The Atheist Delusion

[Earthling]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point. Then he starts talking about Hell. Pity.

 

[dfnj]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point.

I hated the video. I don't think the arguments of ID are very compelling. There are certainly many other non ID mechanisms that can explain how we evolved. The whole book argument is over reaching in my opinion. DNA has tons of anomalies. There's a lot more to life than just DNA. I think the argument is just way too simplistic.

There is just no evidence for the existence of God. If you want to belief in God you must have faith. Why fight it and pretend having a belief in God is somehow scientific. It's a dumb approach.

 

[Earthling]

I hated the video. I don't think the arguments of ID are very compelling. There are certainly many other non ID mechanisms that can explain how we evolved. The whole book argument is over reaching in my opinion. DNA has tons of anomalies. There's a lot more to life than just DNA. I think the argument is just way too simplistic.

There is just no evidence for the existence of God. If you want to belief in God you must have faith. Why fight it and pretend having a belief in God is somehow scientific. It's a dumb approach.

From the time I posted the video to the time you responded leaves you very little time to have watched much of it. The interviewer explains that the evidence is given to us. We know it. Atheists deny what they know for their own desires. Accountability.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are you an atheist before watching the video?

Yes

Are you an atheist after watching the video?

Yes.

 

[David T]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point.

So the religious intellect created the cosmos? Vs Atheists believe the scientific intellect is running the show. I have a difficult time actually distinguishing the two.

I also am pretty certain most of those interviewed ran out of church with their hair on fire. Because you have to have some contact with religion in some form to be an atheist. Until I had an experience at 21 someone coming up to me asking if I believed in God would have been strange. Just as. Strange as atheism. I grew up totally independent from religion. So it's interviewing aspects of dysfunctionalism in religion itself. And oh my is it ever dysfunctional.


Intelligent design is that Christian? no. YEC is that Christian? No. It's the intellect making silly noises, whether you believe or do not believe.

I am not an atheist I also am not a believer and am not remotely agnostic about that.

 

[Flame]

Oh Ray Comfort.. your clearly edited movies always brings me such joy.

 

[Earthling]

Are you an atheist before watching the video?

Yes

Are you an atheist after watching the video?

Yes.

But you haven't watched the video. You haven't had time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But you haven't watched the video. You haven't had time.

The video was published 1 year ago with approximately 1.8 million views. Its been there quite a while.

 

[Earthling]

View attachment 23106

Oh Ray Comfort.. your clearly edited movies always brings me such joy.

I don't agree with the guy's theology. I commented on the video to that effect.

 

[siti]

From the time I posted the video to the time you responded leaves you very little time to have watched much of it. The interviewer explains that the evidence is given to us. We know it.

The interviewer previously explained how a banana was perfectly designed to fit into the palm of a human hand...having seen that argument discredited I was sure his next major project would be about how another approximately banana-shaped object was perfectly designed to fit into his hand...sadly the video was simply a variant on the old "complex things need an even more complex designer" argument which stops short of explaining how the even more complex designer required to design complex things came to exist without an even more complex designer than the complex designer required to design the complex things we were wondering about in the first place. And if you think that's incoherent - that is my point. It is a fatuous argument. Ray Comfort is a fatuous arguer.

Atheists deny what they know for their own desires. Accountability.

Right - then account for the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

 

[Earthling]

The video was published 1 year ago with approximately 1.8 million views. Its been there quite a while.

True. But you haven't watched have you?

 

[dfnj]

From the time I posted the video to the time you responded leaves you very little time to have watched much of it. The interviewer explains that the evidence is given to us. We know it. Atheists deny what they know for their own desires. Accountability.

I watched it. It made the same book argument about 20 times. I skipped through some parts. As I said, I not convince what the interviewer believes is evidence is evidence. It could be evidence. But there are other explanations that also fit the facts.

I don't think atheists have desires. I think atheism is just a lack of faith or belief in God. What atheists believe doesn't change what I think one iota.

