Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 01:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I previously used the word 'magic'; same thing.

So if it arose magically, it still does not negate evolution.

And "magic" in this sense would mean "unnatural", wouldn't it? And an "unnatural" act would be supernatural, wouldn't it?

Or better yet, if it was "magic", who would be the magician? Consider

Classic example of a bullshit semantic game, gone wrong Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 04:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 01:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I previously used the word 'magic'; same thing.

So if it arose magically, it still does not negate evolution.

And "magic" in this sense would mean "unnatural", wouldn't it? And an "unnatural" act would be supernatural, wouldn't it?

Or better yet, if it was "magic", who would be the magician? Consider

Classic example of a bullshit semantic game, gone wrong Laugh out load

I think you just, unknowingly, proved our points.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
24-03-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 04:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Or better yet, if it was "magic", who would be the magician? Consider




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 04:58 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 04:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And "magic" in this sense would mean "unnatural", wouldn't it? And an "unnatural" act would be supernatural, wouldn't it?

Only if one is as severely limited, mentally, but one's indoctrination, as Wail of the child is.

The double-decker universe doesn't exist. If a spiritual realm were to exist, it would be entirely natural. Dualism is out of favor, for some centuries now.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-03-2016, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 06:27 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 12:19 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:59 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So your "point", inasmuch as you have one, is that, if there is no life, there are no life forms to do any evolving?

Yeah, pretty much.

(23-03-2016 10:59 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Well, obviously. And if gravity didn't exist, we would all float off into space. But this "point" is not what you asked. It still has nothing to do with evolution as a theory. It's just "if abiogenesis didn't happen, where did life come from?" phrased as stupidly as possible. So stupidly that it becomes even less useful as a rhetorical device than it would have been otherwise - which is saying something - because it is fundamentally broken on an additional level due to you trying to rope in an entirely unrelated theory.

See, you rephrased the question. The question isn't "if abiogensis didn't happen, where did life come from". Even though that itself is a legitimate question, that isn't MY question.

MY question is, "if life can't come from nonlife, how can life evolve?" Now, with such a question, the only thing you can do is simply grant the fact that life can't evolve if there is no natural mechanism for it to begin to exist in the first place. I

f you DON'T do that, then you have to demonstrate HOW life can come from nonlife, which is something you can't do. When I ask the question, you are supposed to be able to say "But life did come from nonlife, because...."

But you've YET to even BEGIN to do that, because you don't know where life came from. It may be IMPOSSIBLE for life to come from nonlife. If it is, then there is just simply no way evolution is/can be true. No way possible.

And if it is impossible for life to come from nonlife, and we know that life began to exist, then intelligent design is peeking its ugly head, isn't it?

So either way, you are screwed, sir.

(23-03-2016 10:59 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And it's still an utter non-starter. If the best you have is "well, if I could completely overturn everything we know about biochemistry, then you would believe me!", then there really is no hope for you.

You are screwed, and you know it, bruh.
Since we are throwing theories around and you have ignored my request to discuss your faith I decided to tackle this topic a bit.

This is what I have gathered from the discussion (I haven't read all the posts thoroughly so please correct where necessary)

You claim: Atheists believe that Evolution is true.
Counter Argument: Not all atheists believe it is true, but it is a very good explanation to why there are so many different animals in existence today.

You claim: There are instances of specimens found that have no known evolutionary ancestry based on the collective knowledge of living specimens found. Which makes it more rational to believe in a supernatural creator.
Counter Argument: There are more instances of specimens found with evolutionary ancestry than ones without. It is more rational but not necessarily true that all known life seems to have evolved from another life form up until the point in time where there existed no life forms on the planet.

You claim: It is a logical necessity to believe that the only thing that could have created the first known living organism on the planet has to be intelligent & supernatural in nature.
Counter Argument: If the only thing that can create living things is a living thing then what created the first living thing?

You claim: The first living thing does not need another living thing to create it because it has the power to do so & already did it.
Counter Argument: Why can't we say the same thing about the first known living organism? What's the difference between our claim and your claim?

I haven't found your counter argument to the last argument yet so I will await your response and examine the logic from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 01:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Intelligent design in that form doesn't equal god. Aliens either if they were supernatural or natural, doesn't equal God.

The aliens would have to be NECESSARY in their existence..and to be NECESSARY in your existence is to be God.

(24-03-2016 01:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  ..Yes Aliens or natural life might be able to create life.

You can postulate aliens if you want, but just know that again, the aliens would have to be necessary in their existence, possess the power to create something from nothing, and able to create life from nonliving material. So these "aliens" that you are postulating are actually "God", just covered with the veil of an "alien" label that you think somehow negates the concept of "God", which it doesn't.

(24-03-2016 01:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How do we know that is impossible at this point, do we know EVERYTHING POSSIBLE that natural life could do?

Well, I can argue that we DO know it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to originate from nonliving materials...but that isn't the point. The point is; from a scientific standpoint, we don't know whether life can come from nonlife. Therefore, it is at least POSSIBLE for abiogenesis to be false.

Well, if it is possible for abiogenesis to be false, then evolution cannot be said to be a brute fact. The entire issue is the fact that you people think/believe that evolution is a fact, when it can't be a fact if what is needed (abiogenesis) is ultimately false.

(24-03-2016 01:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then following with what you said later on, you clearly get that supernatural causes to aliens being alive doesn't equal GOD, it could equal another supernatural force. So don't make such mistakes to equate GOD as the only supernatural option. It paints yourself as dumber than you are.

No, it makes YOU dumber than YOU are. Now all of a sudden, it is cool to postulate "supernatural causes", just as long as the supernatural cause isn't God?? Look at all of the discriminatory BULLSHIT one has to muster in efforts to avoid the "G" word at all costs.

It is sad, and pathetic.

(24-03-2016 01:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't care about your presumed nature of it being either that or this. Okay so what. My point was that it doesn't mean God.

Yeah of course. "Postulate all of the supernatural aliens you want, just don't attach the word "God" to it, and we are cool".

"Anything but God". Sad, sad, sad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:41 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
good night

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Since we are throwing theories around and you have ignored my request to discuss your faith I decided to tackle this topic a bit.

Actually, I didn't ignore your request. I answered your original question on this thread, and you asked the same question that I answered.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: Atheists believe that Evolution is true.
Counter Argument: Not all atheists believe it is true, but it is a very good explanation to why there are so many different animals in existence today.

I am not aware of any atheist who has an agnostic position when it comes to evolution. Just sayin'.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: There are instances of specimens found that have no known evolutionary ancestry based on the collective knowledge of living specimens found. Which makes it more rational to believe in a supernatural creator.

We do not have ANY transitional fossils. I asked Unbeliever to produce some, and he can't produce any. I mean think about it; granted, not all dead remains will fossilize...but we are talking hundreds of thousands, on top of hundreds of thousands...all fossils, and not ONE single transitional fossil? Not one.

Unbeliever stated that every fossil is transitional...well, if that is the case, then what in the hell was this "missing link" stuff about? If every fossil is transitional, there wouldn't be any missing one, because no matter which fossil you find, YOU'VE found one.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Counter Argument: There are more instances of specimens found with evolutionary ancestry than ones without. It is more rational but not necessarily true that all known life seems to have evolved from another life form up until the point in time where there existed no life forms on the planet.

The problem with that is...they say it IS necessarily true. Think about it, bruh. They don't believe in God, so naturalistic evolution is the ONLY game in town. It must have occurred, all naturally. No God. No intelligent designer. Just...nature. To them, evolution is a 100% brute fact.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: It is a logical necessity to believe that the only thing that could have created the first known living organism on the planet has to be intelligent & supernatural in nature.
Counter Argument: If the only thing that can create living things is a living thing then what created the first living thing?

Then I will appeal to the argument from contingency. It would be PERFECT for the counter argument.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: The first living thing does not need another living thing to create it because it has the power to do so & already did it.
Counter Argument: Why can't we say the same thing about the first known living organism? What's the difference between our claim and your claim?

The argument from contingency.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I haven't found your counter argument to the last argument yet so I will await your response and examine the logic from there.

The argument from contingency Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:54 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 04:37 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I think you just, unknowingly, proved our points.

Think again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 09:25 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 06:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Since we are throwing theories around and you have ignored my request to discuss your faith I decided to tackle this topic a bit.

Actually, I didn't ignore your request. I answered your original question on this thread, and you asked the same question that I answered.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: Atheists believe that Evolution is true.
Counter Argument: Not all atheists believe it is true, but it is a very good explanation to why there are so many different animals in existence today.

I am not aware of any atheist who has an agnostic position when it comes to evolution. Just sayin'.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: There are instances of specimens found that have no known evolutionary ancestry based on the collective knowledge of living specimens found. Which makes it more rational to believe in a supernatural creator.

