Bill Nye the Science Guy and Creationism

[DogmaHunter]

Every second atheist.

What is a "second atheist"?
Who are you talking about?

I can only repeat my question: who here actually makes that claim?

 

[tiglathpileser]

No. Theists are the ones that make claims concerning supernatural deities. Atheists are just people not buying into those claims. The burden of proof is on the theist.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. Atheists are so transparent when they claim you can't prove a negative as it really means "I can't prove God doesn't exist so that is my cop out."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have answered the question and the fact that you are still going on about it only shows how much you have been blinded. It is no riddle to me and it is not special knowledge as far as I am concerned because the scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. If that is what it says, that is what happens. Truth is not some special knowledge, it is the promise of the Holy Spirit to all who believe in God so it is far from special bearing in mind that there are 2.3 billion christians on earth.

Well, if you are going to go with a fallacious argument from popularity, then believing in the christian god most certainly is "more special" then not, seeing as how there are 5 billion non-christians on earth.

 

[tiglathpileser]

What is a "second atheist"? Who are you talking about? I can only repeat my question: who here actually makes that claim?

Every second atheist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.

Right. In this case, it's the theist. The theist claims a god exists. The atheist is merely someone who doesn't accept that claim.

Atheists are so transparent when they claim you can't prove a negative as it really means "I can't prove God doesn't exist so that is my cop out."

It's not a cop out.

I have no problems at all with saying that I can't disprove unfalsifiable nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every second atheist.

Names please. Quotes would be nice as well.
Put your money where your mouth is.

Or are you making claims again that you can't support?

 

[tiglathpileser]

Does this mean, you won't be supporting your claim?

What it means is that your blindness is total so you won't see it even if I explain it. A bit like me taking a blind person out to bluebell wood and saying to him "I hope you can see the beauty that I am showing you."

 

[tiglathpileser]

I have no problems at all with saying that I can't disprove unfalsifiable nonsense.

It is only unfalsifiable nonsense to those who can't handle the truth.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Right. In this case, it's the theist. The theist claims a god exists. The atheist is merely someone who doesn't accept that claim.

Weasel words as there must be a reason why you don't accept that claim. Probably because you accept the claim that God does not exist, without evidence. If you don't accept an alternative claim your head must be a vacuum as everyone believes something even if it is nothing.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I know, reality bites, doesn't it?

What reality? There is very little reality attached to atheism as they deny the obvious.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No. Assuming catholics follow catholic doctrine established by the vatican, that alone already accounts for more then 1 billion christians who follow the vatican's stance that evolution theory is the best explanation for the development of species on this planet. America has the worst level of education in the western world dude...Where was that said?Whoever said that, was wrong. Atheism is literally a position on the claim that gods exist. That is, in fact, ALL it is. Atheism is not science and science is not atheism. I don't care about "atheist conferences" nore about the opinion of "the media" concerning it. I was just commenting on the nonsense you were posting.

Point one. Making assumptions is as bad as claiming "most christians..."

Point two. The american education system bad as it is thanks to the infiltration of it by atheist ideas, is better than the education of those countries that have none.

Point three. Obviously the person saying that didn't consider it was wrong so you will have to fight it out with him.

Point four. If that is the case, then atheism is a very dismal and derelict faith. And as I have been told more than once that no atheist speaks for another your words are irrelevant.

Point five. If atheism is not science why do atheist spend so much energy in trying to convince everyone that science is the be all and end all of life.

Point six. The so called "nonsense" that I was posting was what the conference didn't do and what the media expected of them. Saying it is my nonsense is to say the least is nonsensical and a cute way to avoid the truth which atheist have a real problem with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is only unfalsifiable nonsense to those who can't handle the truth.

No, it's unfalsifiable by definition. The very nature of the claims in question.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Well, if you are going to go with a fallacious argument from popularity, then believing in the christian god most certainly is "more special" then not, seeing as how there are 5 billion non-christians on earth.

Another weird generalisation which is the product of the gift of exaggeration. The 2.3 billion christians does not include all those who have another faith which is not atheism so your assumption is laughable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Weasel words as there must be a reason why you don't accept that claim.

Yes. And that reason is that the theist fails to meet his burden of proof.

There is no reason to accept a claim that can't be reasonably supported.

Probably because you accept the claim that God does not exist, without evidence.

Nope.

If you don't accept an alternative claim your head must be a vacuum as everyone believes something even if it is nothing.

I can't help it that you don't understand the difference between not accepting claim X and accepting the opposite of claim X.

That's your problem, not mine.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No, it's unfalsifiable by definition. The very nature of the claims in question.

So you say but I am pleased to say that 2.3 billion do not agree with you.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No, it's unfalsifiable by definition. The very nature of the claims in question.

Only to handful of people like you.

 

[florida2]

I agree. Nothing makes sense to those who have been blinded by satan and cannot see the truth. The sad thing is that atheists blow themselves out of the water so often when they blame God for this and that and why doesn't he do this or that. Tell me, how can anyone who does not exist do anything? Not logical, you know that thing that atheists pride themselves in.

Eh?

Firstly you'll notice I'm not an atheist.

Secondly, what is the truth then? My argument didn't blame God, I was pointing out that your explanation was completely nonsensical. Claiming that God alone was responsible for the polio vaccine means that for thousands of years he just sat on his hands letting millions suffer. It doesn't make sense if you then claim God is all powerful and all loving. If my child was sick I wouldn't withhold treatment saying 'sorry, you were born in the wrong century'.

 

[florida2]

I do not understand what you point is. For the saved and the redeemed God will cause all things to work out for the best. For the unsaved and those who live in rebellion then life for them goes from bad to worse. I can gave my life with God simply based on if my life is getting better or worse. If my life is getting better then I know I am living a life that is well pleasing to God. If life is getting worst then I know that I am living in rebellion and need to bring my life into obedience to God.

The poster I was replying to claimed the polio vaccine only came about because of people 'crying out' after WW2. I was merely asking why millions of people praying and pleading whe their loved ones were sick in all the time before WW2 somehow didn't count.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Point one. Making assumptions is as bad as claiming "most christians..."

What assumption?
That catholics follow catholic doctrine? Isn't that what makes a catholic a "catholic"?

Point two. The american education system bad as it is thanks to the infiltration of it by atheist ideas, is better than the education of those countries that have none.

No. The state of education in the US is mostly due to politics and the obsession with privatisation.

Point three. Obviously the person saying that didn't consider it was wrong so you will have to fight it out with him.

That's going to be kind of hard if you refuse to point out who said it.

Point four. If that is the case, then atheism is a very dismal and derelict faith.

Atheism is not a faith. If anything, it's the rejection of faith.

And as I have been told more than once that no atheist speaks for another your words are irrelevant.

Indeed, no atheist speaks for another. But the word "atheist" has a specific meaning. What every atheist has in common is atheism. Which is the rejection of theistic claims. Atheists are united in what they do not believe.

That's what the words is about... it tells you what a person does NOT believe. As such, the word is rather useless to describe a person.

Kind of like calling someone "not a stamp collector".
Those people are united in the fact that they don't collect stamps. And you wouldn't know anything else about them, by that description alone.

Point five. If atheism is not science why do atheist spend so much energy in trying to convince everyone that science is the be all and end all of life.

Which atheist does that?

Point six. The so called "nonsense" that I was posting was what the conference didn't do and what the media expected of them.

Did it perhaps occur to you that "the media" might have been wrong in their expectations?

Saying it is my nonsense is to say the least is nonsensical and a cute way to avoid the truth which atheist have a real problem with.

What truth?

The truth is that "atheism" is a stance on theological claims. So when someone organizes an "atheist conference", I would expect them to discuss subjects related to theological claims.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Most Christians accept the simple fact that life evolved. Wrong again. None of the evidence for the theory of evolution has been debunked. And once again, you really need to learn what atheism is. I must have missed something coming into the middle of the conversation. What conference are you talking about?

Point one. "Most christians accept..." And when did you survey the 2.3 billion christians on the earth to make such a spurious claim?" In all probability, at least 50% of the country's christians live in have never heard of evolution so claiming "most christians" is far fetched and unviable.

Point two. Mathematician Dr. Roger Penrose conducted a study of the probability of a
universe capable of sustaining life occurring by chance and found the odds to be 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. According to the probability theory, odds of 1 in 10 to the power of 50 represents zero probability. Dr. Penrose's calculation puts the odd of life emerging as Darwin described it at more than a trillion, trillion, trillion time less likely than zero.

Point three. The International Conference for Atheists.