HOME | DD
pitnerd — God's Not Dead...
[NSFW]
Published: 2014-05-12 18:39:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 4067; Favourites: 164; Downloads: 27
Redirect to original
Description
He just never existed. Ever./Pixelegion | /Pixelegion
Related content
Comments: 340
It's god of the gaps applied to your own beliefs by your scientists, GET IT?! "This is your system not mine, your system that insists knowledge can just come from nothing, I'm not talking about my god here, I'm talking about yours, the nameless god of evolution you all refuse to give credit to yet it has supplied mindless creatures with high order knowledge.
Every person of whom is not an evolutionist that I've ever met, agrees with this (there is one in the very thread, not a Christian but agrees.) anyone from any religion agrees, yet they study the same biology as you. It's not like that sort of science is yours alone to understand. We all understand it. Yet only evolutionists deny this logic. And pretend it doesn't make sense. And you're doing that right now. Pretending you have an answer left unspoken. Which is exactly why you refuse to defend your position, because the peg fits the hole, you cannot debunk it.
And your reply came exactly as I predicted in my last comment. You've come in here, hat in hand, and expect me to accept it in good faith that you can debunk this. Yet here I stand, unconvinced, and waiting...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except you're confusing your own concept of nothing with the scientific literature, until you can appropriate yourself with the scientific journals talking about science with you must cease.
They don't study the same biology by the way or else evolution wouldn't be a matter of personal opinion as it's a constituted fact. I'm just waiting to see how you can even remotely prove that something can't come from nothing to begin with. It's sort of a paradox to even question considering we can't examine this nothing/something of yours, or this something/nothing of mine.
I refuse to defend my position to YOU, because I've argued to your kind plenty and it gets nowhere because of the pattern based argument.
Knowledge is not obtained may I add, you don't just wake up with knowledge, nor did any organism. Microscopic organisms even single-celled ones eventually adapted to many environments and scenarios, as with time things got more chaotic and complex. But if you think knowledge is given to us, this entity must be really, really stupid considering we still have people argued whether or not evolution is real, and that things must be planned out lol.
So argue those points:
What is nothing?
What is something?
What is knowledge (how is it obtained in your world view)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not addressing those points you've "deflected the topic to" just as I said you would, in order to avoid the set topic under debate.
*Microscopic organisms even single-celled ones eventually adapted to many environments and scenarios, as with time things got more chaotic and complex.
you out seem to insist that it can learn from experience. Yet it is mindless, and still smarter than we are. So I have to ask what exactly did this thing do to learn such knowledge? Answer: Nothing it could have done would have taught it to improve itself to such a level, much less taught it how to "CREATE ITSELF"!!! No that knowledge predates it.
It was created from protein strings, yet it's was absent the needed proteins and DNA to complete the task. So the long and complex string had to accidentally come together piece by piece. Then accidentally fold and INTERLOCK in the one shape that string can interlock into. Then accidentally interlock with another folded string precisely, in the one way it can, with the one piece it can. This must reoccurs many times to form a mass, and that mass must interlock with another exact mass perfectly, to form a larger mass and so on. All simply a mass of perfectly folded strings that all interlock perfectly. Each step of this process is exacting and infinitely complex. There is utterly no chance it could ever happen by accident. None what so ever, any attempt to prove it can is pure speculation and has never even been supposed much less explained, and the one scientist that tried to, debunked his own work and withdrew it when he realized how complex the process actually was.
This is another hole in evolution incase you though the first one was tough. Oh, and I've got many many more factual things you cannot answer, I could go on for weeks stumping you like this. So much for your higher knowledge of biology, I'm just not impressed by your presupposed intellect at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The organism isn't taught with a conscious awareness of that environment. It happens in variation of offspring. Not sure about most of the babble outside you said accident, and I'm not sure why. Not sure where you're defining DNA as perfect, what's your model of perfection to begin with?
Nothing created itself either may I add.
Also how can a creator come to be without a creator? Lololol infinite paradox of the silly creator hypothesis brought on by silly people. Oh it must be outside of X, therefore doesn't need a creator.
Fix your errors before continuing onto Biology and we will continue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"It happens in variation of OFFSPRING." Who taught it to reproduce? FACT: That's not a simple thing to figure out, and the very first single celled creature ever to come into existence would have had to learn that on its own before it died, which also means it had to learn to process food to create enough additional mass to reproduce itself. Wow, that's a lot of learning for just one bug in such a limited amount of time. it is quite literally expected to trump the knowledge of all mankind in the sort duration of its life, yet it has no mind. Don't you see how much you're taking as "granted" in these organisms? FACT: All these task you say they can learn with ease, in truth cannot be learned with ease, as we are the most intelligent species known on earth, yet we cant even reproduce these results. And for some reason you seem to think an even bigger idiot can figure it out? Really?
FACT: Science has never proven anyone has the knowledge to evolve themselves, this has never been proven, as we have never witnessed a single case where evolution actually took place. Yes some creatures have standard mutations to pass the baton on to in a pinch. Like Darwin's Finch, the mutation appears during a drought, but as the drought passes it dies out. Because the parent organism will never breed with it and always out-breeds it. Its the same with viruses.
FACT: Mutations are loathed in nature. Wolves will kill a domestic dogs on contact, they are mutations and not accepted on any level. Yet Evolution depends on mutations to bring the next generation. FACT: Nature disagrees with Darwin.
"Not sure where you're defining DNA as perfect" It fits together one way. It cant just comes together accidentally, or by chance in other words. FACT: You cant just mix chemicals to get life anymore than you can mix them and get a car from the chemical pool.
FACT: Life is built by proteins just as a car is built, what looks like slime (such as saliva) is actually a careful and precise construct, this is a fact in regards to the workings of proteins.
So how can a life form be carefully constructed without intelligence guiding it? Answer: It can't be, its needs intelligent DNA and proteins to do the job, and they are not available at the earliest stage of evolution. So Darwins evolution becomes naught, for lack of a primal life builder with intelligence, and any means for that builder to arrive lacking a god to give it the needed high order of intelligence, due to lack of any experience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, so who created the creator?
Fact 1: It may or may not be simple, and who says it had to learn that? What if it's just that binary function to be able to do what it did?
Fact 2: In truth? Says who? Seems like you're pulling truth out of your anus based on nothing. Our ability to reproduce these results say nothing about the polar opposite notion which is "It simply can't" and that's really all you're proposing.
Fact 3: Evolution is not a conscious concept may I add, so not sure why... science... would prove that? We've seen evolution take place, the difference being is that it's so gradual over a long long long long long period (as basic biology teaches) that most of evolutionary stages go unnoticed. You do have speciation which sort of disproves your whole notion of we've never seen it take place. You're being incredibly bias. How isn't Darwins Finch, and viruses proof of evolution to you to begin with? Because the finch variation dies out when the drought passes? That's the very concept of evolution. IT'S NOT A LADDER.
Fact 4: Evolution doesn't depend on mutations, in fact most mutations we see destroy a species. For instance birth defects.
Fact 5: You're sort of playing with the concept of perfection. Because it works in our universe, or to our knowledge it must be perfect based on our perception. That is incredibly wrong. Why can't it come together accidentally, can you prove this claim?
Fact 6: Well, we don't know that to begin with, our limitation in science doesn't disprove anything, anymore does the lack of evidence of a creator disprove a creator. It simply means we resort to the default position of I don't know.
Fact 7: So how can a life form carefully constructed without intelligence guiding it? That's really grasping at straws bro, the issue you're facing is again is perception.
I've skipped a few facts considering they're border lining on babble.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who created the creator? its complicated far beyond what were already discussing which is why I've been holding off, waiting for you to meet the chain of reasoning. But I have an answer for this that would satisfy logic. And I promise I'll answer this as soon as you begin to grasp the more simple facts I've already presented. Otherwise this answer will prove to be beyond your grasp to understand.
