The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[tas8831]

Only when it is defined in such a way that it actually IS falsifiable.
Care to give it a swing? How could "intelligent intervention" be falsified/determined, objectively?

An interesting question. Especially in light of the usual all-purpose escapes employed - from Johnson's implication that creatures like the dodo and the platypus are examples of God's "whimsy" to the standard 'mysterious ways' or 'the Fall' to explain 'bad design'.

It shall be interesting to see this falsifiable definition.

 

[dmmesdale]

Only when it is defined in such a way that it actually IS falsifiable.

Unscientific. Identity not required. Does not have to be defined. Only deduced over nonintelligence.

Care to give it a swing? How could "intelligent intervention" be falsified/determined, objectively?

For the universe and life? It would need to be shown where nonintelligent processes alone is efficient cause for both over intelligent intervention. That has not been done.

You make the god claim. You support it.

Actually Gen.1:1 does and we just go along with it as the best explanation given the alternative.

I reject the claim based on your failure to support it.

Then falsify it. Otherwise, all is offered is opinion which does not falsify anything scientifically.

As the Hitch once said: That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Hitch cuts both ways. I would say Gen.1:1 is evidence in the form of testimony. It is either true or it is not. If true then Honor (not love) your mother and father is by the finger of God, not men. If that is true then it has universal objective application. It applies to all of us. If primitive men then it really does not mean much. Atheists assert they are right and the Bible is wrong. We assert the Bible is right then we are wrong. Since Mothers day is approaching.

How much weight it is given is another matter. The claim is not without evidence. What is without evidence is life from exclusive nonlife. All sexual reproduction for asexual reproduction. So evidence is not your issue in the first place. It is your excuse. If you rationally have two competing and contradictory models for given phenomena then one needs to be eliminated. Atheism is in deep water from the get-go because it explains absolutely zero.

 

[tas8831]

While it is true you can find fossils that you can make a case for this or that but there are still some problems:

1. Math is impossible. You still have that serious problem and you know it. The math going with population genetics and mutation rates will not allow for ape to human.

How can I possibly know something that is so ridiculous and absurd?

I believe, by the way, that you have been asked several times to actually present your math - and this does NOT mean merely tossing out numbers and expecting all to accept them. It is almost as if you truly think nobody else has ever dealt with any of this before.

SHOW THE MATH instead of simply writing 'math is impossible.'

EXPLAIN why 'math is impossible.'

I'm betting that the reason you keep avoiding requests like this is that you merely regurgitate something you've seen on a creationist website, take it at face value, but don't actually understand any of it.

Like nearly all of the IDcreationists I have even encountered.

2. While you can make a case for fossils so can the ID side which means its up for grabs.

What case, exactly, does the ID side make with regard to the fossil progression? That their Designer required multiple rounds of trial and error?

3. your side has a legacy of failures, frauds, mistakes.

You side has a legacy of embellished and fabricated claims regarding failures, frauds, mistakes; of a complete inability to provide ANY actual positive, supporting evidence for their assertions (look at this forum, or ANY creationist/ID website - NOTHING at all in terms of supporting evidence), etc.

So you have some data but it needs to be fantastic to overcome those first 3 and you don't even have half of what you need.

More assertions on top of unsupported assertions on top of even more unsupported assertions.

Nice to see that you are simply adding to the creationist/IDcreationist carnival of absurdity.

 

[tas8831]

Oh you criticize ... so easy to do but what have you or any other atheist have come up with that can compare to what the these evil simple minded Christians have done in their existence?

Did you Atheists come up with a governing system that would give humans the most freedom ... well humans have ever known in their entire existence?

Nope.

Did Atheists come up with the modern hospital system?

Nope.

YMCA?
Red Cross?
AA?
Children's Rights?
Free the slaves
Hide the Jews

hahaha

What did you guys do?

Create Communism and a fast track to suicide?

That's what you got????????

Come on man bring it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can keep going on defending these people what can you do?????

This is hilarious! Is this really an argument of some sort?

Freed the slaves? Really? Are you sure you want to take such a history-denying route?

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. "

"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

And so on....

Your position has a legacy of failures, misrepresentations, attempts to hide the truth, etc.

 

[Silmarien]

There is no science basis for equality or equal treatment nor has the responder provided one. Bugey.... simply presented a paper which assumes equality. Equality can and is dismissed as religious superstition. Lets not steal from Judeo/ChristianTheism.

You paint a disturbing picture here. If the merits of equality and other moral values are something that can only be known through revelation, and there is no measurable indication that equality is better than tyranny and oppression, then it would be unclear why the former is to be considered better than the latter for anyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. Do you hold your values simply because God said they were good, or do you have reason to believe that they actually are good in and of themselves?

