History is not evidence? Do you know what history is? This is an EXTREMELY VAGUE CONCEPT. You may as well have said, I studied last week. ( History is the study of life in society in the past, in all its aspects, to present developments and future hopes )
I wasn’t referring to history but rather every observation every living thing has made that we know of. This is called inductive reasoning and is a part of science, philosophy and the testing of hypothesis in general. For example:
Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist such as a biologist makes observations and records them. These data can be qualitative or quantitative and the raw data can be supplemented with drawings, pictures, photos, or videos. From many observations, the scientist can infer conclusions (inductions) based on evidence. Inductive reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and the analysis of a large amount of data. Brain studies provide an example.
Further more we can use inductive reasoning to rule out some hypothesis as in this method proposed by Karl Popper:
An argument put forward by the philosopher Karl Popper is that science is about proving not truth, but falsehood. The crucial thing is that when you find evidence that disproves a scientific hypothesis, you discard or amend that hypothesis. You can never find truth exactly, but by slowly ruling out ideas, you edge closer to it.
When we then use those obersavations to formulate a testable hypothesis that can make predictions we have hypothesis constructed using solid scientific principles. It the predictions and tests prove false then we know the hypothesis is not correct. If the predictions and tests are successful and seem to back up the hypothesis then we have a solid reason for believing the hypothesis is a solid theory.
Intelligent Design has conducted scientific tests, published scientific papers and made many scientific theories. To my knowledge there have been no false results and plenty of positive results thus far. Evolutionists and atheists have made many predictions that have proven false and none that I know of that have proven true. Evolutionists and origin of life researchers that do not believe in an OIA have conducted many tests and none that I know of that proven positive.
I don’t know how much more solid or conclusive you need than that.
I freakin dare you to challenge me to back up what I just said.
Precedence does not lead us to knowledge.
What???
Of course it does. Einstein didn’t come up with the theory of relativity from scratch there were a couple extremely helpful things that were established before he discovered it. Charles Darwin didn’t come up with the theory of evolution or even natural selection that was created by a man four years before Darwin but Darwin explained and expanded upon and made a much more convincing case and that is why he is loved and respected. Lots of science is about observing and carefully documenting the observations. From that you can then analyze the data to find patterns and useful information.
So you are a flat earth creationist? If you choose from that which seems more reasonable, you are trusting your senses without regarding the fact that they can be fooled. Indeed the earth looks flat from the top of a mountain. We know this to be the case. We also know we live on a circular planet. We have known this since Hellenistic astronomy in the 3rd Century, the Chinese may have established it well before that. But you are going to trust what seems reasonable. NO! This is not a path to truth.
3. The most straightforward option? Hmm? So, a magical flying sky daddy who can live outside the universe in nothingness, who is eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent in our universe at the same time, is simpler than the bonding of two atoms? Really? None of your suggested criteria will lead you to truth or knowledge, and none is necessary.
I wouldn’t thing that a lot of creationists would be flat earthers or vise versa as those two systems of belief don’t seem compatible but who knows. I can disprove the flat earth concept using their logic and do it in a couple minutes with no room for doubt.
If the sun rises at the same time for half hemispherical distances along a line of latitude then you live on a globe. This is easily confirmed by making a phone call to a large hotel in a city a half hemispherical distance from you and asking them what time sunrise is.
If the sun does not rise at the same time but differs widely even by as much as 6 hours by distances of half a hemispherical distance from you along a line of latitude then you live on a disc or flat earth.
If you can tell me why that works I will name my next dog or child after you.
3. Only life can give rise to life: You can not demonstrate this. Here is the problem. We see life beginning in the vents of volcanoes in the deepest parts of the oceans. We see life starting in the hostile sulfur-rich environments or guisers. We see life spontaneously occurring under the Antarctic ice caps where no sunlight has touched for thousands of years. We see organisms flourishing inside nuclear reactor waste, where no sane organism could live, and yet, there it is. We see the building blocks of life, amino acids strewn throughout the universe on planets and asteroids. What we don’t see is God. From all indications, it appears, that life may come from inorganic materials. You do realize that your body is 60% inorganic. We don’t know, but the evidence is leaning toward a natural process and not a God.
