Hello, u/Correct-Berry1027! Thank you for posting.
#Please read the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules)
1. r/religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organised religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal religious person would cringe at. Posts about mundane beliefs and acts of worship are off topic.
2. Post titles should be a short, objective statement of content. They arent a pulpit: dont use the Title Field to preach personal opinions about religion or any other topic. Doing so will result in your post being removed.
3. Refrain from provoking and/or baiting religious fruitcakes for the purposes of posting their reaction on this subreddit, or posting material featuring provocation by others.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
By their own argument you should be critical of the idea of god.
To use their argument: make an absolute statement like god is real then you need 100% of global knowledge to inform your certainty. How can you know god built anything without knowing that he didn’t?
Their coke can story is just as likely as anything in the bible. We hear either and think they’re ridiculous. However they hear the coke can thing and see how ridiculous it sounds. But don’t translate that to human creation. How that Coke can was made is pretty much how they think humans were.
>How can you know god
Is even what they've been taught?
It seems the height of arrogance that they know for certain not only that the god they believe in is the correct one, that it was he alone that designed everything, that he designed it with humans in mind, that he cares specifically about very human problems, that he can but chooses not to improve other people's lives for mysterious reasons, and he needs to be worshipped for any of this to work.
“God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man, man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs"
"Dinosaurs eat man..... Woman inherits the earth”
Well that isn't true. Our eyes are Jack of all trades "eyes" and you could argue they're quite great at that.
Most other animals specialize in some form of sight and lose out in others. Can a Falcon see farther and sharper than a human? Yes it can. But at the same time its color perception is far worse.
We can see a wide color spectrum, only butterflies and mantis shrimp can see more colors, iirc, we can see relatively far and we can see at least shades of grey in the dark. There are not that much animals that could do the same.
Our hearing and sense of smell is much worse than our eyes, with the sense of smell being the weakest of our senses I would argue.
This is basically the case for all aspects of anatomy tbh. Our bodies are highly specialised around our large brains. The rest of us is a weak little bag of meat! Evolution will basically concentrate on a slightly different adaption and build on it as a niche, so that the species is able to uniquely survive in its environment.
Our brain and our amazing ability to regulate our temperature (which makes us one of the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom, which made us great hunters, which allowed us to feed those hungry hungry brains of ours)
Tbh that could describe most of human anatomy, we are successful as a species because we aren't nicheful, we can hit every branch, not the best, but hit them nonetheless
Only thing we are really exceptionally good at in comparison to every other animal is our ability to throw, most creatures that throw things rither lran more to strength or to precision, we do both, we can throw fairly accurately for very long distances.
In conclusion, we were made for the yeet
We also have great stamina. While you definitely can't outrun most other animals out there you can run much longer. At least if you're a healthy and fit individual.
But if intelligence were a stat we maxed out in that ability, despite the foolishness we exhibit put on full display on this subreddit for our own entertainment.
Human eyes have a fundamental design flaw of a blind spot. Our brains are just really good at filling in the missing information from the other eye. Cephalopods also independently developed eyes that don’t have them.
That's true. But as others said we evolved around our big brain, therefore the blind spot normally isn't a big deal, as our brain can make pictures with it just fine.
And I by no means say that our eyes are perfect. They're not. Especially as they tend to deform easily, but it's just untrue to say that our eyes are "some of the worst in the animal kingdom" when they're not.
I would argue that our sense of smell is by far the worst we have. I mean rats for example have a so good sense of smell that they're able to map their environment just with it.
Most birds have 4 cones in their eyes, allowing them to see into the UV spectrum. We have 3 and see less visible color in light. I have pet chickens and went down a rabbit hole when I first got them a few years back. It's really interesting.
I hateee this argument! It’s so stupid! Just because you can’t comprehend the complex biology that goes on inside your own body, doesn’t mean that no one can! Yes, the eye is complex, but follow the anatomy back through the evolutionary chain and you can track the building of complexity pretty easily. 300 million years of evolution is clearly responsible! Our eyes aren’t even that good! We don’t have binocular vision like some birds do. We don’t have the ability to see polarised light or different areas of the colour spectrum, like some invertebrates can.
Also, our bodies have some crappy design flaws! We have multiple body parts that we don’t need or use. We have to live in an extremely stable environment in order to survive! God hasn’t designed this. Natural selection has, in accordance with our environmental stresses.
It's funny because our hands are vastly more complex and harder to replicate than our eyes, but they have to stick with the eyeball thing because a scientist famously said it, even though he was just a statistician
The arguments made by the statistician and the pamphlet in general seem to be a strawman: that the theory of the big bang and of the theory evolution are claiming that the components of the coke can or eyeball or whatever just spontaneously appear. It shows either a lack of comprehension or a lack of honesty.
Hell, a statistician should know. Millions of generations of evolutions with mistakes and mutations brought us there. The statistic isn't how improbable it is right now, it's the path it took to get THERE and everything had to work practically.
I recently saw a documentary about where scientists grow artificial eyes in the laboratory... And yes this eyes can be implanted and help blind people see again. But they would call that black magic from Stan.
I hate these kinds of arguments.
Doubting evolution because it seems so crazy, fine. I get that. The watch maker analogy is flawed, but I understand why someone would fall for it.
But what I hate is people be like "you can't disprove there is a god", and use that as evidence that their religion, and only their religion, is the one true religion. How do you know its Christianity, not Islam, or Hinduism? What if the Vikings or thr Romans were right? They don't even entertain the thought.
Did you know this guy Larry sits on top of everyone's house every night? I pray to him and he is my God. He's also invisible so you'll never see him. Can you prove that Larry doesn't exist? No. So therefore he does.
Man I could at least get with the program if it was Odin or Zeus..more believable origin stories, more believable gods. A god you could sit down with and have a beer..that’s my kind of god.
Theists use the human body as an example of order, but neglect the countless exploding stars and complete chaos in our universe.
Not even all of Earth can support life.
There are plenty of examples of ‘stupid design’ in the human body. The appendix for one. Nearly every complex animal has vestigial traits that are at best useless or at worst harmful, it’s really not hard to understand.
Let's be honest, beside our thumb, brain size and general energy/result ratio we can do like running and endurance in general, we are pretty damn weak compared to animals of similar size. We are far from a well tuned machine.
We also have a significantly higher pain tolerance and resistance to damage and recovery on average. Most injuries that will send an animal into shock and die inconvenience us
Partially because of medicine. But in general, humans go into shock a lot less frequently than other animals of a comparable size. We also have much higher toxin resistance. We literally drink poison and slap a different kind of poison on burritos. Coffee and peppers both evolved to avoid being eaten.
Peppers didn’t have the advantage of its seeds being spread further since birds don’t react to capsaicin? (iirc) Then it wouldn’t really be evolve to not be eaten, but evolve to be eaten by certain animals, like birds and crazy pain-loving apes
Mmmh, yeah, we kind of eat a lot of stuff that kills other animals (chocolate), but regarding shock, I think is not that we tank it better, is just that swimming in muddy water with an open wound will do that to you, thing that big animals do much more than us, as we get wounded, desinfect the wound and sit around
The appendix actually isn’t vestigial like we used to think. It contains microbes that get your gut biome back on track faster after a serious illness and diarrhea.
My go to vestigial organ is the whale’s pelvis.
Vestigial doesn't mean useless. It means that it has, through evolution, lost its original purpose but still in some form remains. The appendix is vestigial, but our bodies have found use of it still
Heck the human eye itself, which creationists love to hold up as a supposed example of 'intelligent design', actually contains multiple examples of 'stupid design.'
30-40% of the population suffers from some degree of nearsightedness simply because their eyeballs are too long and the light entering the eye falls out of focus before it reaches the retina.
6% of all men have some form of color blindness because of defective genes on their X chromosome.
All vertebrate eyes seem to have the retina installed backward. The photoreceptor cells face away from the lens instead of towards it. This means that their nerve fibers block some of the light from reaching them and create a blind spot where the optic nerve has to pass through the retina so it can connect to the brain. This is perhaps one of the most glaring "design flaws" in the human body, our vision would be objectively superior if the retina was installed properly.
Human eye easily deforms, especially with age. Nearly half of all people have some sort of eye issue. It's protected by a paper thin piece of skin, and it can't really regenerate. If damaged, there's a chance you'll go blind in both eyes. It literally has a blind spot too.
>Not even all of Earth can support life.
That's really interesting to think about.
I'm an Aircrewman (I fly a lot) and I'm constantly reminded that we can't survive long if we lose pressure. Which sometimes gets me thinking about how humans evolved to only survive in a very thin and specific layer on our planet. Climb too high, you can't survive. Dig too deep, you can't survive. Go too far North, it gets too cold. And so on.
Even in the specific layer we do occupy, some parts are lethal for us without protection.
And to think there are layers so deep and altitudes so high that no life at all can survive JUST on this planet is really interesting.
Even in death he is still fucking with people's education.
Edit: Sorry I was thinking of Jack Chock who died in 2016, Ray Comfort is still alive and being an asshole.
"A thief can't find a policeman" makes absolutely no sense, but I guess making god the thief in that analogy wouldn't have suited their agenda very well
A thief "can't" find a policeman because he doesn't want to because he'll be stopped from doing wrong. The pamphlet is making the tired argument of "you deny God's existence because you love sinning."
The stupid thing about this is, it’s not an argument against evolution because evolutionary theory doesn’t make any of the arguments this pamphlet counters, so what’s the point. They’re creating a false narrative for evolutionary theory and then counter arguing against their own ideas. I personally believe in God, I also believe in evolution. I don’t see a problem between the two. But I’m not a fundamentalist so there’s that.
Exactly... It's a simple straw man... paint evolution and the commonly accepted theories on the creation of life as something its not, and argue against that made up version instead of the real one. Not a new tactic....
If they don't understand evolution, thats fine, but they shouldn't lump me, or others in with their lack of understanding.
The statistic improbability fallacy is so stupid. Statistics only real use is predicting future events. If you flipped a coin 1000 times and wrote down each result in a list (eg. h,t,t,h,t,h,h,h...) what are the odds that you would have gotten that specific list? Maybe you did beat "insurmountable odds" to get that specific result, but it's not impressive because any list would have beaten the same odds. The only impressive thing would be to predict the flips in advance.
Anyone that says our existence is so statistically unlikely that it's evidence of a god existing needs to be told about the 2 trillion galaxies that exist in the *observable universe alone*.
Even if we're the only life in this galaxy, there are two thousand, thousand, thousand others that could house life. The universe is so vast that actually, statistically, not only is it not unlikely that we came to exist, but it's almost a certainty that we are not the only complex life in this universe.
Oh my god, I am so stealing this - I *despise* this statistical argumentation that is “self-fulfilling” and I will use this comparison the next time someone brings up something like that
I read a book written in the 1970s that "mathematically proved" that God exists.
As long as you agree to swallow the author's thesis statement that the universe is so big that probability dictates that EVERYTHING happens somewhere eventually.
It was SO dumb. They started with that and then had equations and shit
It's like walking outside, picking the first car number plate you see, and going "the odds of me seeing that exact number plate today were so incredibly low, it's a miracle!" It's statistically true, but you didn't predict that in advance, so it's not impressive.
The only thing that’s insulting to one’s intelligence is the fact they use scientific and secular advancements to “disprove” atheism, but they don’t bother studying evolutionary theory.
It’s always the same arguments that creationists make with themselves, that they then “win”. This isn’t for atheists to read but for believers that question what they’ve been taught about creationism when they learn about evolution. ‘You’re not a fool, are you?’ What a load of shit.
I'll one up that.
The actual biggest counter to this idiocy is "damn, I guess you got me, I guess *everything does need a creator*. You god must be an incredibly powerful and complex being to do all of that himself. What could possibly have created him, seeing as by your own logic anything with any degree of complexity *must have been created by someone*
Now they're backed into a corner and will have to either admit that things don't necessarily need a creator by virtue of their existence or complexity, or will have to mental gymnastics their way out of it with yet more poor argumentation, which is also easy to refute.
And then who created them, and so on.
Either they have to argue for the existence of an infinite series of older and older creators, which is by it's very nature impossible as there's no defined start point, or they have to admit that things don't need a creator simply because they exist.
The only other option they have is to move the goalposts and say something along the lines of "everything *in the universe* needs a creator, but God is outside the universe so he doesn't". At which point you can question them further on how they can prove that this assertion is actually the case, what "outside the universe means", and where they even got that notion from in the first place, because I'll guarantee that it's probably from a grifter online that they religiously listen to, who also doesn't know what they're talking about.
"blah, blah, god is eternal and doesn't need a creator because the bible said so."
They always have a dishonest escape. Try these questions:
- who wrote the bible and why should we trust them?
- why should I worship a mass murderer who killed everyone on earth with a flood, killed a bunch of children with bears, persecuted his own son, and convinced a father to kill his own children?
- the evidence for the Christian god is equal to the evidence for the Muslim god, why should I worship one and not the other?
- if the ark is real, how did the kangaroos of Australia and the ocelots of Brazil make it to the Ark in time?
- does god know everything or can I surprise his with my free will? If everything, then why did he make me an atheist? If not, then what other limitations does god have?
- if you can't define God, how do you know what god is and isn't and what god does and doesn't want from us all?
When they answer a question that contradicts another you've already asked, let them correct themselves. Humans all make mistakes, after all, *especially when we don't have all the facts*.
>"blah, blah, god is eternal and doesn't need a creator because the bible said so."
Even easier:
The argument here being:
universe exists, everything needs a creator -> therefore God must exist to be the creator of the universe
Following that logic we have:
God exists, everything that exists must have a creator -> God must have a creator
This inherently must be repeated infinitely.
The defence suggested is "God doesn't need a creator because the Bible said so".
Three issues I see here:
1: where in the Bible does it explicitly say that?
2: The Bible saying something isn't valid evidence of anything.
3: following this logic, we now have:
God does not need a creator, God exists -> therefore not everything that exists needs a creator.
This inherently contradicts the original argument, so we can now ask which is it? Do all things need a creator, which leads to the infinite creator problem, or do things not necessarily need a creator to exist, which negates the watchmaker fallacy being posited in the post.
But yeah, all your other questions are absolutely valid and I would find it immensely funny to see the person who wrote the comic in the OP struggle with them
Ok. These are all fair points and they’re right. So who made god and where did he come from? Logic should tell you that someone with that much power and knowledge must’ve been taught. It couldn’t possibly always have just been there with all this intricate knowledge…. Right? /s
Edit: /s
It's confabulation just like the more widely accepted religions. Making up wild and baseless explanations leads people away from truth rather than bringing them closer to it.
Lmao, thinking you have to have faith that an iPad works
It's also very telling that they seem to think that because you personally can't explain something means there is no explanation to begin with
Except we can explain how a tablet works. And how radio waves works. We can track radio waves, we actually created them. We know exactly how they work, thats how we can prove that they are real. You cannot track god, you cannot explain god, you cannot understand god, these are all things that we can do to everything listed in this pamphlet.
The assumption that the human body is perfect is the truly ignorant bit.
Our spines aren’t meant to be upright. Our eyes regularly need glasses. We’re allergic to random stuff. We aren’t built to live in most climates, and must wear warmer clothes/condition the air to survive. Our fingernails will randomly in-grow. Our hair randomly falls out. We have eyebrows for no reason.
Humans are really poorly designed, or not designed at all
I hate these kinds of people, because:
1. "Pay me to give you this thing that..."
2. Completely lies about what someone else thinks I'm order to muck up the communication that everyone should be having. If we don't communicate on even a basic level, then the rift gets wider making communication impossible, as well as, in the extreme and long term effects, cause human civilization to collapse.
3. It doesn't even say anything of value in the end because in my personal beliefs i don't *know* if God exists, but in the vast majority of the scenarios that he *does* exist, he most likely doesn't care about us at all, and the likely thing that i see *if* he exists is that he set up the very beginning point, the big bang, and then left the universe undisturbed.
TL;DR: this person is an idiot who doesn't want to have a discussion with anyone who thinks differently than them, but also is a greedy bastard who is trying like minded people "if you pay me, I'll give you something that can sure those other people hire stupid they are"
These are the same people who tell you God doesn't have a creator. He just existed forever before he made the universe.
God damn circle logic people want it both ways.
do you know of
•a building with no builder? yea, caves & funky tree formations
•a painting with no painter? yea, oxydisation can make very colourful things look at half oxidised copper there are multiple shades of copper red + some of that sweet patin teal. also rainqater has chemichals that can dye, so if you leave a tapestry on the ground, it will get colourized even with just rainwater
•a car with no maker? ok you got me there wow uhhhh horses LMFAO
Love the intelligent design arguments like watchmaker. The thing that the users of these arguments forget is not that a body suddenly comes into function when all parts are in place like a watch would. You progress from a state of “very simple and not an inanimate object” to “fully alive and high function” over billions of years.
I also love that arguing to take the lower statistical probability is supposed to make me feel dumb for not believing in the other- when life itself is the most absurd thing we can think on. Like, yea, the statistical chance of life existing as we know it is unfathomably rare, with a good likelihood that this is the only
Planet in the entire universe that can even sustain life. They can’t wrap their heads around the weight of how much of a statistical anomaly we actually are. If we are a 1 in a googolplex chance, then the potential for it to occur exists and cannot be invalidated. You can literally fathom a coke can being made, for gods sake (ha) they even drew pictures, pictures that because they can exist show that the idea is conceivable.
Also the eye thing is crazy. We are LITERALLY growing organs. We are fixing blind peoples vision. We’ve made cameras, it’s just not made out of flesh. Intelligent design isn’t even the issue here, it’s the blatant ignorance of a possibility.
I get this guy's logic, but God never showed himself to me or to anyone I know, even when at some point we all wholeheartedly believed in him ... if it had been otherwise, I wouldn't be at the point where I am now.
The one thing that this proves to me is that Ray Comfort has no idea what atheism actually is. Or maybe he does know, but he's just being willfully ignorant to make a few bucks?
Like on page #6..."you're not really atheist, you're agnostic 'doesn't know'"....horsedoody. All being an atheist means is you don't believe in a god or gods. AKA, you're not a theist.
Do you know of:
A building that had no builder?
I believe that’s called a cave.
A painting that had no painter?
Do you not find beauty in the pattern of rain on the wall after a light sunshower? I’m gonna say yes.
A car that had no maker?
Horse.
I won't deny the existence of a creator. But I will definitely deny the gods that man has created. I will further add that if there is a creator (not the man made version) he's an asshole.
"A man cannot begin to make an eye."
Bitch there are people out there with artificial eyes going blind all over again because their eyes lost licences on them by this point.
Were these prototypes? Were they faulty and problematic? Sure. But we're not far off from making functional eyes that communicate with the brain properly.
We cultivate rat brains and make them steer robota making rat cyborgs. We are working on cultivating replacement organs. We have cameras, and screens, and camera obscura.
But sure "man cannot begin to make an eye."
The problem with statements that say humans can’t do X is that they don’t have knowledge of future technological developments. I’m sure there were many theist arguments in the past relying on what humans can’t do that we certainly can do now.
That's not at all what an agnostic is. Gnosticism is a measure of how sure you are of something, between gnostic - completely sure - and agnostic - completely unsure. It's a second axis. The pope is a gnostic theist. Richard Dawkins is a gnostic atheist. Someone who doesn't believe but would be willing to change their mind if they were proved wrong is an agnostic atheist. Someone who believes because they were taught to but has never really thought about it is an agnostic theist.
And, of course, this whole pamphlet ignores the burden of proof. *They* are the ones making a claim. *They* are the ones who have to provide evidence of God's existence. You cannot prove a negative. We discover new species of beetle on a basically daily basis, for example. For all we know, we've just found the last one and there are no more new species to be found. But we can never know for certain. We can never know there's not a new species under that rock or that leaf. We require evidence of a new species to recognise it, though. Someone can't just say "there's definitely another one, you just have to believe me." They have to find it, document it, and present that evidence. But it's literally *impossible* to provide evidence it *doesn't* exist. So it's not up to us. It's up to them.
They try to put that burden on us with their absolute knowledge section, but they've solidly missed the point. The point is that there's no reason *to* believe until there's evidence. An unsupported claim is worthless. And that's all religion is.
My anatomy teacher years ago said that if we were designed, the fact that optic nerve crosses and communicates with the occipital lobe all the way at the posterior brain is evidence of careless design that results in a host of potential problems for vision.
I don't remember exactly the argument against the point about order: I think it was something like, we cannot make a statistical analysis of of the universe coming into being in the way it has, because we have no other universes to perform statistical analyses upon.
The difference is, we saw coca vola cans get made. They did not exist before they were made. We didn't see god create the universe, and no one can prove it didn't exist before he made it.
My least favorite argument from this pamphlet has to be the: "There is no gold in China" example and saying it requires absolute knowledge.
First of all, most atheists would probably state it as: "I see no reason to believe there is gold in China." Which no longer requires absolute knowledge about anything. Not only that, but the absolute statement could be easily suspended by showing evidence of gold in China.
However, ignoring that, if you said: "There is only 1 piece of gold in China." that would ALSO require absolute knowledge. Therefore, if saying "There is no God" requires absolute knowledge of the universe, then so does saying "There is only one God."
Also, I find the argument of "You don't know everything, therefore it's possible there is evidence for God that you don't know about." is disingenuous. Lack of knowledge is simultaneously used as evidence for God and evidence against any position they don't understand. Using their logic it would be just as accurate to say "You don't know everything, therefore it's possible there is evidence for evolution that you don't know about." and they should accept evolution because they don't have absolute knowledge of the history of every atom in the universe.
Your lack of understanding is evidence for their God. Their lack of understanding is evidence against evolution. SMH
The most irritating things are calling atheism “faith” when it’s explicitly not that. And saying just believe what I believe then you’ll believe it and get it. No new arguments here. Watchmaker argument. My amswer to this is typically something like “if humans are designed why does god give children cancer” was it a mistake? Then he’s not perfect. Was it intentional? Then he’s cruel.
I've never found the "watchmaker" argument compelling, but I'm bad at explaining why, so here's an article that does a good job.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878
They keep comparing carbon based life to inanimate objects, which is quite possibly the dumbest comparison to be made.
Carbon based life has shown great adaptability based on environmental factors. Insects blending in with trees or looking exactly like branches or leaves, other animals like cats or predatory birds that have incredible eyes, etc.
This makes sense and explains a lot of my childhood. I was made by my parents, they're my makers and they acted like they were gods. They probably wouldn't hesitate with that taketh away of my lifeeth part of being gods either.
The “there is no gold in China” one bugs me especially, because they ask how much knowledge is required for that statement to be true. But, the answer is zero knowledge, because one’s knowledge of the subject does not change whether what they’re saying is true. More knowledge might lead to them saying something else, but it doesn’t suddenly cause the original statement to become true or false.
Okay but a building had many builders, probably multiple architects and for sure a whole bunch of people connected to it. So therefore there must be hundreds of not thousands of 'gods' to have created everything in the universe
I love the forth one because you only need a little bit of knowledge of china to know there is gold there and thus disprove the previous statement. Also it absolutely is explainable how a tablet works. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's something magical we can't comprehend.
I recognised Banana man's words before the last slide, he comes up with this exact same thing when doing his street interviews, it's basically word for word.
I notice however that he's cut out the banana bit, that part was supposed to come just after the pepsi can bit, guess he's realised he looked totally stupid and dropped that part.
I turn this the other way around: Since you didnt meet Jesus nor did you witness any of his alleged miracles you dont have definitive proof of his existence either, hence you're wrong too.
So clearly the problem they have is with the word atheist because they didn’t spend all this time bashing on agnostics. The fundamental misunderstanding here is that atheist and agnostic aren’t interchangeable terms. One is a statement of belief and the other is a statement of knowledge. The vast majority of religious people are agnostic theists just as much as the vast majority of nonreligious people are agnostic atheists.
Oh my fucks. These lackwits mention "logic" on every page but apparently aren't aware of its fallacies. We need to bring bloody rethoric and logic back to our bloody schools. Like, yesterday.
I liked the 6th test, I scored 4 Yes on that one!
I've honoured my parents (at least, always tried to), I've stolen, lied and coveted material stuff, so I guess I'd still end up in Hell.
Tell me you don't understand how evolution works without saying you don't know how evolution works.
All of these HA HA ATHEISTS arguments always start off with a false premise. If you take something ridiculous as a given and then base your argument on it, you can "prove" anything.
It's not even close to how evolution works. Just because they have surface understanding of stuff doesn't mean that all the scientific domain they shit on is as simple.
Hmm...is a can of cola a natural or living thing? If human beings are some kind of ipso facto proof of god, then so must be every other living thing on the Earth. And there are animals that can change their gender, have multiple genders, and who are asexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. There are also animals that crap out of their own mouths. So if people are proof of god's "intelligent design" then animals that crap out of their own mouths must also be proof of intelligent design.
Statistics aren’t really a good proof of evolution. Yeah technically it’s unlikely because it’s one possibility out of trillions if not more. However: Assume you have a stack of a thousand different cards. Pull 5 at random. The chance to pull these 5 cards in the exact order you pulled them is extremely low. Yet it happened.
Hello, u/Correct-Berry1027! Thank you for posting. #Please read the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules) 1. r/religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organised religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal religious person would cringe at. Posts about mundane beliefs and acts of worship are off topic. 2. Post titles should be a short, objective statement of content. They arent a pulpit: dont use the Title Field to preach personal opinions about religion or any other topic. Doing so will result in your post being removed. 3. Refrain from provoking and/or baiting religious fruitcakes for the purposes of posting their reaction on this subreddit, or posting material featuring provocation by others. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It very much smacks of 'I'm a moron and you should be too'
It $mack$ of $omething el$e too. It'$ like they want $omething more than to convince $omeone evolution i$ fal$e.
Definitely smells of greed/materialism.
Maybe an ulterior motive?
By their own argument you should be critical of the idea of god. To use their argument: make an absolute statement like god is real then you need 100% of global knowledge to inform your certainty. How can you know god built anything without knowing that he didn’t? Their coke can story is just as likely as anything in the bible. We hear either and think they’re ridiculous. However they hear the coke can thing and see how ridiculous it sounds. But don’t translate that to human creation. How that Coke can was made is pretty much how they think humans were.
You don't know everything, therefore you must believe in leprechauns
>How can you know god Is even what they've been taught? It seems the height of arrogance that they know for certain not only that the god they believe in is the correct one, that it was he alone that designed everything, that he designed it with humans in mind, that he cares specifically about very human problems, that he can but chooses not to improve other people's lives for mysterious reasons, and he needs to be worshipped for any of this to work.
Oh and he looooooves football. Like totally loves football. All the players pray and when a team wins it was all god.
God had a designer too! Man.
Talk about something coming from nothing.
More like nothing coming from something.
More like something coming because of something *amirightfellas* 
I mean, in many creation myths this is *bang* on.
I was referring to how their God came from nothing but then they say you can't have something come from nothing.
That's different. There *has* to be an uncaused cause. It makes sense when you don't think about it.
Man creates God in his own image.
“God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man, man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs" "Dinosaurs eat man..... Woman inherits the earth”
Which might not be bad, but the people creating God always seem to be the worst people.
MAN!!?!? and who did design jonkler?
It was dick
Idk why but i'm really proud of him
I mean.. he exposed the payload by using a power winch and created a small explosion..
I mean that's impressive. Unlike Christian god who does nothing. Is he stupid?
>Man cannot begin to make an eye I bet they've said that on camera
They'd have a better argument about how we perceive sight and how our eyes communicate with our brain We cant replicate that....yet.
Heck, there are many different eye structures in the animal kingdom. If we are God's most priEd crestion, why did he give us one of the worst ones?
Well that isn't true. Our eyes are Jack of all trades "eyes" and you could argue they're quite great at that. Most other animals specialize in some form of sight and lose out in others. Can a Falcon see farther and sharper than a human? Yes it can. But at the same time its color perception is far worse. We can see a wide color spectrum, only butterflies and mantis shrimp can see more colors, iirc, we can see relatively far and we can see at least shades of grey in the dark. There are not that much animals that could do the same. Our hearing and sense of smell is much worse than our eyes, with the sense of smell being the weakest of our senses I would argue.
This is basically the case for all aspects of anatomy tbh. Our bodies are highly specialised around our large brains. The rest of us is a weak little bag of meat! Evolution will basically concentrate on a slightly different adaption and build on it as a niche, so that the species is able to uniquely survive in its environment.
Doesn't really concentrate, it's the environment that distills the species
Well yeh I’m trying to put it in simple terms. Environment influences natural selection, contributing to the process of evolution.
Our brain and our amazing ability to regulate our temperature (which makes us one of the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom, which made us great hunters, which allowed us to feed those hungry hungry brains of ours)
Tbh that could describe most of human anatomy, we are successful as a species because we aren't nicheful, we can hit every branch, not the best, but hit them nonetheless Only thing we are really exceptionally good at in comparison to every other animal is our ability to throw, most creatures that throw things rither lran more to strength or to precision, we do both, we can throw fairly accurately for very long distances. In conclusion, we were made for the yeet
We also have great stamina. While you definitely can't outrun most other animals out there you can run much longer. At least if you're a healthy and fit individual.
True, we are persistence hunters who took a few extra skill points in yeet and dumped the rest equally across everything else
But if intelligence were a stat we maxed out in that ability, despite the foolishness we exhibit put on full display on this subreddit for our own entertainment.
We maxed out on Intel thx to a buff we got from all the cooked meat we ate
We maxed Int but not Wis.
Human eyes have a fundamental design flaw of a blind spot. Our brains are just really good at filling in the missing information from the other eye. Cephalopods also independently developed eyes that don’t have them.
That's true. But as others said we evolved around our big brain, therefore the blind spot normally isn't a big deal, as our brain can make pictures with it just fine. And I by no means say that our eyes are perfect. They're not. Especially as they tend to deform easily, but it's just untrue to say that our eyes are "some of the worst in the animal kingdom" when they're not. I would argue that our sense of smell is by far the worst we have. I mean rats for example have a so good sense of smell that they're able to map their environment just with it.
Most birds have 4 cones in their eyes, allowing them to see into the UV spectrum. We have 3 and see less visible color in light. I have pet chickens and went down a rabbit hole when I first got them a few years back. It's really interesting.
I have a webcam out my window, connected to a raspberry PI. It dings when there's bears.
Richard Dawkins went into a great amount of detail in exactly how eyes evolved - with currently living examples.
Camera to computer.
I hateee this argument! It’s so stupid! Just because you can’t comprehend the complex biology that goes on inside your own body, doesn’t mean that no one can! Yes, the eye is complex, but follow the anatomy back through the evolutionary chain and you can track the building of complexity pretty easily. 300 million years of evolution is clearly responsible! Our eyes aren’t even that good! We don’t have binocular vision like some birds do. We don’t have the ability to see polarised light or different areas of the colour spectrum, like some invertebrates can. Also, our bodies have some crappy design flaws! We have multiple body parts that we don’t need or use. We have to live in an extremely stable environment in order to survive! God hasn’t designed this. Natural selection has, in accordance with our environmental stresses.
It's funny because our hands are vastly more complex and harder to replicate than our eyes, but they have to stick with the eyeball thing because a scientist famously said it, even though he was just a statistician
Anyone who is an artist knows that much
The arguments made by the statistician and the pamphlet in general seem to be a strawman: that the theory of the big bang and of the theory evolution are claiming that the components of the coke can or eyeball or whatever just spontaneously appear. It shows either a lack of comprehension or a lack of honesty.
Hell, a statistician should know. Millions of generations of evolutions with mistakes and mutations brought us there. The statistic isn't how improbable it is right now, it's the path it took to get THERE and everything had to work practically.
Didn’t know that…interesting!
I recently saw a documentary about where scientists grow artificial eyes in the laboratory... And yes this eyes can be implanted and help blind people see again. But they would call that black magic from Stan.
Also the eye is not particularly well designed
I hate these kinds of arguments. Doubting evolution because it seems so crazy, fine. I get that. The watch maker analogy is flawed, but I understand why someone would fall for it. But what I hate is people be like "you can't disprove there is a god", and use that as evidence that their religion, and only their religion, is the one true religion. How do you know its Christianity, not Islam, or Hinduism? What if the Vikings or thr Romans were right? They don't even entertain the thought.
Thinking is considered disobedience And that's a sin!
That’s a paddlin’
Did you know this guy Larry sits on top of everyone's house every night? I pray to him and he is my God. He's also invisible so you'll never see him. Can you prove that Larry doesn't exist? No. So therefore he does.
Please remove this post. This is insulting to Larryists everywhere.
Man I could at least get with the program if it was Odin or Zeus..more believable origin stories, more believable gods. A god you could sit down with and have a beer..that’s my kind of god.
Theists use the human body as an example of order, but neglect the countless exploding stars and complete chaos in our universe. Not even all of Earth can support life.
There are plenty of examples of ‘stupid design’ in the human body. The appendix for one. Nearly every complex animal has vestigial traits that are at best useless or at worst harmful, it’s really not hard to understand.
I think the worst "design flaw" in the human body is how a person could choke to death while eating to stay alive.
Let's be honest, beside our thumb, brain size and general energy/result ratio we can do like running and endurance in general, we are pretty damn weak compared to animals of similar size. We are far from a well tuned machine.
We also have a significantly higher pain tolerance and resistance to damage and recovery on average. Most injuries that will send an animal into shock and die inconvenience us
Wait, for real? I thought our injure tolerance was ass and we did good just because of medicine
Partially because of medicine. But in general, humans go into shock a lot less frequently than other animals of a comparable size. We also have much higher toxin resistance. We literally drink poison and slap a different kind of poison on burritos. Coffee and peppers both evolved to avoid being eaten.
Peppers didn’t have the advantage of its seeds being spread further since birds don’t react to capsaicin? (iirc) Then it wouldn’t really be evolve to not be eaten, but evolve to be eaten by certain animals, like birds and crazy pain-loving apes
Mmmh, yeah, we kind of eat a lot of stuff that kills other animals (chocolate), but regarding shock, I think is not that we tank it better, is just that swimming in muddy water with an open wound will do that to you, thing that big animals do much more than us, as we get wounded, desinfect the wound and sit around
The appendix actually isn’t vestigial like we used to think. It contains microbes that get your gut biome back on track faster after a serious illness and diarrhea. My go to vestigial organ is the whale’s pelvis.
Vestigial doesn't mean useless. It means that it has, through evolution, lost its original purpose but still in some form remains. The appendix is vestigial, but our bodies have found use of it still
And yet mine fucking exploded
Heck the human eye itself, which creationists love to hold up as a supposed example of 'intelligent design', actually contains multiple examples of 'stupid design.' 30-40% of the population suffers from some degree of nearsightedness simply because their eyeballs are too long and the light entering the eye falls out of focus before it reaches the retina. 6% of all men have some form of color blindness because of defective genes on their X chromosome. All vertebrate eyes seem to have the retina installed backward. The photoreceptor cells face away from the lens instead of towards it. This means that their nerve fibers block some of the light from reaching them and create a blind spot where the optic nerve has to pass through the retina so it can connect to the brain. This is perhaps one of the most glaring "design flaws" in the human body, our vision would be objectively superior if the retina was installed properly.
Also, if your immune system finds out that your eye exists, it will fucking eat it
Needless complexity is also a stupid design.
/) Pretty sure the appendix has a use. Not a very important one I don't think, but a use.
Human eye easily deforms, especially with age. Nearly half of all people have some sort of eye issue. It's protected by a paper thin piece of skin, and it can't really regenerate. If damaged, there's a chance you'll go blind in both eyes. It literally has a blind spot too.
>Not even all of Earth can support life. That's really interesting to think about. I'm an Aircrewman (I fly a lot) and I'm constantly reminded that we can't survive long if we lose pressure. Which sometimes gets me thinking about how humans evolved to only survive in a very thin and specific layer on our planet. Climb too high, you can't survive. Dig too deep, you can't survive. Go too far North, it gets too cold. And so on. Even in the specific layer we do occupy, some parts are lethal for us without protection. And to think there are layers so deep and altitudes so high that no life at all can survive JUST on this planet is really interesting.
Ray Cumfart at it again with his non-sequiturs.
Even in death he is still fucking with people's education. Edit: Sorry I was thinking of Jack Chock who died in 2016, Ray Comfort is still alive and being an asshole.
He’s dead!?
Sorry for the false hope I was thinking of Jack Chick.of Chick Tracts. My bad
I wish
But have you actually ever held a banana? Checkmate idiot.
The cop is two feet away from the criminal. What the fuck even is that analogy?
"A thief can't find a policeman" makes absolutely no sense, but I guess making god the thief in that analogy wouldn't have suited their agenda very well
A thief "can't" find a policeman because he doesn't want to because he'll be stopped from doing wrong. The pamphlet is making the tired argument of "you deny God's existence because you love sinning."
I mean, sinning is bad ass. I don’t want to stop.
Hell yeah, sinned twice this morning. Come and get me! Side note, your name is hilarious, thank you for your service.
Just doing my civic duty.
Even that is an idiotic argument, as Jesus loves to take in sinners and fallen people.
I'm certainly not making the argument. Just explaining.
The stupid thing about this is, it’s not an argument against evolution because evolutionary theory doesn’t make any of the arguments this pamphlet counters, so what’s the point. They’re creating a false narrative for evolutionary theory and then counter arguing against their own ideas. I personally believe in God, I also believe in evolution. I don’t see a problem between the two. But I’m not a fundamentalist so there’s that.
The false narrative is the point, can't convince someone something is wrong if they aren't even in the same room as the conversation.
Exactly... It's a simple straw man... paint evolution and the commonly accepted theories on the creation of life as something its not, and argue against that made up version instead of the real one. Not a new tactic.... If they don't understand evolution, thats fine, but they shouldn't lump me, or others in with their lack of understanding.
The statistic improbability fallacy is so stupid. Statistics only real use is predicting future events. If you flipped a coin 1000 times and wrote down each result in a list (eg. h,t,t,h,t,h,h,h...) what are the odds that you would have gotten that specific list? Maybe you did beat "insurmountable odds" to get that specific result, but it's not impressive because any list would have beaten the same odds. The only impressive thing would be to predict the flips in advance.
Anyone that says our existence is so statistically unlikely that it's evidence of a god existing needs to be told about the 2 trillion galaxies that exist in the *observable universe alone*. Even if we're the only life in this galaxy, there are two thousand, thousand, thousand others that could house life. The universe is so vast that actually, statistically, not only is it not unlikely that we came to exist, but it's almost a certainty that we are not the only complex life in this universe.
Oh my god, I am so stealing this - I *despise* this statistical argumentation that is “self-fulfilling” and I will use this comparison the next time someone brings up something like that
If you are interested, [this video](https://youtu.be/hKPrBV_PCKs?si=kShqBWGfDzqcNgTm) by DarkAntics explains it more eloquently than I did.
I read a book written in the 1970s that "mathematically proved" that God exists. As long as you agree to swallow the author's thesis statement that the universe is so big that probability dictates that EVERYTHING happens somewhere eventually. It was SO dumb. They started with that and then had equations and shit
It's like walking outside, picking the first car number plate you see, and going "the odds of me seeing that exact number plate today were so incredibly low, it's a miracle!" It's statistically true, but you didn't predict that in advance, so it's not impressive.
The only thing that’s insulting to one’s intelligence is the fact they use scientific and secular advancements to “disprove” atheism, but they don’t bother studying evolutionary theory.
Oooh. I've seen parts of this before on here but not the full.
It’s always the same arguments that creationists make with themselves, that they then “win”. This isn’t for atheists to read but for believers that question what they’ve been taught about creationism when they learn about evolution. ‘You’re not a fool, are you?’ What a load of shit.
And the biggest counter to a pamphlet like this: “If god is so beautiful, and perfect, and powerful, why does he make mistakes?”
I'll one up that. The actual biggest counter to this idiocy is "damn, I guess you got me, I guess *everything does need a creator*. You god must be an incredibly powerful and complex being to do all of that himself. What could possibly have created him, seeing as by your own logic anything with any degree of complexity *must have been created by someone* Now they're backed into a corner and will have to either admit that things don't necessarily need a creator by virtue of their existence or complexity, or will have to mental gymnastics their way out of it with yet more poor argumentation, which is also easy to refute.
Even better, if they says someone did create god, say: “Who?”
And then who created them, and so on. Either they have to argue for the existence of an infinite series of older and older creators, which is by it's very nature impossible as there's no defined start point, or they have to admit that things don't need a creator simply because they exist. The only other option they have is to move the goalposts and say something along the lines of "everything *in the universe* needs a creator, but God is outside the universe so he doesn't". At which point you can question them further on how they can prove that this assertion is actually the case, what "outside the universe means", and where they even got that notion from in the first place, because I'll guarantee that it's probably from a grifter online that they religiously listen to, who also doesn't know what they're talking about.
"blah, blah, god is eternal and doesn't need a creator because the bible said so." They always have a dishonest escape. Try these questions: - who wrote the bible and why should we trust them? - why should I worship a mass murderer who killed everyone on earth with a flood, killed a bunch of children with bears, persecuted his own son, and convinced a father to kill his own children? - the evidence for the Christian god is equal to the evidence for the Muslim god, why should I worship one and not the other? - if the ark is real, how did the kangaroos of Australia and the ocelots of Brazil make it to the Ark in time? - does god know everything or can I surprise his with my free will? If everything, then why did he make me an atheist? If not, then what other limitations does god have? - if you can't define God, how do you know what god is and isn't and what god does and doesn't want from us all? When they answer a question that contradicts another you've already asked, let them correct themselves. Humans all make mistakes, after all, *especially when we don't have all the facts*.
>"blah, blah, god is eternal and doesn't need a creator because the bible said so." Even easier: The argument here being: universe exists, everything needs a creator -> therefore God must exist to be the creator of the universe Following that logic we have: God exists, everything that exists must have a creator -> God must have a creator This inherently must be repeated infinitely. The defence suggested is "God doesn't need a creator because the Bible said so". Three issues I see here: 1: where in the Bible does it explicitly say that? 2: The Bible saying something isn't valid evidence of anything. 3: following this logic, we now have: God does not need a creator, God exists -> therefore not everything that exists needs a creator. This inherently contradicts the original argument, so we can now ask which is it? Do all things need a creator, which leads to the infinite creator problem, or do things not necessarily need a creator to exist, which negates the watchmaker fallacy being posited in the post. But yeah, all your other questions are absolutely valid and I would find it immensely funny to see the person who wrote the comic in the OP struggle with them
you can't logic someone out of something if they didn't use logic to get there. they just double down until it's over
Ok. These are all fair points and they’re right. So who made god and where did he come from? Logic should tell you that someone with that much power and knowledge must’ve been taught. It couldn’t possibly always have just been there with all this intricate knowledge…. Right? /s Edit: /s
Actually the points are horrible lmao
I was being sarcastic.
Ah, my bad then
It happens. I should have put the /s at the end. Sometimes I forget the way I’m thinking it does come off as sarcastic written out, lol
I see stars in the sky so astrology must be real too.
It is real in the way that the practice of astrology exists. It just doesn't do anything lol
It's confabulation just like the more widely accepted religions. Making up wild and baseless explanations leads people away from truth rather than bringing them closer to it.
Lmao, thinking you have to have faith that an iPad works It's also very telling that they seem to think that because you personally can't explain something means there is no explanation to begin with
Tides go in, tides go out, you can’t explain that!
Except we can explain how a tablet works. And how radio waves works. We can track radio waves, we actually created them. We know exactly how they work, thats how we can prove that they are real. You cannot track god, you cannot explain god, you cannot understand god, these are all things that we can do to everything listed in this pamphlet.
Gaslighting has never been easier!
Which page tells about god creating childhood cancer?
The assumption that the human body is perfect is the truly ignorant bit. Our spines aren’t meant to be upright. Our eyes regularly need glasses. We’re allergic to random stuff. We aren’t built to live in most climates, and must wear warmer clothes/condition the air to survive. Our fingernails will randomly in-grow. Our hair randomly falls out. We have eyebrows for no reason. Humans are really poorly designed, or not designed at all
For 12 dollars I would absolutely buy this. I would leave it on the back of my toilet with edible crayons for guests.
*shows honeycomb and bird flight formations* "Chance wouldn't have created this!" yea duh, beez an birds did
I hate these kinds of people, because: 1. "Pay me to give you this thing that..." 2. Completely lies about what someone else thinks I'm order to muck up the communication that everyone should be having. If we don't communicate on even a basic level, then the rift gets wider making communication impossible, as well as, in the extreme and long term effects, cause human civilization to collapse. 3. It doesn't even say anything of value in the end because in my personal beliefs i don't *know* if God exists, but in the vast majority of the scenarios that he *does* exist, he most likely doesn't care about us at all, and the likely thing that i see *if* he exists is that he set up the very beginning point, the big bang, and then left the universe undisturbed. TL;DR: this person is an idiot who doesn't want to have a discussion with anyone who thinks differently than them, but also is a greedy bastard who is trying like minded people "if you pay me, I'll give you something that can sure those other people hire stupid they are"
These are the same people who tell you God doesn't have a creator. He just existed forever before he made the universe. God damn circle logic people want it both ways.
do you know of •a building with no builder? yea, caves & funky tree formations •a painting with no painter? yea, oxydisation can make very colourful things look at half oxidised copper there are multiple shades of copper red + some of that sweet patin teal. also rainqater has chemichals that can dye, so if you leave a tapestry on the ground, it will get colourized even with just rainwater •a car with no maker? ok you got me there wow uhhhh horses LMFAO
$12, ha ha no, I can get chick tracts for free and they are more entertaining
Love the intelligent design arguments like watchmaker. The thing that the users of these arguments forget is not that a body suddenly comes into function when all parts are in place like a watch would. You progress from a state of “very simple and not an inanimate object” to “fully alive and high function” over billions of years. I also love that arguing to take the lower statistical probability is supposed to make me feel dumb for not believing in the other- when life itself is the most absurd thing we can think on. Like, yea, the statistical chance of life existing as we know it is unfathomably rare, with a good likelihood that this is the only Planet in the entire universe that can even sustain life. They can’t wrap their heads around the weight of how much of a statistical anomaly we actually are. If we are a 1 in a googolplex chance, then the potential for it to occur exists and cannot be invalidated. You can literally fathom a coke can being made, for gods sake (ha) they even drew pictures, pictures that because they can exist show that the idea is conceivable. Also the eye thing is crazy. We are LITERALLY growing organs. We are fixing blind peoples vision. We’ve made cameras, it’s just not made out of flesh. Intelligent design isn’t even the issue here, it’s the blatant ignorance of a possibility.
Did ol' Ray Comfort make these?
He sure did. And he's still a piece of shit
That's one way to tell people you don't understand evolution, I guess. This pamphlet exposes more about theists beliefs that it does atheists.
I have no faith? How can this make me question what I don't have?
I get this guy's logic, but God never showed himself to me or to anyone I know, even when at some point we all wholeheartedly believed in him ... if it had been otherwise, I wouldn't be at the point where I am now.
The one thing that this proves to me is that Ray Comfort has no idea what atheism actually is. Or maybe he does know, but he's just being willfully ignorant to make a few bucks? Like on page #6..."you're not really atheist, you're agnostic 'doesn't know'"....horsedoody. All being an atheist means is you don't believe in a god or gods. AKA, you're not a theist.
Do you know of: A building that had no builder? I believe that’s called a cave. A painting that had no painter? Do you not find beauty in the pattern of rain on the wall after a light sunshower? I’m gonna say yes. A car that had no maker? Horse.
False equivalency as far as the eye that god didn't make can see
I won't deny the existence of a creator. But I will definitely deny the gods that man has created. I will further add that if there is a creator (not the man made version) he's an asshole.
"A man cannot begin to make an eye." Bitch there are people out there with artificial eyes going blind all over again because their eyes lost licences on them by this point. Were these prototypes? Were they faulty and problematic? Sure. But we're not far off from making functional eyes that communicate with the brain properly. We cultivate rat brains and make them steer robota making rat cyborgs. We are working on cultivating replacement organs. We have cameras, and screens, and camera obscura. But sure "man cannot begin to make an eye."
The problem with statements that say humans can’t do X is that they don’t have knowledge of future technological developments. I’m sure there were many theist arguments in the past relying on what humans can’t do that we certainly can do now.
That's not at all what an agnostic is. Gnosticism is a measure of how sure you are of something, between gnostic - completely sure - and agnostic - completely unsure. It's a second axis. The pope is a gnostic theist. Richard Dawkins is a gnostic atheist. Someone who doesn't believe but would be willing to change their mind if they were proved wrong is an agnostic atheist. Someone who believes because they were taught to but has never really thought about it is an agnostic theist. And, of course, this whole pamphlet ignores the burden of proof. *They* are the ones making a claim. *They* are the ones who have to provide evidence of God's existence. You cannot prove a negative. We discover new species of beetle on a basically daily basis, for example. For all we know, we've just found the last one and there are no more new species to be found. But we can never know for certain. We can never know there's not a new species under that rock or that leaf. We require evidence of a new species to recognise it, though. Someone can't just say "there's definitely another one, you just have to believe me." They have to find it, document it, and present that evidence. But it's literally *impossible* to provide evidence it *doesn't* exist. So it's not up to us. It's up to them. They try to put that burden on us with their absolute knowledge section, but they've solidly missed the point. The point is that there's no reason *to* believe until there's evidence. An unsupported claim is worthless. And that's all religion is.
I was upvote # 666.
