• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you do with missing evidence? Like the global dearth of soft tissue in all fossils?

Audie

Veteran Member
It's easy to point out things about others but not about oneself especially when it hasn't conflict with their own beliefs yet.

With your examples of the claims about atheist scientists, you've proven that I was right in regards to my point. By thinking that it's wrong for atheists scientists to believe that god doesn't exist before having scientific results, you've shown that it's also wrong to believe that god created the universe. You just couldn't see that because it conflicts with your own beliefs.

That's why it's rational to go with the conclusion that the evidence leads to and not lead the evidence to the conclusion that you believe in. So why not don't believe that god created the universe until there's evidence to support it. And like I said earlier, this line of thinking isn't just for science. You had some personal experiences that you didn't know what it was and/or explained it, so you attributed it to god. There are many factors that come into play when it comes to personal experience.

Our hero probably believes that Batboy does not
have a secret lab on the moon. Before scientific
results, even!
Of course,there are a lot of results of studying the
moon.
And there has been more effort put into detecting
"god"(s) than probably anything else.

Results of the Batboy-God investigation:

Batboy zero God zero.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
You contradicted yourself in the same post here. In bold.

here are the two statement that you claim contradict one another:

stop right there. You are misrepresenting what I'm trying to say here. I did NOT say that it is wrong for atheists to believe that god doesn't exist before having scientific results.

Note: the operative point; I did NOT say that it was wrong for atheists to believe that God doesn't exist before having scientific results.

Now the sentence that you claim is contradictory:
The only thing I have noticed is that atheists who are that dismissive of any hint that there might be a god will shy very far away from any result that even HINTS that deity might be involved; Fred Hoyle and the Big Bang is one very obvious example, poor man.

Would you care to show the class how the second sentence contradicts the first?

I would be interested to see how you do that. The first sentence clearly states that IT IS NOT WRONG for atheists to believe that God doesn't exist before having scientific results. You know, the set of 'all atheists?" It is no more wrong for an atheist to enter into science not believing in(or even believing that there isn't) a God.

The second statement addresses a specific set of atheists: those who are 'that dismissive of any hint that there might be a god.." For the context, please reread my post. This is a specific subset of atheists; those who go beyond 'not believing' to 'anti-theism,' or 'out to prove that there isn't." It does not apply to all atheists, but it does apply to that subset...and is exactly as bad for scientific exploration as the theist who uses 'science' to prove his or her specific deity. "Creation science,' for instance.

The same problem from both theist and atheist, when they are more concerned with 'proving' their view of deity than they are with learning how stuff works.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
here are the two statement that you claim contradict one another:

stop right there. You are misrepresenting what I'm trying to say here. I did NOT say that it is wrong for atheists to believe that god doesn't exist before having scientific results.

Note: the operative point; I did NOT say that it was wrong for atheists to believe that God doesn't exist before having scientific results.

Now the sentence that you claim is contradictory:
The only thing I have noticed is that atheists who are that dismissive of any hint that there might be a god will shy very far away from any result that even HINTS that deity might be involved; Fred Hoyle and the Big Bang is one very obvious example, poor man.

Would you care to show the class how the second sentence contradicts the first?

I would be interested to see how you do that. The first sentence clearly states that IT IS NOT WRONG for atheists to believe that God doesn't exist before having scientific results. You know, the set of 'all atheists?" It is no more wrong for an atheist to enter into science not believing in(or even believing that there isn't) a God.

The second statement addresses a specific set of atheists: those who are 'that dismissive of any hint that there might be a god.." For the context, please reread my post. This is a specific subset of atheists; those who go beyond 'not believing' to 'anti-theism,' or 'out to prove that there isn't." It does not apply to all atheists, but it does apply to that subset...and is exactly as bad for scientific exploration as the theist who uses 'science' to prove his or her specific deity. "Creation science,' for instance.

The same problem from both theist and atheist, when they are more concerned with 'proving' their view of deity than they are with learning how stuff works.
There's no need for me to teach the class much as to why it's a contradiction because you've already shown plenty above. I'll give a short answer to elaborate. The first part state that it's okay for atheists(people who don't believe that god(s) exist) to don't believe. The second part state that it's not okay for atheists(people who don't believe that god(s) exist) to don't believe. So unless if you disagree with the second part, you did contradict yourself.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Actually, I have never said anything even remotely like "I know because I know,' and I certainly don't remember using the word 'unmistakable."

For one thing, nobody is more careful with the word 'know' than I am.
A lot of people tend to do that because they think they have an excuse for avoiding the burden of proof. But once they've done that, they show that it's actually irrational way of thinking. Example below.

What's the difference between saying these? Scenario A, is the control "reality", so if the first part of each sentence is 100% true.
Scenario B, is our own "reality" as we know it now.

1. "I know that god exist, so I believe that god exist."

2. "I don't know that god exist, so I believe that god exist."

3. "I don't know that god exist, so I don't believe that god exist."

4. "I know that god doesn't exist, so I don't believe that god exist."

Number 2 is the only one that is irrational in both scenario A and B.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
There's no need for me to teach the class much as to why it's a contradiction because you've already shown plenty above. I'll give a short answer to elaborate. The first part state that it's okay for atheists(people who don't believe that god(s) exist) to don't believe. The second part state that it's not okay for atheists(people who don't believe that god(s) exist) to don't believe. So unless if you disagree with the second part, you did contradict yourself.

You don't know the difference between 'I don't believe that God exists,' and "God doesn't exist and I'm going to prove it?"
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
I'm sorry, give me evidence for god and I'll change my mind,
But there is none, none at all.
Until I see evidence of god I'll only rely on science and reason to explain this fantastic planet and universe
You are then looking for God in the wrong direction. He is not in the moving shadows on the wall of the cave you are in. You will have to turn in the other direction from where the light comes that causes the moving shadows to exist. God cannot be found in the realm of phenomena and your perceptions and "proofs" because they are only His projection.

If you refuse to turn around in your cave, then that is your own loss.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
You are then looking for God in the wrong direction. He is not in the moving shadows on the wall of the cave you are in. You will have to turn in the other direction from where the light comes that causes the moving shadows to exist. God cannot be found in the realm of phenomena and your perceptions and "proofs" because they are only His projection.

If you refuse to turn around in your cave, then that is your own loss.
Ah, ..... so he's behind me.
No he isn't, I've just checked.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
You don't know the difference between 'I don't believe that God exists,' and "God doesn't exist and I'm going to prove it?"

Yes, I do know the difference. Apparently you don't and/or just being dishonest and denying it. Saying, "god doesn't exist and I'm going to prove it," is the same as saying, "god exist and I'm going to prove it." I'll refresh your memory but hopefully you're not going to move the goal post around. Even by taking away the "intent" of trying to prove or disprove the existence of god, it's still irrational because you are starting with a conclusion that you believe is true without having any supporting evidence.

I believe that god did it.

I am looking to the scientific method to figure out HOW the universe was created.
That's science.

Notice that it doesn't matter whether one believes that God did it or not; the method by which one examines the universe is the same either way.

You can keep repeating your claim about there being no difference because you are using science to "observe" the same evidence, but you lack to understand "observed." We use science to come up with hypotheses, theories and laws about the universe. All of these are just descriptions of the the universe that we've observed. They weren't created for us to discover. So by believing that god created the universe, you're looking for and/or leading the evidence to your determined conclusion. Instead of doing that, you should be following the evidence to whatever conclusion it leads to.

So please tell the classroom the difference behind the concepts of "god doesn't exist and I'm going to prove it," and "god exist and I'm going to prove it,"
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Ah, ..... so he's behind me.
No he isn't, I've just checked.

You need to have more faith. Now turn around and try again, but this time imagine harder. If after doing that and you still can't see god, then all i can tell you is....... god works in mysterious ways.:shrug: :D
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
You need to have more faith. Now turn around and try again, but this time imagine harder. If after doing that and you still can't see god, then all i can tell you is....... god works in mysterious ways.:shrug: :D
I don't do faith; I do evidence.
Mysterious ways are dumb ways; why not be obvious?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Dragging back on topic...

Seems that the discovery of "soft tissue" in some dinosaur fossils has creationists claiming victory - for how can "soft tissues" exist for millions of years? This proves, they write or imply, that the only logical explanation is that the earth is young, just like the literalists' interpretation of Genesis indicates (never mind that the begats and begots are not internally consistent) .

If the earth is truly young, creationism young, and this is shown by the presence of "soft tissue" in some dinosaur bones, a question must be asked -

Why do we not see this "soft tissue" in nearly all dinosaur (or other) fossils? Surely we could allow for some fossils being exposed to harsh environments during their formation that destroyed the soft tissues, but nearly ALL of them?

Creationists, in effect, just 'cannot believe' that "soft tissue" (even though it is not actually tissue) could last for millions of years. Why can they just not 'believe' this? The only actual explanation I have ever seen from them is reference to a paper on DNA degradation (note that none of the "soft tissue" found in dinosaur fossils have been DNA) that gives DNA a half life of ~600 years and a maximum 'shelf life' of around 6 million (the oldest sequencable DNA I have read about was ~700,000 years old from a well-preserved, frozen horse).

If those numbers hold, then we should be finding not only "soft tissue" in dinosaur fossils, but sizeable chunks of DNA!

So, creationists - where are they?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Dragging back on topic...

Seems that the discovery of "soft tissue" in some dinosaur fossils has creationists claiming victory - for how can "soft tissues" exist for millions of years? This proves, they write or imply, that the only logical explanation is that the earth is young, just like the literalists' interpretation of Genesis indicates (never mind that the begats and begots are not internally consistent) .

If the earth is truly young, creationism young, and this is shown by the presence of "soft tissue" in some dinosaur bones, a question must be asked -

Why do we not see this "soft tissue" in nearly all dinosaur (or other) fossils? Surely we could allow for some fossils being exposed to harsh environments during their formation that destroyed the soft tissues, but nearly ALL of them?

Creationists, in effect, just 'cannot believe' that "soft tissue" (even though it is not actually tissue) could last for millions of years. Why can they just not 'believe' this? The only actual explanation I have ever seen from them is reference to a paper on DNA degradation (note that none of the "soft tissue" found in dinosaur fossils have been DNA) that gives DNA a half life of ~600 years and a maximum 'shelf life' of around 6 million (the oldest sequencable DNA I have read about was ~700,000 years old from a well-preserved, frozen horse).

If those numbers hold, then we should be finding not only "soft tissue" in dinosaur fossils, but sizeable chunks of DNA!

So, creationists - where are they?
Hello? Whirlingmc? Creationists?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You are then looking for God in the wrong direction. He is not in the moving shadows on the wall of the cave you are in. You will have to turn in the other direction from where the light comes that causes the moving shadows to exist. God cannot be found in the realm of phenomena and your perceptions and "proofs" because they are only His projection.

If you refuse to turn around in your cave, then that is your own loss.

Somehow, spinning about in a cave seems a
wonderful metaphor for searching for "god".
 
Top