe: Jesis said 'He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and maifest Myself to him'(John 14:21).

Either that is true or it isn't. Jesus Christ says that He will manifest Himself to anyone who obeys Him. Approach the subject the same way you approached your first television set. Just take a small step of faith. If it works, enjoy it, if it doesn't, forget it.


The next section is just a check list to see whether you have followed the ten commandments. It is not important. The section afterwards is somewhat amusing.

QUOTE
If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will surely die for the wages of sin is death. We are all guilty of breaking the commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48), neither is our heart pure. On Judgement Day our transgressions will be evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him. We are guilty of violating his law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us - 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.' His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God... as though you have never sinned.

God doesn't want you to go to hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read the Bible daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Thank you for taking the time to read this booklet.


Enjoy and let's hear what you think about it.
Bordiga
Seems like a typical argument for the existence of an omnipresent being. I don't see how saying there is or isn't makes any difference, however.
Moridin
This hurts my head.
Assington
Perhaps it's just me but I found these arguments severely lacking in the proper application of logic. This thread isn't about having a go at religious beliefs but more about the poorly constructed arguments presented here.

I've come to expect more intelligent propositions out of people regardless of their beliefs.
Renolds
looks like someone got a bit excited after reading some intelligent design websites and ran to the printing presses.
xoindotnler
QUOTE
The banana - the atheist's nightmare

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward contents: green = too early, yellow = just right, black = too late
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

That's so wrong in so many ways PsyduckEmot.gif .

Look up some info on a wild banana.
Hertzy Scowicz
QUOTE (Assington @ Oct 21 2009, 12:31 PM) *
Perhaps it's just me but I found these arguments severely lacking in the proper application of logic. This thread isn't about having a go at religious beliefs but more about the poorly constructed arguments presented here.

I've come to expect more intelligent propositions out of people regardless of their beliefs.


The real problem here is that if anyone is willing to apply intelligence to their arguments, they are more likely to discard the ID myth or at least not vocally support it. ID is a kooky model grounded in a nomadic copper age tribe's creation myth with no findings to support it, taking on a refined theory grounded on observation and upheld by a lot of research establishing a logical mechanism. Therefore any argument to support ID would be kooky.

The main criticisms of the theory of evolution are based on the blanks in Darwin's original work, which have pretty much been filled by now. Take for example the evolution of the eye, which Darwin couldn't figure out owing to the fact that the idea of nerve cells wasn't proposed until the 1890's, after his death. The other criticism is Darwin's failure to come up with a mechanism to facilitate traits being passed on without getting diluted, which we now know is DNA and wasn't discovered until ten years after the publication of the Origins.

For that matter, a lot of arguments against evolution derive from misunderstanding high-school level (if that) genetics.
Foggers
I was confused. At first I thought it was pro-atheist for some reason. Anyway, hundreds of years of Theology is enough for me. I think people like St Augustine and St Aquinas know what they are talking about. These people (who I skim-skim-skim-skim-skim read) seem a bit... I don't know... wrong perhaps?
Eagare the Alenthin
This is awful. What are we supposed to be debating here?
The Observer
QUOTE (xoindotnler @ Oct 21 2009, 09:53 AM) *
That's so wrong in so many ways PsyduckEmot.gif .

Look up some info on a wild banana.

I know, the Banana is actually a brilliant example of Evolution in action.

Actually, 90% of their arguments are self defeating if you spend more then 10 seconds thinking about it.
Eagare the Alenthin
You know, I've always thought it's better for Christianity if God used evolution to create life. I mean here we have the smartest possible being, and people expect that the best that being can do is simply create everything in final form rather than use a super complex process? Psh.
Elrich von Richt
I really had to no idea what to say at first, to this. However, aftering re-reading it a second time, i realized this is just plain idiotic.

I mean, i hate religion to begin with, however this person/group's omnipresent argument is rather bland, lacks bringing home it's point, and dosen't really have any attention getters, except making you think these people/this person are either moronic, conceited, or just plain trying to use 'lulz' as a factor to get people to go their way
Lamuella
that's easily the most idiotic thing I've read this week, and it's fairly pointless to formulate a reply.
New Inca Empire
QUOTE
Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered. Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.


Yes, yes I did. wink.gif Something to do with lasers, mirrors, electricity, ect. tongue.gif

QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 10:26 AM) *
that's easily the most idiotic thing I've read this week, and it's fairly pointless to formulate a reply.


Didn't you already disprove the banana thing?
Flatlander
QUOTE
What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges?


You mean, what are the odds of eventually getting 50 oranges in ten rows of five when I drop trillions of oranges?

Pretty good.
Lamuella
QUOTE
The declaration, 'There is no God,' is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge. Here is another absolute statement: 'There is no gold in China.'

Test Four

What do I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China

B. Partial knowledge of China

C. Absolute knowledge of China

'C' is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say, 'There is no God,' and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.


