Re: Evolution is pro-Atheism

On Jun 11, 10:29 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"snex" <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:a658cc65-07ae-4014-acd8-a0e0211de7c6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



On Jun 9, 5:38 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"snex" <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:08aeb0b9-614e-411d-a4e6-af13210e1265@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:41 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 1, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 21, 2:10 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 18, 5:06 pm, Pastor D <past...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
(Romans 1:20)

Got objective, verifiable evidence that a god - *any* god - actually
exists?

No?

Then I believe I'll remain an atheist, thanks.

These comments assume rightly that the evolutionary interpretation of
evidence presents no evidence of God.

so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.

And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).

no it doesnt, it doesnt presuppose anything at all. you are claiming
to have an answer to the question "where did life (or if you prefer,
everything) come from?" it is not enough to just point at a book and
say it has the answer. you have to show WHY that answer is supposed to
be correct. you have to show how somebody can arrive at that answer by
doing the work independently. theists simply cannot do this. if all
copies of the bible and all memories of it were wiped out tomorrow,
christianity would not reappear, because one cannot be reasoned into
christianity. the same cannot be said about science. if all knowledge
of evolution were wiped out tomorrow, it would eventually be
rediscovered because it is true and independently verifiable by
anybody who just looks.

neither do
you."

now where is your evidence of any gods?

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Genesis 1 & 2.

that is no more evidence of gods than the stories about zeus and
athena.

Western civilization, excluding the 150 year interruption of
Darwinism, has always accepted and recognized that the Textual
evidence and a nature that exhibits the concept of design and
organized complexity, proves the existence of Jehovah.

the same can be said about bleeding and applying leeches as medicine.
tradition is not an argument.

Snex: I've always wanted to tell you that I really enjoy reading the
debates that you and other Atheists engage in from time to time. You
regularly experience the fact that your brothers are brazen liars.
They distort and evade everything you say. The same leaves one
wondering why you are an Atheist? Is it because your parents were
Atheists? Are you unable to disentangle yourself from the emotional
attachment?

Ray

my parents are catholics, and i am an atheist because i can identify
bullshit arguments. all arguments offered in favor of theism are
bullshit arguments. you simply cannot get to theism starting from
reasonably acceptable first principles. here are some examples of
first principles that i consider reasonably acceptable: 1) logic is a
valid way to determine true statements from other known true
statements. 2) i can exist and observe the world, and my observations
are mostly correct. 3) when my observations are not correct, there is
some way of correcting them or determining that they were incorrect
and therefore i should discard them.

see if you can arrive at a conclusion of theism from using those 3
principles. you cant do it.

I can't even get to abstract algebra from your 3 principles.

There are many concepts that don't follow from observations of the
natural world.

how many of those concepts are *about* the natural world though?
abstract algebra is not. claims about who or what created the universe
*are.*

What created the Universe is so remote and beyond what science can
observe that it relies on theoretical speculation:

So pick your speculation: Cosmic inflationary bubbles inside some
meta-cosmos that is beyond our Universe and hence entirely theoretical,
beyond observation and experimentation; or God that is beyond our
Universe and hence entirely theoretical, beyond observation and
experimentation.

how about "i dont know, you dont know, and anybody who claims to know
and has no evidence is flat out lying?" why is ignorance about things
nobody can know so objectionable to you? why do you feel that
dishonesty is preferable?


Now I'll grant you that when God is said to intervene *in human history*
(virgin birth, for example), that sort of claim has to go against
scientific observation of the improbability (but NOT impossibility) of
human parthenogenesis.  A sufficiently advanced medical technology might
be able to accomplish it someday.

But I don't believe in a God who makes virgin human births.

-- Steven L.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science versus religion fnord
    ... concept of godhood which requires empiricism. ... "God created the universe" is an empirical claim. ... universe" so specially privileged that it doesn't require evidence? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science versus religion fnord
    ... "God created the universe" is an empirical claim. ... universe" so specially privileged that it doesn't require evidence? ... against the presence of a teapot out there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism
    ... > find evidence for that in observations of the structure of life. ... > If God has endowed humans with immaterial souls and is the source ... We know atheists are spiritually ... > If God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism
    ... "If God is the intelligent designer of life on Earth, ... find evidence for that in observations of the structure of life. ... We know atheists are spiritually ... "The order and magnificence of the world and the universe just happened ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Uncaused First Cause
    ... before the universe was created out of the ... My answer is God, i.e. the Supreme ... Near Death ... > Experiences do not count truly as a death because after all those who have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)