The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[shmogie]

Instead of resorting to mythology, why not provide the world with something other than the supernatural answer of "god did it"?

It is easier, after all, to resort to a gap of knowledge answer than to exercise one's brain in order to find a real answer.

Well, YOU give me the real answer. Atheists and believers share the same body of evidence for what they believe, they interpret it differently. You probably believe in the big bang " At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. this means that the state of the universe, after the big bang, will not depend on anything that happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the big bang " Stephen Hawking. Read this very, very slowly. A man of huge intellect, who has dedicated his life to cosmology, comes up with an answer no more applicable to answering the question of where the universe came from than your bogus "God did it" That is the ultimate scientific answer for how everything came about, nothing. nada. So you arrogantly proclaim that ID is a myth, pretending that atheist science will solve this, and I might add abiogenesis, when they don't and will never have a clue. Science will never know about the big bang, and I assure you it will never know about abiogenesis, because it didn't occur. Therefore, whether you like it or not, whether it fits your world view or not, ID, based upon the evidence, is MORE likely than the rattlings about science, when the premier scientist assures you that science will NEVER explain where everything came from and thus ultimately, where anything came from.

 

[Mister Silver]

Well, YOU give me the real answer. Atheists and believers share the same body of evidence for what they believe, they interpret it differently. You probably believe in the big bang " At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. this means that the state of the universe, after the big bang, will not depend on anything that happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the big bang " Stephen Hawking. Read this very, very slowly. A man of huge intellect, who has dedicated his life to cosmology, comes up with an answer no more applicable to answering the question of where the universe came from than your bogus "God did it" That is the ultimate scientific answer for how everything came about, nothing. nada. So you arrogantly proclaim that ID is a myth, pretending that atheist science will solve this, and I might add abiogenesis, when they don't and will never have a clue. Science will never know about the big bang, and I assure you it will never know about abiogenesis, because it didn't occur. Therefore, whether you like it or not, whether it fits your world view or not, ID, based upon the evidence, is MORE likely than the rattlings about science, when the premier scientist assures you that science will NEVER explain where everything came from and thus ultimately, where anything came from.

The answer as it stands is "we don't know".

How that is incapable of being grasped is mind boggling.

Only those who want an immediate answer, a comforting answer, an answer that makes them happy, resort to the god answer.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, science has been doing the opposite. It is creating a chain of chemical transitions that occur naturally and lead from the simplest organic molecules to cells. The chain is not unbroken, but new links are being added every year.

So you call abiogenesis impossible because the work on it is still incomplete?



Well, every cell doubles in size before dividing. It is alive at every stage in that phase of growth, so yes, the contents of a cell can be reduced and it still can be alive.

I get this similar argument from those who tell me that a human being is irreducible complex, because we die if you remove the kidneys, adrenals, liver, or pancreas.

But that's not how we formed individually or evolved as a species. We went from a single cell to our present state while being alive at every stage between.

Your answer is incorrect, a cell, based upon the information in it's DNA, instructing the specific proteins, increases itself to reproduce. It does not reduce itself. Every part is duplicated, no part is reduced. Do you have any idea how far your chemical chains are from forming a living cell ? About as far as the rock with a bit of iron in it in my back yard is from forming a new corvette! Blind faith is an interesting phenomenon. I hear this "every day, in every way, we are getting better and better" from adherent's of abiogenesis, every day. Unfortunately, not one has provided evidence of it.

 

[shmogie]

The answer as it stands is "we don't know".

How that is incapable of being grasped is mind boggling.

Only those who want an immediate answer, a comforting answer, an answer that makes them happy, resort to the god answer.

What utter pap. Hawking tells you as perfectly clear as he can, there are no laws of physics, without laws of physics nothing can be explained. How this is incapable of being grasped is mind boggling. Those who reject other possibilities, who are afraid that these possibilities might require them to alter their behavior and thinking cling to the canard, like the poor folk on the Titanic clung to their life vests, of " we don't know, but we will we will All it takes is time". Making them comfortable and happy in their ways, knowing that all will be revealed, proving them right all along. Just as that rainwater runoff from rocks all those billions of years ago that turned itself into life, they expect the grand revelation, decades go by, a little more time, a century goes by, a little more time, 5 centuries go by ditto, just a little more time........................................................................... just a little more time, then we will know how everything created itself from nothing, how unknown chemicals, in unknown proportions, in an unknown environment turned themselves into life. Yeah, your belief structure is sure superior

 

[blü 2]

Meyer holds three PHD.s in scientific disciplines, includung one from Oxford or Cambridge,one of those two little schools. Yet, you discount him because based on his own research, he changed from being an abiogeisis loving evolutionist, to someone who believes in ID.

