'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[keith99]

That's because you ignore it -- just as the OP says.

Thanks for the QED.

Read, understood and rejected as lacking substance =/= ignored.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read, understood and rejected as lacking substance =/= ignored.

I wasn't talking about the science in the link.

I was talking about the myriad of evidence for God that is ignored daily.

Such as churches, iconography, holidays, and songs -- just to name a few.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lot of one liners here from the Atheists...how bout' we get into why you feel as you do about the article. I mean all you've really done is say it's bad, and with little or no backing.

Seems the article is mostly about the origin of life and how it cannot be explained by scientists, so it would only make sense those Atheists claiming poppycock have an explanation.

Could we hear that explanation please?

 

[keith99]

I wasn't talking about the science in the link.

I was talking about the myriad of evidence for God that is ignored daily.

Such as churches, iconography, holidays, and songs -- just to name a few.

So Thor and Odin are real? And Zeus of course. And I've been to temples for Pele!

Are Harry Potter and Mickey Mouse also real? There are huge shrines to both of them in my home town of Los Angeles!

And is the Emperor of Japan a God? There are some very cool Shinto shrines around the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Thor and Odin are real? And Zeus of course. And I've been to temples for Pele!

Are Harry Potter and Mickey Mouse also real? There are huge shrines to both of them in my home town of Los Angeles!

And is the Emperor or Japan a God? There are some very cool Shinto shrines around the world.

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

If you had to, could you pick out the real Elvis from thousands of his imitators?

 

[Nithavela]

Lot of one liners here from the Atheists...how bout' we get into why you feel as you do about the article. I mean all you've really done is say it's bad, and with little or no backing.

Seems the article is mostly about the origin of life and how it cannot be explained by scientists, so it would only make sense those Atheists claiming poppycock have an explanation.

Could we hear that explanation please?

The answer to that is, and I quote the article: (b) I don’t know, the jury is still out.

The article is basically one giant argument of a god of the gaps. We don't exactly know how it works, but postulating a god that did it is not enough, especially since there are very good arguments for life arising from non-living macromolecules.The article stating that we have "no clue" is reaching a bit far, because we actually have quite a few clues, we just don't know for certain and haven't connected all the dots yet.

There is nothing in this article that warrants the words "read this and weep", because there is nothing in it that hasn't been said already.

Only a very small percentage of atheists would say that they can rule out the existence of a god (of whatever persuasion) 100%. Most atheists define their atheism as "I do not see enough convincing evidence for a god to believe in one, but I am willing to change my stance should such evidence arise".

The origin of life is no evidence of a god, it is AT BEST a lack of evidence against one.

The rest of the article is a misguided attempt at appeal to authority, mixed with some good old dishonest quote-mining. For example, there is this quote:

“Abiogenesis [life from non-life] strikes many as virtually miraculous…you might get the impression from what I have written not only that the origin of life is virtually impossible, but that life itself is impossible…So what is the answer? Is life a miracle after all?” (Dr. Paul Davies)

This quote is from the book "The fifth miracle: The search for the origin and meaning of life". The quotes are a few rhetorical questions and figures ripped completely out of context, with the explanations filed off. Basically, what's been left out of the quote ammounts to: "So what is the answer? Is life a miracle after all? I'll spend the next few chapters explaining why it isn't." You can of course DISAGREE with the explanations, but just filing it them off and acting as if the quoted person was supporting you is very dishonest (though par for the course on this side of the debate).

You can read it over here, if you have the inclination:

https://books.google.de/books?id=bytBCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Then there's a quote from Fred Hoyle, who was an astronomer that believed the flu was caused by sun spots.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/25/us/flu-time-when-the-sunspots-are-jumping.html

If that's the best the article can muster, what's there left than to mock it?

 

[Nithavela]

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

If you had to, could you pick out the real Elvis from thousands of his imitators?

I guess you'd have to look for the half-rotted corpse. Shouldn't be that hard.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Lot of one liners here from the Atheists...how bout' we get into why you feel as you do about the article. I mean all you've really done is say it's bad, and with little or no backing.

Seems the article is mostly about the origin of life and how it cannot be explained by scientists, so it would only make sense those Atheists claiming poppycock have an explanation.

Could we hear that explanation please?

"Although the general public is disconcertingly unaware of it, it is a fact that scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a conscious creative force."

Now, the matter remains unsettled, but if we are looking for something on the order of 'slightest clue', I think we must include scientific hypotheses. There is no lack of them. There are far more than a dozen. So this fact [emphasis in original] is a lie.

 

[keith99]

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

If you had to, could you pick out the real Elvis from thousands of his imitators?

I can see quite well. If Christian Churches are evidence the Christian God is real than the same holds for all other faiths. That you made such a claim seems to indicate the evidence for the existence of the Christian God is weak indeed.

EDIT: Hey mods and others, do not confuse my claim that this is an extremely poor argument with a claim that there are no good arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the spirit of The Devil and Daniel Webster, I guess if Jesus was put on trial by the Devil, a good jury would consist of Charles Darwin, Carl Linnaeus, Richard Dawkins, Pontius Pilate, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Norma McCorvey, Brooke Wescott, Fenton Hort, John Scopes, Anton LaVey, Antiochus Epiphanes, and Martin Luther.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Christian Churches are evidence the Christian God is real than the same holds for all other faiths.

Just Christian churches?

What about time divided into BC/AD, iconography, debates, songs, holidays, bumper stickers, trials, edifices, organizations, flags and banners, martyrs, literature, and other associated evidence?

 

[Cimorene]

The author is a Rabbi. I wouldn't be surprised if there's stuff that he's written that is basically be like "Read this and weep, Christians". So he disagrees with atheists, he disagrees with Christians too.

 

[Gene2memE]

Read this and weep, atheists :

http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/08/10/its-easy-to-be-an-atheist-if-you-ignore-science/

So, science hasn't solved the problem abiogenesis yet. And... ?

Nothing about that means there is any more (or any less) evidence for a God or gods. Until such evidence can be presented, I will remain without belief.

The article in question also appears to be a case of quote mining at its finest (or worst).

The second quote (from Eugene Koonin) is from his book 'The logic of chance: the nature and origin of biological evolution' - Koonin in no way disagrees with either evolution by natural selection, abiogensis through intermediate chemical stages. He's referring to the fact that, so far, we've not developed a fully plausible model of transitioning from the RNA world to the DNA world. If you look at the very next page Koonin goes on to state:

"Specifically, it becomes conceivable that the breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution could have been a primitive coupled replication-translation system that emerged by chance"

Koonin, and research group he leads, explicitly rejects both creationism and ID (which is creationism in a stolen lab coat). His work has vaildated, repeated, the genetic basis for universal common ancestry and explores lots of the 'hard' computational problems in biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Read this and weep, atheists :

http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/08/10/its-easy-to-be-an-atheist-if-you-ignore-science/

The very first sentence in that article:

Although the general public is disconcertingly unaware of it, it is a fact that scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a conscious creative force


And already, I can smell the argument from ignorance from a mile away.

Next up, a bunch of quote mines and name drops. So the setup for the argument from ignorance, is immediatly followed by an argument from authority - and not even an honest one.

The rest of the article just follows that exact same pattern.

This is.... not at all surprising.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lot of one liners here from the Atheists...how bout' we get into why you feel as you do about the article.

The entire article reads like a tour of logical fallacies.

Seems the article is mostly about the origin of life and how it cannot be explained by scientists

Which is what sets up the biggest logical fallacy of all: the argument from ignorance.

, so it would only make sense those Atheists claiming poppycock have an explanation.

No. Logical fallacies only require pointing out.

Could we hear that explanation please?

Sure: logical fallacies do not make a great argument.

 

[AirPo]

I wasn't talking about the science in the link.

I was talking about the myriad of evidence for God that is ignored daily.

Such as churches, iconography, holidays, and songs -- just to name a few.

None of those things are evidence for God.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The entire article reads like a tour of logical fallacies.



Which is what sets up the biggest logical fallacy of all: the argument from ignorance.



No. Logical fallacies only require pointing out.



Sure: logical fallacies do not make a great argument.

Logical fallacies?

Gotta say, some of you are entirely to dependent on that term, as well as a few others. Sorry but is just doesn't cover everything like you think it does.

For instance...it doesn't answer the question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Logical fallacies?

Yes. I detailed them, with quotes, in the post just before the one you are replying to. I guess you missed that one.

Gotta say, some of you are entirely to dependent on that term, as well as a few others.

Or... perhaps some of you are entirely to dependent on using logical fallacies, which then results in us having to point it out every time?

Sorry but is just doesn't cover everything like you think it does.

I explained how it does.

For instance...it doesn't answer the question.

What question? It doesn't matter actually, as there are no questions to be answered.

The article and OP are implying that "not ignoring science" leads to "theism". And the argument for that claim is presented in said article.

But that argument is infested with one logical fallacy after the other.
If your argument is bunk, your conclusion will also be bunk.

I don't need to answer anything. I only need to point out the fallacies. Which is what I did.

 

[JackRT]

What about time divided into BC/AD

OK, you tell me --- what does that prove? It might help to have a little historical background:

Dionysius Exigius (aka Dennis the Short), a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. He did have an error in that because one emperor changed his name during his reign, Dionysius counted him twice.

He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus' birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument: His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25. It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect. Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25. This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25. Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!

December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25. Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.

When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.

With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus' death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.

But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 BC (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.

That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter "year one" of the New World order—anno domini, the year of our Lord. The concept of naught (zero) didn't come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 was the end of one millennium but it was not the beginning of the next: that occurred in 2001.

Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.

There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 BC (he knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus birth wrong). But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.

In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.

OK what does BC/AD prove?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The article is basically one giant argument of a god of the gaps. We don't exactly know how it works, but postulating a god that did it is not enough, especially since there are very good arguments for life arising from non-living macromolecules.

OK, thanks, Nith.

It's not enough for you, and I get that, but that doesn't mean it's a "logical fallacy, and I know you didn't call it that but fact it its at the very least a logical possibility, and so much so, many feel it's logical enough they are happy with calling it fact.

Believe what you believe but constantly throwing the F word at it doesn't make it that. That's not necessarily directed at you, I just figure it would be wasted if I directed it at the source....too far gone.

Nothing new? No it isn't, but it is a reminder with all the goings on here and constantly trying to put creation down, others don't have a better explanation. And maybe I'm bias but I really believe if I had never been exposed to either side of this from the time I was born and was presented the two possibilities then had to choose one or the other, I'd have to choose intelligent design, just makes a lot more logical sense. And again, I know you disagree but that doesn't mean you are right, and until you guys can do better, I guess I just don't see the point of coming here messing with our God, or our beliefs?