Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 06:38 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.


I've been saying over and over to you in these posts, it is POSSIBLE for abiogenesis to be false.. That's what I'm telling you with reasons why. Your proclaim to agree to that yet argue that I'm saying not that. You seem to just jump to nonsense in your understanding of what I am saying.

Your saying "you people think/believe" this is like the 5th time in the last month you've assumed and spoken at my in replies like I think something that I never have given you any indication that I think or claim.. why because I tell you you say things inaccurately on a atheist message board so therefore I think x? That's just more of my point, it's just how often and bad you are at concluding and leading to ideas.

I never said it was a fact. I don't think it's a fact nor believe it certainly is True. So I still don't get why you just assume one thinks that it is... one who is directly trying to tell you it clearly isn't a fact.

(24-03-2016 08:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.

Atheism also used to refer to christians early on in the words usage. Terminology and understandings change; although, your understanding of it should be well more aware. What one random head of a group in America believes doesn't mean anything, it's ideas vs labels. you just like shane seem so hung up on the labels meaning things instead of just being a lazy description of what one actually understands.

If you can bitch about that, how about not redefining God anyway in any conversation. So if God is life as you said before, that contrasts your other many statements on life. If God is whatever is necessary to your existence, your mother, my mother and everyone's parents are their Gods. Which is a pointless relation to changing the term. If you want to complain about shifting "label" meanings then go ahead but at least be equal in your bashing

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
25-03-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 10:45 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you miss the point completely. The point is that the origin of life has no bearing on the evolution of life.

If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how is evolution true?

Why does it have to be 'God'? I'm assuming you mean your God.

There are infinitely many possibilities for some thing or some being to create life or the conditions for life to occur.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-03-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 12:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 07:33 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Neither he, nor you, are worth the effort.

You both occupy space that could be more productively occupied by others.
You forgot the Drinking Beverage and Facepalm.

Drinking BeverageFacepalm

There ya go shit for brains.

Happy now?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 12:27 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 11:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  A quick announcement
... for those who haven't wandered off in boredom over watching this tennis practice of professionals vs. a brick wall:

When I get back from Pakistan I'm going to get my class (7-9 year-olds learning critical-thinking skills) to investigate Logical Fallacies and I need a few examples; some easy to spot and some more convoluted.

This thread should serve well.

I'll use this one as an example of a non-sequitur:

(25-03-2016 10:45 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how is evolution true?

If you don't mind helping me, could you please highlight a few more as they are churned out.

Much appreciated.

Thumbsup

ps I mean this. I'm not just mocking the afflicted (this time).

Cheers.
I think he was asking what other explanations are there for present day life forms.
The problem is the way he says it, it sounds like three different things in opposition to each other.
They are three very distinct claims and neither one nullifies the other.
Based ONLY on the dedfinitions it's possible God could exist, created inanimate objects, inanimate objects randomly created life & life randomly evolved to where it is today.
Please understand I am not saying that any of these theories are true or false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 12:21 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 12:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You forgot the Drinking Beverage and Facepalm.

Drinking BeverageFacepalm

There ya go shit for brains.

Happy now?
Wasn't my shit landing on you and knocking you over on the chess board earlier?
Wouldn't that make you a shit for body?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 12:29 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 12:21 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Drinking BeverageFacepalm

There ya go shit for brains.

Happy now?
Wasn't my shit landing on you and knocking you over on the chess board earlier?
Wouldn't that make you a shit for body?

What? Chess?

Are you smokin' something that you shouldn't?

Jeez, if you had a brain, you'd be dangerous. Fortunately, there's no danger because you are as thick as pig shit.FacepalmDrinking Beverage(justin)

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 12:41 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 12:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 11:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  A quick announcement
... for those who haven't wandered off in boredom over watching this tennis practice of professionals vs. a brick wall:

When I get back from Pakistan I'm going to get my class (7-9 year-olds learning critical-thinking skills) to investigate Logical Fallacies and I need a few examples; some easy to spot and some more convoluted.

This thread should serve well.

I'll use this one as an example of a non-sequitur:


If you don't mind helping me, could you please highlight a few more as they are churned out.

Much appreciated.

Thumbsup

ps I mean this. I'm not just mocking the afflicted (this time).

Cheers.
I think he was asking what other explanations are there for present day life forms.
The problem is the way he says it, it sounds like three different things in opposition to each other.
They are three very distinct claims and neither one nullifies the other.
Based ONLY on the dedfinitions it's possible God could exist, created inanimate objects, inanimate objects randomly created life & life randomly evolved to where it is today.
Please understand I am not saying that any of these theories are true or false.

Yup. I understand what your not saying. Big Grin

And I take your point.

It's structured as a kinda tortured syllogism. I think it'll be a good one for the children to pick apart.

They already understand evolution but I'm not sure they have a good handle on abiogenesis. And we can have a decent conversation about the absence of a clear definition for the first premise (the god bit).

Or maybe it will lead to an investigation of the life/non-life continuum and why 'thresholds' are useful (if invariably arbitrary) tools for categorising in e.g. policy making.

I appreciate your feedback.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
25-03-2016, 01:16 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 11:12 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Yes - just like you proved that it was your god, as opposed to one of the the other 2,199 other gods that created the universe.

Oh, and I hear that you are a country member of your xtian church. And yes - they do remember.Big Grin

Dude, you have about a 1/20 ratio of posts that are worth responding to, and posts that worthless.

See ya again in 20 posts. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 12:37 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 12:29 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Wasn't my shit landing on you and knocking you over on the chess board earlier?
Wouldn't that make you a shit for body?

What? Chess?

Are you smokin' something that you shouldn't?

Jeez, if you had a brain, you'd be dangerous. Fortunately, there's no danger because you are as thick as pig shit.FacepalmDrinking Beverage(justin)
Never mind, it was a case of mistaken identity due to the word "shit"
Glad to see the illegal narcotics form of ridicule i alluded to is being used.
It confirms my belief that it was a form of ridicule people use
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 04:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  He said he now understood & further went on to explain where his misconception of Atheism had occurred.
There was a point in his past where Gnostic Atheists were the only type of Atheists he encountered or knew of and he assumed they represented all of Atheism. When he finally encountered Agnostics his understanding of Atheism was so rooted in the Gnostic version that he could not fathom how such a distinct difference could still place both views under the same classification of Atheism.
It took a proper explanation of what an Atheist is and isn't for him to understand how both groups can be classified as atheists.
He now accepts the claim that agnostics are Atheists too & it would appear he isn't that appalled by them as he is towards Gnostic atheism.

I was also confused for a very long time as to why agnostics could be classified as atheists until I finally took the time to examine the root of the definition of Atheism. Many agnostic atheists are still confused by the terms as well so it isn't that uncommon a misunderstanding and in no way warrants this assumed uniquely uncommon title of idiot.

It may be possible there are other things he has done that warrants the negative connotations attributed to him but his misunderstanding of Atheism isn't one I think we should ridicule.
I read the same post. He didn't actually say he misunderstood. He insisted that atheists redefined terminology. Since I wasn't atheist during this (undefined) time, I don't know where he got his definitions from.

What he said was
(24-03-2016 08:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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??
...snip...
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.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like he insists that his definition is right, regardless of what others say and regardless of what the words mean or their etymology. I don't see where he admits he misunderstood anything or mentioned his personal experience. It was "this is what it was. Period."

I'm not starting an argument, but I think you read more into it than there actually was.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: