for atheists

[HitchSlap]

Well, there you go. I find the evidence for Darwinism sorely lacking.

Yet, there's ample evidence IYO, that Darwin was a eugenicsists?

lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you're confused.

My statement was that not all atheists are immune to any sort of evidence, because there are some who have converted.

I am not confused at all. Your example may have nothing to do with evidence. You are making an improper assumption. Many of the "I used to be an atheist"s that I have seen appear to have been atheists for irrational reasons to start with. Look at Lee Strobel. His supposed investigation was merely poorly reasoned confirmation bias. It was the sort of "proof" that Christians give and that is laughed at by anyone that can reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, there you go. I find the evidence for Darwinism sorely lacking.

But we have already established that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and for some odd reason you refuse to even discuss the topic. It appears that you won't let yourself learn.

Look at the difference between the Christians claiming that there is evidence for God and the reaction of atheists, we ask for the evidence, and the claims of deniers of science. All they can do is to deny the evidence and refuse to support that denial.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not really. My argument is about right vs wrong and the source of it. I equate the in todays society often
the source of rules about such things are from gods existing truly or not is not an issue the rules that deal
with right and wrong that keep societies from falling apart are there. We have to have rules for right and wrong
otherwise anything goes and that won't work long. If the rules that are attributed originally from gods aren't
used then man must make them and not say a god made them but themselves thus replacing god with him
making himself a god in that respect. Not the same as a god in entirety but in that sense yes.

Morality is an expression of evolved behaviour selected for because it promoted successful reproduction. Codified moralities were established, initially, within religions, since these represented sources of authority. Increasingly the codification takes place within a secular environment, yet the ultimate source remains the same.

 

[Yttrium]

I don't consider myself to be an atheist, but I do lack a belief in God. In my case, it's a simple lack of faith. I'm convinced that I exist, thanks to a simple proof. I'm flexible on everything else. I've always been that way.

I was raised to be a Christian (non-denominational), but I realized as a teenager that I couldn't be a Christian, because I had no faith. In anything. Faith is required for Christianity. I never rejected Christianity, I just came to see mainstream Christianity as more and more... unlikely.

I think it's quite possible that there could be an intelligent supreme being of some sort. I'm not a Naturalist. It wouldn't take much to make me think that it's likely that a supreme being exists. I could easily get a warm fuzzy. Some good evidence, some logically consistent reasoning, maybe an appearance by the real deal. A warm fuzzy doesn't make one a Christian.

Convince me? Considering my inability to be convinced of pretty much anything, I doubt that could happen. But of course I'm not convinced that it couldn't happen.

 

[renniks]

But we have already established that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and for some odd reason you refuse to even discuss the topic. It appears that you won't let yourself learn.

Look at the difference between the Christians claiming that there is evidence for God and the reaction of atheists, we ask for the evidence, and the claims of deniers of science. All they can do is to deny the evidence and refuse to support that denial.

Actually I gave you lots of reasons why I think the evidence is miss interpretated, but apparently you didn't care for them..

 

[Larniavc]

so then basically you are saying you do not believe you could see them again?

Correct.

My current understanding is that that would it would be impossible to see them again.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Correct.

My current understanding is that that would it would be impossible to see them again.

on this Earth yes,

 

[Larniavc]

Still doesn't answer anything. A planet perfectly suitable for human habitation just happened? And people just happened to spring from the ooze over a few billions of years? No, I see planning and order and design everywhere I look in nature.
A beaver doesn't just happen to develop the skills of an engineer. An otter doesn't just happen to be built like a torpedo with a rudder...

It is us who is a perfect fit for the planet. Otherwise every depression that a puddle fits into must be designed.

Otters and Beavers are the shape they are because they evolved in the environment they inhabit.

 

[Larniavc]

on this Earth yes,

Do you have any evidence of this other Earth?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Do you have any evidence of this other Earth?

no, but what I do have is examples of God working in me and people I know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I gave you lots of reasons why I think the evidence is miss interpretated, but apparently you didn't care for them..

All you had was handwaving. And since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you really have no authority at all. Right now you are simply a science denier. If you understood the concept of evidence you would understand that evidence puts a burden of proof upon the person that it is presented to. You have always failed at that burden of proof.

Can you tell me why you appear to be afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Larniavc]

no, but what I do have is examples of God working in me and people I know.

That's not evidence of the possibility of me seeing my grand parents again is it, though? I have no doubt that you beliefs have motivated you to act in specific ways but I don't see how your behaviour (or that of people you know) is any evidence of God existing.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Now you are stretching it. We have rules for right and wrong based on trial and error over the length of human history. In many cases, we have moved past what is taught in the Bible and found a better way.

What is keeping us from falling apart is the values and institutions in the society. Churches and religions can be part of that, but I would not for one minute mistake that for divine intervention.

You are devaluing our human achievements by attributing them to your God.

I don't see it. I see that the less people follow God the more they follow their own desires and right and wrong is more and more profit and loss to them instead of being Godly. I see society repeating itself from civilizations that have long perished from practices and rules for right/wrong we are slowly adopting in thought and deed.

 

[Larniavc]

Well, there you go. I find the evidence for Darwinism sorely lacking.

Have you read that paper on DNA and bi-lipid layers I linked you to?

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's not evidence of the possibility of me seeing my grand parents again is it, though? I have no doubt that you beliefs have motivated you to act in specific ways but I don't see how your behaviour (or that of people you know) is any evidence of God existing.

The fact that what happened and what was "supposed" to have happened based on common sense and science did not match up.

 

[Larniavc]

The fact that what happened and what was "supposed" to have happened based on common sense and science did not match up.

Could you rephrase that? I can't understand your meaning.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Could you rephrase that? I can't understand your meaning.

I have had times when what by all accounts should have happened did not in my life and the lives of people I have known to God being involved). Note that does not mean that humans cannot and did not play a role in some of it.

 

[renniks]

All you had was handwaving. And since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you really have no authority at all. Right now you are simply a science denier. If you understood the concept of evidence you would understand that evidence puts a burden of proof upon the person that it is presented to. You have always failed at that burden of proof.

Lol, no the burden of proof is in the scientists. If their theorys aren't convincing, why would I believe they got it right? That's illogical. I don't deny science because science is only what can be tested repeatedly and proven in this present time. I told you before, they can't even get the little details history of 200 years ago correct, so you expect me to believe they know what happened 13 billion years ago?
Why would I believe what I can not see? You should understand that!

 

[renniks]

Have you read that paper on DNA and bi-lipid layers I linked you to?

I've read plenty of stuff on DNA, thanks.