atheists. >Noah's ark is illogical! You can't explain it. >How could Jesus have walked on water??

atheists
>Noah's ark is illogical! You can't explain it
>How could Jesus have walked on water??
also atheists
>the whole universe was created out of nothing for no reason
>then life started on earth for no reason
>then one day a monkey gave birth to a human
>all by random accident

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    haha yeah, what about Noah's ark though?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's a lot more believeable considering we can actually measure red shift
      so what about noah's ark, let's talk about that

      Read the bible and repent

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        Give me reasons to believe 7 by 7 of every clean animal and 2 x2 of every unclean went onto on Ark. Also tell me why all the freshwater fish were magically able to survive in a heavily salinated environment.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          God provides
          now tell me how life started at random?

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            That's not an answer. That's a copout.
            You can test Darwinian evolution for yourself if you have a CRISPR machine.or fruit flies Building off of that, modern genetic and medical science is based off of it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not an answer. That's a copout. Show us how to make life from mud.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary science.
            Now prove the Flood happened and that it killed everyone and everything on Earth except for a handful of humans and whatever was on the Ark.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can indeed prove the flood happened but it was early as Sumer. Would take you less than 20 minutes to be fully educated in the flood that wiped out most lands

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            There was no "flood" that wiped out most lands, anything that would have been would have been limited to the fertile areas where agricultural civilisation first developed.
            We are talking about the Bible and a Flood wiping out almost all life on Earth, not a localized event. Prove the Flood happened and that it killed almost all life on Earth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Life is just a sequence of atoms and molecules. Molecules which self replicate will replicate more than ones which don't which opens up mutation and selection (evolution). This already has been proven, self replicating molecules exist and there are a lot of them

            You can indeed prove the flood happened but it was early as Sumer. Would take you less than 20 minutes to be fully educated in the flood that wiped out most lands

            It's the opposite you moron. Actual analysis shows a global flood never happened. You just made this up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            moron, the water level was recorded to rise 3 fricking meters per day in Sumer, capping out to the equivalent of 30 stories

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not a global flood which wiped out all extant life and humans on the planet moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sumer is at an elevation of 42, and the flood reached over 117 meters. The only people documenting history were the Sumerians, thus its logical to believe their global flood was indeed “the world” from their perspective

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Consider the geographical location of Sumer as well, it is situated at a very low sea level. For it to have flooded the region must have experienced at the minimum 100 meters of water

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The sumerians thinking they're the only people on the planet doesn't mean they were the only people on the planet. It doesn't mean the flood was global (it wasn't, there were many natural disasters across the billions of years of earth) and it gives no credence to your religion.
            Why the frick are you guys so stupid about this shit? Buddy I'm going to put it as clearly as possible and hopefully it gets through to you:
            There
            Was
            Never
            A
            Global
            Flood
            Which
            Killed
            All
            Extant
            Life
            And
            Forced
            A
            Man
            To
            Build
            A
            Boat
            With
            2
            Of
            Every
            Animal
            On
            It
            If you genuinely believe this story is real history there is no reason to respect you as a man

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn’t say Noah’s ark was a real story you Black person you’re so fricking pathetic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then why are you using it to argue against the evolutionary history of life on earth and where humans come from?
            If there was a natural disaster and the people of an area mythologized it that's fine. I don't care about that. I'm talking about the claim that the ark story is real history as a way to deny evolution.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            look up abiogenesis and stop with your sandshit pantheon worship

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >being the meme

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          My book says science doesn't exist

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The interesting thing about the Ark is visiting the replica Ken Ham built and listening to how much he struggled to even get it built with modern machinery. Could Noah and his sons do it with much more primitive tech? Even Ken Ham admitted you have to have faith that he could.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let's not forget fish deciding to grow legs to take a leisurely stroll by the beach

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I almost added that but apparently: ""Salamander""

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >fish that walk on land?!
      >Preposterous!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They don't have legs

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          neither did the first land-dwelling animals. Nobody claims they did but you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We just "evolved legs" like that? Stupid

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yes. If you are among the first land-dwellers there is immense selection pressure to become the fastest on land to travel deeper into the uninhabited inland and run away from other land-dwellers/amphibious creatures and proto-legs (stronger joints, longer fin-legs, better bounce) and eventually legs are very good for that. It's actually an obvious development. Selection pressure is such a powerful force we made hundreds of bacteria species immune against certain antibiotics in 1 human lifetime. How did that happen?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's macroevolution, disproven

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the whole universe was created out of nothing for no reason
    Is this what all atheists believe? The idea that something came from nothing is no more fundamental to atheism than the idea that God came from nothing for theism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God is unmoved mover
      Nothing needs to set God in motion
      Also god created motion so the universe couldn't have been set in motion without god anyway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The existence of a first mover doesn't validate any earthy religion.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It does through Jesus Christ

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >God is unmoved mover
        and how do you get from there to your unmoved mover being the ancient Hebrew storm god?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your claim to an eternal god with no beginning is just as speculative as an atheist's claim to an eternal universe locked in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. Both models can rely on a something that doesn't need to be created by something else.

