Darwin vs DNA

[Youwerecreated]

Yup, Loki is retarded if he does not realize his belief in atheism is in fact faith.

Demonstrate. Or are you going to run away (again) like your superstitious tribe member, Youwerecreated?

I can prove it to you loki: atheism is bullshit because you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.

No one said that, but it is a belief taken on faith just as any theory that can't be proven.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

Evidence, but not proof, requires, at its end, some leap of logic to assert a conclusion. The -only- conclusion that doesn't require some amount of faith is the following: I don't know.

No it doesn't. An unconditional assertion of certainty does, but it's reasonable to make qualified assertions of certainty without invoking faith.

ONLY faith makes unconditional assertions of certqainty.

But then what do I know, apparently I'm a megalomaniac.

How about this statement: I DON'T KNOW. How about: I AM NOT CERTAIN.

Can you prove it? Is it deniable? So it's faith?

I agree. I just don't see any useful point in using the qualifiers "blind" and "religious."

And that puts them head and shoulders above the thoughtless.


Me too, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God".

I'd say you have evidence for your belief. Weak evidence for sure, nothing at all conclusive, but evidence none-the-less; hence, not faith.

See? We agree. Rational. Not faith.

It is still faith, however, as I don't know until interacting with the fellow how he's going to turn out.

If it was faith, it wouldn't matter.

Simply because faith isn't blind doesn't mean it isn't faith.

There is no meaningful distinction between the terms. All faith is "blind faith." Just test one of the faithies.

Who is more qualified then the designer that was there ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, because if you state you do not believe in God, since you have no evidence, then you have belief.

Way it is, sunshine.

I know it bugs non-believers, but there it is, what can you do?

No. It MAY be faith--IF the belief is unfounded in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. IF the strength of denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence is the validating criteria of the belief, THEN it is faith.

Otherwise, not so much.

You're simply not using logic, Jake. I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. There are rules to logic and argumentation, and you sidestepping everyone of them, and in doing so, have convinced yourself that you're right. But, you're not. I have tried to elucidate why this is the case, but you simply will not hear it.

Have you ever heard of nutty professors ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki does not get to make up terms and expect others to automatically accept them.

newpolitics, logic, philosophy and or empirical data cannot prove or disprove God. Thus, the act of believing or not believing because an act of faith.

Utterly meaningless.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Youwerecreated]

atheism is faith because you cannot empirically prove that a god does not exist.

belief in God is faith because you can't prove empirically that He exists.

Neither atheists, nor Darwinists, nor IDers, nor Creationists are exempt from the rules of language and logica, little ones.

I get a real kick watching you several pollywogs go flip flopping all around.

You goof balls.

This is a transparent attempt to invalidate rationally held beliefs by defining ALL beliefs a faith.

You have earned your credentials: you're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

You are in denial of sound reasoning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have been soundly corrected and don't like it.

You are not an authority.

Empirical data and philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God.

You extremists are all hooked.

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

Corrected? How? Demonstrate.

Not that you will by any sound reasoning. Keep on running, retard.

Loki what are you about 13 ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The act of not believing is actively faith based because you can't prove it. No amount of philosophy will save your argument.

I have seen other atheists try this cop out but it is what it is.

On the other side, believers can't prove that God exists.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. For the millionth time, those making the claim bear the burden of proof.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Theists are the one asserting a positive claim, namely, that something else exists (god). They therefore hold the burden of proof. Those that disbelieve this positive claim do not have any burden to bear. This is logic and argumentation 101. You might want to read up on valid and sound logic and argumentation.

You are just as ignorant as Loki.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki melts down and ...

and just like the dishonest retard he is, JakeStarkey just makes shit up.

You know, like his "God."

Retard

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki melts down and CandySlice reverts to name calling. OK, guys, whatever But you since you believe a god does not exist, then you have a faith. Tsk Tsk Tsk

Nothing like watching a self professed 'christian' lose it and start name calling and lying to prove his point. Are they all this mean and petty?? I've never found any that didn't share this common trait.

You're acting like a little child, Jake. You keep on repeating your baseless and illogical assertions when you continue to say that disbelief requires faith, when I have demonstrated that this is logically impossible. You are using another logical fallacy called "proof of assertion," whereby repeating an assertion over and over makes that assertion true. This is obviously not the case. I can't take the color red and call it blue x amount of times to make it true.

Because he is accurate,get it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep, atheists and IDers and Creationists are all frustrated in their faiths not being accepted as empirical data.

I don't need faith to disbelieve a claim I am not making.

Listen, every unprovable belief is taken on faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Would anyone like to hear the crickets chirping.

Their argument concerning faith, just made a designer just as credible as their belief of no God does not require faith, because there is adequate evidence that life could not spontaneously spring in to existence from non life without an outside influence.

 

[Hollie]

Would anyone like to hear the crickets chirping.

Their argument concerning faith, just made a designer just as credible as their belief of no God does not require faith, because there is adequate evidence that life could not spontaneously spring in to existence from non life without an outside influence.

You have been spending too much time at Harun Yahya's creation madrassah.

The is no credible evidence for a supermagical designer.

There is no credible evidence that life could not have spontaneously developed on the planet.

Has your bible thumping left you with "dain bramage"?

 

[CandySlice]

What's comical is that you have never read the genesis tale in context and don't understand the chronology.

God lied. Satan, (created by god), told the truth. How ironic, don't you think?

If you want a tutorial, let me know.

Only in your warped mind.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the bible is not my problem, it's yours.

Like most religionists, you have not taken the time or expended the effort to understand the genesis tale, which I addressed elsewhere, and the underlying contradictions.

Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):

Genesis 2:
------------------
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?


