Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HappyRevert said:
Since you’ve degenerated into name calling I think I’ll just stop talking to you.
Click to expand...
I degenerated into name calling because on multiple occasions you posted that I said something that I did not. Once, OK maybe you misunderstood what I said. Multiple times even after I explained that is not what I said, now you are just making things up. Where I come from that is lying.
 
AnotherAtheist said:
I degenerated into name calling because on multiple occasions you posted that I said something that I did not. Once, OK maybe you misunderstood what I said. Multiple times even after I explained that is not what I said, now you are just making things up. Where I come from that is lying.
Click to expand...
So what’s your excuse with me?
 
josie_L said:
Did I deny this? Furthermore, there is evidence that our consciousness does survive death, so although I have faith I also have science to help solidify my beliefs.
Click to expand...
Yes you did deny it.
I don’t think I’ve just evolved from apes, but that I was created in God’s image
Click to expand...
Created is in God’s image is not the same as evolved via natural selection.

NDEs? Pseudoscience at best. I can easily provide multiple links to studies debunking NDEs. If there is a consensus among scientists about NDEs it is that there is NOT enough evidence to confirm that NDEs are anything more than your brain dying. You might as well have posted a link to Ghost Busters.
 
josie_L said:
So what’s your excuse with me?
Click to expand...
My excuse with you is you accused a 12 year girl of immoral acts and her atheists friends of supporting her in them then refused to back up your claims when she called you on it. For all I know Annabea did post the things you said and it is possible that some pervert on the Internet encouraged her about it. However if that was the case then why wouldn’t you provide the link to the post you reported that proves that we atheists are such terrible people? The only reason I can that I can come up with that you wouldn’t is that you made it up.
 
josie_L said:
Consciousness does survive after death, please read the link provided in my post, it has all the information needed pertaining to this subject.
Click to expand...
guess how long we now know the human brain remains alive and “thinking” after clinical death?
 
I guess you guys find the universe orderly, but from I’ve seen it’s wildly chaotic. I guess there’s some elements of order, but we live in an expanding universe, with billions (as many as 500 billion) galaxies, trillions of stars, goodness knows how many solar systems (simply defined planets rotating around stars), black holes, dying and exploding stars, etc. So when the intelligent design crowd says something like there’s a one in several trillion chance something like human life could evolve from the big bang (albeit this is a number derived from questionable methodology, but for arguendo sake let’s assume it’s at least somewhat valid), we can say OK then that means, according to your probability calculations, there must be a few other “earths” with intelligent life on them out there 🙂

Anyways, randomness and chaos governs. I’m really looking forward to a viable unifying theory of physics; and a mathematical formula that can quantify the singularity (that will be awesome).
 
estesbob said:
How did something spring from nothing?

How did life spring from non-life?
Click to expand...
Who said something sprang from nothing? Oh that’s right; something from nothing is a theistic theory. I’m sorry but I subscribe to Big Bang theory and Big Bang theory does not postulate that something sprang from nothing so I can’t help you there.

As far as abiogenesis goes probably the most popular hypothesis is primordial soup theory. However there are others such as; Autocatalysis, Clay theory, Gold’s “Deep-hot biosphere” model, “Primitive” extraterrestrial life, Extraterrestrial Amino Acids Seeding Earth, Lipid World, Polyphosphates, PAH world hypothesis and Multiple genesis. None of them need god to seed Earth with life.
 
estesbob said:
How did something spring from nothing?

How did life spring from non-life?
Click to expand...
life from non-life (or better stated biological life from chemical interactions) is abiogenesis. There’s plenty of good theories out there, and some simulations that were done (although it’s a developing field with much yet to be discovered).

But your argument boils down to an argument from ignorance (or from incredulity). However, there’s a bigger problem with your method than just the incredulity fallacy. There’s really two fallacies, both at the back end & front end of your premise. We lack complete information about the origins of life, and DNA appears to be irreducibly complex (even though science has shown it’s not), therefore god. That’s the “back end” (incredulity) fallacy. Then you use misrepresentation of objective fact (the incredulity fallacy you believe proves god exists) to make the front end fallacious assumption, therefore my religion (i.e. Christianity) is true.

