Ex-Mormon Atheist "reasoning"

[_daheshism]

If Mormonism cannot be true...it follows that...there cannot be any God.

If evolution is true...it follows that...there cannot be any God.

If we can't "see" God or gods...it follows that...there cannot be any God or gods.

"Eyes" are not designed to see, but are random mutations.

"Ears' are not designed to hear, but are random mutations.

"Legs" are not designed to walk, but are random mutations.

"Hands" are not designed to grasp, but are random mutations.

"Breasts" are not designed to feed young, but are random mutations.

"Sperm" was not designed to impregnate females, but are random mutations.

"Teeth" was not designed to help to break down and digest food, but are random mutations.

"Noses" were never designed to smell, but are random mutations.

"Hearts" were not designed to pump blood, but are random mutation.

"Lungs" were not designed to supply oxigen to the blood, but are random mutations.

"Bones" were not designed as a frame for the organs, but are random mutations.

"Brains" were not designed to think, but is a random mutation.

"Intestines" were not designed to take take minerals from food to nurish the body and discharge waste from the body, but is a random mutation.

"Mustles" were not designed to make us mobile, but are random mutations.

"The Rhino's Horn" was not designed to stike its foes, but is a random mutation.

"Tusks" of an elephant were not designed to fight off lions, but this is a random mutation.

"Wings" of birds were not designed to fly, but these were just random mutations.

"Bulls" were not designed to protect cows, but this is a random mutation.

"Octopii" were never designed to change their skin as camophlage, but this is merely a random mutation."

"Salamanders" were not designed to change their skin color to match their surroundings, this is merely a random mutation."

"Female bodies" were not designed to be sexually appealing to males, but this is just a result of random mutations.

"Deep Sea Creatures" were never designed to glow in the dark, these are just random mutations.

"Spiders" were never designed to make webs, this is just a random mutation.

"The Orchid" when it is ready to germanate, appears looking like a honey-bee, and thus attracts honey-bees to it to have sex with it, and the "germs" of the orchid gets on the legs of the honey-bees, and the honey-bees fly off to have sex with other orchids, thus impregnating those other orchids with the "germs" of the first orchids....no intelligent design is behind the Orchid appearing as a honey-bee in order to attract honey-bees to it so it can "use" the honey-bees to propagate it's species, but this is simply completely random mutation.

Whomever does not "think" this way, is deluded and ignorant!

[_Tarski]

How tedious!
I am surely wasting my time with you Darraick but I will nevertheless point out that ex-Mormon atheists do not reason the way you have imagined:

If Mormonism cannot be true...it follows that...there cannot be any God.

No that does not follow and I know of no one here that asserts that it does logically follow.

If evolution is true...it follows that...there cannot be any God.

Evolution is true. Natural selection is the proposed mechanism driving the process. It happens to not require a God.

If we can't "see" God or gods...it follows that...there cannot be any God or gods.

WTF? No one I know would have such a thought. We can not "see" protons either but what atheist thinks they don't exists? The real issue is with the evidence and the presence or absense of a detailed, plausible and consistent theoretical framework.
Do you also mock people who don't believe in Leprechaun's?

"Eyes" are not designed to see, but are random mutations.

Eyes are for seeing. They came about by the nonrandom process of natural selection. Random mutations are nonrandomly selected for. Randomness is only the input to the process.
It is a naturally occuring algorithm that "sifts" for beneficial mutations.


The philosophical issues surrounding the seemingly paradoxical notion of "design" by natural selection is treated at length in Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

"Ears' are not designed to hear, but are random mutations.

see above

"Hands" are not designed to grasp, but are random mutations.

"Breasts" are not designed to feed young, but are random mutations.

"Sperm" was not designed to impregnate females, but are random mutations.

"Teeth" was not designed to help to break down and digest food, but are random mutations.

"Noses" were never designed to smell, but are random mutations.

"Hearts" were not designed to pump blood, but are random mutation.

"Lungs" were not designed to supply oxigen to the blood, but are random mutations.

"Bones" were not designed as a frame for the organs, but are random mutations.

"Brains" were not designed to think, but is a random mutation.

"Intestines" were not designed to take take minerals from food to nurish the body and discharge waste from the body, but is a random mutation.

see above--you have no point here.

"Mustles" were not designed to make us mobile, but are random mutations.

Mustles??

Whomever does not "think" this way, is deluded and ignorant!

Whoever believes that atheists generally think in the way you have imagined is deluded and ignorant.

The philosophical issues surrounding the seemingly paradoxical notion of "design" by natural selection is treated at length in Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

Read a freaking science book!!

[_Milesius]

If we can't "see" God or gods...it follows that...there cannot be any God or gods.

WTF? No one I know would have such a thought. We can not "see" protons either but what atheist thinks they don't exists?

I've seen atheists highlight God's invisibility in mocking theism.

Does you also mock people who don't believe in Leprechaun's?

In my case, no (despite being Irish), but the two are not equivalent in any event.

[_Tarski]

In my case, no (despite being Irish), but the two are not equivalent in any event.

lol

Well, whenever you say two things are equivalent or not equivalent, it is always relative to the logical context.
(Perhaps two things are equivalent for all purposes unless they are in fact identical.)

Anyway, I suppose you mean that belief in Leprechauns is widely accepted to be silly whereas belief in God is taken more seriously by almost everyone. This much is true. But if he is going to make it all turn on some vague notion of "invisibility" then....

[_daheshism]

Tarski,

1) Eyes were never designed to see, but were a random mutation that was kept because of natural selection. The same is true for all body organs and parts. Teeth were never designed to chew, but were a random mutation that was kept because female "things" thought the males with "teeth" looked sexier. This is Darwinism.

2) I have spoken with or heard of the stories of many Atheist Ex-Mormons. One of the founders of the Ex-Mormon Foundation said that he ran across anti-Mormon stuff, his bishop said "Don't worry about it" but he did, brought him great mental agony, which was negatively effecting his education, so he said, "Hey, is there IS NO GOD, then all this stuff is irrelevant anyway! Hey, there is no God. I feel much better!"

Thomas Ferguson, founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, came to the conclusion Joseph Smith was a fraud after the Book of Abraham was rediscovered in 1967 and found to be a pagan document with no mention of Abraham. He concluded, "Well, there is no pipeline to Deity, because God or gods don't exist."

Many people in the World Wide Church of God, when they discovered Hebert W. Armstrong was a fraud, became "Atheists". Their reasoning: "Since HWA was a fraud, it follows that God fooled us, and since God would never do that, it follows that there can be no God." The same is true for many people who were Branch Davidians. Since God did not save their Messiah from the fire, it proves there is NO GOD!

This "reasoning" is NOT based upon any "reason" but "emotion".

Since I can't see God, god does not exist.

Their reasoning: Since we no there are no leprecauns and no winged fairies, and no Santa Claus and no tooth fairy, it follows that there can be no God or gods.

My reasoning: Since the one-celled creature shows intelligent design, and in fact all organs and parts of all animals show intelligent design, IF FOLLOWS THAT there is a Designer or designers.

Your reasoning: "It all came from Natural Selection not God."

For THAT to be true....

*Lungs were never designed to breath
*Eyes were never designed to see
*Legs were never designed to walk or crawl
*Teeth were never designed to eat (one animal thought the mutant with teeth was sexier than the noral animals with no teeth)


In other words, for Natural Selection to be true, eyeless female animals would have to prefer mating with a mutant with eyes because they thought the mutant was sexier than the others, or two mutants with eyes must have "found" each other and preferred each other to the others with no eyes.

Natural Selection is NOT "logical". Animals reject mutants, and do not "prefer" them for sexual partners.

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

1) Eyes were never designed to see, but were a random mutation that was kept because of natural selection. The same is true for all body organs and parts. Teeth were never designed to chew, but were a random mutation that was kept because female "things" thought the males with "teeth" looked sexier. This is Darwinism.

2) I have spoken with or heard of the stories of many Atheist Ex-Mormons. One of the founders of the Ex-Mormon Foundation said that he ran across anti-Mormon stuff, his bishop said "Don't worry about it" but he did, brought him great mental agony, which was negatively effecting his education, so he said, "Hey, is there IS NO GOD, then all this stuff is irrelevant anyway! Hey, there is no God. I feel much better!"

Thomas Ferguson, founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, came to the conclusion Joseph Smith was a fraud after the Book of Abraham was rediscovered in 1967 and found to be a pagan document with no mention of Abraham. He concluded, "Well, there is no pipeline to Deity, because God or gods don't exist."

Many people in the World Wide Church of God, when they discovered Hebert W. Armstrong was a fraud, became "Atheists". Their reasoning: "Since HWA was a fraud, it follows that God fooled us, and since God would never do that, it follows that there can be no God." The same is true for many people who were Branch Davidians. Since God did not save their Messiah from the fire, it proves there is NO GOD!

This "reasoning" is NOT based upon any "reason" but "emotion".

Since I can't see God, god does not exist.

Their reasoning: Since we no there are no leprecauns and no winged fairies, and no Santa Claus and no tooth fairy, it follows that there can be no God or gods.

My reasoning: Since the one-celled creature shows intelligent design, and in fact all organs and parts of all animals show intelligent design, IF FOLLOWS THAT there is a Designer or designers.

Your reasoning: "It all came from Natural Selection not God."

For THAT to be true....

*Lungs were never designed to breath
*Eyes were never designed to see
*Legs were never designed to walk or crawl
*Teeth were never designed to eat (one animal thought the mutant with teeth was sexier than the noral animals with no teeth)


In other words, for Natural Selection to be true, eyeless female animals would have to prefer mating with a mutant with eyes because they thought the mutant was sexier than the others, or two mutants with eyes must have "found" each other and preferred each other to the others with no eyes.

Natural Selection is NOT "logical". Animals reject mutants, and do not "prefer" them for sexual partners.

OMG
You are conceptually confused in a childlike way and uninformed. Like I said, read a book.

[_Mad Viking]

Since when is atheism necessarily coincident with acceptance of evolutionary facts?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

http://images.sneakhype.com/wp-content/ ... 7/5843.png

[_Buffalo]

Any way you could stop flooding the forum with your paranoid rants?