Here is a third absolute statement: there are no unicorns in China.
Here is a fourth: There is not a continent made of gold floating in between America and Europe.

do I need to be omniscient to disprove these?
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 10:54 AM) *
Here is a third absolute statement: there are no unicorns in China.
Here is a fourth: There is not a continent made of gold floating in between America and Europe.

do I need to be omniscient to disprove these?


Wrong.

1. There are no unicorns, however there could be gold in China
2. Everyone knows the continent made of gold is floating between South America and Australia
deSouza
bananas are shaped for the human mouth.
Lamuella
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 11:04 AM) *
Wrong.

1. There are no unicorns, however there could be gold in China
2. Everyone knows the continent made of gold is floating between South America and Australia

thank you for proving my point with point 1. We already have evidence that china exists and that gold exists, whereas in the God postulate there is no evidence that anything LIKE a god exists.
Lamuella
QUOTE (deSouza @ Oct 21 2009, 11:05 AM) *
bananas are shaped for the human mouth.


THis shaping process is done BY the human mouth.
Flatlander
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 08:06 AM) *
thank you for proving my point with point 1. We already have evidence that china exists and that gold exists, whereas in the God postulate there is no evidence that anything LIKE a god exists.

But plenty of evidence that human psychology leads us to invent them, over & over.
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 11:06 AM) *
thank you for proving my point with point 1.


You are welcome.

QUOTE (deSouza)
bananas are shaped for the human mouth.



The Observer
QUOTE (deSouza @ Oct 21 2009, 04:05 PM) *
bananas are shaped for the human mouth.

So are pine cones. Have fun chewing on one of THOSE.
Eagare the Alenthin
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 03:54 PM) *
Here is a third absolute statement: there are no unicorns in China.
Here is a fourth: There is not a continent made of gold floating in between America and Europe.

do I need to be omniscient to disprove these?

Well I guess technically you can't disprove those two things...but I mean you don't really need to.
Audeamus
QUOTE (deSouza @ Oct 21 2009, 09:05 AM) *
bananas are shaped for the human mouth.


As are penises. Ergo, God approves of sodomy.
Flatlander
QUOTE (Audeamus @ Oct 21 2009, 08:24 AM) *
As are penises. Ergo, God approves of sodomy.

Think you've got the wrong orifice for that argument ....
Audeamus
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 21 2009, 09:25 AM) *
Think you've got the wrong orifice for that argument ....


Sodomy can refer to both anal and oral intercourse.
Tyler DurdenCC
...
xoindotnler
QUOTE (The Observer @ Oct 21 2009, 03:19 PM) *
I know, the Banana is actually a brilliant example of Evolution in action.

Actually, 90% of their arguments are self defeating if you spend more then 10 seconds thinking about it.

There wrapper Bi-degradas so the seeds can actually do something like grow into a tree if it was not opend by a animal.
It is tasteful so animals eat it and drop the seeds somewhere else.
It has bright colors when ripe so animals can see it is yummy food
There are ones that turn brown and/or red.
And the rest is so silly dry.gif .

And the banana we know now are perfectly crossbred one until we though it was a perfect thing. As we almost always do whit every plant animal vegetable etc.
Flatlander
QUOTE (xoindotnler @ Oct 21 2009, 08:44 AM) *
And the banana we know now are perfectly crossbred one until we though it was a perfect thing. As we almost always do whit every plant animal vegetable etc.

Now you're arguing Intelligent Design! smile.gif
New Inca Empire
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 21 2009, 11:46 AM) *
Now you're arguing Intelligent Design! smile.gif


Indeed. tongue.gif
Foggers
Stop talking about bananas. I hate those things.
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (xoindotnler @ Oct 21 2009, 11:44 AM) *
There wrapper Bi-degradas so the seeds can actually do something like grow into a tree if it was not opend by a animal.
It is tasteful so animals eat it and drop the seeds somewhere else.
It has bright colors when ripe so animals can see it is yummy food
There are ones that turn brown and/or red.



Hmmm.... sounds like you believe in Intelligent Design then....
xoindotnler
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 21 2009, 05:46 PM) *
Now you're arguing Intelligent Design! smile.gif

Give it a new wrapper but it still is creationism.

I'm a Odinist btw.
nippy
QUOTE (deSouza @ Oct 21 2009, 05:05 PM) *
bananas are shaped for the human mouth.


so is the male anatomy...but we all know how that is frowned upon in the bible. wink.gif

*e fb
The Observer
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 04:50 PM) *
Hmmm.... sounds like you believe in Intelligent Design then....

That's not what "Intelligent Design", in this context, is.
xoindotnler
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 05:50 PM) *
Hmmm.... sounds like you believe in Intelligent Design then....

If I was doing that the word God would have been in it. It's a fruit it does not care if it fits in your mouth or hand, it only cares about the free ride and the fertile dump it comes with.
edikroma
Wow...proponents of ID should be sharply denouncing that idiotic crap... It is so wrong...I don't even know where to begin...
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (xoindotnler @ Oct 21 2009, 12:06 PM) *
It's a fruit it does not care if it fits in your mouth or hand, it only cares about the free ride and the fertile dump it comes with.


How does a banana know what colors are or that other animals exist to take said dump?



