Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  No one's arguing that there aren't changes within species.

You were. Because you said there was no basis for the theory of evolution.

(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  Many people call this "micro-Evolution", but it's basically just changes and variations within a species.

Silly theists call this microevolution. Real scientists just call it evolution.

(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  We all can observe changes within human beings. No two people are alike.

True. And the same holds for two individuals of any species.

(12-06-2013 09:12 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  This does nothing to prove macro-Evolution. When people argue about evolution they are generally talking about this, macro-Evolution. Basically, this is talking about changes between species. In other words, a certain species changing over time to become another species all together. That's where the evidence breaks down. There is no good evidence, nor has there ever been, to show a change from one species to another. That's where the argument of evolution takes place generally. tb

Ah, yes. That old claim (again - real scientists just say 'evolution'). How would you define species? I ask, because any serious answer will have to depend on how wrong you are.

How do you get from point A to point B? Why, by a gradual and incremental change, from the starting point A to the destination B. How do you get from point A to point C? The same way, naturally.

Consider a trait X in species Y. Species Y lives in population a in environment A. When living in A, trait X increases reproductive fitness. Over time the population a will become more and more X. Do you agree?

Consider a population of species Y (population b) living in environment B. In environment B, trait Z is favoured. Over time, population b will become more and more Z. Do you agree?

Time passes. Population a is now extremely X. Population b is now extremely Z. An individual from population a will not recognize an individual from population b as being the same. Do you agree?

We call that speciation. I'm not describing a specific situation here; I'm describing a mechanism. You've already accepted the mechanism. I'm curious as to how you justify rejecting its consequences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
12-06-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:34 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  The ordered universe that we see could obviously not have been birthed out of chaos.

Subjective. And wrong.

(12-06-2013 09:34 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  Random chance cannot produce order.

False.

(12-06-2013 09:34 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  A grand designer, God, however, can produce great things. This logic is irrefutable.

This must be some new meaning of the word irrefutable that I was previously unaware of.

A God is necessarily ordered. Do you agree?

Then how was that order produced?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:24 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian. Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable. The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified. Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded. Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth. I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb

I am making no claim that no gods exist. I am stating that I do not hold a belief that gods exist because there is no evidence for their existence.
The harder you try to make the claim that you don't have a belief, the more obvious it is that you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so adamant in saying that you don't have a belief. Why not just admit that you have a belief that there is no God and let that be that. No one's faulting you for saying that, except maybe Seth and those whom he's trying to clone. But most Christians I know are simply saying that you and I believe in something different. We believe you have a wrong belief, but a belief nonetheless. tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:24 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian.
Wrong. The person making the positive claim has burden of proof. If not please prove there is no 1957 chevy floating around Jupiter.

Quote: Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable.
Fallacy from personal incredulity, just because you don't understand evolution does not disprove it.

Quote: The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified.
No he hasn't. We have at least 3 people that could have been the Historical basis for your magicman but there never was a Jesus of Nazareth as described by the gospels. As for the archaeology most of it refutes the Bible (ie Jericho was found it had walls but they had never collapsed, No evidence for the exodus at all, Nazareth wasn't even founded as a city until 50 CE so your boy could not have been from there if he Died in 33-35 CE) The fact that it has a few of the place names right does nothing to help it's credibility.


Quote:Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded.
Where outside the Bible? Cause there are exactly 0 records of that happening. Please if you have actual proof of this Harvard divinity school would love a phone call.

Quote: Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth.
Aahh the myth of early Christian Martyrdom, been disproven countless times.http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/notr...20492.html


Quote: I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb

Facts, truth, the fact that the story was cobbled together so poorly. Read all 4 gospels side by side and start counting the ways they do not match up. The impossibility of Yahweh doing what he supposedly did and does and still being a "Loving God". Lots of reasons really but mainly because it is all clearly a bronze age fairy tale told to illiterate goat herders and is no different than the tales of the Greek Gods or the Norse ones and in fact Jesus is based on at least 3 or 4 of those gods.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
12-06-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:34 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  The ordered universe that we see could obviously not have been birthed out of chaos.

Subjective. And wrong.

(12-06-2013 09:34 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  Random chance cannot produce order.

False.

(12-06-2013 09:34 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  A grand designer, God, however, can produce great things. This logic is irrefutable.

This must be some new meaning of the word irrefutable that I was previously unaware of.

A God is necessarily ordered. Do you agree?

Then how was that order produced?
No one or thing produced God. God is the beginning, middle, and end. He is self-sufficient and doesn't need us, but decided out of love to make us to be. Anything less than that would cease to be God. God loved us that much to create us and to create all the beauty and order around us. Just because there is evil and lack of love evidenced around us does nothing to disprove God's goodness. However, it goes to show you that man can sin and cause harm. We weren't created as robots or puppets and have free will to choose good or evil. tb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:24 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  There you go, redefining words for your own convenience.

Atheist means without a belief in gods. No one is claiming proof that gods don't exist, merely that due to lack of evidence, that belief is not held.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist; the atheist makes no claim.

You are the one asserting a claim - that god exists - the burden of proof lies with you.
That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof lies with both of us. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you're an agnostic, fine, go ahead and say you're not sure if there is a God or not. Then, you won't have any burden of proof. But, as an atheist, you are making a bold claim that there is no God. You are not on neutral ground as an atheist, just as I am not on neutral ground as a Christian. Some of the proof I have backing up Christianity is this: The ordered life that we see all around us in the midst of chaos. The chances of that happening by random chance as opposed to grand design is not that believable. The person of Jesus Christ has been historically accounted for. The places in the Bible have been archaeologically verified. Jesus miracles and rising from the dead have been historically recorded. Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me. No one would die for a lie knowing it to be a lie, but many have gone to their deaths for Christ knowing it to be the truth. I could go on, but this gives you a little taste of why I believe what I believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Thanks, tb

"why do you believe what you believe?" That implies a belief is held by the questioned party. I'll play this game with you.

As you were speaking of your 'reasons' for your belief in deity X, we'll play on that ground.

My atheism is due to my not believing a god exists, I do not discount the notion entirely but do not find it significant. Strictly speaking I would be best definable as an apatheistic agnostic atheist; I do not believe in a god, but do not claim there is no god definitively and a treat the concept indifferently.

Also, you mentioned that
Quote:Jesus own disciples under the threat of death believing in Jesus is great proof for me.
Is a great proof. I wonder; has it occurred to you that non-believers have been under the threat of torture and death for not believing in centuries past by all manner of religious groups (The oh so christ like Christians included)? Or that the followers of almost any other prophet or deity you could name have been under the same threats as well?

Does this indicate that these different perspectives are true also? Or merely that humans are incredibly intolerant of differing opinions and groups?

Oh yeah, gotta say, I love that "by chance" you slipped in there, that one is fresh. I certainly have never heard that one before.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:43 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Subjective. And wrong.


False.


This must be some new meaning of the word irrefutable that I was previously unaware of.

A God is necessarily ordered. Do you agree?

Then how was that order produced?
No one or thing produced God. God is the beginning, middle, and end. He is self-sufficient and doesn't need us, but decided out of love to make us to be. Anything less than that would cease to be God. God loved us that much to create us and to create all the beauty and order around us. Just because there is evil and lack of love evidenced around us does nothing to disprove God's goodness. However, it goes to show you that man can sin and cause harm. We weren't created as robots or puppets and have free will to choose good or evil. tb

Why is it more believable that God always existed than the mass/energy of the universe always existed?

We can see order coming from chaos all the time. Snowflakes. Elements forged in stars. Stellar formation.

God is so good that He visits us with tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis. None of these are caused by people.

Seriously, dude. You have a brain, stop wasting it on fairy tales.

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
12-06-2013, 09:53 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
I took the time to find some real science for you, tb.

Speciation: evidence for, speculation on, and discussion of.
Some
examples
from
the
past
year.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 10:00 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:38 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am making no claim that no gods exist. I am stating that I do not hold a belief that gods exist because there is no evidence for their existence.
The harder you try to make the claim that you don't have a belief, the more obvious it is that you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so adamant in saying that you don't have a belief. Why not just admit that you have a belief that there is no God and let that be that. No one's faulting you for saying that, except maybe Seth and those whom he's trying to clone. But most Christians I know are simply saying that you and I believe in something different. We believe you have a wrong belief, but a belief nonetheless. tb


How was I adamant in my statement that Atheism is lack of belief? Does differing from you automatically mean the person is wrong?

What do you think evolution entails? I assure you it isn't what the fundies tell you it is.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Why is "no belief" so hard to grasp?
(12-06-2013 09:38 AM)tblanch777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 09:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am making no claim that no gods exist. I am stating that I do not hold a belief that gods exist because there is no evidence for their existence.
The harder you try to make the claim that you don't have a belief, the more obvious it is that you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so adamant in saying that you don't have a belief. Why not just admit that you have a belief that there is no God and let that be that. No one's faulting you for saying that, except maybe Seth and those whom he's trying to clone. But most Christians I know are simply saying that you and I believe in something different. We believe you have a wrong belief, but a belief nonetheless. tb

I am trying to counter your incorrect characterization of my beliefs or lack thereof.

I am adamant about precision and accuracy.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: