View Full Version : 10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:
Having been around these boards on and off for a couple of years now, I wanted to pose 10 question which I feel summarize the bulk of conversations on these boards. The following questions were taken from a list compiled on from tektonics.org (http://www.tektonics.org/), and I'm curious to hears the responses.
10 Questions for Atheists:
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
1. Their reality is not my reality. I deny God because I do not need God. I have the power of will to be my own God, I don't need to bow before others
I don't need to bow before others
If you were offered a great job and to get it all you had to do is bow. Then what would you do?
If you were offered a great job and to get it all you had to do is bow. Then what would you do?
if you were told things literally and materialistically explained down to physics of everything. Than what would you do?
if bowing once to gain advantage over the other later is inevitable, than such shall be done
shichimenshyo
01-09-08, 04:59 PM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
Because I am by nature a skeptic, I never take anyones word for truth. If they think god has spoken to them, good for them. No god has ever spoken to me.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
Such is the difference of those who believe based on faith and those who want proof.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
The claim that there is no god is based on the fact that there is as of yet no scientific proof of god. That is the basis for my belief, its not blind its just cynnical.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
Because..computers....planes...calculators etc where designed. Besides the theory that we were magically created by an omnipotent being, it just seems like the best logical choice, unless of course you have proof otherwise?
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
To the best of my knowledge there are those out their who try to blend creationism with science. More power to them.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
They did however use a religious minority groupa as scapegoats and a reason to murder millions of people.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
Who the hell ever said this? If your mission statement clearly states your bias then thats what it does. It works both ways. :rolleyes:
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
Yet again who said this? this is called an assumption.....:D
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
What truth are we talking about? I have never claimed to know the "truth"
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
Its called discussing your views, are we shoving our historical views down your throat too by telling you that there are alternatives to what everyone was brought up to believe?
Anyways. have a nice day :D
These questions make suggestions about atheist’s beliefs but there is little here that reflects the atheist position.
These implications seem to be derived from what theists “think” atheists believe.
shichimenshyo
01-09-08, 05:04 PM
These questions make suggestions about atheist’s beliefs but there is little here that reflects the atheist position.
These implications seem to be derived from what theists “think” atheists believe.
yes, assuming what someone believes without actually asking them is teh lame. :D
visceral_instinct
01-09-08, 05:11 PM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives? The same reason I do not believe in unicorns. As for experience, I could claim to have experienced seeing a unicorn, that does not make it true.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"? Because if there's no evidence for something people can just make up any fantasy they like and call it fact. I could decide that the world is ruled by 2 huge pink scorpions, then go around calling people narrow minded for not believing in them.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith? I believe in things when I see some kind of evidence. When there's evidence for unicorns, I'll start believing in them. When there's evidence for God, I'll do likewise. Until then I'm not going to just believe in things because someone says I should.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed. When did I say that?
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design? Did I say that?
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all? Did I say that?
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites? I have never said I think that.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate? I have never said that. [flames deleted]
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself? I have never said that either. Stop attacking all atheists because of a few pushy ones, [Insult deleted].
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway? I have never done that either. [flame deleted].
[QUOTE=ggazoo;1705582]Having been around these boards on and off for a couple of years now, I wanted to pose 10 question which I feel summarize the bulk of conversations on these boards. The following questions were taken from a list compiled on from tektonics.org (http://www.tektonics.org/), and I'm curious to hears the responses.
10 Questions for Atheists:
[LIST=1]
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
Personal testimony is exactly what it says. I don't care what people believe but I draw the line if they insist that those who disagree with them are in error. If we abandon our reliance on empirical evidence, then anything goes. What would you say to someone who claimed he was Napoleon and that he had personal experience of unicorns ? Would you not ask for evidence to support his claim ?
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
How could anyone possibly show the existence of such a thing ? It's not narrow-minded, it's deluional to believe that such things exist. Prove me wrong !
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
My reason for not believing in god is not based on blind faith; it's based on the absence of evidence. There may be something called god but we have no way of knowing up to now. Blind faith is when one believes in an ancient book which is riddled with contradictions. Christians cannot agree on what some parts of it mean, hence the number of denominations
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
This argument is as old as the hills but it still crops up. If you do not understand evolutionary theory, I suggest you read up on it and then decide. Evolution is a gradual process. Nobody claims that something just appears from nowhere.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Because evolutionary theory shows such ideas to be wrong. This can only be understood if one understands both sides of the argument. So, again, I suggest you read up on evolution and then make your mind up based on the evidence presented. You are wrong to assume that evolutionists have not considered what Creationism has to say.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
I think there would be wars with or without religion.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
I make no such claims. I simply reserve the right to use my reason and then decide what to believe based on the evidence presented
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
I don't know. I understand than Christians believe they have a duty to spread the word because of what Jesus said to his disciples
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
I suggest you read up on epistemology so you can understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Again, make your own mind up but only when you have an understanding of the issue
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
A lot is known about the ancient world so. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you referring to written records or the fossil record ? If you mean the fossil record then I suggest you read up on it and make your mind up based on the evidence.
In my experience most people want easy answers to what are difficult problems. It's a cop out to simply claim that everything one needs to know is to be found in the Bible. There is hard evidence to show that Genesis, for example, is nothing more than a fable. But to understand that it is necessary to know enough about science to have an informed opinion. That is something most Christians seem reluctant to do
Ggazoo,
These questions make suggestions about atheist’s beliefs but there is little here that reflects the atheist position.
These implications seem to be derived from what theists “think” atheists believe.
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, Credibility. Where is there any reason to even consider that there could be a super being capable of creating universes? There is absolutely no precedent or even remote evidence that anything so fantastic might be possible.
but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?They cannot show that what they claim is any different from the vastly more credible probability of self delusion.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?Atheists don’t claim that.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?Credibility. Why consider the God concept any different to total fantasy?
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.Why suggest that something even more complex like a creator of the universe would be exempt from being designed. If the argument is that anything complex needs a designer then the creationists need to explain who designed their creator. If they can’t then the argument that complexity must have a designer has no merit.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?ID isn’t science, it’s theology. The question is also taken from the layman’s (or religionist’s) erroneous perspective of how science operates.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?Not sure what this has to do with people believing fantasies are true.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?Several subjective emotive statements there that needs to be corrected before a meaningful answer can be applied. Every case needs to be examined on its own merit.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?I suspect this might happen in some cases, but here the implication is that it is general and I’m not sure that biased perspective is true.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?Most informed atheists don’t claim to know the truth. But how can someone know the truth without independent verification? I.e. how do they know their belief is not simply self delusion, if there is no evidence to the contrary?
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?Most informed atheists don’t do that.
spidergoat
01-09-08, 05:59 PM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
Because I cannot share a personal experience. I have no doubt these people are sincere in their reports of experiencing something, but until there is something other than their personal testimony to go on, there is no compelling reason to believe it myself. People experience all kinds of things in various states of consciousness. They also interpret their experience within the cultural context they are familiar with. Even if I acknowledge they experienced something, I am still just taking their word as to their interpretation of it. People are just as passionate sometimes about ghosts and seeing dead loved ones. The human mind is easily tricked, which is why science is valuable for sorting things out.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
I would never say that the phenomenon doesn't exist, but if there can be no measurement, then what information besides personal testimony is there to go on. (see above for why personal testimony is unreliable).
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
It isn't based on "blind faith", it's based on knowledge of human nature, and the complete lack of evidence of a creator. I don't know there isn't a God, but I think there is an extremely low probability of there being one, so low as to be for all purposes identical to zero.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
The human body shows signs that it wasn't designed, but rather grew from previous forms- vestigal organs, poor engineering solutions, and the fact that no living structure exists which shows irreducable complexity.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Intelligent design has been analyzed with science, and it falls short.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
It's still true. And then there's Islamic terrorism.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
I am not familiar with such statements, but if they are based on an ancient book, then they are mostly just superstition and biased in favor of a theology.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
? I don't mind Christians doing so, but their talk is based on faith, not verifiable knowledge.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
Scientific truth is based on more than faith.
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
There are scholarly interpretations of historical documents, and then there are religious ones, clouded by belief.
Orleander
01-09-08, 06:00 PM
dang visceral! Why so angry?
Orleander
01-09-08, 06:23 PM
10 Questions for Atheists:
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
what some people call 'experiencing God' I call coincidence, getting lucky, making good choices, etc. They did it, not god.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
The only time I ever considered anyone narrow minded is when they judge other people. (gay, black, handicapped) Atheists and believers can be narrow minded in these areas. Its got nothing to do with god.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
No, me not believing rests on lack of evidence. You show me, I'll believe.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
I see evidence of evolution, I've never seen evidence of this design thing.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
You want to prove it, you research it.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
LOL! In the last 200 yrs they may not have all been fought explicitly for religion, but God Bless America sure got soldiers to line up.
And the Iraqi war is because of religion. Maybe not for Christians, but for radical Islamics it is. Don't discount it just because its not an American war or a Christian one.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
I don't go to christian web sites. For me to do so to argue with them would serve no purpose.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
I don't. Christians are doing that because its what they are supposed to do. Atheists who try to 'educate' are no better than christian missionaries. Its arrogant and rude.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
Truth is based on proof, not belief. Until you have proof, its not going to be my belief nor my truth.
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
I don't know what happened and would never presume to tell you what really happened. Scientists have found proof of some of the events in the bible and I have no problem believing parts of those events. But for the bible to be the only source of historical data is stupid.
And the questions you ask are valid. There are a lot of atheists out there who are no better than christians in there need to convert.
Michael
01-09-08, 06:24 PM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives? Which GOD?
Theist have personally claimed to experience Zeus, Buddha, various modern day Japanese Gods, Goddesses, etc… Which one are you talking about????
Do you deny the existence of the great flying spaghetti monster?
Also, how do you know It’s a “Him”. Does He have a penis? If so why? Does It f*ck? Who? If not then lets just call It an IT.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"? I never said it MUST NOT exist. Just that I lack a belief in It’s existence. Much like you probably lack a belief in Zeus.
(PS: I like your use of IT ;))
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith? Firstly – I never said there is NO GOD. I simply lack a belief in IT.
Do you say there are NO Goddesses? Why?
Do you say there are no other Gods? Why?
Do you lack a belief that Mohammad was the last Prophet? Why?
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed. Yes, it also “seems” that the Earth is flat. But it’s not flat, it’s round and we evolved.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design? Science is a method. It can not measure ID so ID is outside of the realm that is Science.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all? I simply maintain that people can be motivated by religion to go to war and kill other people. I’m sure you agree.
Historically, most people went to war over trying to make more money or gain land (see feudal Japan and the Samurai for an example, Ancient Roma, the Mongolians conquests, the Arabs that happen to be Muslims conquests, etc.. )
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites? If they are published in scientific reputable journals I am happy to read them. I will also not spend my time reading atheists dribble not published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Hell, even when I do read peer reviewed articles, I take them with a BIG dose of salt!
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate? I don’t’ feel like that. This is a debate so lets debate.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself? I never claimed to know the truth – I simply lack a belief in God much like you lack a beleif in Goddesses.
You AND I are atheistic for many many many many many Gods and Goddesses.
What about your belief ggazoo?
Does the possibility exist that there is NO GOD?
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
[/LIST]I never said that.
Hope that answered your questions
:)
Michael
cosmictraveler
01-09-08, 06:48 PM
I see that having a belief is necessary for many people. It doesn't matter to me if they want to believe in eggplants created all life, that's their right to think so. I just am upset when those who believe in something other that what I do, which is in myself, they tend to want to make whatever their belief is as a fact. Making others to believe in something other than what they want to isn't a way to be tolerant but only forces people into believing them or else.
SnakeLord
01-09-08, 07:27 PM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
'Personal testimony' does not ultimately amount to much. Your argument seems to imply that you believe in alien abduction because people claim to have been abducted by them, you believe in the Loch Ness monster because people claim to have seen it and so on and so forth.
You should be able to answer the question quite sufficiently yourself. To think it's somehow different for your claims would show you're a hypocrite.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
The fact of the matter is that you wont find many atheists saying "it must not exist". Evidence however is important to support claims, be it that a god exists or that leprechauns exist. You would demand it in any other situation and to think its any different in this one would show you to be a hypocrite.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
It is actually the theist that declares boldly with pride that his belief in god/s is a matter of faith. What is your complaint? As to the first part of your question, you'll find few atheists saying there is no god but that there is no evidence to suggest there is. Work out the difference.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
This would lead to a long answer and discussion that is probably inapropriate here. We could examine ID, (incompetent design) - for instance the fact that the human eye has a blind spot.. It's idiotic to think the universes greatest intellect made such a blunder. From there we would get into adaptation and evolution, genetics etc etc and so on.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Creationism does not qualify as science. That's not sciences fault.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
Religion kills.. constantly and has done since day 1. People, whether religious or not will fight battles - but very few of those battles are over something quite as stupid as which sky fairy we should bow down to.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
An example in this instance would be helpful. I did indeed claim bias when Sandy pasted a link claiming that religious people are happier than atheists because it was on a christian website. Nobody can deny the bias there. Any other examples?
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
The question isn't applicable.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
With all due respect but it is the theist that uses the word "belief". I've always found that quite amusing personally. Can you honestly piss and whine when you say "I believe" instead of "I know"?
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
What? There's plenty of data, theists tend to close their eyes to any data that conflicts with their faith.
flameofanor5
01-09-08, 07:43 PM
You can't see wind, and yet, you see its affects on the world. You also cannot see God, but you can see his affects on the world. Also, if you were to hear a bang, and ask "who did that?" You would not accept the answer "Oh, it just happened." So how could the beginning of the world happen. There's a creator of everything, and everyone. Except for God Himself.
flameofanor5
01-09-08, 07:47 PM
Which GOD?
Theist have personally claimed to experience Zeus, Buddha, various modern day Japanese Gods, Goddesses, etc… Which one are you talking about????[...]
Michael
Why dont you answer the questions given before asking your own?
spidergoat
01-09-08, 07:47 PM
"Who did that?" is a leading question, like "when did you stop beating your wife?". It assumes a who, when anything that can be called a who only appeared on Earth around 2 million years ago.
Crunchy Cat
01-09-08, 07:56 PM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him,...
Which 'God'?
...but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality.
Evidence, on the other hand, is a demonstration that a given reality is valid. Testimony is not a demonstration (i.e. not credible).
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
That is not a belief I hold.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
Which 'God'?
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed,"...
It's not a belief. I know those products are designed because people can be observed to design those things and educate other people how to design them.
...yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"?
It's not a belief. I know life on earth is a product of biologial evolution because it can be demsontrated by observing reality.
It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
It seems more like flawed thinking.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas,...
Can you show me where Atheists insist that?
...is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. They are Theology.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
That is not my opinion.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
I don't visit such sites very often and I suspect that religious sites use a 'God' as an authority while non-religious sites use 'Reality' as an authority. Seeing as the latter is the only one with credibility, the former becomes far less credible.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats",...
Because they issue a high degree of dishonesty.
and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
Because they issue a high degree of honesty.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
"The" truth?
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
That's not my opinion.
Michael
01-09-08, 08:02 PM
Why dont you answer the questions given before asking your own?I did answer BUT sometimes in order to show ggazoo that the OP questions made assumptions about people's belief (which you will noticed many people had a gripe about). I simply asked ggazoo similar questions. That is probably the easiest way for him/her to understand the natural bias that was present in their OP.
For example, in the question: Why do you say that there is no God? There are a couple of assumptions. One that atheists claim there is no God. We don't, or I don't. We simply lack a belief in Gods. Second, this assumes there is only one God. What about other Gods? Which Gods is this person referring to? What about Goddesses? In essence, ggazoo's question shows ggazoo's hand. He/she seems upset that we lack a faith in their belief yet it seems by this question that He/'she lacks a belief in many other people's beliefs. In effect ggazoo IS AN ATHEIST TOO (for these other beliefs). Perhaps ggazoo never thought of him/herself as Athiest. But they are.
Perhaps with this new understanding they will turn to the dark-side and praise be to all atheists real Lord Ha Shatan. ggazoo give your soul over to Him to devour for all eternity and come join us in the Dark Realm of Atheism bwahahahaaaa - all praise ha Shatan.
Tehe,
:)
Michael
Michael
01-09-08, 08:04 PM
By the Gods I crack me up sometimes :p
I think atheists can be summed up as:
We only believe in evidence derived from a consensus of percepts, except when we don't.
SnakeLord
01-09-08, 08:41 PM
Your argument goes nowhere given that you too are ultimately atheist. I speak with regards to the many many gods from Marduk to Apollo, Abellio to Quetzecotl.
The hypocrisy is shocking.
Your argument goes nowhere given that you too are ultimately atheist. I speak with regards to the many many gods from Marduk to Apollo, Abellio to Quetzecotl.
The hypocrisy is shocking.
Don't be silly, those were prophets of antiquity, and gave the message as suitable to the people of the time. :spank:
SnakeLord
01-09-08, 08:48 PM
Don't be silly, those were prophets of antiquity, and gave the message as suitable to the people of the time.
Whatever excuse works best for you.
Thanks for making my point.
Anti-Flag
01-09-08, 08:58 PM
Don't be silly, those were prophets of antiquity, and gave the message as suitable to the people of the time. :spank:
Thankfully one day someone will be looking back and saying the same thing about your god, along with everyone elses. ;)
Thankfully one day someone will be looking back and saying the same thing about your god, along with everyone elses. ;)
meanwhile thou, God is nowhere in sight.
What do atheists believe about why everything is?
superluminal
01-09-08, 09:34 PM
We believe that all is as it is because a great rift ocurred long ago between the forces of stuff and not-stuff. In the beginning there was not stuff nor was there not-stuff. There was a complete lack of stuff-ness and not-stuff-ness. This was the not-cosmos. Then, one non-day, stuff seperated from not-stuff. The agent of the great rift (who was neither stuff nor not-stuff) is the great atheist teacher and overlord, Porganut. He who took on the forms of stuff and not-tuff simultaneousy but seperately is the One we follow and believe in.
superluminal
01-09-08, 09:35 PM
What do atheists believe about why everything is?
The real answer is, you already know the answer.
lightgigantic
01-09-08, 09:35 PM
They tend to be unified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) according to what they believe everything about theism is
* 3.2.1 Epistemological arguments
* 3.2.2 Metaphysical arguments
* 3.2.3 Psychological, sociological and economical arguments
* 3.2.4 Logical and evidential arguments
* 3.2.5 Anthropocentric arguments
James R
01-09-08, 09:45 PM
What do atheists believe about why everything is?
All kinds of different things. Atheists don't follow a single set of beliefs.
Most of them do not, however, believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
You can't see wind, and yet, you see its affects on the world. You also cannot see God, but you can see his affects on the world. Also, if you were to hear a bang, and ask "who did that?" You would not accept the answer "Oh, it just happened." So how could the beginning of the world happen. There's a creator of everything, and everyone. Except for God Himself.
This argument is as old as the hills but you seem blissfully unaware of the fact. Tell me, who created god ?
Michael
01-09-08, 11:14 PM
Don't be silly, those were prophets of antiquity, and gave the message as suitable to the people of the time. :spank:And the 1 million present day Japanese Shinto Gods?
Michael
01-09-08, 11:16 PM
This one's always funny - There's a creator of everything, and everyone. Except for God Herself.
This one's always funny - There's a creator of everything, and everyone. Except for God Herself.
God is not a physical or corporeal manifestation. A supernatural phenomena would not be subject to our natural, perceivable laws. You'd be hardpressed to find a theist who believed that God existed within His own creation, or was in any way like it. You may find it difficult to conceive, but God (as described by the majority of theists) was never "born" or "created". Simply, God has always been.
Michael
01-09-08, 11:50 PM
yes I understand, it seems to me that if one is willing to accept the concept that something (in this case God) can exist without ever having been created then one should be able to take this raitiontal and apply it to our universe or reality in general. The Universe (or reality) has always existed.
And, unlike God, we have evidence for the Universe really existing! :)
yes I understand, it seems to me that if one is willing to accept the concept that something (in this case God) can exist without ever having been created then one should be able to take this raitiontal and apply it to our universe or reality in general. The Universe (or reality) has always existed.
And, unlike God, we have evidence for the Universe really existing! :)
Go ahead and think that. Just have fun arguing with your atheist counterparts who believe strongly in prominent theories of a finite universe.
mountainhare
01-10-08, 12:01 AM
Atheists believe that one day Caine will return and consume the blood of all humans, in an apocalyptic event known as Ghenna.
iceaura
01-10-08, 12:42 AM
They tend to be unified according to what they believe everything about theism is They tend to be classified so by theists, you mean.
Into oh, thirty or forty categories maximum, depending on the knowledge, imagination, and vocabulary of the theist involved.
Seems to make the theists feel better, somehow.
Crunchy Cat
01-10-08, 12:50 AM
What do atheists believe about why everything is?
Why as in 'how' or why as in 'intent'?
lightgigantic
01-10-08, 12:56 AM
They tend to be classified so by theists, you mean.
Into oh, thirty or forty categories maximum, depending on the knowledge, imagination, and vocabulary of the theist involved.
Seems to make the theists feel better, somehow.
on the contrary, if you ask an atheist why they believe god should not be taken seriously, they will provide an argument that fits into at least one of those 5 categories
iceaura
01-10-08, 01:04 AM
Had enough answers yet ? Notice the variety ? Some more:
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives? That's not why I deny the existence of most of the Gods I specifically deny. For the ones that do fit: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"? I believe no such thing.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith? My judgment of the nonexistence of various Gods does not rest on blind faith, and I do not say that all those who do think a particular God exists rest on blind faith either. Depends on the person, and the God.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed. Preponderance of evidence
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design? I don't. I think science has pretty thoroughly researched intelligent design, for example.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all? I see much religious cause in all three of those wars, and I think that religion is only one of the causes of any war.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites? Experience. And "prove" is not the right word - "warn" is better.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate? I don't. Depends on the one involved.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself? I don't make that claim for myself.
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway? I don't. Sometimes there's evidence, sometimes there isn't. We do our best with the evidence we have.
on the contrary, if you ask an atheist why they believe god should not be taken seriously, they will provide an argument that fits into at least one of those 5 categories In your system of classification. Which yields 120 theoretically possible categories for any atheist's argument, and my original estimate of 40 max is proven an underestimate. But perhaps several will be shown unrealistic, and my estimate more of a practical maximum.
We are confining ourselves to those atheists who argue that God should not be taken seriously. That's a subset - it does not include, presumably, atheistic Catholic priests (for one example).
There are many different classification schemes used by various theists, for classifying atheists.
They aren't used by atheists, for unifying themselves.
SkinWalker
01-10-08, 01:06 AM
Moderator's Note: Two threads with essentially the same topic are merged and the thread title adjusted slightly to reflect. First thread gets top billing
losfomoT
01-10-08, 02:20 AM
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
I think this is the most important one... and it depends on the definition of 'atheist'. I think for some militant atheists, this is a valid point... but for the majority of us (myself for sure) we do not claim that at all. We are open to the (extremely small) possibility that there actually is a God. Can most theists admit that there is a possibility that God does not exist?
If there is a God, I am 99.99999999328% sure that it is not the God that we read about in the bible.
Go ahead and think that. Just have fun arguing with your atheist counterparts who believe strongly in prominent theories of a finite universe.
You seem to specialize in non-answers. What evidence have you that god exists. You are suggesting that everything was created by god but that god alone was not created. If he wasn't created is it possible he doesn't exist ?
on the contrary, if you ask an atheist why they believe god should not be taken seriously, they will provide an argument that fits into at least one of those 5 categories
So how many categories would you like. Bear in mind that Christians have only one. If pressed ,they invariably fall back on their belief in the Bible.
Can you give us an example of an anthropocentric argument used to support atheism ?
KennyJC
01-10-08, 06:03 AM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
Because they are clearly delusional. Every emotional high a theist has is shared by atheists. However people with different beliefs interpret these emotions differently.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
I am perfectly well aware that many things can exist without my knowledge of them existing. But it is also near impossible to guess correctly at what exists and what doesn't.
In the case of god and all the things idiot theists attribute with him, it certainly does end up seemingly impossible. Theists are not simply happy with the fact an intelligent creator made the universe, but they have to add heaven, sons of god on Earth, and thousands of other things. It becomes quite pathetic really.
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
This is really weak. I pressume you take it on "blind faith" that a green monster does not exist on Pluto? It's just plain common sense, and not worth my time. I have no faith at all regarding green monsters on Pluto, or gods and their heavens.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
Biological evolution is fact as demonstrated in all areas of science. There is no controversy about this in science. The only controversy comes from selfish religious people who know nothing, simply because they have a hard-on for being special.
By invoking a designer you're in fact making this universe so much more unlikely since a designer is a hugely complicated addition to the already complicated. Thereby making it far more unlikely. We could literally invent a billion hypothesis about the existence of the universe, and an intelligent creator would be just one.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Because creationism/intelligent design was totally refuted in court. The best "scientists" ID had to offer took on real science in a court room, and their argument was empirically proven false, and the judge saw that for himself. Type "Ken Miller" into YouTube and you will get a good 2 hour explanation as to why this was the case. Since there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, it is obviously not science. Once there is evidence, science will listen.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
Well just imagine if the crusades had the machine guns, bombs, airplanes, rockets, gun ships and a larger population to kill also. So don't go using this body count argument. Simply put, it's easier to kill more people today than it ever has been.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
I have no idea what their mission statements are, but they are probably bullshit.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
No, we are not talking about internet chat rooms or forums. We are talking about the way children grow up having religion shoved down their throats. Children are defenseless against indoctrination. When educating children, it is the adults responsibility (whether it be parent or teacher), that what they are telling their children is the truth. I'm not against teaching religion in schools, but I am very much against teaching it in such a way that a child should believe it. If I had children, I would never teach my child to be atheist or religious. Bring them up to be intelligent and responsible and give them an opportunity to learn for themselves instead of shoving dogma down their throat.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
"Truth". What a joke. Nobody knows the truth... not even atheists. Atheists simply have no believe or place any relevance in god, thats all. Anybody who claims to know the truth is a complete idiot.
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
Because people who take to writing scripture are totally transparent. In recognization of multiple religions, including those that failed and nobody today knows of, they were competing for power and followers, and told of great fables. Just look at how the story of Jesus is plagarised from much older idols. Look at how Paul never even knew of Jesus' life in his writings, and those are the earliest we know of. But the fable grew, he gained followers, there was now demand for more writings on this Jesus fellow. Then came a gospel long after Paul, and even much longer after the alleged Jesus, yet they could go into so much detail. Very suspicious.
Things may be sketchy about the beginnings of christianity, but one thing we can assert, is that the idol Jesus, is fictional. Nobody can heal the blind, literally walk on water, or live after death. These were just added for effect. All religions do that.
Really ggazoo, you have always made me laugh more than any other theist on here.
Having been around these boards on and off for a couple of years now, I wanted to pose 10 question which I feel summarize the bulk of conversations on these boards. The following questions were taken from a list compiled on from tektonics.org (http://www.tektonics.org/), and I'm curious to hears the responses.
10 Questions for Atheists:
[LIST=1]
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
[snip]
How disappointing!, you expect me to believe in just one god, why not 2 or more??
isn't more better?
Sangamon
01-10-08, 07:35 AM
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
for the same reason I reject testimonies of ufo sightings, elevation, ghosts, telekinetic powers etc etc. where is the proof?
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
I don't believe that. A lot of things we can't see or smell or touch or measure exist in this universe. This is not a fair question since a lot of atheists will agree with me. Don't generalize
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
erhh isn't that a bit silly? So not believing in the teachings of Scientology also rests on blind faith? Or not believing in astrology also rests on blind faith?
It's the ones who proclaim that something exists who need to show that it does, not the other way around.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
it may seem that way, but that doesn't mean it's the case. Don't say things are 'obvious', just because they seem logical to you.
Evolution is a proven idea, an elegant idea, an idea that requires no supernatural powers of any kind and is able to produce enormous complexity. What is more plausible then? The elegant, simple idea, or the supernatural idea?
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Science has researched these posibilities and has found them lacking in many ways. Instead it found a better, simpler and more elegant answer that better explains the state of our world. And that is what science is all about.
Nothing is rejected out of hand, everything is looked at, but when something is simply wrong, it is wrong and there is no need to pursue it further
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
I'm an atheist but i have never claimed this. My knowledge of history isn't all that good. But I think it's fair to say religious wars have killed A LOT of people overtime. tens of millions easy.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
Because 'glorifying' a proven, solid idea that actually works in the real world is a more productive stance that glorifying fairy-tales.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
again i'm an atheist, but i don't believe that. I don't shove my beliefs down people's throats...I generally don't talk about it at all unless someones asks me. Then I will answer what i feel...that there is no God.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
Because what we know to be true is based on what actaully exists in the world, what has been seen and proven and tested. But we also recognize that our truth isn't complete. That's why we still have science...to make our knowledge greater and greater and to evolve our understanding.
What theists do is stand still and mumble prayers. They don't advance their truths, and thus they don't evolve. Which is a dead-end
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
who said our knowledge is too sparse to 'know anything about the ancient world'? I think there are quite a few historians who would disagree...
there i've answered your questions as truthfully as i know how. I don't attack nor defend, i just answered questions, posed to me.
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?For several reasons: they could be lying (and there is evidence abundant that people do lie); Occam's Razor would suggest a far simpler explanation as the cause of the supposed revelation.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?Inaccurate assessment / understanding of the atheist position. Atheists on the whole do NOT claim that the thing "must not exist" - only that we choose not to believe that it does exist.
Again, as many of us have said on other threads: "To Not Believe as True" is not the same as "To Believe As False"
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?I refer the honourable gentleman to the fact that he is referring only to STRONG atheists (i.e. those that have the positive belief that God does not exist) and not to the majority who are WEAK atheists (who merely do not have the belief that God exists.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.I refer the honourable gentleman to an education in such matters.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?Science requires evidence and works in a rational way. Creationism and/or ID have no evidence that rationally supports those claims.
I don't.
[quote]Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?I don't. I find the rationality (or not) of the analysis itself to be the determining factor in whether sites are biased, unbiased, or just plain stupid.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?I guess this depends in which type of chat-room you ask this question. The answers you get will most likely be bias.
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?I don't claim to know the truth. Most atheists I know don't claim to know the truth - they merely do not believe the theist version of the truth on the basis of not having the rational evidence.
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?Where have you seen this happen? Please feel free to quote sources that demonstrate this point.
4. Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
That is what puzzles me the most. I really think that time will lay this delusion to rest. Common ancestor is magic, it is the anti-Science.
I would love for the consensus to be - WE REALLY DONT KNOW SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE STUFF UP ANYMORE. That would be the best press conference i ever saw. The easiest way to see it is false is that there has never been even the slightest proof that intelligence has evolved. That is the holy grail of evolution, you can take everything else, the morphing shapes and the similarities amongst species is window dressing. I can prove that the human brain functions as it did from day one, i would love to see anyone attempt to prove otherwise but that will never happen.
And what was it with that reptile brain stuff? What a farce.
Sangamon
01-10-08, 08:52 AM
I can prove that the human brain functions as it did from day one, i would love to see anyone attempt to prove otherwise but that will never happen.
please do
the fact that, during the course of evolution, the cranium of our ancestors got bigger and bigger has totally no merit? just checking
I can prove that the human brain functions as it did from day one...I do not think that it is disputed that Humans (assuming you mean homo sapiens) have not evolved much since becoming "human". We have developed our functionality and intelligence, but not really evolved beyond superficial matters such as height, appearance etc. So merely mutation within the species.
But surely this simple matter is not what you were referring to, is it?
BIG Strawman fallacy to you if it is.
BIIIIIG one.
Not just a little one but a gianormous one of, dare I say it, Biblical proportions (and I have a Laaaarge Bible!)
:D
If they were NOT our ancestors then no it would not matter. Isn't an elephants brain larger than a humans? I can think of animals with tiny rice sized brains who are as intelligent as animals with larger brains so i am not sure what that proves.
Sangamon
01-10-08, 09:09 AM
ha well if you believe that the human brain sprang into existence, without anything like it coming before, then there is no sense arguing its evolution, is there?
I do not think that it is disputed that Humans (assuming you mean homo sapiens) have not evolved much since becoming "human". We have developed our functionality and intelligence, but not really evolved beyond superficial matters such as height, appearance etc. So merely mutation within the species.
But surely this simple matter is not what you were referring to, is it?
BIG Strawman fallacy to you if it is.
BIIIIIG one.
Not just a little one but a gianormous one of, dare I say it, Biblical proportions (and I have a Laaaarge Bible!)
:D
When the process of evolution begins it does not stop. If that is what you are alluding to. Evolution or devolution makes no difference, it is the process of change. Once this has been identified and can be monitored we then see it can NEVER stop unless it was never part of the process. In that case it never changes untill it ceases to exist. This i believe is a fact.
ha well if you believe that the human brain sprang into existence, without anything like it coming before, then there is no sense arguing its evolution, is there?
Well at some point you believe life 'sprang' into existence also, without anything like it coming before.
Sangamon
01-10-08, 09:14 AM
When the process of evolution begins it does not stop. If that is what you are alluding to. Evolution or devolution makes no difference, it is the process of change. Once this has been identified and can be monitored we then see it can NEVER stop unless it was never part of the process. In that case it never changes untill it ceases to exist. This i believe is a fact.
well you are wrong
there are species of animals that have stopped evolving, because they fit perfectly in their eco-system. Granted they have not COMPLETELY stopped, but the changes over millions of years are minute.
the best known examples of this are certain species of shark (especially the deep-see one) and the morene eel
Sangamon
01-10-08, 09:18 AM
Well at some point you believe life 'sprang' into existence also, without anything like it coming before.
yes it must've started sometime. But we have discovered complex organic molecules in outer space, so the 'without anything like it coming before' part is highly unlikely...at least if you speak of life on earth.
how the first live in the universe came to be...i don't know
You think nature exists to accommodate a species and all these thing just fit so perfectly by accident? If that were the case there would be no way to fit perfectly into an ecosystem and any fit would only be temporary. Nature does not think it exists as is. Sorry. Of course living organisms can adapt but there is a limit to that also.
You think nature exists to accommodate a species and all these thing just fit so perfectly by accident? If that were the case there would be no way to fit perfectly into an ecosystem and any fit would only be temporary. Nature does not think it exists as is. Sorry. Of course living organisms can adapt but there is a limit to that also.So you honestly believe that the Earth was created for us, and that because we fit it so perfectly that it must have been made for us?
:eek:
Seriously???
The idea that something merely adapted to the environment is not something you consider more likely?
As Douglas Adams once stated in an address:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
I suggest, sir, that you argue from a lack of understanding of evolution.
I suggest, sir, that you argue from a lack of understanding of evolution.
It is not that hard to understand. I dont make an issue of it too much any longer because it is like taking someone's religion from them. If i blow away evolution theory it seems to hurt peoples feelings but come on shed the indoctrination.
I think Charles Darwin was bent on finding an answer and he drew the simplest conclusion. He must have had a lot of influence because if most people drew that conclusion they would be in an asylum.
SnakeLord
01-10-08, 10:25 AM
You think nature exists to accommodate a species and all these thing just fit so perfectly by accident?
Indeed. It is a miracle that the puddle fits perfectly into the hole in the ground. Why, the puddle argues that the hole was made just for him. What the puddle does not realise is that he adapted to fit the hole.
Now, as for fitting so perfectly.. I don't think so. Two thirds of the planet is uninhabitable by man, many regions on earth are either too cold or too hot to sustain life for very long. Just take a look round at some pictures of starving Africans. Etc etc etc etc.
[edit] Bah, Sarkus beat me :(
Indeed. It is a miracle that the puddle fits perfectly into the hole in the ground. Why, the puddle argues that the hole was made just for him. What the puddle does not realise is that he adapted to fit the hole.
Now, as for fitting so perfectly.. I don't think so. Two thirds of the planet is uninhabitable by man, many regions on earth are either too cold or too hot to sustain life for very long. Just take a look round at some pictures of starving Africans. Etc etc etc etc.
[edit] Bah, Sarkus beat me :(Ah - I see we both dip into the same pool of rationalism. :D
Indeed. It is a miracle that the puddle fits perfectly into the hole in the ground. Why, the puddle argues that the hole was made just for him. What the puddle does not realise is that he adapted to fit the hole.
Oh yeah, it is a miracle alright.
It is not that hard to understand.And by your own words condemn yourself to being a fool?
I dont make an issue of it too much any longer because it is like taking someone's religion from them.An issue of what? Your lack of understanding. It is true that it is better the fool be silent than display his ignorance to the world.
If i blow away evolution theory it seems to hurt peoples feelings but come on shed the indoctrination.Not really a logical sentence structure here, I'm afraid.
"If" I do something it "seems"?
"If" is a conditional - conditions haven't occurred and thus the effects of that condition must be in a future tense... such as "it would"... and the correct future tense is determined by the tense of the condition.
But enough of the English lesson.
I think Charles Darwin was bent on finding an answer and he drew the simplest conclusion.Yes - ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Or rationality, for that matter?
He must have had a lot of influence because if most people drew that conclusion they would be in an asylum.Anything that went against the church did indeed have a struggle on their hand... until reason won out.
And if you now claimed to hear the voice of God in your head... where would you end up?
How times have changed!
You really think that humans popping out of a mud hole is rational? Because at the end of the day that is what it all boils down to. Its science fiction thats all.
But go ahead and present an argument without attacking me. I believed it al too once.
Oh no, now we found those ocean vents so of course that must have had something to do with it. And then for some reason these creatures were morphed into highly intelligent, extremely complex beings.:shy:
SnakeLord
01-10-08, 11:41 AM
Oh yeah, it is a miracle alright.
Not really.
I would be interested in hearing your ideas concerning the fossil record and why you do not find humans at the bottom and trilobytes at the top. It is a case of less complex to more complex, other than "morphing" :bugeye: why do you think that is?
You really think that humans popping out of a mud hole is rational?As rational as expecting a cat to give birth to a dog.
Because at the end of the day that is what it all boils down to. Its science fiction thats all.No - it's about the first building-blocks of life developing in a "mud hole" (as you put it) and then evolution taking it from there to here - through mutation, fitness for the environment and other theorised mechanisms.
But go ahead and present an argument without attacking me. I believed it al too once.An argument for what, exactly? For why evolution should be "believed"? Here's one: because it takes the observations (fossil record, observed instances of mutations and speciation etc) and arrives at the rational conclusion of evolution.
Oh no, now we found those ocean vents so of course that must have had something to do with it. And then for some reason these creatures were morphed into highly intelligent, extremely complex beings.:shy:Morphed? Come now - you expect us not to insult you and yet you appear to deliberately goad through displays of ignorance and naivety. Shame on you.
That is what puzzles me the most. I really think that time will lay this delusion to rest. Common ancestor is magic, it is the anti-Science.
I would love for the consensus to be - WE REALLY DONT KNOW SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE STUFF UP ANYMORE. That would be the best press conference i ever saw. The easiest way to see it is false is that there has never been even the slightest proof that intelligence has evolved. That is the holy grail of evolution, you can take everything else, the morphing shapes and the similarities amongst species is window dressing. I can prove that the human brain functions as it did from day one, i would love to see anyone attempt to prove otherwise but that will never happen.
And what was it with that reptile brain stuff? What a farce.
Please enlighten us. How do you know that the human brain functions as it did from day one ?
You really think that humans popping out of a mud hole is rational? Because at the end of the day that is what it all boils down to. Its science fiction thats all.
But go ahead and present an argument without attacking me. I believed it al too once.
Oh no, now we found those ocean vents so of course that must have had something to do with it. And then for some reason these creatures were morphed into highly intelligent, extremely complex beings.:shy:
Who told you that humans popped out of a mud hole ?
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?
burn the card. No insignia shall label me for I follow no belief other than my own
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/Iambaytor/smilies/AngelAnimation2.gif
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?
lol this is so telling.. :rolleyes:
SnakeLord
01-10-08, 03:04 PM
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?
If this isn't the clearest indication that you are only a theist because you want the payout then I don't know what is.
Anyway... some benefits, no benefits, many benefits.. That doesn't change there being no evidence for the existence of gods and thus my lack of belief in them.
spidergoat
01-10-08, 03:31 PM
We get to play with a full deck.
glaucon
01-10-08, 03:56 PM
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?
Freedom of mental movement: one is not shackled with the requirement of having to entertain belief in fantastical and/or mythic entities to excuse and define one's behaviour as well as serving as an emotional and metaphysical 'safety blankie'.
Crunchy Cat
01-10-08, 04:10 PM
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?
Truth.
shichimenshyo
01-10-08, 04:12 PM
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?
Ohhh we get dental, and medical. plus free parking in the handicap spots. as long as we pay the athiest chruch 10% of our annual income. :D
All these benefits don't sound too exciting.
spidergoat
01-10-08, 04:51 PM
Well, let's make up something exciting for y... oh wait, someone already did.
cosmictraveler
01-10-08, 04:52 PM
All these benefits don't sound too exciting.
The freedom to think without someone telling us how to do so or what about.
All these benefits don't sound too exciting.
Whether or not something is exciting or appealing doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is factually correct. The fact that your religion promises you eternal life (or whatever) doesn’t make it any more likely to be true. The fact that atheism doesn’t promise you eternal life doesn’t make it any less likely to be true. I could believe that there is a huge pile of gold and diamonds waiting for me on my coffee table, and such a belief would probably make me happy (if I could really believe it); but that doesn't make it any more likely that the pile will be waiting for me, and the mere fact that I would like for it to be true isn't going to make me believe it. In fact, if someone came up to me and told me that the gold and diamonds were waiting for me I probably wouldn't believe it unless I had some convincing evidence – and then my belief would be based only on the evidence that I was presented, not my desire for the gold and diamonds.
Crunchy Cat
01-10-08, 06:14 PM
Conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality when that conformity can be demonstrated.
All these benefits don't sound too exciting.
So what makes your life exciting ?
So what makes your life exciting ?
I think the deal here is that "Why?" asks the questions...not the other way around
Why?
So, you're an atheist. You've got your sparkling new atheist membership card. What are the membership benefits?Anger - A realization that the irrelevance of religion is a major distration from solving the real problem in life - death. The momentum of some 4 billion people being convinced that death is a desirable magical gateway to eternal bliss impedes and is impeding any rapid and urgent progress from solving the real issue of involuntary death.
iceaura
01-10-08, 07:01 PM
Well at some point you believe life 'sprang' into existence also, without anything like it coming before. No evolutionist believes this. Eviolutionary theory expressly forbids that, denies it. If an evolutionary theory of abiogenesis is correct, that is false.
And so this is shown to be in need of revision: It {evolution} is not that hard to understand.
You don't understand it. Your statement up there, intended to describe what evolutionary theory claims, is almost exactly the opposite of what evolutionary theory claims. It is not only wrong, it is flagrantly wrong, completely backwards.
I think evolutionary theory is very difficult to understand. It's extremely counterintuitive. It takes years of actual study, in my observation, for someone to get a real handle on it. It is an advance in human comprehension almost without peer or parallel, and it does not fit easily into the world as known before either in historical or personal terms.
shichimenshyo
01-10-08, 07:12 PM
All kinds of different things. Atheists don't follow a single set of beliefs.
Most of them do not, however, believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
:D:D Man hitchikers guide makes me happy
John99,
Evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution has occurred and is occurring, of that there is no doubt among those who understand it. You clearly do not, by the way, as anyone here can see by your bizarre assertions. The how of evolution, is the theoretical part, and while some theories are well understood others are still being formed and established.
Brain size is not an indicator of intelligence but brain complexity is. The human brain is more compact than some large mammals but it has many more folds that give rise to an aggregate total number of neurons that surpass any other living creature.
As for complexity being the result of intelligent design: Do you have any examples of anything complex being designed that was not the result of evolution? Perhaps the modern computer might be a case. Something clearly designed by intelligent man. But wait, these things are so mind bogglingly useful why didn’t the ancient Egyptians design them? These ancients were apparently just as intelligent as modern man. The answer is very simple – intelligent man did not design the modern computer. The computers we have today were the result of a long evolutionary cycle that began when the first cave men began to mark their kills on a bone or stick. Methods of calculation and computation have developed slowly over the centuries and even today each new computer variation builds on its predecessor, usually by adaptation, and trial and error. And there is no end in sight. It is not that something intelligent designed the modern computer but that man’s intelligence was simply a component in the evolution of computers. The overwhelming process is one of gradual change over time – i.e. evolution.
The idea that the complexity of man and life was designed as is without an evolutionary process is based on the allegation that anything complex man has made is the result of his intelligence. But I challenge you to list anything that man’s intelligence has designed that was not primarily the result of an evolutionary process.
You should now understand that the speculation that complexity can only result from intelligent design is false. Or at the very least you have no basis to assert that complexity can result outside of an evolutionary process.
Lastly on the issue of life: What is the difference between something alive and not alive? The distinction is not as clear as you might imagine. The boundary between the simplest cell and inanimate matter is in many cases quite blurred.
lightgigantic
01-10-08, 09:11 PM
Evolution is inductive reasoning.
true or false?
Evolution is inductive reasoning.
true or false?
Why don't you try any sort of reasoning ? I believe there's a form known as abductive which means you behave as if something were true. Should be right up your street.
iceaura
01-11-08, 12:51 PM
Evolution is inductive reasoning.
true or false? False.
If you are being careful, with the "is".
I believe there's a form known as abductive which means you behave as if something were true. I've seen a decent argument for that being the logical structure of the process of evolution. I'm beginning to be persuaded by it. It's a wing if it works as a wing - that kind of observation.
False.
If you are being careful, with the "is".
I've seen a decent argument for that being the logical structure of the process of evolution. I'm beginning to be persuaded by it. It's a wing if it works as a wing - that kind of observation.
I was thinking of a process associated with Jung.
How about if it walks like a duck quacks ,like a duck........
First i will start of by saying that too much variation performing the same function= Illogical. There is no reason or explanation for it from a purely evolutionary standpoint.
"Do you have any examples of anything complex being designed that was not the result of evolution? Perhaps the modern computer might be a case. Something clearly designed by intelligent man. But wait, these things are so mind bogglingly useful why didn’t the ancient Egyptians design them? These ancients were apparently just as intelligent as modern man. The answer is very simple – intelligent man did not design the modern computer. The computers we have today were the result of a long evolutionary cycle that began when the first cave men began to mark their kills on a bone or stick. Methods of calculation and computation have developed slowly over the centuries and even today each new computer variation builds on its predecessor, usually by adaptation, and trial and error. And there is no end in sight. It is not that something intelligent designed the modern computer but that man’s intelligence was simply a component in the evolution of computers. The overwhelming process is one of gradual change over time – i.e. evolution."
Yes but that is evolution- Change. Your own example point not to intelligence (brain function) evolving but to technology evolving. I am talking about the materials necessary to produce modern computers. The intellect was there as far as ability to learn but the combination of the the material takes years and sometimes what we visualize or will never be realized because a single element is missing, dependent on so many other things not to mention being lucky. Writing data to a device the size of one thumb is pretty incredible, impossible to envision if you dont even have paper. I would say the ability to understand as we do was there from the beginning but the ability to execute these ideas takes so long that it affords the impression of physical evolution. A similar example is the first seismograph, made in China.
Another way to look at it is if you erase every single advancement and left with nothing, no language, no clothes, not even fire. And much less people too. Do you really need to add that the brain evolved from NOTHING to understand why it took so long to get to where we are now? But if the earliest humans had access to what we have now... I see no reason to believe they had the intellect of five year olds. And what would be left to show that advancements, although small, happened much MUCH earlier than we are led to believe.
The fossil record? I would like for you or SnakelLord to explain how the fossil record shows any sign of evolving.
:thumbsup:
First i will start of by saying that too much variation performing the same function= Illogical. There is no reason or explanation for it from a purely evolutionary standpoint.How much do you consider "too much"?
And if you are saying that there IS too much (i.e. that you think evolution to be illogical) can you give an example?
SnakeLord
01-12-08, 03:24 PM
The fossil record? I would like for you or SnakelLord to explain how the fossil record shows any sign of evolving.
-----more complex organism------------
---------------------------------------
-----slightly more complex organism-----
---------------------------------------
-----less complex organism-------------
If you find homo sapiens on the lower line then there is an issue. Of course everything is where you would expect it to be. The organisms on the higher layers also appear to be modified forms of the older organisms.
- You have 'transitional' forms such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik:
http://www.snakeystew.com/tiktaa.jpg
- The fossil record is also in harmony with present biogeography, the phylogenetic tree and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.
Of course this is an extensive topic and not something that can be written in full on a religious forum thread.
BlueMoose
01-12-08, 05:25 PM
10 Questions for Atheists:
-I´m somewhere in the middle still searching but...
Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
-I did win the 1000 times in a row in a roulette playing just one number, dont you believe me, it has been written as i write it.
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
-I´m still searching God and I appreciate all good passages in every religion, but if I dont accept Jesus as a mangod I burn in hell, thats narrowminded ?
Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
-Still searching the nature of God while wondering meaningfulness of doing so.
Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
-Closest thing at that sense is that that I have concluded is that everything is manifestation of God.
Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
-Sometimes its not.
How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
-Hmmmmmm...even in ancient rituals fellow humans were sacrified, not to mention Crusades, Inquisition, Northern Ireland conflict, Israel/Palestine, cleaning out the natives in N&S America, anyway you looked history and wars, the God is always dragged in, Gott mit uns, In God we trust, if not directly but least undirectly religion has been almost in all conflicts. It has used people to do something they wouldnt or couldnt do, and rationalize or accept it to themselves ?. Its called mass-hypnosis, authority over reason.
Like Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims.
Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
-Christian ~ believer of NT to be the prove of that they are right, other sources...no. Bias, yes.
Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
-You feel what you feel. Are you trying to provoke me, teaching me or looking just for answers, I´m FEELING confused. If educating is sharing knowledge of best of hes understanding, is it a bad thing ?
Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
-I dont know the truth since I´m not a God.
And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
-Give me a example, or should I. The NT, why does have it anymore validity than my native mythology of Gods in Kalevala ?
lightgigantic
01-12-08, 11:59 PM
-----more complex organism------------
---------------------------------------
-----slightly more complex organism-----
---------------------------------------
-----less complex organism-------------
If you find homo sapiens on the lower line then there is an issue. Of course everything is where you would expect it to be. The organisms on the higher layers also appear to be modified forms of the older organisms.
- You have 'transitional' forms such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik:
http://www.snakeystew.com/tiktaa.jpg
- The fossil record is also in harmony with present biogeography, the phylogenetic tree and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.
Of course this is an extensive topic and not something that can be written in full on a religious forum thread.
Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on inductive reasoning
True of False?
BlueMoose
01-13-08, 06:57 PM
True...and False.
Evolution is based on inductive reasoning caused by inductive reasonings of ones surroundings ? True or False ? ;)
Star-gazer
01-13-08, 08:08 PM
1.Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
A lot of people also claim to have seen and experienced, bigfoot, aliens, Loc Ness moster, and ghosts, yet there is no solid proof for any of them. Unless there is solid proof of something existing, I can't bring myself to believe in it.
2.Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
First of all I have never called a Christian "narrow-minded". I respect other peoples beliefs.
3.Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
How is that? Evolution is not blind faith, and if you think it is I suggest you pick up a book or study evolution closer.
4.Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
Do you know anything about Evolution?
5.Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
Because Creationism and Intelligent design are not science. Creation has no answers or evidence, while science does.
6.How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
I can't answer that, because I don't think that.
7.Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
Your getting science and religion to intertwined in that question. They are two completely diffrent subjects, one searches for truth through evidence and study, the other relies on a text written by people who thought the world was flat.
8.Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
I can't answer that question either, because once again I don't do that.
9.Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
Knowledge is gained through study, which is what I do. Belief is gained through mental acceptance of a claim as truth.
10.And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
Have you studied science at all?! Do you even know what evolution is? Or are you not believing it only because it contradicts what you were taught and now believe.
I'm also tired of the whole Creation vs. Evolution debate, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I think we should all just agree to disagree, its getting old, its always the same thing over and over.:shrug:
iceaura
01-14-08, 12:22 AM
True of False? False. Again. Give it up.
iceaura
01-14-08, 12:35 AM
First i will start of by saying that too much variation performing the same function= Illogical. There is no reason or explanation for it from a purely evolutionary standpoint. Sure there is. One of the alleged weaknesses of evolutionary theory is how easily a clever person can come up with bogus explanations within it. There is plenty of reason and explanation for almost anything, within evolutionary theory. It generates hypotheses like mad.
You have no idea what an evolutionary viewpoint would be. Neither do most Creationists. There is a reason it took so many thousands of years, and such a dedicated and thorough genius, to come up with the theory and make it stick. It's a very difficult concept.
lightgigantic
01-14-08, 12:50 AM
False. Again. Give it up.
Ok then
Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on deductive reasoning
True or false?
;)
iceaura
01-14-08, 12:59 AM
Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on deductive reasoning
True or false? False. "It's" based on a picture.
You are using "based on" to spin something. It isn't an explanation of evolution, in the first place.
lightgigantic
01-14-08, 01:04 AM
False. "It's" based on a picture.
:eek:
You are using "based on" to spin something. It isn't an explanation of evolution, in the first place.
interesting comment
So Snakelord's response bears no connection to John99's question
hmmmm ....
iceaura
01-14-08, 03:37 AM
So Snakelord's response bears no connection to John99's question I thought it answered the question reasonably, for this forum.
The question was about the fossil record, and Snakelord posted a picture of a piece of the fossil record that bore directly on the issue.
What are you trying to say, here ? Are you trying to suggest something in cryptic enough fashion that you aren't responsible for a direct statement ?
lightgigantic
01-14-08, 03:48 AM
I thought it answered the question reasonably, for this forum.
The question was about the fossil record, and Snakelord posted a picture of a piece of the fossil record that bore directly on the issue.
What are you trying to say, here ? Are you trying to suggest something in cryptic enough fashion that you aren't responsible for a direct statement ?
and what was the fossil record supposed to indicate exactly? (- apart from pictures of course ...)
SnakeLord
01-14-08, 06:22 AM
Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on inductive reasoning
That was hardly "an explanation of evolution" and more a mention of how the fossil record fits into it. But to answer your question, yes.
'In following the strict rules of logic one could claim that no matter how many a