(just playing Devil's Advocate here)
Lamuella
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 12:40 PM) *
How does a banana know what colors are or that other animals exist to take said dump?



(just playing Devil's Advocate here)


it doesn't, but the bananas that were the right color got eaten and their seeds spread, whereas the bananas that were the wong color didn't.

Variation and selection, that's all you need.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (edikroma @ Oct 21 2009, 11:31 AM) *
Wow...proponents of ID should be sharply denouncing that idiotic crap... It is so wrong...I don't even know where to begin...

Hell, that's pretty much all they got to begin with anyways.

These sorts of people probably don't appreciate the MASSIVE time scales on which evolution operates. I'm sure if they thought the Earth was older than 6,000 years, they'd be a bit more sympathetic towards it.
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 12:47 PM) *
it doesn't, but the bananas that were the right color got eaten and their seeds spread, whereas the bananas that were the wong color didn't.

Variation and selection, that's all you need.



How do you know wrong colored banana ever existed?
Lamuella
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 12:55 PM) *
How do you know wrong colored banana ever existed?


I know it because:

1) there is more than one color of banana in existence
2) any plant will vary somewhat from one generation to the next
3) one of the ways that plants will vary is color

Therefore it is supremely unlikely that colors of banana other than yellow never existed, as colors of banana other than yellow still exist today. They just aren't as successful.
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 12:59 PM) *
I know it because:

1) there is more than one color of banana in existence
2) any plant will vary somewhat from one generation to the next
3) one of the ways that plants will vary is color

Therefore it is supremely unlikely that colors of banana other than yellow never existed, as colors of banana other than yellow still exist today. They just aren't as successful.



1) That just means there are right colored bananas, not that there were ever wrong colored bananas
2/3) They may vary, but not to the extent of extreme differences in color. A pine cone from a green pine tree will not grow a yellow pine tree

Likely or not, short of finding a frozen billion year old banana, we'll never truly know.
deja
LOL

Aren't bananas that are typically eaten by humans domesticated and bred to be a specific way, whereas wild bananas are inconvenient to eat, not "pleasing to the taste buds", don't have this amazing homeland-security-threat-level color system, and don't curve so conveniently?

So yes, I'd say bananas are designed. By humans. For humans.

Awesome article./
edikroma
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 11:40 AM) *
How does a banana know what colors are or that other animals exist to take said dump?



(just playing Devil's Advocate here)


It doesn't.
ChairmanHal
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 21 2009, 10:54 AM) *
Here is a third absolute statement: there are no unicorns in China.
Here is a fourth: There is not a continent made of gold floating in between America and Europe.

do I need to be omniscient to disprove these?


Problem you have is that you are talking about things that dwell exclusively in this plane of existence. If God dwelled exclusively in this plane of existence, then you would be able to see God, measure God, prove or disprove the existence of God. Since that is not possible, then you are left to go upon the evidence that God exists that is provided by others. Beyond that is simple faith.

Most all the examples provided in the OP are lame. There are much better ones that exist.
Lamuella
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 01:07 PM) *
1) That just means there are right colored bananas, not that there were ever wrong colored bananas


You can find bananas that are red, black, pink, and bright green. What color is it that you are saying is "wrong"?


QUOTE
2/3) They may vary, but not to the extent of extreme differences in color. A pine cone from a green pine tree will not grow a yellow pine tree


blue corn will grow from yellow corn, and vice versa. I have blue eyes and blond hair but both of my parents had brown eyes and brown hair.

Differences in color aren't that difficult as an evolutionary thing.
Lamuella
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Oct 21 2009, 01:16 PM) *
Problem you have is that you are talking about things that dwell exclusively in this plane of existence. If God dwelled exclusively in this plane of existence, then you would be able to see God, measure God, prove or disprove the existence of God. Since that is not possible, then you are left to go upon the evidence that God exists that is provided by others. Beyond that is simple faith.

Most all the examples provided in the OP are lame. There are much better ones that exist.


I'm sorry, but I couldn't help reading that as "Problem you have is that special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading special pleading."
edikroma
QUOTE (Tyler DurdenCC @ Oct 21 2009, 12:07 PM) *
1) That just means there are right colored bananas, not that there were ever wrong colored bananas
2/3) They may vary, but not to the extent of extreme differences in color. A pine cone from a green pine tree will not grow a yellow pine tree

Likely or not, short of finding a frozen billion year old banana, we'll never truly know.


1) What the hell is a "wrong-colored" banana?

2) A pine cone from a green pine tree can grow a yellow pine tree. Just depends on the genes involved. If we say that pine tree color is defined by a single gene "g", and say that the color phenotype is directly related to a certain genotype (GG=green, Gg=green, gg=yellow), then we can say that a pine cone from a green pine tree can yield a yellow pine tree. A heterozygous male mates with a heterozygous female to yield 1/4 GG, 1/2 Gg and 1/4 gg. The parent trees are green, but 1/4 of their offspring will be yellow.

Of course, nothing in nature is so simple, but the point is that it all comes down to genetics and the specific role they play in an organisms phenotypes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.