What you wrote above is exactly what I’m talking about and the same thing happened to me. Honestly you can’t blame anyone for writing what you wrote I feel like we are all victims of some serious miss information, or click baiting, hyper sensationalizing or worse. You have come to those conclusions like I did because you see articles or videos that seem to say that but if you look more closely you will see certain key words buried somewhere in there. Like “Most likely” … “Appears to have” … “is thought” … “is likely” or something similar. We have never seen life appear in any environment that wasn’t descended from some other life unless we include artificially created life in a laboratory by extremely smart scientists using components and tools that already exist in life to create said life. And amino acids may be the building blocks of life but you will need a lot more than that. In fact amino acids can actually doom the possibility of life if they are not precisely constructed and ordered. Chirality is crucial and is a serious problem with origin of life research because is not easily obtained in amino acids in natural conditions and in large sequences. You said that the body is 60% inorganic. I’ll do you one better the body is 99.9999% air as the distance between particles and atoms is vast. That doesn’t mean we are going to find out that air is a key component of the origin of life.
3. Consciousness gives rise to itself? This is quite circular. Consciousness is a product of physical interactions. Our consciousness is an outward manifestation of an internal process, an emergent property of the function of brain.
Perhaps I should have worded that better but what I meant was we have never seen a non intelligent non conscious entity give rise to intelligence or consciousness.
Some observations are “Evidenced” and some are not. Do you know how to tell the difference? History is a story. The story of history is created from artifacts, bones, writings, and oftentimes suppositions. Calling history evidence without a good reason to do so, is called “IGNORANCE.”
Induction is fallacious when there is no causal link between events. Simply asserting something in the past has something to do with what is happening now is not evidence.
An inductive argument you make must be demonstrated.
And this is not the way we arrive at “General Conclusions.” At the very best, you might get some sort of hypothesis out of your observations. That would be a best-case scenario. That, of course, assumes you know what a hypothesis is and how you would go about sufficiently narrowing it and then quantifying it, so it is testable.
You really do not understand science do you?
Why are we changing the topic: You think you know how all this works. Now use it and provide evidence for your god.
How do you know this? Have you ever seen ‘nothing?’ Do you have any examples? Can nothing exist? If it exists, wouldn’t that make it something? You seem very confused with your assertions. Have you actually given this matter any thought? Other dimensions? Really?
4. You are making an equivalency error with the word ‘code.’ I expect you are referencing DNA. DNA is not a code in the same sense Morris Code is a code. DNA is chemical reactions. We made the code to understand the chemical interactions. Do some reading: DNA is a molecule (a macromolecule). It is not a code and it does not contain a code. The only way that “code” is related to DNA is when we write down a DNA sequence using code, such as “TGAACTTA” We use a code to understand it.
I actually I do know what I’m talking about and have debated several scientists, authors, professors in their fields no less. Not saying I won or lost but I was able to hold my own and understand what they were saying and give them challenging arguments as well. I don’t know how you can deny that the DNA is a code just because it’s made of chemicals. It’s a set of reference data points that is limited in number but when strung together gives instructions to other informational systems or mechanical systems. Moreover DNA is used in combination with other things like genes to perform logical operations like “if, then,else etc.” but it gets more crazy … DNA has sentaxt in it like most languages do. Now here’s the worst part. DNA is one of the most advanced codes we know of. As of right now we know that the code can be used for at least two different sets of instructions. It’s a compressed code or overlapping code where in a way a second code is embedded inside of the first one lol. Seriously try coming imagining unguided processes coming up with that insanity. And there may be a third for all we know. Because right now there are still plenty of gaps in what we think should be coded or passed down through generations and what we see. But there are possible other places for that stuff to hide. But that stuff may be transmitted using a completely different language for all we know. This stuff doesn’t get more reasonable and plausible as we go it gets more mind boggling and outrageous for the non designed hypothesis.
BTW I’ll help the atheist side out. For old times sake. Most current theories that would make atheism a solid belief or position have the problem of not having an intelligent method to create things that clearly were made by some intelligence. But there is one old one and I came up with a new one that to me seems way more plausible then unguided processes. But thats my opinion it’s up to you to decide what you think of them. I don’t actually believe these but they don’t defy physics, all known observations and such. Goes like this:
We are in a simulation and the owner of the game is probably playing it here and there or maybe he/she left it on by accident or leaves it running out of mercy or for giggles.
