for atheists

[Larniavc]

Yes. But you would not accept it, because you refuse to see the hand of the Creator in this world.

Try me. Show me your evidence and I shall do what you have refused to do by not reading the paper I linked you too.

To be clear I will read anything you present as evidence to support your assertion that God was involved in your gestation.

 

[Larniavc]

He forms each person. Look it up, it's in the Bible.

The Bible certainly makes that claim. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, no, it just means I don't feel the need to prove anything.
I'm quite aware of the basic scientific method.
You constantly brush off my very real reservations about any theorys about ancient history. I find that dishonest. When a scientific theory has been proven wrong again and again, one might want to come up with a new model to fit the evidence into... but you all have fun. I'm done working for today so I'm going fishing.

You are wrong again. The scientific evidence places a burden of proof upon you. If you simply deny it, as you have been doing, that only removes you from the ability to debate. You are effectively admitting that you are wrong when you have no answer for the evidence.

And you have no real "reservations". All you have is denial. If you do not understand the scientific method, which you just demonstrated, if you do not understand the concept of evidence, which again you confirm again and again, all that you can have is denial.

Did you find any place in that flow chart the false restriction that you put on the scientific method? By the way, the theory of evolution has never even come close to being refuted. Creationists constantly mistake discussions about details as controversy. Or else they rely on popular media with headlines that distort what is being discussed. There have been no "shake ups" of the tree of life where man is concerned lately. Only new additions to the tree.

 

[HitchSlap]

He forms each person. Look it up, it's in the Bible.

The bible is largely myth, legend and flat out fabrication, and IMO, it's unwise to consider what's "in the Bible" as 'gospel truth.' You're better off trying to understand what scientific consensus suggests.

 

[46AND2]

I have seen people make that claim.


.

OK. Me too. I didn't say none make the claim. I said the majority don't.

Making the claim doesn't mean its true, either. Heck, a sufficiently powerful being could conceivably force even the most stridently opposed...in fact don't many Christians believe their god COULD, but would not, do such a thing?

 

[Paulos23]

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.

Funny, I see the same thing in those that claim to follow Christ. They become more greedy, less compassionate, or willing to take care of those around them. In fact, the more I see someone trying to apply black and white morals on people coming across as insensitive and uncaring to me.

It goes both ways, and just because I know good people that are Christian doesn't mean that they are good people because they are Christian because I have examples on the other side as well for people being good. It is a wash there.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Meh, that just seems like watering down the definition of "god" to the point that it's meaningless. We all know what we're really talking about here. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity that cares about you and me personally.

Nope just making a point that while we don't have the "omni" we do reject God for ourselves at times in things and some reject him entirely.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Funny, I see the same thing in those that claim to follow Christ. They become more greedy, less compassionate, or willing to take care of those around them. In fact, the more I see someone trying to apply black and white morals on people coming across as insensitive and uncaring to me.

It goes both ways, and just because I know good people that are Christian doesn't mean that they are good people because they are Christian because I have examples on the other side as well for people being good. It is a wash there.

Yes, I definitely agree with what you say here. I am sort of an example of a not so wonderfully loving Christian but over the years I have tried more to be helpful. Just because one comes a Christian doesn't mean they are suddenly a wonderful loving sinless person. For many of us we have to slowly with God's help change and that for many can take a lifetime. Those who aren't changing for the better I tend to doubt they
are "being" an active Christian but rather in it for themselves than for God. There are also people that call themselves Christian who don't really believe that act like wonderfully loving people to that aren't really saved.
It is hard to determine for sure if one is truly a Christian for sure but usually there is a steady change in them over time to less sin and more love and more talk about God to those around them.
God is sad that "good" people that love others around them won't accept him at all into their lives. He is thankful
that they do love others for sure but with they would love him back for the loves he showed for them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I definitely agree with what you say here. I am sort of an example of a not so wonderfully loving Christian but over the years I have tried more to be helpful. Just because one comes a Christian doesn't mean they are suddenly a wonderful loving sinless person. For many of us we have to slowly with God's help change and that for many can take a lifetime. Those who aren't changing for the better I tend to doubt they
are "being" an active Christian but rather in it for themselves than for God. There are also people that call themselves Christian who don't really believe that act like wonderfully loving people to that aren't really saved.
It is hard to determine for sure if one is truly a Christian for sure but usually there is a steady change in them over time to less sin and more love and more talk about God to those around them.
God is sad that "good" people that love others around them won't accept him at all into their lives. He is thankful
that they do love others for sure but with they would love him back for the loves he showed for them.

It's ironic, but I'm a much nicer person as a secular humanist, than I ever was as a Christian.

 

[Sophrosyne]

It's ironic, but I'm a much nicer person as a secular humanist, than I ever was as a Christian.

Not totally surprising as (including myself) trying to get a handle on your relationship with God, who he is deep down, what Christianity is about, and what we are supposed to do plus the pressure we can get from others around us in ways can turn you upside down.
It is the hardest for new believers especially when they aren't around seasoned well educated believers they get tossed all around and often some are rather emotional and sort of get high on it all and then after awhile they crash and it goes from like flying a balloon to dragging an anchor around. They go from super duper loving and nice to irritable and nagging and even hypocritical and judgmental.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God can't do things that are logically contradictory, like make a rock too heavy to lift. That's because those things are not logically coherent. If there is no possible evidence that will convince someone of X, then obviously no evidence can be presented to that person that would convince them of X. To claim otherwise would be to say that one of the two contradictory premises is wrong.



And that's a better answer than the cop-out one.



Not at all. I never said that all atheists would never accept any evidence (after all, there are atheists who convert to Christianity). Just some of them.

God turning up is not evidence? Either the atheist wouldn't believe it's God (your argument) and God is, therefore, not omnipotent or there is something that would convince the non-believer (everyone else's argument).

 

[renniks]

And you have no real "reservations". All you have is denial. If you do not understand the scientific method, which you just demonstrated, if you do not understand the concept of evidence, which again you confirm again and again, all that you can have is denial.

Sigh. I understand the method. This doesn't mean anything is "proven" beyond doubt. Yes I have reservations. Did it ever occur to you that evolution is irrelevant to my religious beliefs? I have reservations when I read about what is said to have happened by researchers in many areas of history. Does this mean the researchers didn't do their best to gain correct information? No, it means there's always room for error. And we see this borne out when what we receive updates about what they now believe compared to what they once did.
I don't read some ones research into the past and tend to believe they get it all right, whether they are Creationists or not.
I can read about new discoverys and see how they can fit into several different models. Quit pretending we have iron clad proof that one model is correct and I could at least take you seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh. I understand the method. This doesn't mean anything is "proven" beyond doubt. Yes I have reservations. Did it ever occur to you that evolution is irrelevant to my religious beliefs? I have reservations when I read about what is said to have happened by researchers in many areas of history. Does this mean the researchers didn't do their best to gain correct information? No, it means there's always room for error. And we see this borne out when what we receive updates about what they now believe compared to what they once did.
I don't read some ones research into the past and tend to believe they get it all right, whether they are Creationists or not.
I can read about new discoverys and see how they can fit into several different models. Quit pretending we have iron clad proof that one model is correct and I could at least take you seriously.

Then why on Earth do you keep misrepresenting the science and the minor differences? Why if you understand the basics are you afraid to discuss them? You already demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method today, or did you forget the clear error that I pointed out and that you could not defend already? Your definitions look as if they came from the anti- science site AnswersinGenesis.

If you understood the concept of evidence, another topic that you do not seem to understand you would see that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. When all of the reliable evidence supports only one side it can be said to be "iron clad" .

 

[renniks]

Try me. Show me your evidence and I shall do what you have refused to do by not reading the paper I linked you too.

To be clear I will read anything you present as evidence to support your assertion that God was involved in your gestation.

The evidence is not the kind you are looking for. Are you a father? Have you experienced birth? If so, that should be enough evidence.

 

[renniks]

Then why on Earth do you keep misrepresenting the science and the minor differences? Why if you understand the basics are you afraid to discuss them? You already demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method today, or did you forget the clear error that I pointed out and that you could not defend already? Your definitions look as if they came from the anti- science site AnswersinGenesis.

If you understood the concept of evidence, another topic that you do not seem to understand you would see that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. When all of the reliable evidence supports only one side it can be said to be "iron clad" .

All you have is " you don't understand." Blah, blah, over and over.

On the contrary, I see lots of evidence for creation. Lots of scientists who accept evolution also accept creation. Lots of scientists who accept evolution on the face of it have serious doubts. Lots of Creationists disagree on exactly how it happened. It's not something that can be proven, which is why your blind Faith is amusing.

 

[Gene2memE]

Are you a father? Have you experienced birth? If so, that should be enough evidence.

I am.
I have.
It isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is not the kind you are looking for. Are you a father? Have you experienced birth? If so, that should be enough evidence.

This is an example of not understanding the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have is " you don't understand." Blah, blah, over and over.

On the contrary, I see lots of evidence for creation. Lots of scientists who accept evolution also accept creation. Lots of scientists who accept evolution on the face of it have serious doubts. Lots of Creationists disagree on exactly how it happened. It's not something that can be proven, which is why your blind Faith is amusing.

Since you refuse to learn that rather limits the responses to your posts.

And no, a very very very small percentage of scientists accept creation. And no, very few scientists have serious doubts. If anything you will only be able to demonstrate another inability to understand. I guarantee it.

And there you go again misusing the word "prove". You are wrong no matter how you use that word. In the sciences nothing is absolutely proven so that makes your complaint pointless. In the legal sense of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" the concept has more evidence for it that than gravity has. It is why even conservative Christian judges that understand the concept of evidence have found that evolution is a science and is well supported and creationism is simply not.

And no, there is not any scientific evidence for creationism. Let's go over the definition. To even begin to have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific hypothesis.

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis | Live Science



" The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica."

What is your hypothesis?

And here is why having a hypothesis is so important:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia


Hmm, that looks familiar. There are countless other sources for those terms and they all say the same thing. Well except for creationist ones, but we know that they are of no use in a scientific debate.

To even have evidence for creation you need a hypothesis. I ask again what is your hypothesis? Without one you have no evidence, you only have an ad hoc explanation. Those are worthless in the world of science.

 

[Strathos]

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.

Let's go over this once more.

- I state that Matt Dillahunty's answer is a cop-out because it doesn't take into account the possibility that there are atheists who would reject any and all evidence

- Other posters strawman my position, claiming that I am saying that all atheists would be immune to evidence

- I clarify that that is not what I meant, as the mere existence of former atheists who have converted to Christianity shows that not all atheists are so intransigent.

- You start getting offended by the very idea of such converts and pull a bunch of No True Scotsman arguments, completely missing why I even brought the subject up in the first place.

Do you understand now?

OK. Me too. I didn't say none make the claim. I said the majority don't.

Making the claim doesn't mean its true, either. Heck, a sufficiently powerful being could conceivably force even the most stridently opposed...in fact don't many Christians believe their god COULD, but would not, do such a thing?

I said that already.

God turning up is not evidence? Either the atheist wouldn't believe it's God (your argument) and God is, therefore, not omnipotent or there is something that would convince the non-believer (everyone else's argument).

If you took a flat earther up in a spacecraft and orbited the earth, they would say it's all fake and refuse to believe it. Similarly, if God Himself appeared in front of certain atheists, they would do the same.

 

[Larniavc]

The evidence is not the kind you are looking for. Are you a father? Have you experienced birth? If so, that should be enough evidence.

Yes I’m a father, I was right there when my son was born.

How is that evidence of God?

As I said, I shall look at any evidence you provide.

Don’t forget: when you asked about DNA and cell membranes I provided you with a detailed paper to explain your queries in my next post to you.

Can you not do me the same curtesy?