Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Yazata]

You learned at university that you should put your faith in what your professors and textbooks tell you?

Sure.

If a professor lectures on something or if a student reads it in a textbook, he or she is most likely going to accept it as probably true, or as the best that's known at present, or something like that. When that student takes an exam, that's the material that will count as a right answer. When the graduate is hired, it's what employers will expect them to know.

When a molecular biology student learns about bioenergetics, glycolysis, electron transport, oxidative phosphorylation, chromosomes and chromatin, or cell membrane structure, where do you think they hear about those things?

Imagine an engineer. If he or she needs to know some physical constant or some details about the properties of some material, that engineer is apt to consult a standard reference like the CRC Handbook. And that engineer is going to have considerable confidence that the information there is correct, to the point of basing his or her own calculations on it.

In a word, we learn from those who came before us. Most of what a person knows, was learned that way.

 

[1213]

Well, no.

God isn't any more necessary in Lamarckism than in Darwinian evolution.

Yeah, but the for person who wants to deny the existence of God, Darwinism is essential, because it gives the godless explanation for the different species.

 

[1213]

Because it would imply that rabbits existed long before evolutionary theory says that it would be possible for rabbits to exist.

No, it would just change the timeline for evolution. As "scientists" would say, it would only make the theory more accurate,as "science" is always self improving system. It is never wrong, "it just gets more accurate".

 

[1213]

I'm sorry but this question doesn't make any sense to me.

It means for example, if you would not know what is a horse, you could stand next to a horse without knowing you are next to a horse. Obviously you could see the animal, but you would not know it is a horse. Then, after it, if someone would ask from you, have you seen a horse, you would say no, because you wouldn't know what it is. Same can be with God, if you don't know God, He could be right next to you, but you wouldn't know it, because you would not recognize God.

 

[1213]

Requires evolution, why would it?

Because people need an explanation for the existence of different animals, life and this world. If you can't provide any other option, the creation is only available explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It means for example, if you would not know what is a horse, you could stand next to a horse without knowing you are next to a horse. Obviously you could see the animal, but you would not know it is a horse. Then, after it, if someone would ask from you, have you seen a horse, you would say no, because you wouldn't know what it is. Same can be with God, if you don't know God, He could be right next to you, but you wouldn't know it, because you would not recognize God.

What I would say to them is, "what are the properties of a horse? What do they look like? Can you show me a picture? What do they smell like?" Etc. Then I'd probably realize I was standing right beside a horse earlier.

This analogy doesn't really work because I'm literally asking you "What are the properties of this God? What does it look like? Can you show it to me? What does it smell like? Etc. And you have nothing at all to show me. In fact your answer to that is, "well if you don't already know God, I can't help you there. You wouldn't recognize God anyway."

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it would just change the timeline for evolution. As "scientists" would say, it would only make the theory more accurate,as "science" is always self improving system. It is never wrong, "it just gets more accurate".

By hundreds of millions of years before the precursor to mammals even existed? Nope.
It would falsify it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because people need an explanation for the existence of different animals, life and this world. If you can't provide any other option, the creation is only available explanation.

Creation is not an "available explanation" as it has no explanatory power. "God did it" doesn't explain anything. And besides that, you haven't demonstrated the existence of any God in the first place or that the universe is a "creation."

I see this all the time, creationists thinking that if they could prove evolution is wrong then that would make their creation story and their God real by default. Sorry, it doesn't work like that and it would do no such thing. You'd still have to demonstrate the veracity of your claims.

 

[lukethethird]

Yeah, but the for person who wants to deny the existence of God, Darwinism is essential, because it gives the godless explanation for the different species.

Nonsense, God is useless for explaining anything.

 

[Sheldon]

for person who wants to deny the existence of God, Darwinism is essential, because it gives the godless explanation for the different species.

No it isn't, if the scientific fact of species evolution was falsified I would remain an atheist, because there is no objective evidence for any deity.

Implying a disbelief of theism, requires an alternative explanation to unevidenced creation myths is also an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it would just change the timeline for evolution. As "scientists" would say, it would only make the theory more accurate,as "science" is always self improving system. It is never wrong, "it just gets more accurate".