The universe or something in it became conscious early on and on a level way beyond the imagination of humanity. This entity picked earth because of too many reasons to list but if you ask I will elaborate. Then designed cellular life concept and design principles and did something to make sure it happened. Still has problems but does solve some too.
YOU were the one who flounced in here, purporting to dictate what we think without bothering with the inconvenience of actually asking us first, so don’t project your bullshit modus operandi on me. But I’m used to seeing this brand of duplicity from your ilk, as are the other regulars here.
Serving side salads with that mendacity of yours, are you?
EDIT: I see you’re also regurgitating the tiresomely familiar creationist lies and bullshit we’ve seen so often here. Quite the arrogant little jackass, aren’t you?
Naturally, you have come to a public debate forum, and are making a claim.
When will you be demonstrating any objective evidence to support them?
I see 5 assertions, but no objective evidence? FYI, it is irrational to suggest that something cannot happen just because we have not seen it happen, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
It’s not a very auspicious start if you have to cherry pick scientific facts to deny, however I am obliged to accept the global scientific consensus that supports such facts, as this is a reflection of how well evidenced they are. Especially as you;re offering naught but subjective claims.
That’s all you have? Five subjective claim followed by a false dichotomy fallacy, that was a long painful and disjointed rant I just read just to be presented with subjective claims and a known logical fallacy.
I don’t, and you may think making subjective claims, to create logical fallacies is reasonable, but I do not. As I said you have no idea what was and was not possible prior to the big bang, and since your claims are all observations of the physical universe it is a false equivalence to assume they apply prior to the big bang.
Which principle of logic did he violate? Also you lied and misrepresented atheism, in a public debate forum filled with atheists, do you imagine such mendacity would be considered courteous? You can hardly whine when someone disrespects you for being so dishonest as to contradict the dictionary.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You don’t get to tell others what they do and do not think or believe, and if you try then you can expect them to react.
Now, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity? Only you have decried the scientific fact that all living things evolved, which is based on overwhelming objective evidence, and a global scientific consensus of over 164 years of global scientific scrutiny, and are peddling subjective claims and fallacious false dichotomies?
You implied there was a scientific evidence, and I said I’d keep an open mind but asked you why if that were true atheism is almost universal among elite scientists, for example 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences, America’s most elite body of scientists, are atheists and agnostics, unsurprisingly you ignored my question.
Can you think of a sensible reason I should believe the subjective and unevidenced opinion of an anonymous stranger in a chat room, when weighing scientific evidence, over the majority of elite scientists?
This is he problem, you are offering naught but subjective opinions to draw conclusions that disagree with scientific facts, that are at odds with facts about what elite scientists think, and that even contradict the dictionary.
Ah so you do know have some grasp of the difference between subjective beliefs, and objectively verifiable evidence, so why are you decrying the latter, in order to champion the former, if you know objective evidence is a far better standard for credulity? Species evolution is based on overwhelming objective evidence, your arguments here have none to support a deity that I can see?
No supernatural event has ever been objectively evidenced.
It is an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible, and since we have no objective evidence at all that any deity or anything supernatural is even possible, then that’s a no brainer.
Not if you’re adding an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic, obviously.
There is no scientific evidence for any deity, that is axiomatic, and unfalsifiable ideas are discarded as unscientific. This line in apologetics seems to be in vogue right now, but it seems like a god of the gaps polemic to me, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Why then are you posting it coming from a deity? You cannot create a rule, then immediately introduce a special pleading fallacy to negate that rule, that’s poor reasoning.
Not true. evolution is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, the slow evolution of humans is also very well evidenced. Though of course you are still trying to add a deity you cannot objectively evidence to a natural process, based on gaps in our knowledge. Again this is very poor reasoning.
So another special pleading fallacy will be need to explain your deity then, it is unavoidable. You’re also (again) making unevidenced assumptions based on us not knowing the opposite is true, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again very poor reasoning. The claim also seems unfalsifiable to me, where did you get nothing from to test this claim?
Lastly of course who says nothing existed ever? This seems like a straw man scenario you’ve created, as another hypothesis might be to consider that the universe has always existed in some altered state, and we can posit that without adding unevidenced deities and inexplicable magic, Occam’s razor applies.
It seems you are violating your own rules by adding a deity.
We have never seen any objective evidence a deity exists or is possible, so these points seem to be something of an own goal if that is your standard for claiming something is impossible, it is also irrational of course as this is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
I don’t accept your claim, but even were evolution entirely falsified, I would remain an atheist, as my atheism is based on there being no objective evidence for any deity, and nothing to do with the fact of species evolution, which simply exposes the creation myths in major religions as the unevidenced hokum they clearly are.
Falsifying the scientific fact of evolution would not evidence a deity, it’s that simple. You’re tilting at windmills.
Or relevant, since it is very poor reasoning to keep pointing to gaps in our knowledge and trying to sneak an unevidenced deity into them.
No it isn’t. but whether it is or not, does not evidence any deity.
I don’t see why the idea is dangerous or crazy, you don’t get to just assert this?
As opposed to adding unevidenced and unfalsifiable deities using inexplicable supernatural magic you mean, this is just too funny. Again when weighing scientific ideas, I’d continue to accept those experts best placed to assess that evidence, as entertaining as your subjective opinions are, they carry no scientific weight. I also think it is hilarious for someone to talk about making a mockery of science, in a post where they are denying a scientific fact and accepted scientific theory like species evolution. Now cherry picking facts to reject based on unevidenced subjective religious beliefs is making a mockery of science.
Two false equivalence fallacies there, 1) atheism is nothing to do with the scientific fact that all living things evolved slowly over time, evolution, it is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, 2) species evolution is an accepted scientific theory which requires a weight of objective evidence it would be unreasonable to deny, this is the antithesis of faith based subjective religious beliefs.
FYI DNA is not a code, the code was created by scientists to understand DNA, you are making a very common error among theists and apologists, by conflating the descriptive explanation created by scientists, with what that explanation is describing.
So what, language is necessarily ill equipped to deal with new ideas and concepts, sadly theists and apologists leap on these phrases and either misunderstand they are metaphors trying to describe something, or they outright lie, as they do with the phrase fine tuned for example, which is a metaphor to describe the narrow parameters required of certain characteristics of the universe for carbon based life as we currently observe it to have emerged. None of that objectively evidences any deity or creator.
So what consciousness created your deity? Oh I sense another special pleading fallacy is on the way. To go with this false equivalence fallacy that is equating the conditions that allowed our brains to evolve, with the conditions present prior to the big bang, or in the early stages of our planets evolution where life emerged.
Again you can’t make lofty claims to be believing the simplest answers, if you’re adding unevidenced deities and inexplicable magic, to what could simply be, as yet unknown natural phenomena, when we know natural phenomena are possible.
Our knowledge is incomplete, which underpins why this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is very poor reasoning. Also if this is your standard for declaring things impossible, then one has to observe we have never seen any objective evidence any deity exists or is even possible, or anything supernatural of course.
Special pleading fallacies, and you haven’t demonstrated it is even possible, so arbitrarily assigning it attributes is a begging the question fallacy is ever there was one. One could assume anything and simply arbitrarily give it the same attributes, and the argument loses nothing, a sure sign your reasoning flawed.
The universe exists, and natural phenomena exist as objective fact, you’re violating Occam’s razor everytime you add something you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence is even possible. tell us again how the simplest explanation is the most plausible. Removing the unevidenced deity and the inexplicable magic simplifies it drastically, and relies only on things we already know are possible.
A textbook circular reasoning fallacy, you are assuming your conclusion in your opening premise, again very poor reasoning.
I don’t agree, your addition of a deity has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it just string claims and assumptions together in tandem.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, the lack of a contrary explanation to your unevidenced claims, do not lend then credence, this again is very poor reasoning.
Leaving your straw men aside, natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, ipso facto they are a more plausible explanation than inexplicable supernatural magic from an entirely unevidenced deity, you can’t even demonstrate is possible.
Accept not except, and you have failed to demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists or is even possible, paradoxically natural phenomena are an objective fact, so it is absurd to claim the deity is more plausible, perhaps plausible means something different to you than it does me?
Seriously which is more plausible explanations we know are possible, or explanations we have no objective evidence exist or are possible, it is a no brainer.
God is not an option. It has never been demonstrated to be an option. There is no good reason at all to consider God an option. God is an assertion and nothing more. You have no evidence for the existence of a god. Any option you propose must be demonstrated,. Demonstrate a god exists and that it has created anything. We know for a fact natural processes occur. There has never been a substantiated transcendental event, a spiritual event, a godly event, that could be demonstrated.
It’s the same tired old argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy we have seen so many times before, it uses a god of the gaps polemic, along the lines of “we can’t (currently) explain X, so a deity must have done it.”
The real hilarity is where he pretends the vast majority of elite scientists in the relevant fields, have all missed this evidence for a deity, something he seems pretty reticent to discuss. Or when he denies scientific facts, like species evolution. They always think they can bluff, why is that?
No, DNA doesn’t give instructions. It is simply not capable of doing so. It is a nucleic acid which, based on the arrangement of four nitrogenous bases in it, results in differenth biological processes. It’s no more an instructor than fire is when wood becomes charcoal in a campfire.
I said before that Atheism comes with other beliefs and someone asked about so let me explain. Atheism by itself is about just one belief. The belief that there is no God. I hear atheists saying that “it’s not a belief but a lack of belief”. This is absurd. Can you prove atheism? No. Then atheism is a belief. I don’t believe in Santa Claus we don’t normally say “He has a lack of belief in Santa Claus. We might say “He doesn’t believe in Santa Claus” but we could just as easily say it’s his belief that Santa doesn’t exist. But even if it were simply a lack of belief that is not where it ends. As I said before atheism by its very premise has to necessarily come with other beliefs. Stowaways
Some Stowaways:
(Naturalism) Obviously one would have to believe that everything has arisen through naturalistic processes, because the ultimate assumption is that there is no mind, no intelligent designer or ‘guiding hand’ to account for existence.
(Simple to complex Evolution) Believing that our universe with such vast complexity could come into being fully formed is simply not viable. Therefore there would have had to have been, and presumably are, innumerable changes taking place in matter over time. The processes involved must have caused matter to go from simple to more complex.
(Deep time and its magical abilities) In order to account for the vast diversity of things in our universe, all of these processes must have happened over an immense amount of ‘deep’ time.
(Humans are autonomous accidents) Human beings must have come about via natural unguided processes so we are therefore not special in any sense other than we are at the ‘top of the food chain’ as it were. Any sense of morality or ethics is just part of our naturalistic development and is therefore not absolute in any way.
An atheist must by default be a naturalist. But naturalism doesn’t offer any mechanisms or reasons to be confident it is true. It is mearely a way of interpreting what we see around us. No one has ever come up with to my knowledge a naturalist mechanism that doesn’t involve Evolution. It is the component of the Atheist world view system that brings weight to Atheism.
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Richard Dawkins
Naturalism swept through academia and the scientific community around late 1800’s. Around the time of “Origin of the Species”. This didn’t happen because evolution was true but rather because it gave method for what we see that sounded plausible and reasonable.
When Charles Darwin wrote the “Origin of the Species” at best it could be described as a hypothesis for why more complex life forms came to exist then the most primitive life form. Thats because at the time he wrote the book there was no evidence at all to back any of it up. His hypothesis or his case for the hypothesis was laid out beautifully and was accepted and adopted by many scientists and people in academia even though they had no evidence at the time to back it up.
Professor Johann H. Blasius, director of the Ducal Natural History Museum of Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany, in an interview, said, “I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them. … Darwin wants to show that kinds come from other kinds.”
Director Blasius interview: “Evolution is only a Hypothesis”, 1859, cited in Braunschweiger Zeitung , 29 March 2004
Darwin had concerns and actually began to believe in his later years that natural selection by itself was not sufficient. He came up a mechanism that accelerates Evolution, was a theory is very proud of calling it his baby and one I think is mostly true, will be proven to be mostly true and to me far more impressive for Darwin then natural selection. But todays evolutionists stick to natural selection so rigidly they become hostile to anything they feel may challenge it. Even if that something comes from one of their own who is simply trying to make an even stronger case for evolution. And for anything or anyone outside of evolution/naturalism well …. hell hath no fury like a pissed off Evolutionist. Evolution and Naturalism for the hardcore has become a dogmatic religion.
Evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.
Richard Dawkins
Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision , Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
To the hardcore Naturalists and Evolutionists it is absolute gospel and those that don’t praise it enough are blasphemers. Because Evolution and Naturalism dominates Science and Academia the dogmatism that has risen in Evolution and Naturalism has risen in Science and Academia. believe what people today think he meant by evolution but I’ll get to that in a second. Now just because he has a hypothesis that couldn’t be proven at the time or that exact moment doesn’t take away from its potential importance. His hypothesis made predictions, made sense, was well thought out and he did have some observations and inductive reasoning to back it up.