  4. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    it's a lot more believeable considering we can actually measure red shift
    so what about noah's ark, let's talk about that

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I too like religious books anon, but I'm into another

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you only argue with weird strawman arguments.
    >the whole universe was created out of nothing for no reason
    That's not what the big bang theory is, however there is nothing metaphysically impossible about that.
    >then life started on earth for no reason
    It's not "for no reason", it's because the evolution of molecular dynamics also undergoes selection which means the ones which are better at making more copies do so more often
    >then one day a monkey gave birth to a human
    Again, that's not what happened and no one says that. What is it about "small changes over time lead to big changes in the population" that's so difficult for you guys to understand? This is what I don't get. Are you guys just pretending to not understand what is being said or do you genuinely not understand why mutation and selection will lead to completely different forms over time?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're right, actually a magic Rabbi in the sky decided to make the universe for no reason then made a man out of clay for no reason and then made a woman out of his ribs for no reason and put them in a magic garden with a talking snake for no reason

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the whole universe
    We can only infer about the Observable Universe and parts of the Unobservable, we cannot infer anything about what's beyond
    >was created
    No, creation implies intent which implies a God.
    >from nothing.
    No such thing. Even the emptiest thing we know of, vacuum as the lowest point of energy, is not nothing.

    - The OBSERVABLE Universe was not created by TRANSFORMED and not from nothing but from a prior CONDENSED STATE

    >life started
    Abiogenesis is when free amino acids formed from energized organic compounds form self-replicating systems with the ability to complexify further.
    >on earth
    Due to the size of the Observable Universe and the conditions that led to life on Earth, it is more than likely that there are billion instances of Earth-like objects in which abiogenesis could and may have occured.
    >reason
    Unneeded, reason implies intent and no intent is needed in any of these processes.
    >one day
    Evolution is a ongoing gruadual process of accumulative change. It doesn't happen "one day". It continuously happen and noticeably more with isolation and environmental pressure leading to more drastic changes.
    >monkey gave birth to human
    "Monkey" and "human" are tags we use, there is no clear distinction beyond morphological and genetic differences that were not as obvious in our earlier ancestors. It happened gradually

    -ABIOGENESIS and EVOLUTION are not spontaneous but GRADUAL and ACCUMULATIVE that do not need reason or intent but CONDITIONS

    >random
    Random implies the contrary, an intended controlled course of events. There was none so calling it "random" is unnecessary. No one made it random.
    >accident
    Accident also implies an alternative intented expected result, there were none here so it doesn't qualify as "accident".

    -Natural OCCURENCES have no expected intent or purpose, they are not random or accidental THEY JUST ARE

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The big bang does not claim that something came from nothing. Only Christians believe that something come from nothing.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It takes more absurdity to make sense of atheists than god. If you are an atheist you rely on thousands of impossible events to accidentally happen in a sequence where as god just snapped his fricking fingers and it started

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You think that all events are impossible events though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t but what I do know is once upon time injecting store bought heroin was considered a healthy idea from our beloved experts

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You literally do though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What are you even arguing ? You responded to my first post in the thread stfu

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am saying that you think everything is impossible unless god is involved.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God was involved from the beginning, everything has his spirit invoked. If you invented a weapon and killed people with it, I would not say god did that .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you invented a weapon and killed people with it, I would not say god did that .
            Doesn't matter. You think everything is impossible unless god is involved, so any claim where you say "X is impossible without god" is uninteresting because you would be willing to slot literally anything into X.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I literally said if you think in totality yes god was involved based on the start. However I’m not going to say the inventor of the internet, rockets, mathematics was gods will. We created those things with the elements of the world we live in, all initially from gods touch. I’m not going to say nuclear fusion was gods grace STFU and stop making ridiculous assumptions

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >However I’m not going to say the inventor of the internet, rockets, mathematics was gods will.
            That was never my claim. I am saying that you think everything is impossible without god, not that you think everything that happens is god's will.
            I don't understand where you got the idea that it's the latter, but it doesn't really surprise me anyway considering that Christians tend to be low reading comprehension and low IQ individuals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your argument is
            >"God is real and the source of everything because God is real and the source of everything"
            The very same argument can be applied to the universe or logic without invoking a personal creator diety, and which explains everything even better than when you invoke a personal creator diety.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >impossible
      The fact that they happen proves them possible. There is no alternative to compare them to

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So you have evidence the Big Bang happened, evidence that can be verified and repeated in a scientific experiment?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >evidence the big bang happen
          Yes, galactic redshift and cosmic background radiation.
          >repeated and verified
          Yes, we can and do measure redshift and cosmic background radiation again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            red herring
            you need to demonstrate a Big Bang to prove it and not sole irrelevant red shit

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >then one day a monkey gave birth to a human
    That part was so ridiculed they changed it, now it's how our grandparents were fish