 

[dfnj]

But you haven't watched the video. You haven't had time.

It's a tough video to watch. I've seen the ID argument many times. I just do not like it or buy it. Just because human animals have a huge amounts of complexity does not mean the complexity did not grow to its present level over billions of years. A billion is a really big number. And a billion years is a really long time. If you look at single cell animals and gradually increase complexity there's just too much in common as life evolves to greater levels of complexity.

Now of course an omnipotent God can create us and the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. So as long as you have strong faith in God what science is saying means nothing. But the problem is if you look at the way life exists, the different levels of complexity, it's not to hard to imagine changes over billions of years could result in us.

I think the more interesting problem is how the very first living cell came into existence. It's a lot like lottery math. If you buy a billion lottery tickets you have a good chance of winning. If you create billions if not trillions of possibilities where the very first living cell could come into existence then at some point you will probably hit the lottery. People win the lottery all the time.

 

[Earthling]

I watched it. It made the same book argument about 20 times. I skipped through some parts. As I said, I not convince what the interviewer believes is evidence is evidence. It could be evidence. But there are other explanations that also fit the facts.

I don't think atheists have desires. I think atheism is just a lack of faith or belief in God. What atheists believe doesn't change what I think one iota.

You don't think that atheists have desires? Don't you think that everyone has desires?

 

[Twilight Hue]

True. But you haven't watched have you?

Of course. I follow a lot of Ray comfort and Thunderfoot material.

Unlike Thunderfoot, Rays arguments are always superficial, argues from incredulity, appeals to emotion, likes using colorful graphics, and orchestration music to set the mood, is a poor researcher with no foundation to base his arguments upon outside the rose colored universe he lives in.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point. Then he starts talking about Hell. Pity.

The book is ID trash par excellence. The science of evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism, objective verifiable evidence, and the good sound work of virtually all scientists 98%+ of many different religious beliefs. The science of evolution is not based on atheism.

The few scientists that advocate 'Intelligent Design' have not been able to propose a theory nor hypothesis that can be tested with scientific methods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course. I follow a lot of Ray comfort and Thunderfoot material.

Unlike Thunderfoot, Rays arguments are always superficial, argues from incredulity, appeals to emotion, likes using colorful graphics, and orchestration music to set the mood, is a poor researcher with no foundation to base his arguments upon outside the rose colored universe he lives in.

And let's not forget that he dishonestly edits in post. Many of those people probably could answer his questions, he merely edits to suit his needs.

 

[Earthling]

It's a tough video to watch. I've seen the ID argument many times. I just do not like it or buy it.

I know what you mean. I used to love watching nature documentaries, but I stopped watching them because everyone seems to think it absolutely necessary to mention evolution to explain everything. Over and over and over.

Just because human animals have a huge amounts of complexity does not mean the complexity did not grow to its present level over billions of years. A billion is a really big number. And a billion years is a really long time. If you look at single cell animals and gradually increase complexity there's just too much in common as life evolves to greater levels of complexity.

You've got to ask yourself, complexity aside, when they developed a heart or blood first. Why would one develop without the other?

 

[siti]

You've got to ask yourself, complexity aside, when they developed a heart or blood first. Why would one develop without the other?

You've got to ask yourself: what the devil are you talking about?

 

[Earthling]

Of course. I follow a lot of Ray comfort and Thunderfoot material.

Unlike Thunderfoot, Rays arguments are always superficial, argues from incredulity, appeals to emotion, likes using colorful graphics, and orchestration music to set the mood, is a poor researcher with no foundation to base his arguments upon outside the rose colored universe he lives in.

I kind of got that impression as well. His theology is certainly nonsense. I liked watching the atheists, though, as they face the nonsensical nature of their position. And Dawkins trying to define nothing, his surprise at being laughed at. It's unfortunate, at the end, though, when so many of the atheists interviewed bought into his nonsensical theology. They may never know the truth.