In fact it doesn’t follow that merely showing the hypothetical possibility of a creator god bolsters the veracity of your particular religion. Any religion must be examined according to its own merits (since showing, maybe god does exist, just as logically bolsters deism or Islam as it does Christianity).

Abrahamic faiths run into serious problems, because it’s easy enough to show the mythological roots of religion (beginning with the Sumerians, onto Egyptian and Greek mythology).

While a credible argument exists for the historicity of Jesus (although it’s far from conclusive or even very persuasive), it’s apparent that elements of the Egyptian Horus myth was plugged into the Jesus narrative (just as it’s apparent that Judaism is an offshoot of Mesopotamian mythology, therefore IMO irreparably damaging the veracity of all Abrahamic faiths).
 
yankee_doodle said:
I guess you guys find the universe orderly, but from I’ve seen it’s wildly chaotic. I guess there’s some elements of order, but we live in an expanding universe, with billions (as many as 500 billion) galaxies, trillions of stars, goodness knows how many solar systems (simply defined planets rotating around stars), black holes, dying and exploding stars, etc. So when the intelligent design crowd says something like there’s a one in several trillion chance something like human life could evolve from the big bang (albeit this is a number derived from questionable methodology, but for arguendo sake let’s assume it’s at least somewhat valid), we can say OK then that means, according to your probability calculations, there must be a few other “earths” with intelligent life on them out there 🙂

Anyways, randomness and chaos governs. I’m really looking forward to a viable unifying theory of physics; and a mathematical formula that can quantify the singularity (that will be awesome).
Click to expand...
There’s order among the chaos but the fact that solar systems and galaxies orbit a central mass is not evidence that god designed that way.
 
AnotherAtheist said:
Who said something sprang from nothing? Oh that’s right; something from nothing is a theistic theory. I’m sorry but I subscribe to Big Bang theory and Big Bang theory does not postulate that something sprang from nothing so I can’t help you there.

As far as abiogenesis goes probably the most popular hypothesis is primordial soup theory. However there are others such as; Autocatalysis, Clay theory, Gold’s “Deep-hot biosphere” model, “Primitive” extraterrestrial life, Extraterrestrial Amino Acids Seeding Earth, Lipid World, Polyphosphates, PAH world hypothesis and Multiple genesis. None of them need god to seed Earth with life.
Click to expand...
In other words you take it on faith that something sprung from nothing and that life sprang from non-life.

I believe you are operating under the false assumption that their is a conflict between the teachings of the Catholic Church and evolution. there is not.
 
AnotherAtheist said:
There’s order among the chaos but the fact that solar systems and galaxies orbit a central mass is not evidence that god designed that way.
Click to expand...
It’s just a physical law of the universe. Yes, most celestial objects exist within galaxies (and in its gravitational system). So maybe it’s contained chaos. However, the larger universe continues to expand. Galaxies crash into each other. Gamma ray bursts, black holes, collisions between dense objects like neutron stars, and the list goes on and on.

At any rate I of course agree with your premise, obviously there’s nothing in the physical world that makes the existence of a god apparent (as the bible claims). Science every day discovers natural explanations for what was formerly explained by some sort of supernatural divine intervention. The implication is obvious enough (and provides yet another bit of evidence, in the pile of evidence that already exists, debunking religion).
 
yankee_doodle said:
It’s just a physical law of the universe. Yes, most celestial objects exist within galaxies (and in its gravitational system). So maybe it’s contained chaos. However, the larger universe continues to expand. Galaxies crash into each other. Gamma ray bursts, black holes, collisions between dense objects like neutron stars, and the list goes on and on.

At any rate I of course agree with your premise, obviously there’s nothing in the physical world that makes the existence of a god apparent (as the bible claims). Science every day discovers natural explanations for what was formerly explained by some sort of supernatural divine intervention. The implication is obvious enough (and provides yet another bit of evidence, in the pile of evidence that already exists, debunking religion).
Click to expand...
Yes science everyday finds natural explanation on how matter works -the problem is they havent a clue as to where the matter came from in the first place nor why the laws of physics they observe exist at all.
 
AnotherAtheist said:
My excuse with you is you accused a 12 year girl of immoral acts and her atheists friends of supporting her in them then refused to back up your claims when she called you on it. For all I know Annabea did post the things you said and it is possible that some pervert on the Internet encouraged her about it. However if that was the case then why wouldn’t you provide the link to the post you reported that proves that we atheists are such terrible people? The only reason I can that I can come up with that you wouldn’t is that you made it up.
Click to expand...
I didn’t lie about what I said or rather what I had read.
 
estesbob said:
I believe you are operating under the false assumption that their is a conflict between the teachings of the Catholic Church and evolution. there is not.
Click to expand...
of course here’s where the absurdity enters in. In the 15th century it was anathema to express doubt about geocentric cosmology. It was common in early Catholic practice to reserve baptism until near death (because the assumption was any sin committed after baptism would land one in eternal hell). In other words the ancient church held to scriptural literalism quite strongly (to the point where they imprisoned and even burned anyone who dissented from its biblical dogma).

However, in comes the innovation of figurative interpretation. I do realize figurative interpretation was applied to certain parts of the bible (namely Revelation) for quite some time. However, there’s also a clear pattern (particularly with the CC). Every time science debunks a particular belief held by Christianity, churches simply amend their beliefs under the broad and ambiguous guise of “figurative interpretation.”

This would be fine if you weren’t resting the authority of your church on the concept of infallibility, which (according to you) is ensured by the hand of god himself. Protestants can say they’re always reforming (and they do, the term they use is semper reformanda). However, the CC insists it not only is infallible, but has remained infallible through time, a claim so ridiculous (in light of its history) it’s difficult to afford the CC any credibility at all.
 
estesbob said:
In other words you take it on faith that something sprung from nothing and that life sprang from non-life.

I believe you are operating under the false assumption that their is a conflict between the teachings of the Catholic Church and evolution. there is not.
Click to expand...
No, once again I do not believe that something sprang from nothing. Nothing from nothing is NOT part of Big Bang theory. Once again members of this forum have demonstrated their misunderstanding of the science they apparently never bothered to learn before dismissing as lacking.

Yes I believe that the first self replicating compounds probably occurred due to natural chemical reactions and evolved from there. The fact that process has not been positively identified does not provide evidence that god did it.

I think the Catholic Church is ambiguous on evolution versus creation. However some members of the Catholic Church such as josie L apparently are not as she has stated in this thread that she believes she was “created in god’s image.”
 
yankee_doodle said:
guess how long we now know the human brain remains alive and “thinking” after clinical death?
Click to expand...
It’s not just a matter of how long, but also a matter of what happens during that time we remain dead? We have millions of people who have experienced NDE, and the things that happened while they are considered clinically dead is absolutely amazing, some were even cured of diseases and/or illnesses. Please visit that cite of which I mentioned.
 
Quote:
In the mean time i see nothing that suggests that any manipulation has taken place and to date no theist has provided even a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that something has.

My response:
You have not either.

“the definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of god. The truth or untruth of this statement is not based upon evidence or lack of evidence, but by definition alone. Even though there is extensive, solid evidence for god’ s existence, none of that evidence would be admissible in the science court of law using the current definition.”

“first, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of god is provable.”

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after his resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by peter, james, and john. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted himself or his miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that he couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so he had to be god. 👍

allaboutcreation.org/scie…of-god-faq.htm
 
yankee_doodle said:
I guess you guys find the universe orderly, but from I’ve seen it’s wildly chaotic. I guess there’s some elements of order, but we live in an expanding universe, with billions (as many as 500 billion) galaxies, trillions of stars, goodness knows how many solar systems (simply defined planets rotating around stars), black holes, dying and exploding stars, etc. So when the intelligent design crowd says something like there’s a one in several trillion chance something like human life could evolve from the big bang (albeit this is a number derived from questionable methodology, but for arguendo sake let’s assume it’s at least somewhat valid), we can say OK then that means, according to your probability calculations, there must be a few other “earths” with intelligent life on them out there 🙂

Anyways, randomness and chaos governs. I’m really looking forward to a viable unifying theory of physics; and a mathematical formula that can quantify the singularity (that will be awesome).
Click to expand...
If it were wildly chaotic how could we study the Universe?

p.s. And it’s more than one in a several trillion chance that the universe and/or life should evolve from the big bang. I can’t remember the number per se but I recollect many many many zeroes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top