When the Bolsheviks took over they went to the Romanovs about 1 am on July 17, 1918. Ex-tsar Nicholas II, ex-tsarina Alexandra, their five children, and their four remaining servants, including the loyal family doctor, Eugene Botkin all slaughtered. No Christians slaughtering innocent children at that event. The executioners were behaving rationally in accordance with their atheism. What really was to stop them? It's not like little girls have a right from God to life and adults have an obligation to God to protect innocents from being immorally killed. It's not like there is a judgment where these murderers simply following orders will be held accountable even if they escape human justice. They will simply die and then nothingness. No justice for the children who are butchered for simply existing and not doing one thing wrong. All this talk about judgment from God to right the wrongs is simply dismissed as religious superstition.

The rational application in that instance given an atheistic mindset is to pull the trigger. It does, after all, get easier the more it is done. Feel free to rationally tell me where I am wrong and the legal basis which would apply. Canadians are not tax cheats because they do not pay taxes in America and the Bolsheviks are not murderers because they legally execute little children when ordered.

You do realize that I am not an atheist, right? I am very critical of the radically atheistic and materialistic ideology underlying Marxism, and I think that atheists ought to be more aware of the ideological traps that they can fall into, but I would hesitate to associate all of atheism with this mentality.

Nor do I see how you can say that the only rational thing for an atheist to do is pull the trigger. Do you only refrain from murdering people because you fear divine judgment? Most people, atheist and theist alike, do have genuine respect for life, even if many on the atheistic side seem to just view this as a subjective personal feeling these days.

 

[tas8831]

Oh, Look! Another Apologetics Website steeped in ignorance and straw men! You're entirely dishonest, even lying about not being a Christian. I'll even go out on a limb and state for the record you were never an Atheist in the true sense of the word.

Absolutely vacuous.

As I have previously written, I have never met a creationist/ID advocate claiming to have once been an atheist or an evolutionist whose claims did not fall apart upon further inspection. I believe they call it 'witnessing', and it really makes them appear dishonest and desperate when the truth comes out. One has to wonder why they would take such risks.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually Gen.1:1 does and we just go along with it as the best explanation given the alternative. Then falsify it. Otherwise, all is offered is opinion which does not falsify anything scientifically.

Interesting opinion.

 

[tas8831]

The next problem for me other then the experience of being burned is the math. The math just doesn't worth very well to put it mildly with this idea so that's a problem.

Then surely you can present it.


What do you suppose the probability that one of the many ancient deities - the one you happen to believe in - is the one true deity, and created a fully grown human male from dust of the ground?

And how did you calculate that probability?

Then I read the first abstract and read those words that make me cringe at this point ... the "hopeful words" ... like "we think" ... "believe" ... "possible" .... "seems" ....

Honestly I don't remember the words in the first abstract just go read it again for yourself you will see them ... now that I have pointed it out.

YOU WILL SEE IT.

And?

You prefer unwarranted certainty, like we see in your unsupported assertions and in all creationist/ID writings?

 

[Silmarien]

This is hilarious! Is this really an argument of some sort?

Freed the slaves? Really? Are you sure you want to take such a history-denying route?

FYI, Christianity was a pretty important force behind both Abolitionism and the Civil Rights Movement. Particularly the Quakers for the former and the Black Church for the latter. (Take a look at the second part here.)

Honestly, you could easily argue that the justification for slavery was rooted in Enlightenment thought with its sharp distinctions between the races and focus on European rationalism, with a biblical dross tossed on top. During the medieval period, slavery was generally regarded as an unfortunate result of the Fall. (See Augustine and Aquinas.)

 

[pitabread]

The next problem for me other then the experience of being burned is the math. The math just doesn't worth very well to put it mildly with this idea so that's a problem.

Do you understand the math you're referring to though? Because I asked you earlier to explain the premise of the probability you keep referring to, but so far you don't appear to have done so.

 

[Sanoy]

The next problem for me other then the experience of being burned is the math. The math just doesn't worth very well to put it mildly with this idea so that's a problem.

If you do decide to bring a mathematical case it might be good that you are not the only one wagered. It's far too simple to pick at a thing from ones arm chair with nothing in the pot. So I would not present a negative mathematical case, which will immediately be denied by default, unless a positive case is also thrown in the pot. Then it's an abductive scenario, rather than a sit back and pick apart to affirm the consequent scenario.

 

[redleghunter]

Citation please. Mormons are a form of Christians, wherever Joseph Smith gleaned his inspiration from. He died for his beliefs though...

Were you previously Mormon?

Mormons have very little in common with Christianity.

If you are truly curious open a thread on World Relgions forum. There's loads on Mormons there already.

 

[redleghunter]

Ah, so because the authors are honest enough to acknowledge that there is no absolute certainty, and that there are gaps in our knowledge and the fact that science always remains open to revision, you "cringe" and hand wave away several well evidenced, and mutually supporting, studies.

