What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[Hollie]

Not quite accurate. Communism finds advantage in promoting atheism for the purpose of eliminating competition.That by no means dictates that atheism must, and will lead to Communism. Classic correlation/causation fallacy.

You are in denial and have no link. It is cause and effect. Karl Marx wrote it. One of the deceptiveness is they seem unrelated, but in the primitive communism stage, the atheist religion ends up being tied strongly to politics more so than science. Already the new atheists are calling it secular humanism. It is another step closer to socialism and communism.

Karl Marx

"Marxist faith & religion
This system does not include any supernatural beliefs, but despite its rationalist pretensions, it has a quasi-religious, faith-based quality. Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy created this dictionary of Marxist concepts:

• Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
• The Messiah = Marx
• The Elect = The Proletariat
• The Church = The Communist Party
• The Second Coming = The Revolution
• Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists
• The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth

Another quasi-religious element is personality cults of Communist leaders. Joseph Stalin was the first, and he was followed by Mao Zedong and others, with North Korea's leaders continuing personality cultism. North Korea is also a Communist monarchy, with three generations of god-kings so far."

Karl Marx

Your own "quote" disassembles your "atheism is a religion" meme.

I suppose I should say thanks for your deconstruction of your argument, so,

Thanks.

"Another quasi-religious element is personality cults of Communist leaders."

 

[james bond]

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....

i'll wait.......

He's right under your nose . Just the fact that you have eyes that are tied to your brain is evidence for God. Your eyes sees things in two dimensions and your brain converts it to three and shows depth.

Even Darwin wrote in OoS:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”



Have you seen the flatland movie? They are two dimensional characters, but somehow able to recognize what the see as only lines or points and recognize them as two dimensional objects or flatlanders..

 

[ding]

I’m not the first person to observe the religious fervor of the far left militant atheists.

You can spot them by how they attack rival religions.

Yep. It's a common tact for religious people who are feeling defensive about their faith.

Sounds like you are the one getting defensive to me.

 

[Hollie]

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....

i'll wait.......

He's right under your nose . Just the fact that you have eyes that are tied to your brain is evidence for God. Your eyes sees things in two dimensions and your brain converts it to three and shows depth.

Even Darwin wrote in OoS:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”



Have you seen the flatland movie? They are two dimensional characters, but somehow able to recognize what the see as only lines or points and recognize them as two dimensional objects or flatlanders..

Nonsense.

The "Magical, Supernatural Eye" cannot have occurred without the supernatural hand of the godsb, is an old ploy of the hyper-religious.


Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

CB301: Eye complexity

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
   
   All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate γ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

 

[diver52]

As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....

No myth, just a rejection of your beliefs. That's all. You're telling yourself stories.

Your myth is that you are not telling yourself stories. I fully admit that I am telling myself stories. I just prefer my stories to yours.

The stories I'm not telling myself?? Those stories? Do you realize you're making no sense?

FWIW, my comment "you're telling yourself stories" wasn't in reference to religious faith. The story in question is telling yourself that your religious faith is no different than any other belief. Religious faith is radically different than mundane beliefs. Or at least that's what I've been told. If it's not, what's the point?

You have been told God loves you, do you accept that? If not, then why do you accept what you have been told about religious faith? You are buying in to stories you don't even believe. Religious faith isn't special. It's as mundane as dirt.

Well, the religious people I know disagree with you vehemently.

They disagree with you as well.

 

[mamooth]

Atheism is a religion because it believes in no God.

That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Because it's such a dumb claim, it gets the laughter that it deserves.

So why do many theists make such a stupid and dishonest claim? They can't defend their position with reason, and they know it, so they make up a "atheism is a religion too!" fable to supposedly paint atheists as hypocrites. Doesn't work. All they're doing is showing their belief in yet another theistic fable.

 

[mamooth]

If you want to argue logic, then it's also a special pleading fallacy for an atheist. They do not have proof of no God, so it's based on faith in your disbelief.

No. Disbelief in things that lack evidence is the default position, as defined by everyone.

Atheists don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for unicorns.
Atheists don't belief in Santa because there is no evidence for Santa.
Atheists don't believe in gods because there is no evidence for gods.

