How do you feel about atheists?

[MrEmpiricism]

I am interested in hearing your arguments.

I would like you to consider, when presenting your arguments, whether the sacrificial act of Maximilian Kolbe was moral, and if so, how this can be understood through evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychology explains the origins of morals though the interaction of cooperative societies, however in the case of Kolbe there is certainly even more at work. I would argue that his sacrifice involves more than simply a discussion on morality. We are not just talking about a moral outlook but an entire worldview. I am not sure I would even describe his sacrifice as being moral in the sense we are discussing. Brave, compassionate, yes; even defiant.

As far is evolutionary origins, giving ones life for anther can be seen throughout the animal kingdom and it is one of the most fundamental instincts, think how fiercely kin protect each other. However, before we open that tin of worms there is a much cleaner way of debunking Kolbe as evidence for deity installed morals, for if we are moral creatures due to a god infusing us with the same moral compass how can it be that for every case of a Kolbe there were literally millions of people slaughtered by other humans?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

And it happened just once and then life sprang from nonlife. But it happened just once.

While there is still much that is not understood, there is plenty of evidence supporting abiogenesis and springing has little to do with it. Also, we have no idea how many times it happened, I would be curious to know where you got the number one from?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

There has to be some suspension of reason in order to accede to this, no?

Without a doubt, though the only people I have ever heard put forth such a theory are believers.

 

[Faithdancer]

And it was first described some 4,000 years ago in Genesis"And the Lord said let there be light"

Yep. But some won’t accept Genesis as commenting on the Big Bang in any way because Genesis isn’t phrased in the language of astrophysics. LOL!

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You are correct.

It’s like asking, “Can you make me 2 parallel lines that are perpendicular?”

So, the logical conclusion is that you realize it’s absurd to believe that something can come from nothing.

QED.

I don’t know if something can come from nothing? What is nothing? How can I know ANYTHING about, or what can come from it, until you A. tell me what it is, and B. show there was a time where there ever was nothing?

When you start to evoke nothing, I simply have no idea what you are taking about.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

And it was first described some 4,000 years ago in Genesis"And the Lord said let there be light"

And that was wrong, the expansion of space-time predates light by 100 million years.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Yep. But some won’t accept Genesis as commenting on the Big Bang in any way because Genesis isn’t phrased in the language of astrophysics. LOL!

Let be honest.

Genesis is not a science book, it has next to nothing in common with our understanding of the development of the cosmos and it is a very slippery slope into fundamentalist thinking to suggest otherwise. YEC and biblical literalism have no place in the 21st century.

 

[estesbob]

While there is still much that is not understood, there is plenty of evidence supporting abiogenesis and springing has little to do with it. Also, we have no idea how many times it happened, I would be curious to know where you got the number one from?

Because no one has observed it. We have solid evidence that it happened once.We have no evidence it happened more than once Remember we are constricted by your rules.

Please note that abiogenesis relies on matter that apparently also just sprung into existence- but only once

 

[estesbob]

Let be honest.

Genesis is not a science book, it has next to nothing in common with our understanding of the development of the cosmos and it is a very slippery slope into fundamentalist thinking to suggest otherwise. YEC and biblical literalism have no place in the 21st century.

And yet it described the big bang thousands of years before science postulated it.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Because no one has observed it. We have solid evidence that it happened once.We have no evidence it happened more than once Remember we are constricted by your rules.

Please note that abiogenesis relies on matter that apparently also just sprung into existence- but only once

Science has NOTHING to do with observing the actual act of something happening, in fact that is the exact OPPOSITE of science. In science we put the puzzle together using observation, but that does not mean observing the ACT.

Where on earth are you getting this once from, for both abiogenesis and the universe?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

And yet it described the big bang thousands of years before science postulated it.

Actually is a muddled mess that has nothing to do with the big bang. We can go through it if you like? Why are so may people desperate to paint the bible as a science book when NONE of the great contemporary Christian thinkers do, in fact they pretty much all warn against it.

 

[Faithdancer]

And yet it described the big bang thousands of years before science postulated it.

Not to mention, Young Earth Creationists are not the topic here, and they do not believe in the Big Bang anyway. More straw men will surely be forthcoming, estesbob!

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Not to mention, Young Earth Creationists are not the topic here, and they do not believe in the Big Bang anyway. More red herrings and straw men will be forthcoming, estesbob!

You have mentioned straw man arguments throughout this thread and have never once been correct, do you actually know what a straw man argument is?

 

[estesbob]

Science has NOTHING to do with observing the actual act of something happening, in fact that is the exact OPPOSITE of science. In science we put the puzzle together using observation, but that does not mean observing the ACT.

Where on earth are you getting this once from, for both abiogenesis and the universe?

We can only prove it happened once .If you want to infer things by observation then it is very plausible through observation that the intricacies of this world are too complex to have happened by chance But then we would be violating the rules you laid out

 

[estesbob]

Actually is a muddled mess that has nothing to do with the big bang. We can go through it if you like? Why are so may people desperate to paint the bible as a science book when NONE of the great contemporary Christian thinkers do, in fact they pretty much all warn against it.

So there was no light when the big bang occured. I never said scripture was a science book- just said it described the origins of the universe thousands of years before scientists postulated it.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

We can only prove it happened once .If you want to infer things by observation then it is very plausible through observation that the intricacies of this world are too complex to have happened by chance But then we would be violating the rules you laid out

We cant prove how many times it happened. In fact in science there IS NO SUCH THING as proving something. You have a complete misunderstanding of observations within science. All I have ever asked for is verifiable evidence and there is plenty for abiogenesis.
OH, and again the ONLY people I ever hear saying this all happened by chance are the religious. PS. Faithdancer THAT is laying of the foundations of a straw-man argument.

 

[Faithdancer]

We can only prove it happened once

Exactly estesbob. And eminent astrophysicists agree-- before the “Big Bang” there was no time and no space. Even a child can understand that there had to be a defining agent that started it all. Logically, that agent was and is outside of time and space and all powerful. The extraordinary fine tuning of the universe also indicates that this agent was and is intelligent. To paraphrase Aquinas: “This, we call God.”

As far as flies appearing magically from rotting meat…

 

[MrEmpiricism]

So there was no light when the big bang occured. I never said scripture was a science book- just said it described the origins of the universe thousands of years before scientists postulated it.

But it doesn’t. And there was not light as we understand it until the first stars formed which was 100 million years after the start of the expansion, in fact IIRC it took about half a billion years for the universe to cool enough for light.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Exactly estesbob. And eminent astrophysicists agree-- before the “Big Bang” there was no time and no space. Even a child can understand that there had to be a defining agent that started it all. Logically, that agent was and is outside of time and space and all powerful. The extraordinary fine tuning of the universe also indicates that this agent was and is intelligent. To paraphrase Aquinas: “This, we call God.”

As far as flies appearing magically from rotting meat…

And that is the problem, you are thinking like a child.

 

[JD1789]

I don’t know if something can come from nothing? What is nothing? How can I know ANYTHING about, or what can come from it, until you A. tell me what it is, and B. show there was a time where there ever was nothing?

When you start to evoke nothing, I simply have no idea what you are taking about.

Nothing is the absence of something. Much like cold is the absence of heat. Just like the example of temperature and how absolute zero cannot be reached, nothing cannot be reached physically. So I agree that science cannot observe or study nothing and its properties. Then again, belief in science as the only way to know something cannot be empiracally verified.