They are honest in being truthful handling the method and process used. They have to be.

However, what they assume to be fact is evolution itself. The very study is designed to find physical evidence for their faith based metaphysical belief system.

 

[redleghunter]

20 or 30 year hitch? I was 13B2P for a 4 year ride back in the later 80s. Good old days...

25 years retired 13A.

 

[redleghunter]

For the universe and life? It would need to be shown where nonintelligent processes alone is efficient cause for both over intelligent intervention. That has not been done

This is what interests me the most. There is no purpose in the metaphysical design of Darwin and the imported views of the neo-Darwinist. Where we can easily see in our universe there is information we usually assign there is an intelligence behind it.

On the metaphysical level, they need an event or study which can actually prove their various hypotheses. Something like what happened for Judaism and Christianity with the Qumran discoveries.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually Gen.1:1 does and we just go along with it as the best explanation given the alternative

Yes our YHWH ensured He started out by explaining He was the uncreated Creator. Then demonstrated His Power to secure the Name. Then inspired prophets to write His words for all to examine.

In the beginning (time) God created (cause/purpose) the Heavens (space) and Earth (matter).

What's the cause?

Soli Deo gloria

 

[redleghunter]

Freed the slaves? Really? Are you sure you want to take such a history-denying route?

It's an accurate statement. The American Abolitionist movement was started and run by early Evangelical Christians of multiple denominations.

It is quite easy to see their actions and conclude they heard the voice of the Good Shepherd and followed His ways...aka were disciples.

Your beef, as would be mine, would be with what is coined as Christendom. Christendom houses both the wheat and tares (Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 13:24-30 - New King James Version)

 

[redleghunter]

Do you hold your values simply because God said they were good, or do you have reason to believe that they actually are good in and of themselves?

This is probably one of the best questions I've seen in quite some time.

The difference between knowing the absolute and if that absolute is actually internalized and by extension practiced producing fruit.

I think the answer is found in John 15.

John 15 New King James Version (NKJV)
The True Vine
15 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

 

[Silmarien]

This is what interests me the most. There is no purpose in the metaphysical design of Darwin and the imported views of the neo-Darwinist. Where we can easily see in our universe there is information we usually assign there is an intelligence behind it.

I would just like to point out that Darwin was a teleologist. So it is not strictly speaking true that there was no purpose in Darwin's metaphysical design. Unfortunately, the philosophical worldview had become so mechanised by the 19th century, and the classical and medieval notion of teleology so caricaturized, that it was and remains difficult to get people to take it seriously.

The debate over teleology in evolution is ongoing, though I don't think most people are aware of it. (The Aristotelian revival in philosophy of science is a fairly recent development.) Whether this implies intelligence and therefore theism, I am not entirely sure. I would need to do a closer study of the medieval teleological arguments. And look at what the Neo-Aristotelian naturalists have to say about it, assuming their rejection of theism doesn't boil down to "religion is icky and we don't like it." (Some of them do out and admit that, so... lol.)

This is probably one of the best questions I've seen in quite some time.

The difference between knowing the absolute and if that absolute is actually internalized and by extension practiced producing fruit.

I think the answer is found in John 15.

John 15 New King James Version (NKJV)
The True Vine
15 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

Yeah. I think you'd still need some understanding apart from any specific divine revelation of what it means to bear fruit, though, otherwise how could you ever know if that was in fact what was happening? How could anyone else know? If the Christian lifestyle is truly good (at least when genuinely practiced), outsiders should be able to look at it and recognize that this particular person is bearing fruit. Otherwise, you're trapped in a loop where you get to decide what qualifies as fruit and whether you're bearing any.

 

[Astrophile]

Oh you criticize ... so easy to do but what have you or any other atheist have come up with that can compare to what the these evil simple minded Christians have done in their existence?

Did you Atheists come up with a governing system that would give humans the most freedom ... well humans have ever known in their entire existence?

Nope.

Did Atheists come up with the modern hospital system?

Nope.

YMCA?
Red Cross?
AA?
Children's Rights?
Free the slaves
Hide the Jews

hahaha

What did you guys do?

Create Communism and a fast track to suicide?

That's what you got????????

Come on man bring it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can keep going on defending these people what can you do?????

Perhaps you should try reading The Social Record of Christianity by Joseph McCabe (1867-1955), which you may be able to buy online. Of course the book is very badly out of date (my copy was published in 1937), but it does at least give a different view of the progress of society in Europe from the normal Christian version. In my opinion, chapter IX is particularly interesting in its comparison of the contributions of atheists and Christians to social reform during the 19th century.

Among other things that you may wish to know about McCabe, he 'was also an advocate of women's rights and worked with Mrs. Pankhurst and Mrs. Woolstenholme-Elmy on speeches favoring giving British women the right to vote' - Joseph McCabe - Wikipedia .