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, that was never the argument, it's a strawman, and we didn't "change" what were saying.
      Mutation and selection over time leads to very big changes in populations. Yes, if you trace your ancestry back far enough your ancestors look like little monkey creatures and if you go even further they look like little lizard creatures and further back fish-like creatures etc.
      None of this has changed and it's extremely easy to understand

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        have a nice day. You believe in reptilian ancestors but a starting creator is simply to silly?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I can prove the existence of your "reptilian" ancestors so it's not something to believe.
          I don't actually care about beliefs in God, I dislike denial of reality like the denial of evolution. Evolution is a fact and mutation and selection making big changes in population is a fact. Get the frick over it you fricking idiot

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it's silly because I do not understand it nor make any effort to
          We have four limbs, we're tetrapods.
          Among the tetrapods are amphibians which all have gills in their larval stage. There are fishes with lungs that breathe air, lungfishes and they can survive out of water for a while. Some unrelated fish like mudskipper gobbies do live out of water for a longwhile, showing how it is possible for fish to live like amphibians.

          We are mammals because we have breasts, some mammals produce eggs instead of giving birth. Some mammals develop no placenta and the foetuses climb to the mother's breasts to continue to grow. Human eggs contain some amount of yolk despite being useless since we develop a placenta.
          Monkeys have true opposable thumbs only humans have.
          Ect...

          Evolution wasn't thought out of nowhere but the conclusion of concrete observations.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It makes more sense to believe humans are related to great apes given we are so similar in appearance, intelligence, and behaviors that AI still confuses black people with gorillas than to say we came from thin air and a rib

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the whole universe was created out of nothing for no reason
    There are theories suggesting that it was always there, just infinitely dense, the big bang and 'birth' of the universe is just the point where we can meaningfully start to measure things like time and space because they didn't exist before.
    >then life started on earth for no reason
    It probably started because the right conditions for it to start were met
    >then one day a monkey gave birth to a human
    You (hopefully) know that this is not how evolution works or that the proponents of the theory believe this

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP would definitely take gold for wherever he's from if mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >> The whole universe was created out of nothing for no reason
    > Then life started on earth for no reason
    Not believing in a deity doesn't equal being an expert in biology/zoology, astronomy, or other fields in the STEM majors. Some religious people work in STEM-based careers, and most of the famous scientists are religious. So, associating not believing in god/gods with believing in science is false since science is a tool.
    > Then, one day, a monkey gave birth to a human
    Humans aren't monkeys they are apes which includes, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorrilas. I think you have an inaccurate or pop culture understanding on how evolution/natural selection works. Also why do you go to IQfy to talk about science instead of IQfy or IQfy?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they are not monkeys they are apes
      Apes are just tail-less monkeys. Languages like french just call them "big monkeys" and often do not precise "big".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don’t know why you’re confused about humans being apes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Apes are in the same group Haplorhini with monkeys, but they are not monkeys. Just like cats are in the same Carnivoran group with dogs, but cats are not dogs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no. apes not being monkeys is like saying cats aren't in carnivora. in every other language that I know of apes are called some sort of monkey (mostly 'humanoid monkeys'), the distinction is an English quirk, together with the preference to have monkeys live in a paraphiletic clade because someone thought back in the early XXth century that evolutionary theory will be more palatable if it does not outright say we are monkeys. but we are monkeys, deal with it.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Facts don’t care about your feelings and the sequence of events in this timeline have no obligation to satisfy your desire for a literary narrative with characters including an imaginary dad

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >things can't just come from nothing
    >therefore there must have been a first mover (direct contradiction of the first statement)
    >and it must be my iron age levantine deity (non sequitur)
    Christgays are something else

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He always was
      He is what is
      And he died for your sins

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >apply maximum skepticism to any alternative view
        >apply zero critical thinking to your own beliefs, literally parroting slogans in response to questions
        Where have I seen this before…

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he always was
        He literally wasn't, the original version wasn't some metaphysical first mover nor did he have omnipotence nor omniscience (and he certainly wasn't omnibenevolent, kek); which is why Yahweh looks like such a bpd schizo in the bible. Hebrew collection of stories meeting greek abstract concepts was the worst thing to happen to both theology and philosophy as a whole.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you don't take it face value, moron

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >trannies arent real women because of biological science (which is a fact btw)
    >a israelite walked on water because physics isn't real (science is suddenly fake and gay)
    christcuckery, not even once.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you believe god came from nothing I can believe the universe came from nothing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Infinte regression is illogical it implies infinity

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        regression is in the eye of the beholder. you should deny the existence of zero because there are an infinity of negative numbers before it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not what your science says

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            do you even understand the words you type, or are you a bot fine-tuned to be obnoxious?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If a man can be a woman then God can come from nothing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the Christians on this board have built an entire reactionary metaphysics in response to gender ideology.
            They turned their entire view of reality into reality denying because they believe science = gender ideology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            so is that a yes?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's not related to atheism

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    another garbage thread by christian

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      im actually atheist
      i just be like rifling your feathers

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >84 replies

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why is things having no apparent reason so ridiculous?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *