Marco Rubio the creationist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
430
0
Santiago
Since you start out with the premise that there is no possible way to prove a person is an atheist it kinda makes your second sentence pointless. I am telling you I am - prove I am lying.. and prove to me you are not an atheist.. Deep down I think most people (90%) are, otherwise my street would be empty on Sundays and so many religious figures would not give in to to sin.

With no God there would be no sin, so what are you worried about??? For that matter there would be no right or wrong either. Yet I doubt you believe doing anything and everything is ok, because you have a conscience. Where did that come from???
 

Mauricio

Gold
Nov 18, 2002
5,607
7
38
The creation testifies of the existence of a Creator, what more proof do you need. One must be as blind as a bat to look around you, see the sky, stars, moon, sun, the mountains, flowers, animals, the functioning of your own body, etc. and stubbornly think, this all came to being by chance, there is no one who designed this, no one who created it, no one who made me, there is no one I once will need to settle accounts with.

For someone whose eyes are opened it's crystal clear from creation there ?s a God. And that's just one of the proofs we and all around us did not spontaneously come into being.
 

Big Dan

New member
Feb 14, 2009
370
19
0
Neither of you have proven anything.

Windeguy, you don't rail against the Flying Spaghetti Monster for some reason. Nice try though. I still don't believe you.

And, tailspin, I have placed the burden of proof on you. Your words aren't enough to prove anything.
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
42,578
6,190
113
The creation testifies of the existence of a Creator, what more proof do you need. One must be as blind as a bat to look around you, see the sky, stars, moon, sun, the mountains, flowers, animals, the functioning of your own body, etc. and stubbornly think, this all came to being by chance, there is no one who designed this, no one who created it, no one who made me, there is no one I once will need to settle accounts with.

For someone whose eyes are opened it's crystal clear from creation there ?s a God. And that's just one of the proofs we and all around us did not spontaneously come into being.

You present a false argument. It is called the god of the gaps argument. Because you cannot explain existence through logic and reasoning, you create a creator to explain existence. Try something better the next time like actual proof of your own particular one true god (or gods).
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
42,578
6,190
113
Neither of you have proven anything.

Windeguy, you don't rail against the Flying Spaghetti Monster for some reason. Nice try though. I still don't believe you.

And, tailspin, I have placed the burden of proof on you. Your words aren't enough to prove anything.

You are missing the point of the FSM illustration. Any logical thinking person will dismiss the FSM as a joke created by man. In the same manner as I dismiss god/gods, etc.
 

Lucifer

Silver
Jun 26, 2012
4,948
862
113
I believe Rubio is smart enough to know better, but has to pander to religious woo-woo, while jockeying for front-runner position (was in Iowa last week). His supposedly "non-answer" is coded with intentions... as if we can't read.

He's very eloquent, but he's no Paul Wellstone.
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
I believe Rubio is smart enough to know better, but has to pander to religious woo-woo, while jockeying for front-runner position (was in Iowa last week). His supposedly "non-answer" is coded with intentions... as if we can't read.

He's very eloquent, but he's no Paul Wellstone.
Oh, please.

It wouldn't matter WHAT Rubio says, you find some weasel reason to dump on him...like taking one line completely out of context.
 

Mauricio

Gold
Nov 18, 2002
5,607
7
38
You present a false argument. It is called the god of the gaps argument. Because you cannot explain existence through logic and reasoning, you create a creator to explain existence. Try something better the next time like actual proof of your own particular one true god (or gods).

That's correct, I believe in God to explain how everything came into being, if you want to call that the God of the gaps, that's fine by me, He's much more than that.

However, I don't see any difference using a big bang theory, billions years of time, chance and many reasonable and unreasonable assumptions to fill the gap.

Chip made a good point referring to the moral law that seems to be inside all of us. How come you realize that if some innocent 16 year old girl is raped and murdered that's not good? How come you feel that taking what's not yours is not good? How come you think that giving your non-qualified nephew a DOP300,000 / month job in your government department is not correct? How come you actually do know that cheating on your wife or husband is wrong?

Did these moral laws get inside you by chance, by evolution, or because you see other people thinking that's wrong? If that's they case, why are we punishing people who do these things? Or at least think they should be punished? If it's all chance, why can't we let anyone just decide what he does?

If you take some time to think about it, everyone has a notion of moral law, this means that there must be an origin of this law. The difference between good and bad must come from somewhere. or Someone. If there is no such someone, why should you tell me I can't rape, steal, murder, or cheat on my wife? That's just you thinking that's bad, it's not an universal law.

Only people indoctrinated by modern, secular education are able to stick to God-denial even though plain and clear logical thinking shows otherwise. I'm happy to KNOW there is a God.
 

Lucifer

Silver
Jun 26, 2012
4,948
862
113
Oh, please.

It wouldn't matter WHAT Rubio says, you find some weasel reason to dump on him...like taking one line completely out of context.

Me? Maybe you read it here first, after I posted about it. But it was big news yesterday. I just happen to stay ahead of MSM. It was probably on tee-vee, but that ain't my thing. I'm an old-fashioned print guy.
 

Lucifer

Silver
Jun 26, 2012
4,948
862
113
However, I don't see any difference using a big bang theory, billions years of time, chance and many reasonable and unreasonable assumptions to fill the gap.

.

This Big Bang theory is not the kind of 'theory' to which you seem to be referring. Try again, Rubio.
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
I would be happy to provide a fact-based anthropological analysis on how moral codes developed as human societies became more complex, and the role that belief systems played in enforcing these codes and laws, but it isn't exactly a barrel of laughs and this, after all, is the Clown Bin.
 

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
430
0
Santiago
I would be happy to provide a fact-based anthropological analysis on how moral codes developed as human societies became more complex, and the role that belief systems played in enforcing these codes and laws, but it isn't exactly a barrel of laughs and this, after all, is the Clown Bin.

That's all fine and dandy but animals have no moral code. Certainly they have pecking orders, the alpha male, etc but that's not the same thing.

Furthermore, what's disconcerting to me as someone trained in the sciences are some scientist's willingness to propose a weak theory based mostly on assumptions and distant relations and promote it as virtual fact because they have "consensus" among their colleagues. "Weak" is a nice word to say the least. Just goes to show that even scientists are human and subject to biases and beliefs based on fairy tales as opposed to facts.
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
That's all fine and dandy but animals have no moral code. Certainly they have pecking orders, the alpha male, etc but that's not the same thing.
Non sequitur. I said human societies developed belief systems.
 

Lucifer

Silver
Jun 26, 2012
4,948
862
113
That's all fine and dandy but animals have no moral code. Certainly they have pecking orders, the alpha male, etc but that's not the same thing.

Furthermore, what's disconcerting to me as someone trained in the sciences are some scientist's willingness to propose a weak theory based mostly on assumptions and distant relations and promote it as virtual fact because they have "consensus" among their colleagues. "Weak" is a nice word to say the least. Just goes to show that even scientists are human and subject to biases and beliefs based on fairy tales as opposed to facts.

I would recommend you a few books--and would personally deliver them to you in Santiago next month--on the moral landscape, but...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.