We do not have ANY transitional fossils. I asked Unbeliever to produce some, and he can't produce any. I mean think about it; granted, not all dead remains will fossilize...but we are talking hundreds of thousands, on top of hundreds of thousands...all fossils, and not ONE single transitional fossil? Not one.

Unbeliever stated that every fossil is transitional...well, if that is the case, then what in the hell was this "missing link" stuff about? If every fossil is transitional, there wouldn't be any missing one, because no matter which fossil you find, YOU'VE found one.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Counter Argument: There are more instances of specimens found with evolutionary ancestry than ones without. It is more rational but not necessarily true that all known life seems to have evolved from another life form up until the point in time where there existed no life forms on the planet.

The problem with that is...they say it IS necessarily true. Think about it, bruh. They don't believe in God, so naturalistic evolution is the ONLY game in town. It must have occurred, all naturally. No God. No intelligent designer. Just...nature. To them, evolution is a 100% brute fact.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: It is a logical necessity to believe that the only thing that could have created the first known living organism on the planet has to be intelligent & supernatural in nature.
Counter Argument: If the only thing that can create living things is a living thing then what created the first living thing?

Then I will appeal to the argument from contingency. It would be PERFECT for the counter argument.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim: The first living thing does not need another living thing to create it because it has the power to do so & already did it.
Counter Argument: Why can't we say the same thing about the first known living organism? What's the difference between our claim and your claim?

The argument from contingency.

(24-03-2016 06:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I haven't found your counter argument to the last argument yet so I will await your response and examine the logic from there.

The argument from contingency Thumbsup

1. I didn't find the post where you explained why I should believe in Jesus. I searched every night but never found it. I admit I may have overlooked it but would you be kind enough to repost it here?

2. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for Atheism.
I used to think the same thing when I came here until I examined the definition of Atheism properly:
From google:
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
It is a lack of belief in God(s) which makes you an Atheist.
Claiming to know that God(s) does not exist (non existence is true & existence if false) is what defines one type of Atheist (Gnostic Atheism). That's all it does, but it isn't the root of what makes you an Atheist, although it can be inferred from the claim.
Claiming to not know if God(s) exists (non existence & existence is uncertain) is what defines the other type of Atheist (Agnostic Atheism).
In both instances they lack acceptance of the belief that God(s) exists and are both Atheists. A new born child is an Atheist. A Solpsist is an Atheist. It is not a choice, we just honestly don't know & we didn't choose to not know or that wouldn't be an Atheist, just a liar maybe.
Example: A lack of life is what makes something an inanimate object. All dolls & statues are inanimate objects but the reason they are considered an inanimate object is because they lack life, not because they are dolls & statues. They are 2 different types of inanimate objects.

2a. Hopefully you now understand how an Atheist can be agnostic on the position of Evolution, since it is not a prerequisite, for you to claim "you know" something about God, to be an Atheist.

3a. Mutations in infant organisms are subtle examples of transitional evidence. We have fossilized evidence of this.
3b. Transitional evidence is very unlikely to occur within successive generations of a newly mutated organism based on the frequency of such mutations occurring as per the unmutated form of the organism.
3c. If we found infant mutations occurring more often than it should without probable cause this would help support a belief in a supernatural intervention.
3d. If transitional evidence based on infant mutation is less rational than creational evidence then where are the examples for creational evidence for us to compare which one is more rational? Are you comparing physical evidence to theoretical evidence in an effort to determine a more rational belief? I don't think that is how it is done. A good example of creational evidence would be to show multiple adult versions of an organism before which there was no replicate younger version of itself.
3e. You may be tempted to ask why are there not multiple instances of mutated infants around the same timeline as the evolution of a new species. The mutation is most likely a random process that is very unlikely to occur throughout the general populous of the species without the help of some supernatural intervention.
3f. The reproduction of life is highly & commonly dependent on the nurturing ability and group protection offered to newly born life. In nature it is very common that any offspring that does not closely mimick the anatomy of it's parents runs a high risk of rejection and neglect by it's parents & family, thereby reducing the chances for survival into adulthood. Thus any form of adult transitional evidence would most likely be very subtle and or extremely rare to find resulting in the apparent lack of drastic transitional evidence you seem to be searching for. The point is, it's just not that logical for drastic or adult transitional evidence to be found on such a widespread scale as you think it should be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: