Atheists, what do you think about this?

Post Reply New Topic

Nonsense! The universe is only a few thousand years old.

I assume your comment is a joke right? Can't always tell on this forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

And when I die...topic

...I will not know the moment, nor afterward. No paradise or heaven, kids.

Oy yoi yoi!

What is your point? Is it - "The sun and moon appear to be the same size from an obsevers point of view on Earth therefore god exists"???????

Talk about quantum leaps!! !!

It is believed that God and Jesus created the universe in such a way that it is possible for us to view to beauties of the universe.

For example - the only atmosphere that we can live with, is also the only see through one. The Moon and the Sun are the perfect size and distance from the Earth, each other, and everything else, for life to exist with them. Which also means that when theres a solar eclipse, you can see the (i forget what it is) from the sun around the moon, which makes for enormous scientific discoveries. The place that we are in our galaxy is the best place for a planet with life on it, it is also a very sparse place, ie, not much else here. Which also means we can use telescopes/satelites etc to view the whole other universe.

Baisically it appears that everything that is essential to us being able to live is also essential so that we can view the universe, and everything else.


Which is pretty cooool.

Since you are only 20 you have lots of time to catch up on your scientific reading. Good luck.

May you elaberate further???

So... because the Sun and the Moon are perceptually similar sizes from Earth, that means... God exists? He made them? Why? To look pretty?

The logic in this post makes me want to punch something.


"The only see-through atmosphere"? Firstly, that's ridiculous; there are loads of transparent gases in the periodic table that aren't present in meaningful quantities in our environment, and our planet could have easily had them as its atmosphere instead, as many planets in the universe do. Of course, if that were the case, we (the human race) wouldn't be on such a planet to ask the question in the first place, because it wouldn't have supported the forms of life that we're familiar with. But some other form of life might have been there in our place, and they might have been using the fact that their planet's Neon atmosphere is the only atmosphere that they can live with as proof of their own deity.

Secondly, our species evolved on this planet, in this atmosphere. Our eyes evolved to use the wavelengths of light that are most prevalent in our environment, the ones that are of most use as visual aids, namely the wavelengths that don't get absorbed by our atmosphere much. The reason why the atmosphere is "see-through" to us in the first place is because we have adapted to it, not because it has been designed for us. If our atmosphere absorbed every wavelength except radio waves, life on this planet could have evolved to "see" via radio, and then individuals like you would still probably be using that as proof that our planet was made for them, because "the atmosphere allows in the radio waves that we use to see".


That's nonsensical logic! EARTH LIFE EVOLVED HERE. Of course the conditions present here are going to be perfect for EARTH LIFE! If they weren't, there would be nobody to ask the question! Do you understand that there are billions upon billions upon billions of worlds out there, all with different conditions? The ONLY planets on which a question like yours could be asked is the planets on which there is intelligent life! The ONLY planets upon which there is intelligent life will be planets that are suited for LIFE, by definition.

Your statement also ignores the fact that there's no reason why life as we know it should be the only possible form of life. There may be forms of life that require temperatures of 1000 degrees C or higher, and require a soup of pressurised long-chain hydrocarbons to breathe. For them, our planet would seem like a frozen, poisonous wasteland. Can't you get out of this human-centric mindset?



The "best place" according to whom? By what standards? It may be a good position to see the universe via human scientific apparatus (that was, I'd like to remind you, developed on this planet and therefore designed for the conditions upon which we find ourselves), but I bet it's a terrible place to study the effects of phenomena that are almost certainly occuring in the centre of some random galaxy that we don't even know about. Why is that knowledge not just as important as what we can see through our telescopes from our "perfect vantage point"?

The positive aspects of our location in our galaxy are only meaningful to us because they're all we know. We could be missing out on all manner of scientific discoveries that we know nothing about just because we're situated in the wrong kind of galaxy. You just don't know, and you're not even trying to be objective.

To be fair, you didn't actually read my post properly. Not once did I say 'this is what I believe'. If you look at the text above, I've kindly highlighted the bit where I wrote 'it is believed'. No one got what the first post was going on about, so I explained.

Also, I don't know if what I said is true or not. I don't know if what you're saying is true or not. Apart from some bits. For example, I should have probably said 'intelligent life form can only survive with our atmosphere'. This is what lots of science men believe. People who do science. And know what they're talking about. I'm just quoting from them. And not only do we live here because it's all perfect, but there are a lot of factors that go into making a planet inhabitable. Do you know what the probability of that is? These means that very very few places in the universe, if any, would be suitable for intelligent life.

Also, if we take your argument that a life form could adapt to any atmosphere, why isn't there intelligent life on, say Mars? Or other planets in our solar system? I'm pretty sure if there was, we would have known by now.

And besides, you need as much faith to believe in the bible theory as you do the big bang theory, or whatever theory you believe in. So there's no point getting pissed off about the whole thing. It all comes down to a matter of opinion. This is just a healthy debate. No point punching your way out of it.

Alright, fair enough. I'm merely saying that what is passing for evidence for this theory is not evidence at all. There are glaring gaps in the logic of the OP's question.

...and no matter how unlikely you think the phenomenon of life is, the sheer number of planets out there nullifies the low odds.

I was saying that hypothetically, the possibility exists. The argument of the OP seems to be making a hell of a lot of human-centric assumptions.

Well I reckon the human-centric assumptions comes from the fact that it's believed that life was created for humans, and then animals, insects and the sort. So instead of trying to prove their theories on life and creation in general, it's more trying to prove that life was created by a being for the sake of human existence. Which seems a little shallow.

To be honest, I'm looking into all of this from both sides; I'm having studies with this Jehova's Witness couple, to see where they come from, and I'm also checking out all the scientific theories too. I don't think I'll ever come to a conclusion though! I'm rubbish at deciding what I believe in...

Well, at least the first point is one thing we can discount, since paleontological records show that insects evolved hundreds of millions of years before mammals.

.....FAIL.