H.S Lipson: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion: almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Evolutionist, scientist, Roman Catholic: Evolution is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems muct henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order be thinkable and true.
Francisco Ayala, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975”, Journal of Heredity, (V. 68, No. 3, 1977), p. 3.
These things would still be troubling to me even if I thought evolution (macro scale) were true but it starts getting scary when hardcore Evolutionists commit fraud and use propaganda techniques. Not only is that scary but it is a very strong signal that the belief is based on shaky ground or is false.
…adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World , by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books , January 9, 1997.
our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
I can’t logically and reasonably have faith in an idea or system that has an open ended “trust clause” in it. I’ve heard the claims for years now that it’s just a matter of a few years or 5 years or whatever and this or that will be proven or explained and those events never happen. Since the very launch of Darwins book Evolutionists made claims and had expectations of a flood of evidence that wouldn’t be long. The hopes and expectations were so high that some of them committed outright fraud to bolster the hypothesis
Many of these frauds were in texts books for decades and presented as facts. People lived their entire lives believing those fraudulent hoaxes. So when someone says its a fact that life began through natural processes even though there is no proof at all of such a thing then go on to tell me I should trust the science I don’t whether to laugh or run.
You should trust science as a process for separating fact from fiction because of its flexibility to update theories and findings based on new information and because its the best method we have.
He goes on to say that the origin of the claim “why trust science? When it keeps changing its mind?”” Could have come … wait for it ……drum roll ……wait …l.
Yep religion. And what if it did. So what does that make the opinion or idea any less or more true, or worthy of consideration. The answer is it absolutely does to those with a belief system that is in direct competition to religion and/or those that want to destroy or replace it. The new crack baby of intellectuals is a cocktail with some mix of the following (not all ingredients are in the drink at the same time but many are depending on the flavor preferences of the intellectual).
Atheism
Scientism
Evolutionism
Dogmatism
Humanism
Secularism
Materialism
Determinism
Various levels of sophism
Usually some form of collectivism.
Classism (intellectuals at the top the deniers at the bottom if at all possible)
There are five that occur a lot:
Scientism
Evolutionism
Dogmatism
Atheism.
Naturalism
Its the SEDAN religion.
The religion of SEDAN is now the official religion of academia, scientific publishing, Science, The silicon elite that control modern communications and intellectual society.
The SEDANist can proudly say something … Eyes developed by a series of small increments because of blah blah. Then when asked where the evidence for that is they can simply say “We know it’s true because we see the results”. Any and all parts of development of anything in nature must … absolutely must be the result of evolutionary unguided processes. Even though there millions of transitional leaps with massive chicken and egg problems … the SEDANist can confidently claim that each and every one of them came from evolution. Their religion can explain everything there is to know about everything and it should be embraced because those that don’t are dragging down society, possibly dangerous and a disgrace to the human brain
And finally “we should trust their religion” I mean trust the science.
The moment a group of people tell us we should trust a group of people is the moment you should run for your freaking life. Especially if some members of that group think they have the answer to everything or will have the answer to everything there is to have an answer for and wish for any competing belief systems to be cast aside.
Observing all of the above was something that I considered to be a strong signal that the components of this new dogmatism were likely false…
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Four more lies, I am an atheist as I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, I do not hold a belief no deities exist, as this is unfalsifiable, and I don’t hold 3 of those 4 beliefs, and evolution has nothing to do with my atheism, as I already explained.
That’s a lie.
No such thing.
I gave up at that point, as you;re simply preaching, and have failed to address any of the objections to your religious creationist rhetoric. In places it has all the hallmarks of trolling as well.
I’m not trolling and have no interest in converting you to anything. I’m just making my case and also defending my belief as well as testing it. But you said something amazing that I have trouble trying to understand. Please if you could help me understand this that would be great.
I said that “an atheist must by default be a naturalist”.
You said “That’s a lie.”
Ok work help out an idiot like me because I am genuinely clueless on this one. How can an atheist not be a naturalist? This would mean you need answers to things that can’t be done in a naturalist way. You would need super natural explanations? Or you use super natural explanations? So does that mean there is a super natural realm that makes things possible like the existence of things but there is no God in that realm? I mean I guess but doesn’t that mean that realm wouldn’t be that much different than a God? That’s my best guess at what that could mean but I’m clueless on this one unless you can help me out.
