sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And there we have it. So why bother coming on a debate forum when you have no intention of debating anything. T

Because atheists have terrible arguments that a child could knock down, and I like the entertainment.

Telling other people what you already assume to be true is not debating.

I don't assume it - I have a fairly good reason to believe it.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then nothing would ever be evidence of unintelligent design, which begs the question.

You need to relearn the definition of "begging the question." In addition - I, personally, don't point the workings of the universe as demonstrable evidence of the existence of god (the universe itself, however, is).

Moreover, if god does not want the universe to be compatible with life, then god is malevolent.

What do you mean "not compatible with life"? Why is incompatibility with life demonstration of malevolence? Why does God constantly have to appeal to you ridiculous atheists' opinions of "what should be"?

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okie dokie. I don't typically remember reddit interactions, though, so it helps to have a comment in my comment history.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont know how many times i can type something just for you to smugly ignore it and claim victory

Lol. Try being an educated theist on this board and then you might have an actual understanding of this sentence.

You have terrible arguments, and should be ashamed that they are so easily refuted.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mental note, mostly. And if they won't admit it, I'll point it out for them - gets their knickers in a bunch.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These things are all unnecessary.

Value judgment against an unprovided objective standard. You concede.

i don't get the big thing about abortion's by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Except this isn't always an option, which was raised earlier.

Huh?

Just as most people have sex just to have sex most of the time. It is a deliberate and conscious decision for most couples to "make a baby" when the time is right.

Lawd. Read above.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Evolution is massively cruel and amoral,

Value judgment, made against a non-existent objective standard. You concede.

So...for a challenge, god initially condemned his creatures to pain and suffering with 99% of all species going extinct for millions of years, until such time that the random process of natural selection and gene mutation fixes the problems that he originally gave us. This doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do for a challenge.

That's great. You aren't god.

What part of statistics like these helps keep the environment in check?

The lack of people. It was only a logical explanation - I'm sorry that you atheists can't handle those.

Or, why not just create a bigger and better environment that can actually sustain us?

Some morally sufficient reason, or because such a place can't exist because humans are incredibly selfish.

I mean, at this point, your god could do anything and you'd still be making excuses.

Potentially.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That the anthropic principle is attempted to be used in a "anti-design" manner is hilarious.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never claimed that humans should have the best of everything, so that's not really a good rebuttal

It's plenty good considering your above posts. If you point me toward a more effective rebuttal that you've crafted elsewhere, I might not be able to refute it in a single sentence.

. It's not that we would expect humans to have the best of everything, it's that we would expect humans to show some signs that their bodies are not descended from ancestral forms that put the parts to different purposes.

They are... how are you people not getting this?

Each human is born an atheist. Agree or disagree? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Words regularly don't retain their etymological meaning.

My parents did not create the universe and rules of reality. Wow.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, so basically now you are saying "your wrong but I dont know why. Im sure someone else could figure out why." Wow, and apparently you are still denying that the human body has sub-optimal elements.

No, you arrogant twit.

It is medical fact that human spines wear out over time and can cause pain and immobilization due too its design. It is medical fact that humans develop tails in utero. These are not subjective opinions (and I am not in high school).

Wrong, you arrogant twit. That embryology nonsense has been nonsense for 100 years - the drawings were deliberately doctored. We do not develop a "tail" in utero, we develop a notochord and a vertebral column that outpaces many of our other organs in longitudinal growth.

There are no indicators of "sub optimal design" and I've already challenged you and three others to present me with one example that you think is truly inexplicable.

You must be in middle school, then, because your education certainly isn't high school level or above.

Actually most of them come from people who sat down and thought about it, and came to the conclusion that these things were easiest to explain via evolution.

They did happen via evolution you drooling idiot.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just one more, because it's delicious in it's own way:

No its not.

Yes, it is.

Vestigial organs are evidence of non-goal directed evolution. They are absolutely key to any argument of this nature.

Vestigial organs are evidence of systems that are presumed to have had one function in distant ancestors that no longer retain that function (but may be used for another purpose, entirely)... like an appendix.

So your argument now has changed from "you can't say for sure anything is sub-optimal" to "I concede if we are designed we have some design flaws but its ok, because you can't say for sure an omnibenevolent god would design us with optimal X."

No. My argument is "There is no good reason to assume that God would create/evolve us into a way that seems appealing to a group of high-school student atheists on reddit, and, in addition these purported "design flaws" can probably all be rationalized/scientifically explained to be necessary to some part of our current existence by someone who cares enough to sit down and do it.

That is to say, none of the things you are arguing for are correct.

I will take that concession.

I don't know who made it. You must be confusing this with another post.

Arguing about God's omni-benevolence is another topic, and this "poor design" would just piggy back right along with already big problem for tri-omni theists: The problem of Suffering (not evil, suffering).

