Atheism - a desperate and dying breed?

[Cearbhall]

No - because it observes that state authority does impose laws, not why state authority imposes specific laws. There is a difference.

I'd have to disagree. It explores both. But arguing about this is way off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[As I was saying]

Here is an interesting fact.

Dr. Dean Kenyon, who holds a PhD in Biophysics from Stamford, and who completed post doctoral studies at U.C Berkeley, Oxford and NASA, was humiliated by university administrators at San Francisco's State University by being removed from teaching duties, not because he misled or misinformed students, but because he broke the CODE OF SILENCE about the problems of Darwinism.

I wonder why they didn't want the truth to be known? Could it be that there is no truth in Darwinism? It is just a beat up by over enthusiastic atheists who want God out of the picture and them to be the centre of the universe. After all that is how it all started as Darwin who was a religious man not an atheist got mad at God because his daughter Annie who was his favourite died before she reached her teens and this was his way at expressing his anger at God.

 

[Cearbhall]

Could it be that there is no truth in Darwinism? It is just a beat up by over enthusiastic atheists who want God out of the picture and them to be the centre of the universe.

Maybe you should ask the Pope why he believes in it.

 

[As I was saying]

Maybe you should ask the Pope why he believes in it.

What for? The Pope is not God and he doesn't lead us into all truth like the Holy Spirit does and it is certainly totally irrelevant to the comment I posted. Talk about clutching at straws because you can't handle the truth.

 

[Cearbhall]

What for? The Pope is not God and he doesn't lead us into all truth like the Holy Spirit does and it is certainly totally irrelevant to the comment I posted. Talk about clutching at straws because you can't handle the truth.

I'm curious, why do you think I agree with evolution? Do you think I was born agreeing with that specific scientific theory? What motive would I have had to be biased in its favor before I was on board with it?

It's folly to assume that those who disagree with you simply aren't interested in the truth.

he doesn't lead us into all truth like the Holy Spirit does

I'm not sure on what basis you expect me to agree with this abstract claim when you don't even want me to agree with evolution.

 

[As I was saying]

It's folly to assume that those who disagree with you simply aren't interested in the truth. I'm not sure on what basis you expect me to agree with this abstract claim when you don't even want me to agree with evolution.

One, My experience is that atheists in general are not interested in the truth. If they were they would not claim that God does not exist. In fact, to know that God does not exist means that you have to be infinite because God is infinite so that makes you a god so god does exist.

Two. There is nothing abstract about the Holy Spirit leading you into all truth. it is only abstract to those who don't understand it or don't want to know the truth.

 

[Cearbhall]

One, My experience is that atheists in general are not interested in the truth. If they were they would not claim that God does not exist.

As I said, this is folly. The fact that they disagree with you is not evidence of their attitude towards truth. You see, they could just as easily say the same about you, so the argument is void.

The way in which their conclusion lines up with yours does not provide sufficient evidence to make a judgment about the truth value of their conclusion. There's no logic there. The fact that an apple is not an orange cannot prove that apples are poisonous.