Evidence of miracles.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not?

Because you said: "It is just that I don't bother to engage in useless debates with non-Christian people."

If you don't want to engage with non-Christian people, don't come to the part of the forum open to non-Christians.

 

[NxNW]

Humanism was at the heart of the German Nazi philosophy that resulted in millions of innocent people brutalized and murdered in concentration camps.

This is a lie.

It is also at the heart of the philosophy behind thousands of unborn babies being murdered through abortion each year.

So is this.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is a lie.

So is this.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

No, it is a statement supported by evidence. There are far too many people that only believe and assume that others have that same flaw.

 

[SelfSim]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I think you should explain your initial claim. Humanism today is nothing like the thinking associated with Nazi Germany's eugenics program.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't have theology. (Are you not understanding what the whole "atheist" thing is?)

Theology no, Belief certainly - atheism as expressed in "Scientific realism " is a belief set.

That nothing exists that you cannot observe.

That the patterns that do exist in what you observe (you call scientific model) will keep repeating without exception.

Which is odd, because all they are is observations. The turkey who observes that people are good and bring food every day is violated only once, around christmas!

You also cannot know whether you see a projection of reality from higher dimensions in which case all of science is empirical. Indeed since your philosophy of life is that senses only improve to what they need for survival actively disputes the idea you see all there is...

More assumptions.. That the abstract things in that model based on observation, map into real things in the universe. Phenomena and noumena.

Your concept of life is as a chemical automaton

That all life was a result of a lucky chemical accident to a first living evolving cell. Whatever that first cell was was a horrendously complicated thing!, it went ping from no life....

That your concept of consciousness is a chemical process confined to the automaton

That whilst the hardware of life was the product of random chance, the software of life wrote itself by accident!

And so on...
You have a complex set of beliefs. Sadly the real world chooses to throw curved balls of evidence that dispute some or all of that, but rather than investigate you would rather pretend they are not real!

There is evidence of something that was bread, turned red, now has all the characteristics of recently living heart tissue but only maternal DNA sequencable, the nuclear will not sequence.. Repeated. It turns most of the above belief set on its head.

It isnt conjecture like life from chemical soup.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still no actual evidence of miracles given though....

 

[NxNW]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Nope. The Nazis were Christians, and the Catholic Church supported their actions, and helped them escape after the war. Read the book Ratlines for more info.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Nazis were Christians,

Obedient Christians? or disobedient ones?

... and the Catholic Church supported their actions,

With respect to the Bible? or in spite of the Bible?

In your opinion.

Read the book Ratlines for more info.

Does that "more info" include whether or not the author believes this was done with respect to the Bible?

Or, as I suspect, you won't find a single Bible verse within its pages?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Theology no, Belief certainly - atheism as expressed in "Scientific realism " is a belief set.

That's not how atheism is defined. Either as "no belief in gods" or "belief that no gods exist" atheism does not mean "Scientific realism", that would be an additional "belief".

That nothing exists that you cannot observe.

Perhaps this statement is true, but it not a part of "atheism".

That the patterns that do exist in what you observe (you call scientific model) will keep repeating without exception.

Which is odd, because all they are is observations.

Are you objecting to this???

The turkey who observes that people are good and bring food every day is violated only once, around christmas!

Silly furriner, all the turkeys are already dead by Xmas. (Except ones like this post that make it through...)

You also cannot know whether you see a projection of reality from higher dimensions in which case all of science is empirical.

Are you claiming "higher dimensions"? (This is just odd "sci-fi" talk, and not physical.)

Indeed since your philosophy of life is that senses only improve to what they need for survival actively disputes the idea you see all there is...

What does my "philosophy of life" have to do with any of this? We haven't discussed it. Whatever my "philosophy of life" is it isn't "atheism" or "scientific realism". BAH!

More assumptions.. That the abstract things in that model based on observation, map into real things in the universe. Phenomena and noumena.

Mahna mahna.

Your concept of life is as a chemical automaton

More claims about me. Stop it. It is unbecoming.

That all life was a result of a lucky chemical accident to a first living evolving cell.

Lucky accident? Probably more like inevitability. But do go on telling me about myself...

Whatever that first cell was was a horrendously complicated thing!, it went ping from no life....

It probably didn't make a sound (and it likely wasn't that "horrendously complicated".)

That your concept of consciousness is a chemical process confined to the automaton

More of a tissue process. Do remember please that spirits come in bottles, not brains.

That whilst the hardware of life was the product of random chance, the software of life wrote itself by accident!

Life doesn't have "software".

And so on...

You managed to stop, congratulations.

You have a complex set of beliefs. Sadly the real world chooses to throw curved balls of evidence that dispute some or all of that, but rather than investigate you would rather pretend they are not real!

Is this about the proceeding some how? Your posts are hard to follow, especially since this "conversation" has been dead for weeks. (As for beliefs, I believe your god is not real and my old church is the most evil organization on the planet.)

(and all balls have curves, even the ones with pointy ends like footballs)

There is evidence of something that was bread, turned red, now has all the characteristics of recently living heart tissue but only maternal DNA sequencable, the nuclear will not sequence.. Repeated. It turns most of the above belief set on its head.

It isnt conjecture like life from chemical soup.

At least this related to the titular topic. But, I still don't care.

 

[NxNW]

Theology no, Belief certainly - atheism as expressed in "Scientific realism " is a belief set.

That nothing exists that you cannot observe.

That the patterns that do exist in what you observe (you call scientific model) will keep repeating without exception.

Which is odd, because all they are is observations. The turkey who observes that people are good and bring food every day is violated only once, around christmas!

You also cannot know whether you see a projection of reality from higher dimensions in which case all of science is empirical. Indeed since your philosophy of life is that senses only improve to what they need for survival actively disputes the idea you see all there is...

More assumptions.. That the abstract things in that model based on observation, map into real things in the universe. Phenomena and noumena.

Your concept of life is as a chemical automaton

That all life was a result of a lucky chemical accident to a first living evolving cell. Whatever that first cell was was a horrendously complicated thing!, it went ping from no life....

That your concept of consciousness is a chemical process confined to the automaton

That whilst the hardware of life was the product of random chance, the software of life wrote itself by accident!

And so on...
You have a complex set of beliefs. Sadly the real world chooses to throw curved balls of evidence that dispute some or all of that, but rather than investigate you would rather pretend they are not real!

There is evidence of something that was bread, turned red, now has all the characteristics of recently living heart tissue but only maternal DNA sequencable, the nuclear will not sequence.. Repeated. It turns most of the above belief set on its head.

It isnt conjecture like life from chemical soup.

I'm atheist and I don't believe any of the above.

 

[Mountainmike]

I simply point out from observation your entire philosophical platform as expressed from time to time on these threads is based on a set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, but they are none the less beliefs.

The atheism often expressed here is in essence coupled with scientific realism. It is unusual to see atheism without some other postulation for origin of life. “Don’t know “ or “ don’t care” is more logically consistent with agnosticism.

I have always thought science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life and existence , since the scientific model is just an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.

I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom.

Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science. It’s a belief. It doesn’t even constitute a valid scientific hypothesis, yet it is taught as a fact.

I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes very high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!

Ascribing a high probability to “unknown mechanism” as an explanation is farcical reasoning, however you arrived at it!

(As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton. )

That's not how atheism is defined. Either as "no belief in gods" or "belief that no gods exist" atheism does not mean "Scientific realism", that would be an additional "belief".



Perhaps this statement is true, but it not a part of "atheism".



Are you objecting to this???



Silly furriner, all the turkeys are already dead by Xmas. (Except ones like this post that make it through...)



Are you claiming "higher dimensions"? (This is just odd "sci-fi" talk, and not physical.)



What does my "philosophy of life" have to do with any of this? We haven't discussed it. Whatever my "philosophy of life" is it isn't "atheism" or "scientific realism". BAH!



Mahna mahna.



More claims about me. Stop it. It is unbecoming.



Lucky accident? Probably more like inevitability. But do go on telling me about myself...



It probably didn't make a sound (and it likely wasn't that "horrendously complicated".)



More of a tissue process. Do remember please that spirits come in bottles, not brains.



Life doesn't have "software".



You managed to stop, congratulations.



Is this about the proceeding some how? Your posts are hard to follow, especially since this "conversation" has been dead for weeks. (As for beliefs, I believe your god is not real and my old church is the most evil organization on the planet.)

(and all balls have curves, even the ones with pointy ends like footballs)



At least this related to the titular topic. But, I still don't care.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, this is in reply to me. It's hard to tell with all of the top replying. I guess I'll have to scroll back and reply.

I simply point out from observation your entire philosophical platform as expressed from time to time on these threads is based on a set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, but they are none the less beliefs.

I don't have a "philosophical platform", so you can probably find it all in the brackets that follow: [ ]

The atheism often expressed here is in essence coupled with scientific realism. It is unusual to see atheism without some other postulation for origin of life.

This is the physical and LIFE SCIENCES board, it should be not surprising that people have opinions about biology and the origin of life. I've been recently learning more about OOL research, but there are certainly plenty of atheist who would answer the OOL question with a simple: "Don't care."

I have always throught science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life, since the scientific model is an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.

Whatever meaning life has is definitionally an invention of mankind. So it has that in common with science, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else thinks that science is a philosophy or the origin of meaning to life. (I do think about science at least 12 hours per day, so it does saturate my thinking, but that's just me being a professional.)

I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom. Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science.

Not teaching religion or teaching science in schools is not "teaching atheism".

It’s a belief

Wrong.

I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!

Working backward through this parade of claims:

* Yes, there are multiple credible paths for the origin of proto-cells from pre-biotic chemistry. Look into it and learn.

* The pre-biotic conditions don't exist anymore in natural environments. Instead, the Earth is teaming with life that would consume those pre-biotic chemical soups for food if they started to form.

* Yes, it seems "inevitable" to me. From what the OOL researchers say the pre-biotic chemistry probably occurs in confined spaces (rock crevices, tidal pools, etc.). There are self-replicating organic molecules and self-organizing lipid bubbles. A proto-cell is just some self-replicating organic molecules inside that membrane bubble. If the precursors exist in many places, it seems likely that some of them will form proto-cells, particularly given plenty of time.

Ascribing a high probability to “ don’t know “ as an explanation is farcical reasoning!

??

(As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton. )

Not really.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have always thought science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life and existence , since the scientific model is just an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.

These remarks of yours were, apparently, directed at @Hans Blaster , but they contain such errors and bizarre observations that I felt compelled to address some of them.

Perhaps you are reflecting on your own need to "clutch at straws". I've never felt such a need. You do give a rather neat half description of science - "used to codify observation". Most sciences I can think began that way: first observe, then classify. The second half of science you pay lip service to when you mention "model". Once faced with this mass of data, scientists try to make sense of it, developing and testing hypotheses.

Now, this is a very interesting pursuit and the findings that emerge from it are fascinating. Indulging in that interest, finding it a useful way of coming to an understanding of the world, maybe even incorporating it within a personal philosphy, is actually quite sensible and very remote from clutching at straws.

If you have the time I would appreciate telling me what it is that would motivate someone to clutch at straws. It sounds rather sad and desparate.

I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom.

Let me see. One of my science teachers was an elder (or whatever the correct term is) in the local Baptist church. Another ran the Scripture Union, a Bible study group for young people. What do you imagine they were teaching me that was false?

Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science. It’s a belief. It doesn’t even constitute a valid scientific hypothesis, yet it is taught as a fact.

Hmm. A bunch of empty assertions set against a vast body of research. Forgive me if I treat your unsupported claim with appropriate disregard.

I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes very high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!

That is flawed reasoning. You seem unaware that any of the necessary pre-biotic chemical products are excellent food for microscopic life. It stands no chance of advancing to the next step.

Ascribing a high probability to “unknown mechanism” as an explanation is farcical reasoning, however you arrived at it!

This is just a guess on my part: is your knowledge of research on abiogenesis based upon direct study of relevant journal papers, or upon hostile analysis by fellow creationists. If it is the latter, perhaps you can see the problem for your credibility. If it is the latter, then feel free to dissect and refute any single example of such research published in the last ten years. That would get attention and respect.

As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton

I think you have already been told you are mistaken in this. Repeating it suggest you are unable to learn.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Obedient Christians? or disobedient ones?With respect to the Bible? or in spite of the Bible?

In your opinion.Does that "more info" include whether or not the author believes this was done with respect to the Bible?

Or, as I suspect, you won't find a single Bible verse within its pages?

Would the answers to these questions have any bearing on whether or not they were Christians?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would the answers to these questions have any bearing on whether or not they were Christians?

If they are Christians, then the Bible is their standard for faith and practice -- or should be.

And if the Nazis are practicing genocide on the Jews, then what do you think?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If they are Christians, then the Bible is their standard for faith and practice -- or should be.

Either it is, or it should be -- pick one.

Actually, It's a trick question, isn't it? Because there is only One who gets the first, last, and only word regarding who is or isn't a Christian... And His opinion on the matter is not up for discussion or debate.

Lacking His input on the matter, I have to go with CF's rules on the matter -- anyone who calls themself a Christian is one... and it would be considered flaming to say otherwise.

And if the Nazis are practicing genocide on the Jews, then what do you think?

"If"?

Christians and Jews have not had the greatest relationship throughout history -- the Nazis simply brought German efficiency into the process.

Martin Luther (the original; not King) was a raving anti-Semite... Few people doubt his Christianity (with the notable exception of Pope Leo X, but under the circumstances, that's to be expected)

 

[AV1611VET]

Either it is, or it should be -- pick one.

Actually, It's a trick question, isn't it? Because there is only One who gets the first, last, and only word regarding who is or isn't a Christian... And His opinion on the matter is not up for discussion or debate.

Lacking His input on the matter, I have to go with CF's rules on the matter -- anyone who calls themself a Christian is one... and it would be considered flaming to say otherwise.



"If"?

Christians and Jews have not had the greatest relationship throughout history -- the Nazis simply brought German efficiency into the process.

Martin Luther (the original; not King) was a raving anti-Semite... Few people doubt his Christianity (with the notable exception of Pope Leo X, but under the circumstances, that's to be expected)

Is there something I can help you with?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is there something I can help you with?

That remains to be seen.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So all that can be done is
1/ to identify evidence of the unexplained.
2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )
3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.

This would imply that
1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural,

2/ the fundamental paradigm of science "as it is known" is in fact true and accurate,

3/ "credible" covers all possible means...

Any of these would indicate a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer, and taken together, borders on sheer hubris.