Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 07:37 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
businessman.

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, 08:24 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 06:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.

Every fossil is transitional, because every living organism is transitional compared to every other living organism. That's what someone like you would call "micro" evolution.

The whole "missing link" debacle is purely a result of trying to explain to people like you (who are incapable of understanding the very concepts that they attempt to argue against) by using their own inaccurate terms. I agree, these types of terms only muddle up the conversation and make it harder to discern what is being said. So cut that shit out because it's goddamn annoying.

On the same note, you wasted more than half of this thread ignoring the fact that people were granting you the possibility of evolution designed by god, then you all of the sudden bust in with "intelligent design" like it's a new concept to the thread. You're either really dishonest or really retarded. I'm leaning towards a bit of both.

Sorry, had to let that out. Carry on. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like evenheathen's post
24-03-2016, 08:33 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?

I can't find it either. But I know damn well I posted it...hmmm Consider

(24-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Yeah. The definition of "atheist" has changed over the years. It used to be a person who maintained "There is no god", but after realizing the folly of such an absolute statement, they've changed it to more of what you said above.

The problem is, an agnostic is also someone that doesn't "believe" in in the existence of God or gods. So, where is the distinction?? The only reason why there was such a distinction in the first place is the agnostic position of "God/gods may exist or may not exist, but we can never know, therefore, I don't believe or disbelieve in a god"...that position is very different than "There is no god", which is the position of atheism USED to be..which is what the position of folks like Madalyn Murray O'hair was...that is what atheism USED to be...and that is how you could distinguish atheism from agnosticism.

But based on your definition, there is no distinction necessary...because the traditional definition of atheism has been watered down...although there are still some today that maintain hard atheism, which is what it formally was.

(24-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Ok...Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 08:38 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
The relic

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, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 09:24 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 08:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?

I can't find it either. But I know damn well I posted it...hmmm Consider

(24-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Yeah. The definition of "atheist" has changed over the years. It used to be a person who maintained "There is no god", but after realizing the folly of such an absolute statement, they've changed it to more of what you said above.

The problem is, an agnostic is also someone that doesn't "believe" in in the existence of God or gods. So, where is the distinction?? The only reason why there was such a distinction in the first place is the agnostic position of "God/gods may exist or may not exist, but we can never know, therefore, I don't believe or disbelieve in a god"...that position is very different than "There is no god", which is the position of atheism USED to be..which is what the position of folks like Madalyn Murray O'hair was...that is what atheism USED to be...and that is how you could distinguish atheism from agnosticism.

But based on your definition, there is no distinction necessary...because the traditional definition of atheism has been watered down...although there are still some today that maintain hard atheism, which is what it formally was.

(24-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Ok...Smile
Yes the Atheist community isn't what it used to be. I am glad to be a part of the new revolution, but I would gladly denounce it if you would only show me why your world view can be of use to me.

I edited the following in my last reponse, but in case you might have missed it:

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
24-03-2016, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 10:04 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
Call of the Wild Wrote: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. Unbeliever usually does that. He makes a claim without properly explaining himself and then ridicules you for not understanding. I get it all the time, don't worry about it. He is at the top of my scoreboard in another thread for posters with unexplained answers. What I believe he is trying to say is that the evidence for evolution lies in the structure of every fossil as it relates to it's closest ancestral pre mutation as per the evolutionary assumption. If you look carefully you will see the subtle changes in sequenced chronology as per the timeline of it's presumed evolutionary ancestors. The coincidence is just too common to rationally doubt the possibility of some evolutionary connection.
2. The "them" in question that claim evolution is 100% true are basing their belief on an overwhelming amount of evidence in the form of theoretical, anecdotal and emperical evidence. To strongly believe in something that has less forms of evidence than its alternative explanation is considered less rational p.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 10:02 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 10:07 PM by Unbeliever.)
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

Are you not reading what you are responding to, or just utterly failing to grasp it?

(24-03-2016 06:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We do not have ANY transitional fossils.

Yes, we do.

(24-03-2016 06:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I asked Unbeliever to produce some, and he can't produce any.

Yes, I can. And have.

You ignored them entirely and are now attempting to pretend that the entire exchange never happened, of course, because that is how you do these things. But that is rather beside the point.

(24-03-2016 09:30 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. Unbeliever usually does that. He makes a claim without properly explaining himself and then ridicules you for not understanding. I get it all the time, don't worry about it.

Well, no. What actually happens is that I correct something that one of the two of you said which was wrong, providing full explanation and links to sources.

You then ignore this and begin your usual runarounds, at which point I find repeating myself pointless and uninteresting, and so I simply reiterate that you are wrong, since I know that anyone who actually gives a damn - which would be anyone other than yourselves - can check my original post to find the explanation, and repeating it is unnecessary.

And then you try to act as though the explanation was never given to begin with, because you are both very, very silly and have no actual ability to construct coherent arguments whatsoever.

And here we are once again. Welcome back, everyone. Same stupid time, same stupid channel. Tune in next thread, people, because it'll be the exact same thing all over again.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Unbeliever's post
24-03-2016, 10:16 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 10:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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?

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

Are you not reading what you are responding to, or just utterly failing to grasp it?

(24-03-2016 06:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We do not have ANY transitional fossils.

Yes, we do.

(24-03-2016 06:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I asked Unbeliever to produce some, and he can't produce any.

Yes, I can. And have.

You ignored them entirely and are now attempting to pretend that the entire exchange never happened, of course, because that is how you do these things. But that is rather beside the point.

(24-03-2016 09:30 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. Unbeliever usually does that. He makes a claim without properly explaining himself and then ridicules you for not understanding. I get it all the time, don't worry about it.

Well, no. What actually happens is that I correct something that one of the two of you said which was wrong, providing full explanation and links to sources.

You then ignore this and begin your usual runarounds, at which point I find repeating myself pointless and uninteresting, and so I simply reiterate that you are wrong, since I know that anyone who actually gives a damn - which would be anyone other than yourselves - can check my original post to find the explanation, and repeating it is unnecessary.

And then you try to act as though the explanation was never given to begin with, because you are both very, very silly and have no actual ability to construct coherent arguments whatsoever.

And here we are once again. Welcome back, everyone. Same stupid time, same stupid channel.
Unbeliever you rarely ever post an explanation to your simplified answers. On the few occasions that you do, they leave a lot of room for misinterpretation or assumption because of a lack of specifics in your rebuttals.

Take for instance this very post.
You have made claims that someone ignored you without explaining how you drew the conclusion you were ignored, thereby leaving the listener to guess what you mean by ignore and how it can be applicable to what was done. All this could be avoided if you would simply quote the question that was ignored or point out a subsequent post where the question was recognized but no acknowledgement whatsoever was made towards the actual points that were given.

If you truly wished to stop the cycle, you should try placing a bit more details into your answers
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Agnostic Shane's post
24-03-2016, 10:18 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 10:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Unbeliever you rarely ever post an explanation to your simplified answers.

If you want a more detailed response, post something that merits one.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
24-03-2016, 10:25 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 08:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem is, an agnostic is also someone that doesn't "believe" in in the existence of God or gods. So, where is the distinction??

I am a strong agnostic, COTW. I believe that it is literally impossible for a mortal to determine if any being really is a god, and that at most we can describe an entity as "god-like."

As for atheism, I do not discount the possibility that god-like beings exist somewhere in the universe, but so far I don't see any convincing evidence for them. I need something considerably more tangible than a believer's testimony or a book of scripture. An encounter with a god in the physical world is the minimum I can accept, and that is just to acknowledge the existence of such a being. Whether I would become a follower is another matter entirely, but I can't even consider following something that I do not believe to be real.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: