Win Prizes Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

[Gethelred]

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack.

As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them.

If you've still got a live question posted to a christian, feel free to continue conversing for the time being.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Opine]

Did I say there was?



Are you devoid of basic comprehension skills? Go back and read what I said. I’ve told you what I think.

At least Chelsea is honest about his position on this issue. You should take a leaf from his book.

 

[carltonchelsea]

At least Chelsea is honest about his position on this issue. You should take a leaf from his book.

Yep, at least I know the Laws that govern Logic and not be lead into false dilemmas, like yours truly.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

At least Chelsea is honest about his position on this issue. You should take a leaf from his book.

Can you knock this tedious s**t off?
Roylion has made it crystal clear what his position is and argued it succinctly, and the best you can come up with in reply is playground-level juvenilia. It’s embarrassing.

You want to be taken seriously as a poster, take it seriously.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You have consistently said you believe in evolution..you are full of sh*t.

That is just moronic. Onto Ignore.

 

[Rosscoe]

That is just moronic. Onto Ignore.

How so? Was man created by god or did we evolve?

 

[Evolved1]

How so? Was man created by god or did we evolve?

The scientific evidence is clear cut, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Total Power]

That is just moronic. Onto Ignore.

I did that 6 months ago, along with N37. Just not worth my time.

 

[Rosscoe]

The scientific evidence is clear cut, wouldn't you agree?

Ha! not this again.

 

[Roylion]

How so? Was man created by god or did we evolve?

We evolved.

Accepting the scientific fact of evolution does not preclude anyone from belief in 'god'. They are two different things. If you actually understood evolution, (which you clearly don't) you would understand this.

Evolution is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church and other mainline Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches and virtually all Jewish denominations.

Generally this belief involves 'theistic evolution' which involves the following six tenets.

1. the prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago;
2. the fine-tuned universe;
3. evolution and natural selection; (which has been explained to you ad nauseum)
4. No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;
5. Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and
6. Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature.

And many Christians believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life. A 2008 poll showed the following in the United States.

 

[Rosscoe]

We evolved.

Accepting the scientific fact of evolution does not preclude anyone from belief in 'god'. They are two different things. If you actually understood evolution, (which you clearly don't) you would understand this.

Evolution is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church and other mainline Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches and virtually all Jewish denominations.

Generally this belief involves 'theistic evolution' which involves the following six tenets.

1. the prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago;
2. the fine-tuned universe;
3. evolution and natural selection; (which has been explained to you ad nauseum)
4. No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;
5. Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and
6. Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature.

And many Christians believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life. A 2008 poll showed the following in the United States.

View attachment 1294409

So you believe we could of been created by the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Roylion]

So you believe we could of been created by the flying spaghetti monster.

Humans are primates. Modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved from earlier species of primates most likely Homo heidelbergensis.

 

[Rosscoe]

Humans are primates. Modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved from earlier species of primates most likely Homo heidelbergensis.

No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;

So do you believe that something supernatural occurred in the beginning.

How can god exist if there is nothing that is supernatural?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

And many Christians believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life. A 2008 poll showed the following in the United States.

View attachment 1294409

The 24% for evanjellyfish is damning and, I would hazard a guess, in close correlation with the elevation of a science-denying, amoral gangster to the Oval Office in 2016.

 

[Roylion]

No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;

This is what those who espouse 'theistic evolution' believe.

So do you believe that something supernatural occurred in the beginning.

I see no evidence for such. Those who do believe in such do so by pure faith alone.

How can god exist if there is nothing that is supernatural?

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 'god' is unknowable.

 

[Total Power]

The 24% for evanjellyfish is damning and, I would hazard a guess, in close correlation with the elevation of a science-denying, amoral gangster to the Oval Office in 2016.

More than half your body is not human

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count, while the rest are microscopic colonists.

www.bbc.com

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count. The rest are microscopic colonists.
Understanding this hidden half of ourselves - our microbiome - is rapidly transforming understanding of diseases from allergy to Parkinson's.
The field is even asking questions of what it means to be "human" and is leading to new innovative treatments as a result.
"They are essential to your health," says Prof Ruth Ley, the director of the department of microbiome science at the Max Planck Institute, "your body isn't just you".


But 'EvOlUtIoN iS FaLsE'.

 

[Total Power]

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 'god' is unknowable.

It's nothing supernatural. the simple building blocks of Dna and proteins, amino acids , are ubiquitous and easily synthesized even in the cold of space. Given heating and cooling cycles and some form of catalyst these are believed to have formed RNA strands (RNA is similar to DNA but capable of catalyzing its own replication). Self-replicating RNA has been proven in lab).

This isn't proof of abiogenesis, but we're close to being able to perform abiogenesis in the lab from simple chemicals, under conditions similar to those of early Earth. The gap is closing.

 

[Opine]

This is what those who espouse 'theistic evolution' believe.



I see no evidence for such. Those who do believe in such do so by pure faith alone



Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 'god' is unknowable.

a ridiculously invisibly narrow distinction which may place every atheist into agnostic category and or every agnostic into atheist category. Your definition is so invisibly narrow that even you may have missed it.
Chelsea demands evidence because similar to you he sees none; he is undeniably atheist until he sees evudence . What is the distinction between you and Chelsea, other than the fact you barrack for a s**t footy team? Are you subtly suggesting that you’re open to, not sure of, existence of a spaghetti monster, may or may not be ?

 

[Roylion]

a ridiculously narrow distinction which may place every atheist into agnostic category and or every agnostic into atheist category. Your definition is so narrow that even you may have missed it.

Go and look up the word "agnostic".

Go back and read what I said.

Then consult the following

he is undeniably atheist until he sees evudence .

'god' is unknowable. Hence I'm not going to categorically deny the existence of a 'god'.

...other than the fact you barrack for a sh*t footy team?

More juvenile garbage.

Are you subtly suggesting that you’re open to, not sure of, existence of a spaghetti monster, may or may not be ?

You work it out.

 

[Opine]

Go and look up the word "agnostic".

Go back and read what I said.

Then consult the following

View attachment 1294474



'god' is unknowable. Hence I'm not going to categorically deny the existence of a 'god'.



More juvenile garbage.



You work it out.

View attachment 1294475

Are you open to existence of a spaghetti monster?

 

[Roylion]

Are you open to existence of a spaghetti monster?

I can't disprove the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. There's pictures and everything.

But while you're consulting



also take a look a



and look under 's' for 'satire'.

 

[Opine]

'god' is unknowable. Hence I'm not going to categorically deny the existence of a 'god'.

Above, your words suggest you’re open to existence, non-rejection, of a spaghetti monster. But you don’t argue accordingly. Your arguments and choice of words present as undeniably contrary to the above; reinforced by your ridicule of superstition.

 

[Opine]

.

I can't disprove the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. There's pictures and everything.

But while you're consulting

View attachment 1294483

also take a look a

View attachment 1294485

and look under 's' for 'satire'.

We don’t use the Oxford here in AU Roy. Our formally endorsed dictionary here is the Macquarie Dictionary, don’t forget. It’s important for a teacher to know that.

 

[Roylion]

We don’t use the Oxford here in AU Roy. Our formally endorsed dictionary here is the Macquarie Dictionary, don’t forget. It’s important for a teacher to know that.

More puerile posting from you.

My VCE students use Oxford. As do I. But if you feel so strongly about it I believe the word 'satire' is in both. Use the Macquarie to look up 'puerile' while you're at it.

 

[Roylion]

Above, your words suggest you’re open to existence, non-rejection, of a spaghetti monster.

Anything is possible through faith.

But you don’t argue accordingly.

Read this, complete the exercises and then re-read what I said.

Your arguments and choice of words present as undeniably contrary to the above; reinforced by your ridicule of superstition.

An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Claims to the contrary are going to be examined and evidence for such a claim is going to be asked for.

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word 'agnostic' in 1869, and said:

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

He also said

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

A agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

There are of course degrees of agnosticism

Another agnostic might say: "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."

Yet another agnostic might say. "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Charles Darwin said in a letter in 1879: "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Bertrand Russell "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

Russell also said:

"Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

I cannot say that we can know there is not. This is something that I have never argued.

We also have ignosticism, which is the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed or evidence for susch searched for. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.

 

[Opine]

Anything is possible through faith.



Read this, complete the exercises and then re-read what I said.

View attachment 1294499



An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Claims to the contrary are going to be examined and evidence for such a claim is going to be asked for.

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word 'agnostic' in 1869, and said:

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

He also said

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Yet despite that agnosticism avoids conclusions which are non-demonstrable as well conclusions yet to be demonstrated, your arguments and choice of words clearly indicate you’ve reached a conclusion; that there is no spaghetti monster. Meanwhile, objective science continues to pursue attainable answers to the question you claim to be permanently agnostic about.

I’m starting to understand and sympathise with Dworkin’s criticism of those who claim to be in permanent state of agnosticism; especially while shirt-tailing on atheism.