You’re not off to a good start. ATHEISM is not about a belief. People who identify as atheists have simply walked away from religion or never had religious beliefs. They do not believe in God or gods. This is NOT the same thing as “Believing god or gods do not exist.”
Why the distinction? First, there are millions of gods. No one needs to go around demonstrating each one does not exist. There are thousands of Christian gods. There are trinities, non-trinities, magic Jesus, human Jesus, salvation through works, salvation through belief, salvation through grace, salvation through a personal relationship, salvation for everyone, salvation for only a few, and on and on and on. There are thousands of different Christian faiths. I do not need to assert each version of a Christian god or any god is wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. All I need to do, as an atheist, is request evidence. When no evidence for the existence of any of these gods can stand against critical inquiry, the appropriate response is to not believe them. Atheists don’t believe god claims. God claims have not met their burden of proof.
Atheism is not a system of belief:
Atheism does not come with other beliefs. Many atheists; however, do hold other beliefs. Metaphysical naturalism is common among atheists, skepticism, humanism, various political ideologies, and more. Atheists are humans and most humans I know of hold some form of beliefs. Atheists hold beliefs. This does not mean that atheism is directly related to or even the result of any specific belief.
I often explain it this way. Religion gives you a bag of cookies. A bag of beliefs that you carry around with you. An atheist is a person who puts the bag down and walks away from it. That is all. They look in the bag and for any of a variety of reasons, they tell themselves, “This is not working for me anymore.” They put the bag down and walk away.
Naturalism is not atheism. People can be naturalists and believe in god. Francis Sellers Collins, head of the human genome project for example. Religious scientists are very good at petitioning their belief in science from their faith in religion.
Simple to complex Evolution: None of this detracts from religion or belief in God. The Catholic church has accepted all elements of evolution and simply asserts, “That’s how god did it.”
Humans are accidents? Not an atheistic belief. Not sure where you are going,. Not a stowaway. How human beings came about is not yet known. All the actual evidence points towards naturalistic processes. No evidence at all points to a magical universe-creating god that exists beyond time and space. There are many possible theories, abiogenesis being one of the lead theories. There is no theory stating 'God did it." This assertion had not even reached the stage of a hypothesis. It’s just something the religious like to say.
You are wrong again. Atheists are people who do not believe in Gods. Buddhism is an atheistic religion and it certainly does not qualify as naturalistic. New age spiritualists with their meditations and belief is various powers may also not believe in god or gods. There are pagans who believe in life forces, not gods, a life energy like the force… By the way, “The Force” is also an atheistic religion. You are just wrong. Once Again!
Charled Darwin? Really? We have 150 of evidence supporting Darwin. Why is Darwin so important to you people?
You are wrong again: His hypothesis was well-documented which is why it became so popular. He took the theory of evolution, which was previously known and debated, and identified one of the main modes of evolutionary change, adaptation via natural selection. variation within species occurs randomly, and that the survival or extinction of each organism is determined by that organism’s ability to adapt to its environment.He offered specific real world examples and changed science forever.
Headline:
Director Blasius: ‘Evolution Is Only A Hypothesis.’ (1859*) As was the reaction of many scientists of Darwin’s time. And you went on to quote this guy? Really? Do you know how weak that is?
Finally. Why are we talking about evolution? What in the hell does evolution have to do with God? Even if evolution were demonstrated to be completely wrong. You still need to provide evidence for the existence of a god? Furthermore: evolution says nothing at all about the emergence of life on this planet. The study of the origin of life may involve abiogenesis,panspermia, geoscience or earth science or some other form of inquiry. Evolution is what happens after things begin living.
It appears you are rambling and somewhat incoherent after this. Your point is lost.
How can an atheist not be a naturalist: I gave you many examples above. Ahteists can believe in spirits, ghosts, chakras, and all sorts of woo woo. The criteria for being an atheist is not believing in a God.
YES! That is correct. And I gave you the example of ‘Buddhism’ ‘The Force’ We can add Confucianism, Taoism, and some versions of Hinduism, just to name a few. Gods are not needed for religion. All that is needed for atheism is the absence of god.
