Re: On the Origins of Atheism

On Dec 5, 11:16 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
chris thompson wrote:
On Dec 4, 9:55 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
chris thompson wrote:
On Dec 4, 9:28 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:12 pm, geofor...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
All,

I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night, and though I did
not agree with some of what was said, I couldn't help but hear
many of the outspoken atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Provine,
Myers) citing science, and specifically evolution, as the main
reason for their atheism. A theistic evolutionist myself, I
don't logically see the jump from evolution to atheism. The
movie got me wondering how many of you who consider yourself
atheist have actually been brought to that conclusion by way of
science, or by some other factor or experience. Thank you in
advance.

the real problem is, if you make a claim and it's wrong then
you've lost credibility.

Then science, more specifically evolution, has zero credibility.

A claim today will be a different claim tommorow when revision is
made <snip>

So if you lose consciousness and are taken to the hospital, and
some intern in the ER diagnoses you as suffering from an overdose
of barbiturates and starts treatment, and the attending shows up
and looks at the blood work and explains how you're actually
slipping into a coma from respiratory acidosis, it's better to
stick with the original diagnosis because revisions are bad.

Yeah.

Chris

Here is your logic. All cars are red.

Until you find a green car.

And that seems preferable to adman logic: "All cars are red, even
though we have seen blue, green, black, white, and yellow cars. Are
cars are red. ALL cars are red. ALL cars ARE RED LALALALALALA I CANNOT
HEAR YOU! I'M CLOSING MY EYES I CANNOT SEE THE OTHER CARS!!!"

Midly amusing.

But Let's see THE TYPICAL Talk Origin. reply:
WHERE IS YOUR PEER REVIEWD PROOF  FOR THE blue, green, black, white, and yellow cars!?? humm?

Your problem is you conflate assertions like "Souls exist" and "There
was a global flood" with "Cars come in different colors." Claims
require evidence. Looking out my window at the road below provides me
with evidence of different colored cars. But you are making
extraordinary claims, and as we know, those require extraordinary
evidence- which you have up to now failed (and in spectacular fashion)
to provide.


BECAUSE UNTILL YOU HAVE SCIENTIFIC PROOF! FOR THE OTHER COLORS I'M CLOSING MY EYES; I CANNOT SEE
THE OTHER CARS!!!" LALALALALALA FINGERS IN EARS TOO LALALALALALA

THAT would be your REPLY if i simply said there were other colored cars.

Yes, your randomized choice of words to present in upper-case actually
is more convincing than your arguments...which says something about
your arguments.




BUT some of us acknowledge reality and know there are other colors without the need for science,

---THAT would be my reply.

And that's fine as far as it goes, which is not too far. The problem
is that you then go on to claim red cars are blue, blue cars are
yellow, and yellow cars all come from Eridani IV by MAGIC!!!11!

THEN A FLOOD OF PERSONAL ATTACKS WOULD COME BECAUSE YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT

Well, no. The personal attacks come because you make crude,
gratuitous, obnoxious comments (as you did to Cheezits), or downright
repugnant ones (as you did about the morality of opinions).

THERE ARE DIFFERENT COLOR CARS DESPITE NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Yes, and water climbs up the inside of a straw for a few millimeters
when you put the straw into your cup.

FREE CLUE: There's tons of information that can be ascertained WITHOUT SCIENCE

Sure is. But here, you're talking science. If you want to discuss
something other than science, that's fine- just don't expect to get
very far when the topic of the group is scientific in nature. So, just
as science explores the underpinnings of what makes those colors
different, and why my perception of red is just a little different
from yours, and why is it that water climbs up the inside of my straw
for a few millimeters...so science is the tool humans use to explore
nature. It's not perfect but it is a lot better than, say, spirit
medium communication with the dead, or chicken blood daubed on vellum
a few hundred years ago.

Chris



How about THAT! :-D
--

It is all about Chris with his eyes wide SHUT and:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... about evolution *& atheism in the first part of the post. ... of creationism which include some of the points the OP brought ... and its consistency with science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can God driven evolution and science be reconciled?
    ... science in science classes. ... the same makes Darwinism anti-religion conviction. ... People believe evolution for the same reason they believe ... Comment presupposes that scientific evidence supports Atheism ideology ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genius of Charles Darwin
    ... propaganda than science. ... Tell you what, Ray, summarize the theory of evolution (as advanced by ... precisely where it denies the existence of God or gods.- Hide quoted text - ... Atheism claims of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Darwinist Strawman
    ... > Since you began by singling out "Darwinism" as atheistic (which ... bring up the subject of atheism. ... evolution" in evolutionary theory, nor in *any* theory that can be called ... belief not founded in science, and in fact, not found in science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dinesh DSouza: Atheism Masquerading as Science
    ... My blog last week on how science classes and science textbooks cannot ... legally promote atheism in any way brought a torrential response. ... In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, ... could be a quote mine. ...
    (talk.origins)