That's errant nonsense, you may not have even the most basic understanding of the scientific method, or of species evolution, but you can't bluff others who do with that verbiage.

NB "mammals did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on Earth."

To think a fossilised rabbit could emerge in the Precambrian era, and not falsify species evolution, shows a depth of ignorance one ought to be embarrassed to display alongside sweeping denials of science.

 

[Sheldon]

Requires evolution, why would it? There is no evidence for the creation myths in either bible or koran, so I would disbelieve them even if species evolution were not an objective fact.

Because people need an explanation for the existence of different animals, life and this world. If you can't provide any other option, the creation is only available explanation.

That's a false dichotomy fallacy and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so two known logical fallacies in one sentence. I get that you don't seem to understand or even care, what that means, but it means your claim is irrational by definition.

Creation myths are unevidenced, and they have no explanatory powers whatsoever, so I no more need an alternative to them than I need an alternative to mermaids or unicorns.

Species evolution is a scientific fact, the weight of evidence is derived from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, the Catholic church with all its vast resources have had to accept it is true, because weight of objective evidence means it is beyond any reasonable or rational denial, that you can't see this is not surprising as I've encountered creationists before, and just as your posts show, they are always utterly closed minded. I'm sorry you were taught this, but sadly I don't see any way you can learn the facts now.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, but the for person who wants to deny the existence of God, Darwinism is essential, because it gives the godless explanation for the different species.

The complete lack of any objective evidence for any deity is more than sufficient for me to be an atheist.

 

[Windwalker]

Yeah, but the for person who wants to deny the existence of God, Darwinism is essential, because it gives the godless explanation for the different species.

You know there were plenty of atheists before Darwin and the theory of evolution? They obviously didn't find Darwin's discovery essential to their disbelief in God and creation myths. They came to that conclusion before Darwin was born, by hundreds or even thousands of years. https://historycollection.com/16-incredible-ancient-creation-stories-from-around-the-world/3/

Also, you do know that a great many theists don't find evolution denies God? They see no conflict. The RCC would be one major example, let alone a lot of mainline Protestant churches as well. It seems the only ones who struggle with the theory of evolution, are those who insist upon a literal reading of Genesis as if it were a book of science. The rest aren't so stuck on that.

 

[John53]

Page 67.... what have we learnt?

 

[Sheldon]

Page 67.... what have we learnt?

In your experience does debate always lead to learning?

I've learned a little bit about how to navigate this forum, and a few of the editing functions are becoming a little less obscure.

I've learned that using a dictionary as a point of reference for common usage, can be misrepresented as some sort of absolute, by people who make absolute claims while citing obscure tomes most people won't even know exists.

I've learned that many people don't ever seem to have seen a Venn diagram.

 

[John53]

In your experience does debate always lead to learning?

I usually learn something, not always useful though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In your experience does debate always lead to learning?

I've learned a little bit about how to navigate this forum, and a few of the editing functions are becoming a little less obscure.

I've learned that using a dictionary as a point of reference for common usage, can be misrepresented as some sort of absolute, by people who make absolute claims while citing obscure tomes most people won't even know exists.

I've learned that many people don't ever seem to have seen a Venn diagram.

So is it absolute that it is obscure tomes?

 

[1213]

...I'm literally asking you "What are the properties of this God? What does it look like? Can you show it to me? What does it smell like? Etc....

Bible tells about God for example:

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

 

[Sheldon]

I'm literally asking you "What are the properties of this God? What does it look like? Can you show it to me? What does it smell like? Etc. And you have nothing at all to show me.

Bible tells about God

The Harry Potter books tell us about wizardry, I don't find it compelling evidence for wizardry?

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

That's just a meaningless platitude, did you even read what SkepticThinker asked?

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

#Meaningless platitude 2

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

#Meaningless platitude 3.

Did you read the post you responded to at all? When asked for objective evidence you simply parrot the bible? That's like someone quoting the Harry Potter books when they are asked to evidence wizardry.