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

[Norbert L]

'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science'

"agnore"????

It's not as if anyone here had no clue about what the OP meant.

I would say it's easier to be an atheist in western culture than the rest of the world. Cell phones are really useful, but the science behind them doesn't explain the meaning of life.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You've bought into the classic god of the gaps argument, which is a fallacy. Can you at least understand why some may think it's dishonest to insert their own personal god as an explanation, when we don't have a natural answer?

No, I don't understand or have a problem with doing that at all...have you taken a second look at some of the ridiculous explanations y'all do put out there? Are you honestly trying to tell me some of that stuff is not personal opinion?

I'll put my personal God up against that **** any day.

What exactly is "honest" about the the world universe coming to be by something suddenly expanding someplace at some time?

Hard to believe you'd even ask me that.

 

[morse86]

Actually, my understanding of science is what made it easy to be an atheist.

Correction: Your faith in science so falsely called has made you an atheist. It is a religion also, it has no evidence. Only hoaxes.

Real science is testable, you don't need millions of years.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Nothing" You don't seem to have a grasp on what that word means and does not mean.

We have a profound understanding of how life we see now and in the fossil record came to be. It evolved from a primordial life form. How that life form came into existence doesn't even effect our understanding of evolution, much less determine if we know "something" or "nothing" about life.

You have nothing profound, I've seen it, it falls apart pretty much immediately.

If the beginning of life has no effect, then you don't have the whole story, hence you don't have the origin of life, and again, what you do have is junk, not even logical fallacy. Remember, we already went over that, then when I showed were it broke down, y'all went into this thing about me not understanding simple English, just as you are trying to do here....one excuse after another. It was actually pretty funny, took me forever to get you to put something on the table and for some strange reason no one would, then when you finally did, you got just what I think you expected...the very reason you were reluctant to put it out there to begin with. Are you here now to add to your embarrassment?

 

[Cearbhall]

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

Thanks for the QED.

What science demonstrates that a deity exists? Even the author of the article states in the first sentence that scientists don't know for sure.

 

[USincognito]

You have nothing profound, I've seen it, it falls apart pretty much immediately.

If the beginning of life has no effect, then you don't have the whole story, hence you don't have the origin of life, and again, what you do have is junk, not even logical fallacy. Remember, we already went over that, then when I showed were it broke down, y'all went into this thing about me not understanding simple English, just as you are trying to do here....one excuse after another. It was actually pretty funny, took me forever to get you to put something on the table and for some strange reason no one would, then when you finally did, you got just what I think you expected...the very reason you were reluctant to put it out there to begin with. Are you here now to add to your embarrassment?

You live in a fantasy world. You have addressed nothing. You have debunked nothing. You have contributed nothing. You have embarrassed no one... other than yourself. This entire paragraph is vacuous rhetoric and empty boasting.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Real science is testable, you don't need millions of years.

If they are going to pretend something happened that did not, they do need the millions of years for the lies to get lost in. IOW, they would prove their lies but it just so happens they have a universal excuse not to.

 

[USincognito]

Please explain...

The chemicals that formed the pre-biotic reactions that eventually led to life were not "nothing" and didn't come from "nothing". If you want to engage in a turtles all the way down argument, go find someone else to play with, but abiogenesis has nothing to do with anything coming from nothing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You live in a fantasy world. You have addressed nothing. You have debunked nothing. You have contributed nothing. You have embarrassed no one... other than yourself. This entire paragraph is vacuous rhetoric and empty boasting.

Right, you embarrassed yourself. You were there when it happened. Denial? I guess so.

The entire paragraph? Did I not try for a long time to get you all to put something on the table? were you not reluctant to do that? Let's start there, are either of those 2 questions not factual?

Or, tell you what, put it back up here, and we can do a replay.

 

[USincognito]

Not true, I got the jokes completely...

There's only one joke around here son. Actually two. I just have one of you on ignore.

..the ones that were based on assumption each time I looked into your ridiculous evidence..

You never did any such thing. You flailed and bobbed and weaved and used magical words like "assumption" to try and poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke, but it remained and remained unaddressed by you. And you never showed the evidence was "ridiculous". You never even showed you comprehended the evidence, much less addressed it or showed it to be ridiculous. As I said, you live in a fantasy world.

Details please? If you have a comment to make on my post, make it, otherwise I'll assume that a baseless accusation.

Wow, you are tremendously dishonest. Here's my post without your dishonest excision where I did just that.

It's hilarious when people complain about logical fallacies being pointed out and then go on to post a logical fallacy.

(Hint - abiogenesis is not "something coming out of nowhere". That's a straw man.)

 

[morse86]

Abiogenesis is a failed experiment. They used artificial conditions and only managed to create 2 amino acids (I think the whole thing was a hoax to begin with).

 

[AV1611VET]

What science demonstrates that a deity exists? Even the author of the article states in the first sentence that scientists don't know for sure.

Just as we know gravity exists by seeing its effects, we should know God exists by seeing His effects:

Churches, holidays, iconography, songs, hymns, carols, organizations, bumper stickers, debates, Jesus time (BC/AD), martyrs, testimonies, witnesses, missionaries, Bibles, books, stores, clubs, etc. should all serve as evidence of God's existence.

 

[morse86]

Just as we know gravity exists by seeing its effects, we should know God exists by seeing His effects:

Churches, holidays, iconography, songs, hymns, carols, organizations, bumper stickers, debates, Jesus time (BC/AD), martyrs, testimonies, witnesses, missionaries, Bibles, books, stores, clubs, etc. should all serve as evidence of God's existence.

Yes, gravity exists. Yes, we can describe it's effects using mathematics. But it's origin or how it actually functions.....no one can explain. There is not a single experiment that can. All the "science" on it's origin/functions are religion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Wow, you are tremendously dishonest. Here's my post without your dishonest excision where I did just that.

Nope, still no details. Where then does it start if it doesn't come from nowhere?

Dishonest? You all show your insecurities each time you throw that around. Discredit you opponent with good solid argument , not made up things that have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'll take that to mean: "I don't wish to continue talking to you, beca/use it hurts my case..."

You can take it that way if you like, easy to see how you would , but fact is, until you can do something to support your case, I don't see the point. I doubt even all my posts are worth replying to so don't take it too badly.

 

[USincognito]

If they are going to pretend something happened that did not, they do need the millions of years for the lies to get lost in. IOW, they would prove their lies but it just so happens they have a universal excuse not to.

My vacuous rhetoric and empty hyperbole, eh Kenny? Well, I guess if that's all you have to bring to the table...

 

[USincognito]

Right, you embarrassed yourself. You were there when it happened. Denial? I guess so.

Projection, wishful thinking and Dunning-Kruger. Man, you're a walking case study.

The entire paragraph? Did I not try for a long time to get you all to put something on the table? were you not reluctant to do that? Let's start there, are either of those 2 questions not factual?

Or, tell you what, put it back up here, and we can do a replay.

I have no idea what this gibberish is supposed to mean. As I noted, you live in a fantasy world and part of that fantasy is that you have addressed issues or made points when you never did any such thing. You just imagine that you did and insist is happened in some past post to which you cannot link.

You keep babbling on about the origin of life and I've shown, repeatedly, that the source of the origin of life does not effect evolution in the least. The same applies to the origin of the earth and plate tectonic theory. The problem, Kenny, is that you don't understand science and thus cannot even grasp that scientific theories are not meant to explain everything. Evolution doesn't have to explain the origin of life in order to fully and completely explain how the first life - whatever it was and however it came to be - led to the diversity we see now and in the fossil record. That your scientific illiteracy will not allow you to comprehend this simple fact is your problem, not ours and not a problem for evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Nope, still no details. Where then does it start if it doesn't come from nowhere?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You are so ignorant of the subject that you don't realize how inane a question this is. The first life came from the chemicals that existed on the earth. Extant chemicals on an extant earth are not "nothing" to anyone who comprehends what the word "nothing" means. You can dishonestly go on to play the infinite regression card, but that won't change the fact that the earliest life on earth did not come from "nowhere" or "nothing".

Dishonest? You all show your insecurities each time you throw that around.

Your projection is adorable. Transparent and rather pathetic, but adorable. Telling a dishonest debater they're engaged in dishonest debate is being honest and factual. You might want to learn what those words mean.

Discredit you opponent with good solid argument , not made up things that have nothing to do with the subject.

Oh the irony. This coming from the guy who thinks a constant refrain of "assumptions!", "assumptions!", "assumptions!" is a good solid argument.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, gravity exists. Yes, we can describe it's effects using mathematics. But it's origin or how it actually functions.....no one can explain.

There is not a single experiment that can.

Sorry, that was settled 100 years ago.

 

[Nithavela]

Tide goes in, tide goes out.