I didn't say he was stupid. I said, relevantly, that he does creationism, not science, so that he won't publish anything against it, only wheedle angles for it; and for background that he turned to water when faced with cross-examination on his own creo statements and ran away like Bold Sir Robin but faster and further.

In your prejudiced mind, a flaw that makes anything they say ex post facto wrong.

It's antiscience. Get some real science and we can go from there.

And as you insist it's real science, you should have no trouble finding non-creo scientists to agree with you, should you not? If you can't, that simply underlines my point that this is a creo argument not derived by scientific method but from bronze age myth, no?

I assure you that the fairy tale first cell proposed is infinitely more complicated than a 747.

What you mean is that you hope it'll be too hard for science to explain.

Then, you think, reasonable people will see that ─ not just any god, but the one of your choice ─ must have done it. You hope that even though you know it's merely story, from a time that thought the earth is flat and the sun goes round it (as you saw), reasonable people will accept that myth as true, even though it explains absolutely nothing. You're really advocating continued ignorance, exactly the kind of thinking that should never be taught to children.

Imaginary gods are easily explained, of course ─ they're whatever someone wants them to be, and you can change their minds so that they no longer demand circumcision, come to dislike slavery, see the light on homophobia, recognize divorce, and so on.

But real gods? Gods with objective existence? They neither say nor do nor show nor are. You have no objective standard for accepting one assertion about supernatural beings and rejecting another; and even less do you have an objective test to tell us whether any real being or phenomenon is a god or not.

So you'll understand that I don't think your alternative to abiogenesis can fly. Can get off the ground. Can begin to move. Can even be meaningfully described.

 

[shmogie]

I didn't say he was stupid. I said, relevantly, that he does creationism, not science, so that he won't publish anything against it, only wheedle angles for it; and for background that he turned to water when faced with cross-examination on his own creo statements and ran away like Bold Sir Robin but faster and further.
It's antiscience. Get some real science and we can go from there.

And as you insist it's real science, you should have no trouble finding non-creo scientists to agree with you, should you not? If you can't, that simply underlines my point that this is a creo argument not derived by scientific method but from bronze age myth, no?
What you mean is that you hope it'll be too hard for science to explain.

Then, you think, reasonable people will see that ─ not just any god, but the one of your choice ─ must have done it. You hope that even though you know it's merely story, from a time that thought the earth is flat and the sun goes round it (as you saw), reasonable people will accept that myth as true, even though it explains absolutely nothing. You're really advocating continued ignorance, exactly the kind of thinking that should never be taught to children.

Imaginary gods are easily explained, of course ─ they're whatever someone wants them to be, and you can change their minds so that they no longer demand circumcision, come to dislike slavery, see the light on homophobia, recognize divorce, and so on.

But real gods? Gods with objective existence? They neither say nor do nor show nor are. You have no objective standard for accepting one assertion about supernatural beings and rejecting another; and even less do you have an objective test to tell us whether any real being or phenomenon is a god or not.

So you'll understand that I don't think your alternative to abiogenesis can fly. Can get off the ground. Can begin to move. Can even be meaningfully described.

Then you will just have to remain believing that magic happened with water and rocks, and life just spontaneously generated itself . A process never described, never replicated, never observed, anywhere, in a lab or in nature. You have strong faith. I don;t hope it will be too hard for science to explain, and if they do I will re evaluate my position, but science can;t, hasn;t been able to, and for all the hooting of the horn for the march from one discovery to another, what few there are, are piddling. So, go your way, Iĺl go mine, Iĺl think of you as the years roll by, and that magical, mystical, self assembling living cell, from dead ingredients remains totally unexplained, but still the holy grail of the faithful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, your belief structure is sure superior

You realise it's not trying to be 'superior', right?
Just falsifiable.