Moving on:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence, evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.


continuing:

Genesis 3
-----------------------
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

________________________________________

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive,and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good,but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

B. Satan

C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a "nothing" doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof".

A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

It is quite a dilemma, isn’t it? For god, who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden and thus commanded Adam and Eve -- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

This is the kind of information I was interested in discussing to begin with. We've gotten pretty far afield with all this faith/science stuff which evidently can go on forever and who needs that?

I love your analysis but could I interject one thing? I understood that the entity that tempted eve was made a snake to crawl upon the earth all his days as punishment for this evil deed. Implying it wasn't a snake until after the damage had been done.

Help me out with that one.

 

[CandySlice]

CandySlice can stop the lying. I never said or suggested that you were ungodly, Show me exactly where I said that, please.

I have found that extremists, such as atheists or the Tea Party or libertarians or stormfronters, resort to lying when having trouble on the board.

Give yourself a break, CandySlice, and stop that nonsens.

Ah. Comes the Dawn. Finally!
I think your entire philosophy can be summed up as 'Believe like me or die'. And you evidently have no trouble name calling and throwing a tantrum of sorts when you are trapped. I also find it interesting that we finally see you starting to fray around the edges, calling on such disparate entities as the Tea Party and libertarians ( two things that don't seem to fit together too well, by the way), seing 'the Enemy' everywhere. Very telling. It's intersting how you integrate politics into your philosphy. I wasn't expecting that.

It all goes together with your slightly skewed idea of how we should see the world.

Personally despite the traits you keep trying to assign me, I have no problem reconciling one disipline with the other.


I think creationism and Darwin go together nicely.

I think the more you search the more the two not only dovetail but actually begin to compliment each other. But that's just me. . .on my own personal
search . . that really shouldn't bother you the way it does.

Uh oh becoming irrational now ?

I rest my case. There it is, that 'I'm a believer' condescending nastiness that seems to accompany you types. One thing is certain here. You, YWC have absolutely nothing to teach me. I already know about pettiness and mean-spiritedness. If you weren't so impressed with yourself you'd know that's been my position from the first post. But then you'd have had to pass up that opportunity to get in a nasty dig, wouldn't you? Your religion must be an ugly twisted thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have stated that your belief in no God is not faith, Loki and Candy Slice, and you keep asserting it, "proof of assertion", without demonstrable evidence of your assertion.

Atheists are believers as much as those who have faith in deity. It is not condescending to point this out, and its not condescending to ask you two to try to practice what you "preach". Oh, I crack myself up.

Simple fact, peeps.

 

[CandySlice]

You have stated that your belief in no God is not faith, Loki and Candy Slice, and you keep asserting it, "proof of assertion", without demonstrable evidence of your assertion.

Atheists are believers as much as those who have faith in deity. It is not condescending to point this out, and its not condescending to ask you two to try to practice what you "preach". Oh, I crack myself up.

Simple fact, peeps.

I don't know where you got that unless, like alot of things, you just made it up on the spot. I have no interest in the seemingly unending argument about faith and proof.

 

[CandySlice]

By the way Jake, when God talked to you did he have a Brooklyn accent. . .because THAT would crack ME up.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The act of not believing is actively faith based because you can't prove it. No amount of philosophy will save your argument.

I have seen other atheists try this cop out but it is what it is.

On the other side, believers can't prove that God exists.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. For the millionth time, those making the claim bear the burden of proof.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Theists are the one asserting a positive claim, namely, that something else exists (god). They therefore hold the burden of proof. Those that disbelieve this positive claim do not have any burden to bear. This is logic and argumentation 101. You might want to read up on valid and sound logic and argumentation.

Those making the claim bear the burden of proof, yes. Atheists make the claim, "There is no God". That, also, is a positive assertion. They bear just as much burden of proof as believers in God.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yep, atheists and IDers and Creationists are all frustrated in their faiths not being accepted as empirical data.

I don't need faith to disbelieve a claim I am not making.

You do need faith to believe the claim that you are making, however.

Saying that you don't believe someone's God story and saying that you believe there is definitely no God aren't quite the same thing.

An assertion is an assertion.

 

[Hollie]

Only in your warped mind.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the bible is not my problem, it's yours.

Like most religionists, you have not taken the time or expended the effort to understand the genesis tale, which I addressed elsewhere, and the underlying contradictions.

Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):

Genesis 2:
------------------
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?


Moving on:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence, evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.


continuing:

Genesis 3
-----------------------
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

________________________________________

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive,and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good,but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

B. Satan

C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a "nothing" doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof".

A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

It is quite a dilemma, isn’t it? For god, who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden and thus commanded Adam and Eve -- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

This is the kind of information I was interested in discussing to begin with. We've gotten pretty far afield with all this faith/science stuff which evidently can go on forever and who needs that?

I love your analysis but could I interject one thing? I understood that the entity that tempted eve was made a snake to crawl upon the earth all his days as punishment for this evil deed. Implying it wasn't a snake until after the damage had been done.

Help me out with that one.

That's really a great observation and I can only offer my subjective views as the gods have chosen not to publish subsequent chapters of genesis... no blockbuster summer movie Part II... no Return of Genesis.

We know that Satan is never mentioned in genesis. If Satan disguised his appearance so as to appear as a serpent to Eve, was god deceptive? I would answer yes. If the serpent was to be punished for its act, it begs the question as to why god would have allowed such deception to occur. In the context of the genesis tale, one could make a case that the serpent actually was Satan but that begs the argument of an all-powerful, omni-everything god.

I suppose what I'm really trying to convey is that I don't have an affirmative answer and given the abbreviated nature of genesis, I can only presume some aspects.