Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[justlookinla]

I predicted you would be unable to provide a source that demonstrated that a materialistic view of humanity is responsible for abortions. You merely provided a source showing abortion statistics.

Who do you think was the subject of the statistics? They were humans who were killing the unborn babies.

That's not the point I'm making. My point is that there is no practical difference between believing we are God's special creation and accepting that we are just a sack of chemicals. To illustrate this I asked you to provide an example of how I as an atheist would treat someone differently than you would as a Christian. You have yet to do this and therefore have not yet refuted my point.

Edited for formatting

That's the point I'm making. The sack of chemicals who thinks it's an "I", may or may not respond differently when exposed to external stimuli. Why do 'you' respond as 'you' do?

 

[justlookinla]

Look, you just made an assertion. but you haven't provided any evidence in support of your assertion, neither scripture quotation, nor logical, evidence based reasoning. You just said its so, period.

Lets have some support for your assertion. Perhaps there is no support for your assertion.

I'm talking about the assertion that, if we are made up of chemicals only, we cannot be a self or a soul.

If we are a self or a soul, we're more than a sack of chemicals.

One of these days, we will be faced with a computer that asserts it is a self. By what means will you suggest we determine whether or not it is correct in that assertion?

We look to the creator.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The differences are those who believe we are just a sack of chemicals if true can not believe anything else but that. Life is illusion and nothing more. No mind, just brain...no soul...no real choices...no real emotions just what we were wired to think and even perhaps what we must feel as just an unplanned accident in the universe.

But that's simply not true. People who believe we are completely explained by our chemical composition can still believe we are alive, we have a mind, we make choices, we have emotions.

You might as well say that if light is just wavelengths, we can't have color.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If we are a self or a soul, we're more than a sack of chemicals.

We look to the creator.

Well, you could get away with saying the Mona Lisa is more than just paint on canvas. But you could also get away with saying it is exactly paint on canvas.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Jesus didn't die for chemical sacks.

Well, certainly not for just any old chemical sack. Maybe some chemical sacks are more special than others.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But that's simply not true. People who believe we are completely explained by our chemical composition can still believe we are alive, we have a mind, we make choices, we have emotions.

You might as well say that if light is just wavelengths, we can't have color.

They may "believe" that but if materialism is true they only have a brain, they can't make choices and their emotions are just predetermined.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, certainly not for just any old chemical sack. Maybe some chemical sacks are more special than others.

Materialism says that we are not special, that we are just one more step in the evolution of life with no more value than a mouse or any other animal.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Materialism says that we are not special, that we are just one more step in the evolution of life with no more value than a mouse or any other animal.

I don't think that's true. Materialists simply say material can be very, very special.

 

[crjmurray]

It is a little strange that the religious are the ones that say without God we are no different than animals therefore murder rape etc is acceptable.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The differences are those who believe we are just a sack of chemicals if true can not believe anything else but that. Life is illusion and nothing more. No mind, just brain...no soul...no real choices...no real emotions just what we were wired to think and even perhaps what we must feel as just an unplanned accident in the universe. If we are just a sack of chemicals there is no wrong in murder as it is just what that person's wiring led them to do, there is no moral right or wrong because we do not do right or wrong from motivation but that what we only CAN or can't do. Atheist have no more reason than do theists in their set positions because they have no choice in what they believe.

Thanks for the detailed response, but most of what you said represents a philosophical difference. I asked what difference it makes in practise. You presented the example of murder. If atheists were really more likely to murder than theists you would have something there, but I guarantee you will not find any source that records such a trend. So while you may feel that the "sac of chemicals" view should make murder acceptable to someone who holds that view, this is not actually the case in practise. If it were you should be able to present some statistics to support this.

Thus I repeat my question. Can you outline the practical difference between the two views? What difference does it make to the way you and I actually behave?

Edited for duplicated text.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think that's true. Materialists simply say material can be very, very special.

I've never encountered that philosophy in the years I've been on forums with them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks for the detailed response, but most of what you said represents a philosophical difference. I asked what difference it makes in practise. You presented the example of murder. If atheists were really more likely to murder than theists you would have something there, but I guarantee you will not find any source that records such a trend. So while you may feel that the "sac of chemicals" view should make murder acceptable to someone who holds that view, this is not actually the case in practise. If it were you should be able to present some statistics to support this.

Thus I repeat my question. Can you outline the practical difference between the two views? What difference does it make to the way you and I actually behave?

Edited for duplicated text.

I never said that they actually live what they believe, in fact, very few live their own belief systems. I think that is a very good thing.

 

[dad]

Well, certainly not for just any old chemical sack. Maybe some chemical sacks are more special than others.

No, all who ask receive. Then they will be more than sad sacks.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, you could get away with saying the Mona Lisa is more than just paint on canvas. But you could also get away with saying it is exactly paint on canvas.

Darwinian evolution would have you believe that the Mona Lisa is no more than random chemicals produced on random media.

 

[justlookinla]

It is a little strange that the religious are the ones that say without God we are no different than animals therefore murder rape etc is acceptable.

Why wouldn't it be? From a sack of chemicals standpoint.

And why would you, as a sack of chemicals, make such a statement?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Who do you think was the subject of the statistics? They were humans who were killing the unborn babies.

Correct. You posted a link showing that abortions happen. I challenged you to provide a source demonstrating the link between abortions and a "sac of chemicals" viewpoint. You source fails to do this. Can you find a source that supports your opinion?

That's the point I'm making. The sack of chemicals who thinks it's an "I", may or may not respond differently when exposed to external stimuli. Why do 'you' respond as 'you' do?

Why engage in discussion if you refuse to discuss the topic your interlocutor presents? I have challenged you to provide a practical difference between your view and mine in terms of how we behave. If you are unable to do this just say so and I won't ask you again.

 

[justlookinla]

Correct. You posted a link showing that abortions happen. I challenged you to provide a source demonstrating the link between abortions and a "sac of chemicals" viewpoint. You source fails to do this. Can you find a source that supports your opinion?

Evolved sacks of chemicals some call "humans" were doing this. Sacks of chemicals destroying sacks of chemicals.

Why engage in discussion if you refuse to discuss the topic your interlocutor presents? I have challenged you to provide a practical difference between your view and mine in terms of how we behave. If you are unable to do this just say so and I won't ask you again.

We must first ascertain the source of our behavior as sacks of chemicals.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I've never encountered that philosophy in the years I've been on forums with them.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. There is no logical reason to deny a materialist the right to consider living things more special than dead things, and thinking things more special than dumb things. You can say all day long there's no reason to do that, but the reply is that a person with free will can do it if that's what they choose to do. See, when you go beyond saying "there's no reason to adopt such values" and say they cannot adopt such values . . . your are making a logical error.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I never said that they actually live what they believe, in fact, very few live their own belief systems. I think that is a very good thing.

In other words, you are unable to provide an example of how thinking we are are God's special creation is different in any practical sense than accepting we are sacs of chemicals. Correct?

Edited for screwy internet issues.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Evolved sacks of chemicals some call "humans" were doing this. Sacks of chemicals destroying sacks of chemicals.



We must first ascertain the source of our behavior as sacks of chemicals.

So you refuse to actually engage in the discussion. That's okay. Once seems to be willing. Your participation is no longer necessary.