Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[WingsOfEagles07]

In atheism, when we die we end up as mere fertilizer; plant food. Human life has no particular meaning or purpose and there is no real basis for ethics, love or even logical thought. Atheism provides no footing for a just, caring and secure society.





(LOL)

 

[Super_Rational]

I only know of one athiest on this site that fits this criteria. I don't know any atheists personally who fit this criteria. The vast majority of theists however do fit the criteria.

Well count me as another. I assert that god does not exist, but I do so b/c there is no evidence or reason to believe so. So based on experience & evidence, I make that claim. However, I'll happily change my mind if overwhelming, undeniable evidence arises.

I don't believe ghosts or souls exist either, or perhaps I should say I believe they do not exist. I don't think there's anything wrong with a positive assertion when the other claim has no grounds.

 

[sidhe]

Strictly opinion.

Not strictly opinion. Saying you read it in an article in National Geographic "or something", with no date, volume, or issue associated with it, doesn't allow anyone to go and see what was said. Lack of specific citation makes this librarian sad. Maybe just because I'm in two reference courses right now, but citations are important to discussion.

Based on human reason and lack of faith. or more importantly, the famous words of all Atheists, "Lack of belief in God"
Likewise, we can't observe how creation happened. Therefore...speculation.

As I keep pointing out to people lately - I believe in more deities than you, more supernatural phenomenon, and more general "woo". I have no issue with evolution because it explains the diversity of species in a way consistent with observation. Evolution, you see, has nothing to do with how life got here...the Great Green Arkleseizure could have sneezed the first life into existence for all we know. What evolution does explain is why there are cats, dogs, bears, dolphins, whales, birds, lizards, frogs, baboons, and humans, and why there are commonalities between them all.

Seriously, I spent most of the day discussing with a Rosicrucian the esoteric meaning of the word "ShBTh" (one possible meaning - "eating at home will be torture", also possible associations with AShRH and the order of QDShT) - evolution =/= atheism.

 

[Super_Rational]

In atheism, when we die we end up as mere fertilizer; plant food.

Christian bodies don't decompose?

Human life has no particular meaning or purpose and there is no real basis for ethics, love or even logical thought. Atheism provides no footing for a just, caring and secure society.

HAHA I knew it had to come down this this. Fine then, you're not getting an invite to my kitten & baby BBQ coming up.

But seriously, you're right, a lack of belief characterizes only that. It doesn't say anything morals. That's left to common sense. Btw, you might want to inform countries like Sweden & Japan that really should be drowning in a cesspool of sin & immorality right now due to their lack of god belief, b/c they obviously didn't get the memo.

 

[Rasta]

In atheism, when we die we end up as mere fertilizer; plant food.

Wrong. You end up as fertilizer no matter what you believe.

Human life has no particular meaning or purpose and there is no real basis for ethics, love or even logical thought.

Wrong. There is no absolute meaning and purpose, and there is no absolute basis for ethics, love, or logical thought. We have created all of these concepts and they do exist on a subjective level.

Atheism provides no footing for a just, caring and secure society.

Wrong. Atheists are just as moral as theists.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Well, Since I am a Born again Bible Believing Christian, Yes, People in Japan, China, Asia, etc.. Who die without CHRIST will go to Hell.

Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zaKryi3605g&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zaKryi3605g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Our new video From a Frog to a Prince (right) is having a beneficial effect. It illustrates the amazing design in living things, and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA, required as a blueprint for all the designs. It also shows that mutations and natural selection merely remove information, not add information, as particles-to-people evolution requires. One of its highlights is the stumping of the ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information, Dawkins should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Well, Since I am a Born again Bible Believing Christian, Yes, People in Japan, China, Asia, etc.. Who die without CHRIST will go to Hell.

Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?


Our new video From a Frog to a Prince (right) is having a beneficial effect. It illustrates the amazing design in living things, and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA, required as a blueprint for all the designs. It also shows that mutations and natural selection merely remove information, not add information, as particles-to-people evolution requires. One of its highlights is the stumping of the ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information, Dawkins should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Well, Since I am a Born again Bible Believing Christian, Yes, People in Japan, China, Asia, etc.. Who die without CHRIST will go to Hell.

Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
. It illustrates the amazing design in living things, and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA, required as a blueprint for all the designs. It also shows that mutations and natural selection merely remove information, not add information, as particles-to-people evolution requires. One of its highlights is the stumping of the ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins by the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information, Dawkins should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.

 

[2 King]

Scientists are trying to prove the existence of god? C'mon are you kidding me? The "god particle" is just a nickname & in no way means they're searching for god. Subatomic particles? Yes. God? No.

Whoa there. I know "God Particle" has nothing to do with God. It is just a nick name for Hobbs.
as for searching for God yeah, they aren't. But as for them acknowledging that there is a possibility that they could possibly prove the existence of God, that's entirely different. Which they have admitted.

Uhh...no kidding. But you're right, bacteria is still bacteria. That's why it's still called bacteria.

yeah no kidding.

You still haven't answered me. Why are you avoiding the question?

The thing is, you fail to do just that.

Why does something have to undergo large evolutionary changes if it is currently well-suited to it's environment the way it already is? This is the foundation of natural selection. Just b/c something may have evolved from bacteria, however, doesn't mean that bacteria must go extinct. We have diversity b/c more than one living thing may be well-suited for its environment. Take your jesus glasses off for a minute.

Makes sense.

Don't start suggesting that I'm saying that.

good thing I avoided it.

Even if it can be documented by multiple lines of evidence?

Such as the websites that have been shot out?

Now what does this have to do with us or bacteria evolving again? I hope you're not getting into the evolution/morality argument. That dead horse has been beaten to a pulp.

The human is too unique. It's just so un heard of. Yet scientists are able to comprehend their own origin? But if you don't want to touch that subject fine.

"Theistic proof" is an oxymoron. There are none, & never will be. The burden of proof lies on those who say god exists, biblical creation is true, the bible is the word of god, etc, etc.

Regardless, why be Atheist then? Do you know there is no God? or believe there is no God? Atheism is a position that you hold. But, you have no evidence for it so you are contradicting yourself.

More weak than believing in something based off a 2000 yr old book where there are hundreds of contradictory religions, & where the god cannot be detected by any possible sense b/c it wishes to remain completely invisible? Hey, if it makes you feel better.

My cat has no belief in a god or gods. Why are you different than he? Is my cat also an atheist?

 

[Rasta]

Well count me as another. I assert that god does not exist, but I do so b/c there is no evidence or reason to believe so. So based on experience & evidence, I make that claim. However, I'll happily change my mind if overwhelming, undeniable evidence arises.

I just think it's dishonest to claim knowledge, if you actually don't have knowledge. I say based on the evidence at hand, it's highly unlikely that the supernatural exists. In science, we can never be certain we are right, just more confident that we are less wrong.

I don't believe ghosts or souls exist either, or perhaps I should say I believe they do not exist. I don't think there's anything wrong with a positive assertion when the other claim has no grounds.

But all you do is resort to their same level. Trancend my brother, trancend. It's not a big deal to me, you can do what you want.

 

[Rasta]

Well, Since I am a Born again Bible Believing Christian, Yes, People in Japan, China, Asia, etc.. Who die without CHRIST will go to Hell.

Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
. It illustrates the amazing design in living things, and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA, required as a blueprint for all the designs. It also shows that mutations and natural selection merely remove information, not add information, as particles-to-people evolution requires. One of its highlights is the stumping of the ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins by the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information, Dawkins should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.

Seriously kid, grow up. You've made it abundantly clear that you are not interested in answers. So why ask questions?

 

[Super_Rational]

Well, Since I am a Born again Bible Believing Christian, Yes, People in Japan, China, Asia, etc.. Who die without CHRIST will go to Hell.

I thought we were talking about morals...and why relatively godless societies are moral and prosperous.

 

[2 King]

I only know of one athiest on this site that fits this criteria. I don't know any atheists personally who fit this criteria. The vast majority of theists however do fit the criteria.

You are incorrect. Many atheists hold to the positive position that there is no god.

 

[Rasta]

The human is too unique. It's just so un heard of.

Actually we have far more simularities with other animals than we do differences. We kill for nourishment, we are driven by our drive of reproduction, and we deficate. Aren't we so great?

 

[Rasta]

You are incorrect. Many atheists hold to the positive position that there is no god.

More than theists? How can you critisize?

 

[2 King]

Actually we have far more simularities with other animals than we do differences. We kill for nourishment, we are driven by our drive of reproduction, and we deficate. Aren't we so great?

Without my Jesus glasses we are trash built upon trash.

With them on, we are pretty great. "fearfully and wonderfully made" If I may quote

 

[2 King]

More than theists? How can you critisize?

More than theists no. Possibly more than Christians. But I'm sure Atheism is smaller than christianity, unless statistics show me otherwise.

 

[Super_Rational]

I just think it's dishonest to claim knowledge, if you actually don't have knowledge. I say based on the evidence at hand, it's highly unlikely that the supernatural exists. In science, we can never be certain we are right, just more confident that we are less wrong.



But all you do is resort to their same level. Trancend my brother, trancend. It's not a big deal to me, you can do what you want.

Yeah. I guess. I just don't see it as dishonest when there is nothing which suggests something is true. I just extend what you say, so my opinion is that if something is so highly unlikely or so lacking in evidence while another explanation has the needed evidence, then I make a positive claim. Do I know for sure that god does not exist? Of course not b/c it would be impossible to prove such a thing. I'm not necessarily claiming knowledge, just that I have no reason to believe. Hope this makes sense. I can't guarantee it.

 

[Rasta]

More than theists no. Possibly more than Christians.

Yeah right, Christianity invented fundimentalism.

 

[Super_Rational]

The thing is, you fail to do just that.

I said:

Why does something have to undergo large evolutionary changes if it is currently well-suited to it's environment the way it already is? This is the foundation of natural selection. Just b/c something may have evolved from bacteria, however, doesn't mean that bacteria must go extinct. We have diversity b/c more than one living thing may be well-suited for its environment. Take your jesus glasses off for a minute.

That was my answer.