 

[blü 2]

Then you will just have to remain believing that magic happened with water and rocks, and life just spontaneously generated itself . A process never described, never replicated, never observed, anywhere, in a lab or in nature. You have strong faith. I don;t hope it will be too hard for science to explain, and if they do I will re evaluate my position, but science can;t, hasn;t been able to, and for all the hooting of the horn for the march from one discovery to another, what few there are, are piddling. So, go your way, Iĺl go mine, Iĺl think of you as the years roll by, and that magical, mystical, self assembling living cell, from dead ingredients remains totally unexplained, but still the holy grail of the faithful.

And I wish us both enlightenment ─ the truth, meaning an accurate understanding of reality.

Now that you know the earth isn't flat, despite what the bible says, your door to that enlightenment is slightly ajar.

Good hunting!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You never answered Hoyles original question.

Why should I? Not only do I have no way of determining how many tornadoes it take to turn a junkyard into a 747, the question is irrelevant.

Since you are hopeledsly and childishly prejudiced about what constitutes scientific research and conclusions

You're the faith based thinker.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your answer is incorrect, a cell, based upon the information in it's DNA, instructing the specific proteins, increases itself to reproduce. It does not reduce itself. Every part is duplicated, no part is reduced. Do you have any idea how far your chemical chains are from forming a living cell ? About as far as the rock with a bit of iron in it in my back yard is from forming a new corvette! Blind faith is an interesting phenomenon.

Still, I'll be listening to the scientists, not the theologians, thank you very much.

I hear this "every day, in every way, we are getting better and better" from adherent's of abiogenesis, every day. Unfortunately, not one has provided evidence of it.

I have a huge pile of evidence in links ready to copy and paste.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Maybe a mixed, public forum isn't the best place for a person that considers disagreement hate mongering. Perhaps you should keep your belief system to yourself, or share it only with people not interested in critiquing it.

Nobody needs evidence to tell you what is wrong with your argument apart from that argument itself.

This isn't "sharing a disagreement" nor do I consider it hate mongering.

This is people with no proof but firm belief spending inordinate amounts of time on a forum whose name advertises those on it disagree with them--arguing without fruit over and again.

When you and I see people without proof venturing over and again to argue with people they know vehemently disagree, we say such people are "cultists".

This goes beyond mere atheism to a religious-like cultic stance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So there is now a moral duty to support someone else's belief, regardless of its moral merits and of its logical sense?

Is that what you are saying?



I don't think so. When and why would that happen?

For that matter, what would characterize "assault" to a belief system?

You are right. I have changed my stance here. Thank you.

When people come to a place inhabited by those who vehemently disagree with them (a religions forum) to argue with them incessantly and without proof, we call such people "cultists".

There are atheists and then there is the cult of atheism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is a non sequitur.

I think this is where we differ. Perhaps as well on our definitions of "evidence."

No, it's not a non sequitur. One may respect people despite those persons' ignorance. One is showing lack of respect for others and lack of self-respect by spending inordinate amounts of time where the opposition is en masse (a religions forum) and speaking against ALL of those persons' fundamental creeds, without any evidence.

People who do this are usually called "in a cult".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This isn't "sharing a disagreement" nor do I consider it hate mongering.

Your words were, "It becomes hate mongering to assault a belief system without evidence."

This is people with no proof but firm belief spending inordinate amounts of time on a forum whose name advertises those on it disagree with them--arguing without fruit over and again.

I think that you're projecting.

Your position is being rejected because you offer no reason to accept it. You have no argument or evidence in support of accepting Christianity. What kind of proof were you thinking another needs to decide that?

And this has been a very fruitful activity for me. I have learned a lot from fellow skeptics and from researching my responses, gotten a sustained look at faith-based thought, I have improved my writing skills, and have gotten plenty of practice formulating arguments and dissecting the arguments of others, not to mention hours of an enjoyable activity.

I labor under no delusion that I can have any impact on a faith-based thinker.

When you and I see people without proof venturing over and again to argue with people they know vehemently disagree, we say such people are "cultists".

That's not my definition of a cultist.

And why are religious people vehemently disagreeing with us rather than merely disagreeing? Why have an emotional response in what should be a dispassionate discussion?

This goes beyond mere atheism to a religious-like cultic stance.

I think that you're projecting again. There is nothing religious or cultic about asking believers to justify their beliefs if they can or agree that they cannot if that is the case, nor in telling them about the contradictions and other errors in their holy book, nor in telling them why faith is neither a virtue nor a path to truth.

As I suggested before, if that's not a conversation that you can have without being personally offended, this might not be the right place to be promoting your religious ideas. What you're looking for is a sheltered environment where you won't be questioned or challenged. I hear that you can find that in the DIR threads. This thread is filed under Religious Debates.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So there is now a moral duty to support someone else's belief, regardless of its moral merits and of its logical sense?

Is that what you are saying?

I don't think so. When and why would that happen?

For that matter, what would characterize "assault" to a belief system?

You are right. I have changed my stance here. Thank you.

When people come to a place inhabited by those who vehemently disagree with them (a religions forum) to argue with them incessantly and without proof, we call such people "cultists".

There are atheists and then there is the cult of atheism.

You didn't answer a single one of his questions, and your response was completely unrelated to his post. Your response should have been either that there is or there is not a moral duty to support the beliefs of another whatever they may be, that yes that is what you were saying or no that it is not and what you actually are saying instead, and what you mean by assaulting a belief system rather than merely critiquing it.

Instead, look at what you wrote, which was essentially the same response you gave me to me in post 191, which was also unrelated to my comment. You're here to complain about atheists, not hold a cogent conversation. You're not paying attention to what others tell you. You just vent your frustration with atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are right. I have changed my stance here. Thank you.

When people come to a place inhabited by those who vehemently disagree with them (a religions forum) to argue with them incessantly and without proof, we call such people "cultists".

There are atheists and then there is the cult of atheism.

Wow. Did you even read the post you are supposedly answering to?

Also, tell me more about the cult of atheism. Maybe I could stumble upon it someday.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, it's not a non sequitur. One may respect people despite those persons' ignorance.

That wasn't his position. Your claim was, "You cannot respect a people group whose views you assault without any evidence that their views are untrue." Disagreeing with ideas is not being disrespectful of the holders of those ideas.

One is showing lack of respect for others and lack of self-respect by spending inordinate amounts of time where the opposition is en masse (a religions forum) and speaking against ALL of those persons' fundamental creeds, without any evidence. People who do this are usually called "in a cult".

You're being far more disrespectful to those you disagree with than they are to you. Nobody has criticized your choice of how to use your time or called you cultic, which you did for three posts in a row even though all of those posts you answered were on different topics, and none evidenced cultic behavior.

It is also disrespectful and bad faith argumentation to not pay attention to what is being written to you, to not answer the questions asked of you, and to just keep repeating yourself with one canned answer for all occasions. Others are taking the time to try to understand you and address your concerns, but you don't return the favor.

 

[ChristineM]

You are right. I have changed my stance here. Thank you.

When people come to a place inhabited by those who vehemently disagree with them (a religions forum) to argue with them incessantly and without proof, we call such people "cultists".

There are atheists and then there is the cult of atheism.

And there are atheist who only offer facts about the myriad cults of religion, facts that many religious refuse to acknowledge.

Kind of like other facts that also question religious dogma.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it's not a non sequitur. One may respect people despite those persons' ignorance. One is showing lack of respect for others and lack of self-respect by spending inordinate amounts of time where the opposition is en masse (a religions forum) and speaking against ALL of those persons' fundamental creeds, without any evidence.

People who do this are usually called "in a cult".

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
atheism - definition of atheism in English | Oxford Dictionaries

So you have evidence to debunk such belief?

 

[Curious George]

No, it's not a non sequitur. One may respect people despite those persons' ignorance. One is showing lack of respect for others and lack of self-respect by spending inordinate amounts of time where the opposition is en masse (a religions forum) and speaking against ALL of those persons' fundamental creeds, without any evidence.

People who do this are usually called "in a cult".

Views are not equal to people. It is a non sequitur. Cheers.