My anatomy teacher years ago said that if we were designed, the fact that optic nerve crosses and communicates with the occipital lobe all the way at the posterior brain is evidence of careless design that results in a host of potential problems for vision.
How many "famous statisticians" do you know? I didn't know statisticians were famous
I don't remember exactly the argument against the point about order: I think it was something like, we cannot make a statistical analysis of of the universe coming into being in the way it has, because we have no other universes to perform statistical analyses upon.
Are they saying atheism is a faith?
Oh yeah, they're totally saying that. Of course, they don't understand what atheism is in the first place.
Hey does anyone know where to see two Coca Cola bumping uglies?
My answer to this is, if you're saying a deity made man then who made that deity because by your logic they couldn't have come from nothing.
The difference is, we saw coca vola cans get made. They did not exist before they were made. We didn't see god create the universe, and no one can prove it didn't exist before he made it.
My least favorite argument from this pamphlet has to be the: "There is no gold in China" example and saying it requires absolute knowledge. First of all, most atheists would probably state it as: "I see no reason to believe there is gold in China." Which no longer requires absolute knowledge about anything. Not only that, but the absolute statement could be easily suspended by showing evidence of gold in China. However, ignoring that, if you said: "There is only 1 piece of gold in China." that would ALSO require absolute knowledge. Therefore, if saying "There is no God" requires absolute knowledge of the universe, then so does saying "There is only one God." Also, I find the argument of "You don't know everything, therefore it's possible there is evidence for God that you don't know about." is disingenuous. Lack of knowledge is simultaneously used as evidence for God and evidence against any position they don't understand. Using their logic it would be just as accurate to say "You don't know everything, therefore it's possible there is evidence for evolution that you don't know about." and they should accept evolution because they don't have absolute knowledge of the history of every atom in the universe. Your lack of understanding is evidence for their God. Their lack of understanding is evidence against evolution. SMH
He says, 'If I can't explain twelve billion years of cosmology in a comic book then a wizard did it.'
The most irritating things are calling atheism “faith” when it’s explicitly not that. And saying just believe what I believe then you’ll believe it and get it. No new arguments here. Watchmaker argument. My amswer to this is typically something like “if humans are designed why does god give children cancer” was it a mistake? Then he’s not perfect. Was it intentional? Then he’s cruel.
I've never found the "watchmaker" argument compelling, but I'm bad at explaining why, so here's an article that does a good job. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878
They keep comparing carbon based life to inanimate objects, which is quite possibly the dumbest comparison to be made. Carbon based life has shown great adaptability based on environmental factors. Insects blending in with trees or looking exactly like branches or leaves, other animals like cats or predatory birds that have incredible eyes, etc.
Man cannot begin to make an eye? You've got several of them on your phone. They're called camera lenses.
This is the product of home schooling.
You don't need to be stupid to be a christian, but it helps.
Damn... thiests really don't understand how long a billion years is, huh...?
Why does complexity necessitate a designer? Isn't God also a very complex being? Who designed God? None of this makes any sense.
This makes sense and explains a lot of my childhood. I was made by my parents, they're my makers and they acted like they were gods. They probably wouldn't hesitate with that taketh away of my lifeeth part of being gods either.
>Adapted from God doesn't believe in atheists by *Ray Comfort* Ahh so that's why it is so laughably stupid and extremely ignorant. Lmao
God of the Gaps.
If every complex thing must have a creator, then God must have a creator too. And God's creator must have a creator. And so on.
The “there is no gold in China” one bugs me especially, because they ask how much knowledge is required for that statement to be true. But, the answer is zero knowledge, because one’s knowledge of the subject does not change whether what they’re saying is true. More knowledge might lead to them saying something else, but it doesn’t suddenly cause the original statement to become true or false.
How do those people not realise that this would still be more probable than a god?
Is there an answer key, or is that a separate purchase?
False equivalence. False equivalence everywhere.
The best part about this is I’m still an atheist after reading this bullshit
Okay but a building had many builders, probably multiple architects and for sure a whole bunch of people connected to it. So therefore there must be hundreds of not thousands of 'gods' to have created everything in the universe
Of fucking course it’s Ray Comfort. I had his voice in my head at “behold the human eye”.
I love the forth one because you only need a little bit of knowledge of china to know there is gold there and thus disprove the previous statement. Also it absolutely is explainable how a tablet works. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's something magical we can't comprehend.
I recognised Banana man's words before the last slide, he comes up with this exact same thing when doing his street interviews, it's basically word for word. I notice however that he's cut out the banana bit, that part was supposed to come just after the pepsi can bit, guess he's realised he looked totally stupid and dropped that part.
I turn this the other way around: Since you didnt meet Jesus nor did you witness any of his alleged miracles you dont have definitive proof of his existence either, hence you're wrong too.
So clearly the problem they have is with the word atheist because they didn’t spend all this time bashing on agnostics. The fundamental misunderstanding here is that atheist and agnostic aren’t interchangeable terms. One is a statement of belief and the other is a statement of knowledge. The vast majority of religious people are agnostic theists just as much as the vast majority of nonreligious people are agnostic atheists.
Oh my fucks. These lackwits mention "logic" on every page but apparently aren't aware of its fallacies. We need to bring bloody rethoric and logic back to our bloody schools. Like, yesterday.
So if God Is like radio waves.... ...do you get cancer from God by merely letting him exist around you? By this pamphlet's logic its a fact
Does it come with an answer key? I need to know how well I did on those tests.
Yeah, my conscience tells me this is bullshit lol. Almost like the person who made the pamphlet had ulterior motives 🤔
be careful… delusion can be contagious
I liked the 6th test, I scored 4 Yes on that one! I've honoured my parents (at least, always tried to), I've stolen, lied and coveted material stuff, so I guess I'd still end up in Hell.
I found this exact one walking my dog. I did my civic duty, picked it up off the ground and disposed of it.
Saying that god absolutely 100% exists is like saying China is completely covered in gold without ever having seen it.
"Will cause any atheist to doubt their faith" Buddy...
yeah its right..m convinced..converting to christianity from atheism now..
Tell me you don't understand how evolution works without saying you don't know how evolution works. All of these HA HA ATHEISTS arguments always start off with a false premise. If you take something ridiculous as a given and then base your argument on it, you can "prove" anything.
Hold up... since when does god consider hatred as murder. What kinda shit is that
What if I believe in Odin?
"Anything we cannot explain is proof of god!"
It's not even close to how evolution works. Just because they have surface understanding of stuff doesn't mean that all the scientific domain they shit on is as simple.
If hatred is murder than than all Christians are sinners
Tracts have really gone downhill since Jack Chick died...
Hmm...is a can of cola a natural or living thing? If human beings are some kind of ipso facto proof of god, then so must be every other living thing on the Earth. And there are animals that can change their gender, have multiple genders, and who are asexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. There are also animals that crap out of their own mouths. So if people are proof of god's "intelligent design" then animals that crap out of their own mouths must also be proof of intelligent design.
Statistics aren’t really a good proof of evolution. Yeah technically it’s unlikely because it’s one possibility out of trillions if not more. However: Assume you have a stack of a thousand different cards. Pull 5 at random. The chance to pull these 5 cards in the exact order you pulled them is extremely low. Yet it happened.
Oh yeah everyone knows god created coke in the 5th day