FACT 1: you asked "what if?" yeah, a question is not a conclusive answer to anything at all. Try to avoid questions as answers, and use facts instead just as I did. Why do I use facts? Because they cannot be displaced with questions, only learned and understood. (IE: if youre asking questions of facts, catch up on your learning.)
FACT 2: This is based on your personal opinion of me. Personal opinion is also not fact therefore need not be discussed here where facts are being presented.
FACT 3: "We've seen evolution take place." No we have not, did you not notice I called that a fact? FACT: We've only seen life cycles in repetition, with no changes noticed beyond the cycle. This- is- a- FACT!
"most evolution goes unnoticed" Yeah because nobody lives long enough to "theoretically" see it happen beyond cycles, or test the theory with real life forms, not just a collection of mix and matched bones. (so you must take it on faith that it happens in spite of no living evidence at all. (AKA: Your god of the gaps)
FACT 4: "most mutations destroy a species" Hence why species dont breed with them and in some cases kill them. Thanks for that one. (its also the first actual fact you've stated this far and basically reaffirmed my own.)
FACT 5: "Why cant it happen accidentally? Can you prove it?" ...Asking me to prove against what you have no proof of to begin with? Ok... but yes I can prove against it: Take a watch apart, put the parts into a bag, shake the bag, notice how the watch will not reassemble itself, but instead only further degrades. To put the watch back together takes an intelligent mind with a means to manipulate the pieces. This actually is a proven fact of everyday life, and of the workings of proteins, the factual builders of life. Furthermore it has never been even remotely demonstrated where life was created by man "period" so we're the last one to cast an opinion on the matter, much less call it fact. And to further this point, man never has once even witnessed the primal creation of life beyond any system of life already in place (existing species reproduction) Much less proven it can happen accidentally. So its pure speculation versus growing scientific fact and common knowledge.
FACT 6: Correct, now tell science to say "I don't know." Up to now youre the first evolutionist since Darwin to say those words. Also the presents of an unanswered question does not necessitate an eventual truth, and certainly not when all facts point away from it. You need reason to believe, and so far you seem to be stuck on faith alone. I even look for facts to believe in God, otherwise I'd not.
FACT 7: See FACT 5 for the answer. (Also ask you dog to reconstruct the watch, my guess it'll sniff it, then spend the day ignoring it. Yet its dumber than you, and so by your logic, smarter some how.)
"I've skipped a few facts considering they're border lining on babble." FACT: No you didn't, there were only 7 directly stated facts, the rest was subsequent and related knowledge based on those facts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I also would like to add, if your concept of evolution having to be guided by some sort of being, if that's honestly where you're getting at, it's hard to tell sometimes how do you explain evolved species, and mutation that completely destroy the organism? That it's guided as a ladder of superiority? That's not even how evolution works, and if it was guided how the hell would we have all these horrible species with negative traits and mutations causing them to literately die out? If there is something guiding everything in our universe it sucks majorly at its own job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great job on the image and this was done with the hands
Thank God For HandsThe hand is controlled by the brain. The right hand is controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain and the left hand is controlled by the right hemisphere. The brain sends signals to the hand, telling it what it wants it to do.
Two muscle groups take that message and accomplish movement in the hand. Extrinsic muscles extend from the forearm in the form of flexors and extensors. Intrinsic muscles are located inside the hand.
Extensors straighten the fingers out. Flexors allow the fingers to bend and grasp. The thumb has two flexors that help with holding onto objects.
The brain signals the muscles in the arm, wrist and hand to cooperate by using the extrinsic and intrinsic muscles to move the hand. With its impressive number of bones and joints, the hand can be used as a tool, or a means of communication.
The hand is one of the most sophisticated aspects of the human body. With it we can operate tools, articulate ideas, or perform delicate tasks, such as surgery or needlework. The co
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Prove how it's false, you already made a claim so it's up to you 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God made man
or human
how else r we made?
who even created mothers?
mothers were created by God :/
proof is he healed the blind
(derp)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sigh once again you prove..that atheists are stuck up assholes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, not really considering atheism isn't a group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Congratulations, you made it to the front page of deviantART with a textbook example of improper use of another's work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess if that's what you want to believe. You're fully entitled to you opinion, but I'm not sure why you need to bash others' beliefs with your photoshop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'm guessing you didn't understand my comment if all you're doing is thanking me, so I'll ask you the underlying question directly: Why do you feel the need to bash a belief system with your art?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It seems you're a cognitive miser. I'm sorry for your unwillingness to critically think about the very thing you dislike.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep. Just remember, even if you fervently hate God, he still fervently loves you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hate god like I hate unicorns or leprechauns, which is to say I don't. What I do hate are people who pretend to have a direct line to an all powerful being. Thanks for commenting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your art seems to reflect something else, but thanks for finally sharing. People don't pretend to have a direct line to a powerful being. We have faith that we can connect to a powerful being--God. You'd have a better time in life if you didn't hate people who held certain beliefs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It isn't a bash, it is the statement of an opinion through the use of media and art. Everyone is fully entitled to their opinion and the expression of that opinion through artistic means. I do not understand how this is interpreted as a bash when the piece is not being forced on you or expressed in a violent undermining manner. It's a piece that is just presented to a general public open for interpretation and opinion... not a bash
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Definition of bashing: Intense criticism used to make a hateful statement about something in particular. If this is the artist's intent, then, yes, it is bashing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
It is bashing without a doubt i agree with Zaku, the deisng on the other hand is good but that doesnt mean you get to bash beliefs!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. I'm glad someone understands. We don't need to get angry about it, but it's still offensive and we have a reason to dislike it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's not a hateful statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you know what the artist's intent was with this message? No. You're not the artist. This is similar to if I posted a piece of art that said, "Better believe in Jesus or you'll go to hell." That statement could be seen as a simple opinion, but the artist could easily intend it to be hateful toward atheists or anyone who doesn't believe. It all comes down to intention.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No it really doesn't. Which do you find more likely though to begin with? That the message is to convey a lack of a belief in response to a banner proclaiming such, or a hateful one?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it really does. Art may be subjective, but there is one artist who creates it who has an objective intent.
"Which do you find more likely though to begin with? That the message is to convey a lack of a belief in response to a banner proclaiming such, or a hateful one?"
I'm sorry, could you rephrase this? Your use of grammar is making it hard to understand what you're asking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The grammar is fine, which do you find most likely, a message to convey a lack of belief proclaiming that belief, or a hateful statement?
Yes objective intent is fine, but you're actual meaning for it has no evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"which do you find most likely, a message to convey a lack of belief proclaiming that belief, or a hateful statement?"
I find a hateful statement, isn't that obvious by the conversation we've been having? For the last time, it comes down to intention. This could merely be a statement about God not existing, or it could be a hateful statement toward the belief system.
"Yes objective intent is fine, but you're actual meaning for it has no evidence."
Go ahead and look at some of the other art found in this artist's gallery. They don't exactly welcome Christianity with open arms. I'm all for art expressing your feelings, but if that art is hateful and offensive, then maybe it's time to actually think about you're portraying. Like I said, this artist is free to state their opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to be okay with it, especially if it is intended to be hateful toward a particular belief.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Doesn't matter, the actual message itself is independent of any other work of art. If it has no hinting value in the piece itself how can you draw the conclusion? You can't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Art is subjective. You haven't taken offense because it's not about your beliefs. I have taken offense because it's about my beliefs. Until the artist clearly states what his intended, objective purpose for it was, both of us will not know, but that doesn't mean I can't make a conclusion based on what see here and what I see in their gallery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, but you can take offense to someone complimenting you. If you entirely want to live in a black and white world be my guest, but honestly you know there's no actual indication that this piece is meaning anything more than what it says.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There clearly is. And I'm not going to repeat myself again: Intent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If this is bashing than shouldn't the original poster be bashing as well?
Spoiler: This movie is big on bashing agnostics (point blank calling them idiots within the first 30 minutes), atheist (giving every atheist in the movie a death sentence and before they do converting them back to "God"), or people from a different religions (calling them cruel people who will beat and kick their children out if they want to follow another God). Making the Christian religion the only thing you should follow out there cause it is the only decent religion.
This was a horrible movie unless you are Christian. I went and saw it and by the end I felt like the world thought of me as a piece of shit for being who I am, and not as a person who has set views on my beliefs. Then it was how the Muslims were treated as well. The Muslim religion just like the Christian gives the children at a certain age to go and explorer other religions and accepts if the children want to convert to another.
This movie fills stereotypes and doesn't give the full view of how each religion is different from each other. It only conveys that Christianity is "right" and agnostic, atheism, and being Muslim is wrong and they are cruel and evil people, but this is what I have seen the Christian religion do best. Making everyone hate everything else and letting everyone think they are the best, and that is why I left and started to believe what I think is the best policy to live by.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm well aware of what the movie's about. It's not the greatest. I'm a Christian and I don't like the stereotypes, either, and I'm sorry you felt that way after seeing it. Christianity is supposed to be building people up, not hating them or bringing them down. But, an entire belief system doesn't need to be put down because of what a movie portrays. That's what this piece seems to do and that's why I gave my opinion on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I haven't been Christian in years, but I like looking at the Christian religion loving the lore behind it. So when this came out I decided to see it and see if it had anything behind it that was decent, and I walked out of this movie pissed off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I felt the same, so I completely understand. As a Christian, it really got me thinking about how they portrayed atheists. I mean, there definitely are some atheists out there that can be antagonistic, but there are a lot of Christians like that as well. Anyone can be arrogant, and this movie stereotyped atheists as the /only/ ones that are such. I really wish they had done a better job with it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The one thing that pissed me off is that they killed the atheist that they had in the movie and convert them before they did. Or convert them in general.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No, an entire belief system stems from more than just the belief of God, so you're perspective of what this poster does is false. It's simply stating that he never existed, how that targets an entire belief system is beyond me. No where does it mention the enslavement of humans, genocide, torture, inequality, and so on. Now I would like to see a poster of that considering how awful those things are in the Bible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was speaking to a different member, but I guess I'll continue to address your concerns since you seem to have so many.
"No, an entire belief system stems from more than just the belief of God"
If the belief system is /about/ God, then, no, it doesn't. There are different factions of Christianity, but we all believe in one God, we all believe in what the Bible teaches, at least, we /should./
"It's simply stating that he never existed, how that targets an entire belief system is beyond me."
Well, no one was asking for your opinion on this particular comment, but, it targets the belief system by stating quite clearly that God doesn't exist, as in, the God that is involved in that very belief system is a superfluous belief, so the ones who believe are blind. /That's/ the message portrayed here. This is like if you believed in some particular deity and someone posted a piece of art that said "He never existed. Ever." Would you not feel offended that someone was basically telling you that what you believe in doesn't even exist? Once again, it comes down to intent. If the author's intent was to bash the movie, fine. The movie wasn't good. But this piece is clearly addressing more than just the movie.
"Now I would like to see a poster of that considering how awful those things are in the Bible."
Oh, great. Here we go...
If you'd actually do some studies on what the Bible teaches an not just read it at face-value, you'd fully understand why those themes exist in the Bible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I used to be a roman-catholic since I could remember and went to a religious school. I didn't read anything at face valued. Some verses explicitly are condoned and ordered even out by God. Do you agree with them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>