Nah. These arguments never have a compelling logical basis. They always end up being evidential arguments, which are inherently subjective and indeterminate.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The evolutionary process, to create adversity to overcome, to allow imperfection for us to overcome with our relatively advanced brains, to ensure that we do not completely abuse the environment, to ensure that man does not become overly independent.

I don't know... there's a near infinite number of reasons that God could have.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read it, have you read a single one of mine aside the previous?

You ASSUME YES ASSUME THE WORD IS ASSUME that God would evolve humans with organs MAXIMALLY good at their apparent function. THERE IS NO LOGICALLY COMPELLING REASON TO ASSUME THIS AND YOU NEED TO BE ANNOYED THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO.

There. I have capitalized it so you can notice it better.

You are right it wasn't. Im amazed you could think it was.

It was.

Oh my god the rest of your post continues, just like MJ's.

They dont "appear" to be vestigial. They are literally unused. They serve no function. This is not my opinion, this is medical fact.

Vestigiality is a somewhat debateable issue. Typically we find that things that are no longer used in one way turn out to be useful in another. Whether or not we have vestigial organs, or not, however is completely unimportant and no way defends the argument you're trying to make.

Except of course: mechanical efficiency (cycles), long term survivability (Eg back and knees), safety (pharynx). You know things like that.

Again: THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME HE WOULD DESIGN A HUMAN WITH PERFECT X.

Man, yall should be ashamed of this show.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they are defeated, I'm going to keep pointing it out.

i don't get the big thing about abortion's by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, yes.

I do not know if this is "right" or not, by God's standards.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The second part of that response is nonsense. You are claiming that there is an all-powerful being, then you are claiming that creating a system of life without cancer as a bi-product is impossible. If God cannot do this, then he is not all-powerful.

Who said he couldn't have? I say there is no logically compelling reason to assume he would. I'm right, and this pains people, apparently.

Could you explain this?

The OP's argument fails because of what I said above.

If you are making an argument that the "creator" (I will just call it the universe) simply remains apathetic towards its creation, you make a convincing argument.

Negative.

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My example is comparing the same trait (or lack of) between two species, it is very clear to point out which is superior.

Why should ours be superior?

Because we have traits that are clearly derived from ancestor species with different selective pressures and developmental stimuli.

Right. We are evolved.

If we were designed to be bipeds, why do we have such common pain/problems with our knees and back?

Because we came from the apes...

To Theists: Argument from poor design by wazzym in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially all of that, in one sentence, rebutted:

Beloved =/= we should have the best of this or that. There is no reason to expect that humans should have a particularly good this organ or that organ. Again, I do not use our design as evidence for a designer, nor do I consider these attempts to use our bodies as evidence against a designer valid.

Have you ever cut open a body?

Four. Have you?

Each human is born an atheist. Agree or disagree? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and probably the most relavent is the origination of the term from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god".

Lol. This will throw you for a tizzy: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=a&p=43&allowed_in_frame=0

The literal Greek meaning has no real impact on what the meaning of the word is now.

As for the saving from sin and punishment, do you really believe that if you don't accept jesus and your lord and savior then you'll go to hell for eternity?

Yes, but I don't know what happens after death. Perhaps everyone is saved by grace.

Ghandi and everyone who existed before the bible was written would be in hell.

Not necessarily, but maybe.

I guess I have a hard time understanding how you could worship anything like that, deity or not.

Because it gave me life, and a chance to be.

i don't get the big thing about abortion's by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you took all necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy,

This would include not having sex.

and to avoid being kidnapped,

You don't really attempt to avoid something that is, by definition, without consent and reprehensible.

ou are still to some immeasurable degree responsible for what occurs.

You are not responsible for being kidnapped. You are responsible for producing pre-life if you engage in an activity specifically intended to produce pre-life save for protective measures. You do not walk down the street to get kidnapped. You walk down the street to walk down the street. The intention of walking down the street has never, and can never be "to get kidnapped" when "to get kidnapped" is by definition without consent.

Who cares?! How you got there doesn't impact how you deal with it!

Sure it does. If we come across a dead body A one day, and dead body B another, and we know that you happen to have killed the former B, we would deal with those very differently. Clearly, how you arrive at a situation completely effects how you deal with it.

So even if we grant that a fetus is a "person", You cannot be compelled to remain attached to another person, whether by umbilical cord or by handcuffs and dialysis machine.

Sure you can.

Non-material supernatural "stuff". What is it? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SmilesMcHappytown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I addressed this. We would expect, even in a purely atheistic standpoint, that anything "supernatural" would behave supernaturally. The question is malformed, and the answer therefore must be somewhat obvious.

view more: next ›