An atheists world (3)

[lasthero]

Well, that was random.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

ok so you don't want to give us the names of transitions you believe in? What are you scared of? It simply generates discussion. I could slap a few down but it would be a waste of time if you particularly don't adhere to them.

Transitional forms are objectively identifiable. There's no more need to "believe" in tgem than there is to believe in a brick. They have a combination of features from two groups. There are many examples. Please note that transitional does not mean ancestral.

 

[CarlosTomy]

So I ask an athiest, " are you sure there is no God."

not really He says,

then I say you are not an athiest but an agnostic.

then I ask what kind of agnostic are you?

the ornery kind or the ordinary kind?

the ordinary kind says - "we don't know anything for sure

the ornery kind says - "we CAN'T know anything for sure

Then He says "I am the ornery kind."

Then I say, "if you can't know any thing for sure how do you know THAT for sure?"

"In other words how do you know for sure that you can't know anything for sure?"

You can't be skeptical about everything, that means you would doubt skepticism.

The more you doubt skepticism the more sure you become.

then He says I guess I am the ordinary kind.


(above dialogue from Norman Geisler-I don't have enough faith to be an athiest)

It is helpful for people of faith to at least TRY to understand atheism, but clearly it is such a threat that merely thinking about what an atheist thinks seems to cause them great agitation.

You know it doesn't require "faith" to be an atheist at all. Some of the best atheists are the kind of atheists that simply FAIL TO BELIEVE IN GOD!

Just like you FAIL TO BELIEVE that there's an invisible elephant living behind your sofa. Or you FAIL to believe in Zeus as the king of the gods. Or you FAIL to believe in magic fairies that make the TV come on.

It's not that this type of atheists says "There Is No God!" That's a universal negative and really hard to prove. But we all are similar in that we fail to believe in many things for which we do not perceive evidence.

I simply FAIL TO FIND EVIDENCE FOR GOD. So I fail to believe in him.

How is that a "faith based" concept?

 

[bhsmte]

It is helpful for people of faith to at least TRY to understand atheism, but clearly it is such a threat that merely thinking about what an atheist thinks seems to cause them great agitation.

You know it doesn't require "faith" to be an atheist at all. Some of the best atheists are the kind of atheists that simply FAIL TO BELIEVE IN GOD!

Just like you FAIL TO BELIEVE that there's an invisible elephant living behind your sofa. Or you FAIL to believe in Zeus as the king of the gods. Or you FAIL to believe in magic fairies that make the TV come on.

It's not that this type of atheists says "There Is No God!" That's a universal negative and really hard to prove. But we all are similar in that we fail to believe in many things for which we do not perceive evidence.

I simply FAIL TO FIND EVIDENCE FOR GOD. So I fail to believe in him.

How is that a "faith based" concept?

Cognitive dissonance brings on a lot of random/goofy behavior; projection, confirmation bias, etc. etc..

In fact, it is the one constant you will see in these threads. You can set your watch by it.

 

[StormanNorman]

Your change doesn't actually fix the problem. It still tells me nothing about God's properties, just that he creates things. It doesn't make him falsifiable, and it sure as shooting doesn't 'prove him beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Dude, I hate to tell you this, but you have spent all this time arguing with a TRUE BELIEVER. And, that's not an argument you should ever get yourself into.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm ok with that, but what you don't know is Loudmouth and Cabvet have issue with 8 people, 4 men 4 women reproducing the general population we have now.

I have problems with claims that are contradicted by the facts. Why don't you?

Yet somehow one male and one female praying mantis reproduced the population we have today.

They did?

 

[Loudmouth]

do you have any thing in between an ape and a human?

or a dinasaur and a bird?

Does google not work in you part of the interwebs? A google search for "transitional hominid" and "transitional birds" worked for me.

Dino to bird:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancestral ape to man:

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

everyone has transitional forms they believe are legitimate what are yours

What features would a fossil need in order for you to consider it legitimate?

 

[Loudmouth]

science is definitately not perfect. Many scientific theories are superceded...

I would much rather use a system where mistakes are found than a system where dogma is protected from falsification.

 

[Loudmouth]

See if I believe that the Noah story is true, I also believe the creator can allow anything to happen.

A perfect example of an unfalsifiable dogma. No matter what the evidence is you will claim that it is consistent with creationism. You have already arrived at your conclusion before looking at the evidence.

Since there is no creator in your story, tell me how a sperm knows how to swim, and look for an egg?

The same way that a stream knows to flow downhill.

 

[Loudmouth]

I changed my comment to "creator" as my definition. Same thing, falsifiable and provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what evidence, if found, would disprove a creator?

 

[Loudmouth]

So I ask an athiest, " are you sure there is no God."

not really He says,

then I say you are not an athiest but an agnostic.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. That's it. If someone does not have a positive belief in a deity then they are an atheist. Agnostics are atheists.

then I ask what kind of agnostic are you?

the ornery kind or the ordinary kind?

the ordinary kind says - "we don't know anything for sure

the ornery kind says - "we CAN'T know anything for sure

Then He says "I am the ornery kind."

Then I say, "if you can't know any thing for sure how do you know THAT for sure?"

"In other words how do you know for sure that you can't know anything for sure?"

You can't be skeptical about everything, that means you would doubt skepticism.

The more you doubt skepticism the more sure you become.

then He says I guess I am the ordinary kind.


(above dialogue from Norman Geisler-I don't have enough faith to be an athiest)

I think Bertrand Russell put it best:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

 

[bhsmte]

Does google not work in you part of the interwebs? A google search for "transitional hominid" and "transitional birds" worked for me.

Dino to bird:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancestral ape to man:

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids



What features would a fossil need in order for you to consider it legitimate?

Google only seems to work for some, when confirmation bias is in play.

 

[Davian]

As a dad I warn my children of hell. I call that Love. God being a father, thought it important that he told fathers that also.

So you use the loving way of placing the equivalent of a loaded firearm to the side of a child's head, in an effort to persuade them what to believe.

How sweet. How do you put it? "BELIEVE WHAT I SAY OR YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER"?

No, I can't say that I have done that. Kinda gives me the creeps.

The same as they were when your species bred outside of their species during the billion year reign of EVILUTION.

EVILUTION! EVILUTION! EVILUTION! EVILUTION! EVILUTION!

What grade are you in?

What do you mean by "my species"? By what species are you classified?

Same as there was need for RNA, DNA and a GENE for evolution to work.

I thought you said you were a father? Why do you teach your children anything; why not let nature take its course.

Teaching children *is* the natural thing to do. How else are they to learn?

Did you know if you were to open a cocoon at the very point the butterfly was fully developed it would not survive because it wasn't strong enough. Since you didn't allow it to struggle it's way out and strengthen.

Were you that kid that also pulled the legs off of bugs?

If your explanation for fertilization is based on 50 to 100 million sperms swimming with no object in mind explain to me why swim at all?

Those that had the "swim" mutation may have had slightly more viable offspring than those that did not.

If evolution evolved as a need was required;

Evolution does not evolve anything as needed. Extinction is common. Where do you get these ideas?

why not have the sperm come out of the mouth, as almost all species put their mouths there first, if not their noses.

What you and your wife do behind closed doors is none of my business.

Reminds me, if RNA, DNA, and a gene have no purpose in mind, or reason to do what they do; what makes you think they came together to form anything.

That we are here.

 

[lasthero]

why not have the sperm come out of the mouth, as almost all species put their mouths there first, if not their noses.

Thank you for that lovely mental image.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Reminds me, if RNA, DNA, and a gene have no purpose in mind, or reason to do what they do; what makes you think they came together to form anything.

Chemistry.

Why do two reactants come together to form a product?

Does a chemical reaction HAVE to have a "product in mind"?

 

[Davian]

I am ignostic on this subject. (no, not agnostic)

I am wagering that you do not understand "God". I wager that you cannot provide a coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of what you mean by "God" right here in these forums.

If you really do understand "God" this should not be a problem.

What will we wager?

Your soul; my pride.

So, something I don't think I have, and something you have in great abundance. Hardly fair, I would think.

But let's go with that.

The wager: toolmanjantzi does not understand "God", as he is unable to provide a coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of what he means by "God".

Now to you toolmanjantzi; let's see this coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of yours.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

science is definitately not perfect. Many scientific theories are superceded...

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net

Who ever claimed that it was perfect?

To adapt a quote from AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

 

[Davian]

How about a list of top 10 religions that turned out to be wrong?

Atheism is on top.

Do not forget to add evolution.

And Pizza.

Go on...

Evolution and Pizza, 7 more to go.

How about germ theory? Gravitational theory? Atomic theory? Electromagnetism? Astrophysics?

Do you need more rope?

 

[Davian]

Thats easy, God is our Creator. Thats it, you just wanted a definition of God.

So, how would we test that? You may as well say Bob is our creator.

And since we have never proved abiogenesis, the only other option is that someone created us. (as opposed to nothing exploding).

A false dichotomy while conflating the big bang with abiogenesis? Comical.

Falsifiable? Yeah sure. It could also be that nothing exploded. What would you believe?

What I believe is not on the table right now.

 

[bhsmte]

Who ever claimed that it was perfect?

To adapt a quote from AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

10 scientific theories proved to be wrong and the science that proved them wrong. In the end, science still determined the truth.