atheism

[OneTrueCathApos]

Well actually they have, i suggest you look into the subject.

We know the origin of the elements, we have recreated RNA, we understand the evolution of life. They only thing we don’t know/understand yet is the origin of the observable universe.

And that you will never know. It is God, that’s it. Why can’t you look into that?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

But of that we know a great deal. More than ever before.

If you ask me it is nothing more than a philosophical grudge match. and it’s the hard evidence that seperates the “wheat from the chaff”.
Keep in mind that “evidence” is not the same as “proof”. Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether.
If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But of that we know a great deal. More than ever before.

Agreed, but not to the level we understand the likes of evolution.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If you ask me it is nothing more than a philosophical grudge match. and it’s the hard evidence that seperates the “wheat from the chaff”.
Keep in mind that “evidence” is not the same as “proof”. Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether.
If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.

Arrrrghhhhhh… I swear i hate this more than anything :banghead::banghead:.

In sceince you don’t get higher than a theory! Theory in science**:tsktsk::tsktsk:kpeople: IS NOT THE SAMEkpeople::tsktsk::tsktsk:** as theory used in daily chat.

 

[AnAtheist]

If you ask me it is nothing more than a philosophical grudge match. and it’s the hard evidence that seperates the “wheat from the chaff”.
Keep in mind that “evidence” is not the same as “proof”. Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether.
If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.

A scientific theory has proof, and it is only called a theory if there is proof, otherwise it is called a hypothesis. Please do not confuse a scientifc theory with the layman’s term “theory”.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

And that you will never know. It is God, that’s it. Why can’t you look into that?

One should never start with a conclusion when looking into anything. So no, we don’t look for god. We look for evidence, then draw conclusions based on evidence.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

One should never start with a conclusion when looking into anything. So no, we don’t look for god. We look for evidence, then draw conclusions based on evidence.

Ok, since there is overwhelming evidence in the Scriptures, historical evidence for 2,000 years and also archaelogical evidence, why doesn’t that enlighten your mind, or do you refuse to believe it?
You people always try to debate Science vs. Religion, with Creation being Religious and Evolution being Scientific. But in an ironic twist, its the Creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the Evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator?
Must we really light a candle to see the sun?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Waiting…:coffeeread:

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Ok, since there is overwhelming evidence in the Scriptures, historical evidence for 2,000 years and also archaelogical evidence, why doesn’t that enlighten your mind, or do you refuse to believe it?
You people always try to debate Science vs. Religion, with Creation being Religious and Evolution being Scientific. But in an ironic twist, its the Creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the Evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator?
Must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Really? Give me one bit of empirical evidence for creationism.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Really? Give me one bit of empirical evidence for creationism.

After you answer my two questions that I asked you first.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

One should never start with a conclusion when looking into anything. So no, we don’t look for god. We look for evidence, then draw conclusions based on evidence.

There is so much evidence against Biological Macroevolution it isn’t funny. some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence.
One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe, heard of him? He discovered that cells were irriducibly complex.
They needed every single chemical and part to function. They could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Furthermore, we have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. Things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported Microevolution or have been hoaxes or frauds.
However, the best evidence against Macroevolution and the best evidence is the unimaginable complexity and machine like workings of a single cell, including DNA and the manufacture of proteins etc…
None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a blob of protoplasm.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Ok, since there is overwhelming evidence in the Scriptures, historical evidence for 2,000 years and also archaelogical evidence, why doesn’t that enlighten your mind, or do you refuse to believe it?
You people always try to debate Science vs. Religion, with Creation being Religious and Evolution being Scientific. But in an ironic twist, its the Creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the Evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator?
Must we really light a candle to see the sun?

No i don’t consider it strong enough evidence for the claims. For example, rising from the dead goes against EVERYTHING we know about death. Therefore i don’t consider stories in a book strong enough evidence to believe someone rose from the dead.

There is also zero empirical evidence to support the creator hypothesis.

Now you claim there is, so please provide me a link to this empirical evidence. Peer reviewed papers would be best.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**There is so much evidence against Biological Macroevolution it isn’t funny. some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. **

Really? You should let the biologists know about this, you could be due a Noble Prize

One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe, heard of him? He discovered that cells were irriducibly complex.

Behe, yeah i know who he is. He’s the discovery institute dude whos irreducible complexity nonsense was utterly destroyed during the Dover trial. You should keep up with the times dude.
**
They needed every single chemical and part to function. They could **not **have gradually evolved. **

This nonsense has been debunked countless times. I take your knowledge of science extends to answeringenesis? I guess that why you dont even know what a scientific theory is.
**
Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.**

LOL yeah not one! I guess answering genesis forgot about this lot… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

**Furthermore, we have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. **

I guess answering genesis forgot to tell you we have now created RNA, the building block for life sciencenews.net.au/scientists-create-artificial-selfreplicating-rna/
“So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed, it goes forever,”

We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention.

LMAO you not doing very well, your on 0/6 so far. talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported Microevolution or have been hoaxes or frauds.

The processes involved in “microevolution” are IDENTICAL to “macroevolution”. In short it IS IMPOSSIBLE to believe in one and not the other. Unless of course you are scientifically illiterate, which i’m sorry to say it seems you are. 0/7

However, the best evidence against Macroevolution and the best evidence is the unimaginable complexity and machine like workings of a single cell, including DNA and the manufacture of proteins etc…

Ah im with you for it is to complex to have evolved? Well then there is only one way to explain it… By positing A MORE COMPLEX creator!!! LOL yeah thats it lets explain away complexity with even MORE complexity. Well if were to complex, and therefore MUST have a creator, how on earth did that even more complex creator come into existence?

Here the thing, the complexity you speak of provides no obstical for evoltion.

None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a blob of protoplasm.

And the thing is EVERY scientific break though has not only fitted perfectly with evolution, but lots have actually been predicted BY EVOLUTION.

Well you didn’t do very well i make it ZERO out of nine, thats a big fat F- and a resit… Back to science 101 for you.

 

[theistgal]

Because do not Atheists reject God. Also do not Agnostic’s reject God?

Or … if there is a God … maybe atheists and agnostics are not rejecting the actual Being, but the explanations and descriptions of this Being which are provided to them by fallible human beings.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Or … if there is a God … maybe atheists and agnostics are not rejecting the actual Being, but the explanations and descriptions of this Being which are provided to them by fallible human beings.

It is impossilbe to reject something you don’t believe in. Like you pointed out, atheism is a rejection of humans claims of god.

 

[theistgal]

It is impossilbe to reject something you don’t believe in. Like you pointed out, atheism is a rejection of humans claims of god.

Oh, I understand and agree with you, CD. Certainly, there are plenty of atheists who simply don’t believe in a god, rather than “Rejecting God!! ” as it’s so often put here.

Just trying to point out that sometimes even those who might be willing to believe, should a reasonable explanation be given them, might instead be pushed into exactly the opposite direction, if all they got was some of the nonsense being posted around here.

 

[AnAtheist]

Or … if there is a God … maybe atheists and agnostics are not rejecting the actual Being, but the explanations and descriptions of this Being which are provided to them by fallible human beings.

Now, that I call an admirable attitude. Guess that’s all and enough we can ask for from a believer.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Oh, I understand and agree with you, CD. Certainly, there are plenty of atheists who simply don’t believe in a god, rather than “Rejecting God!! ” as it’s so often put here.

Just trying to point out that sometimes even those who might be willing to believe, should a reasonable explanation be given them, might instead be pushed into exactly the opposite direction, if all they got was some of the nonsense being posted around here.

It is utmostly refreshing to speak to someone that understands the actual postion held by atheists instead of trying to warp our beliefs. My hat is off to you… :bowdown:

 

[theistgal]

It is utmostly refreshing to speak to someone that understands the actual postion held by atheists instead of trying to warp our beliefs. My hat is off to you… :bowdown:

Well, not that I’m bragging about my atheist creds, but I used to be a moderator at an atheist chat board.

It usually went pretty much like this one does, just in reverse.

 

[rinnie]

Or … if there is a God … maybe atheists and agnostics are not rejecting the actual Being, but the explanations and descriptions of this Being which are provided to them by fallible human beings.

Makes no sense. Because the Being who indeed is Jesus Christ is was who taught these fallible human beings the Apostles. And he is the one who gave them the Power of the Holy Spirit to explain and teach. Which he indeed promised this teaching to be infallible. But they are rejecting the Actual Being when they say they do not believe in Jesus Christ and God. It is what it is, and no matter how they try to turn it around it comes down to this. Do you believe in God the Father, ANd do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Easy question easy answer yes or no?

SO when they do not accept the Infallible teachings of the Church are they not rejecting Christ. Again yes or no?