Atheists are completely consistent. If there is no evidence for something, they don't believe in it.

Odin was written as myth, so he is not a valid comparison.

So, the same as your god. More special pleading on your part.

For those outside of your religion, there's no difference between your claims and the claims of every other religion. All of them say they're the special ones. None of them can demonstrate that they're special. So, they're all using special pleading fallacies.

 

[BreezeWood]

you deliberately distort the truth, your 4th century book without proof of your god has no moral authority either by your logic.

your book is responsible for uninterrupted persecution and victimization of the innocent from its beginning - you for some reason are the same, your religion is what has no morals with a backbone to withstand evil. in fact how can a christian have morals while unable to live without sin, a spinless religion at best.

stop using jesus who you crucified, they represented the religion of antiquity. the final judgement will occur when christianity is brought to justice for who will be admitted to the Everlasting.

Heh. I notice you do not use your 1st century religion of antiquity spiel anymore since blasphemy against it used to mean the death penalty. Now, it's just 4th century and Jesus having final judgement. No need to go over this again as you could not deny the 10 commandments. Otherwise, what was on the tablets Moses received? What moral values were promoted by Moses. His two grandson's were burnt to a crisp for not being holy with their offering to God. They offered "unauthorized fire before the Lord."

It was the Jews that crucified Jesus. Why are you bringing him into this? I only stated to demonstrate no God or gods exist. This cannot be done. There is no logical argument for no God or gods while we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument, ontological argument, Descartes' thinking on proof of God's existence, and more.

.

Heh. I notice you do not use your 1st century religion of antiquity spiel anymore since blasphemy against it used to mean the death penalty.

are you senile ...

"death penalty"

your only remorse is for having lost your grip on societies weakest members ...

No need to go over this again as you could not deny the 10 commandments. Otherwise, what was on the tablets Moses received?

your heretic destroyed the tablets, the phony 10 commandments you pray to are forgeries. the message could only have been the reiteration of the religion of antiquity the crowds behavior was not the issue as that of the selfrightious indignation of moses.

Now, it's just 4th century and Jesus having final judgement.

the closing scene of the 1st century was a judgement - of humanity. the final judgement is the conclusion of the triumph between good vs evil when finally fulfilled.

It was the Jews that crucified Jesus.

among them and those that wrote the 4th century christian bible ... and who have been using that book as you to persecute and victimize the innocent. christianity.

 

[dblack]

Atheism is a religion because it believes in no God.

That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Because it's such a dumb claim, it gets the laughter that it deserves.

So why do many theists make such a stupid and dishonest claim? They can't defend their position with reason, and they know it, so they make up a "atheism is a religion too!" fable to supposedly paint atheists as hypocrites. Doesn't work. All they're doing is showing their belief in yet another theistic fable.

Winner

 

[james bond]

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....

i'll wait.......

He's right under your nose . Just the fact that you have eyes that are tied to your brain is evidence for God. Your eyes sees things in two dimensions and your brain converts it to three and shows depth.

Even Darwin wrote in OoS:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”



Have you seen the flatland movie? They are two dimensional characters, but somehow able to recognize what the see as only lines or points and recognize them as two dimensional objects or flatlanders..

Nonsense.

The "Magical, Supernatural Eye" cannot have occurred without the supernatural hand of the godsb, is an old ploy of the hyper-religious.


Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

CB301: Eye complexity

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
   
   All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate γ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Where's the evolution? I answered your question. You're welcome. Also, I destroyed your invisible God argument. It's not just the eye, but how the brain works with both eyes. The eyes project a 2-dimensional picture onto the brain. Did you watch the interesting video? Will you watch it when you have time? It might give you some new ideas.

Long time ago, I explained how if you cover one eye and have a friend stretch a rope across your room, i.e. some room you are familiar with, then you would have trouble discerning where the rope is unless you compare it to some item you know in the room. One eye destroys the brain being able to let you know where the rope is due to lack of the eye not being able to discern the depth perception. I do not think we know how the brain does this; the video states something similar from one dimension to two dimensions.

Thus, your answer does not address the complexity of the eye, but how the eye and brain works together. Atheists are wrong again. They cannot explain many things. In fact, you brought up the Renaissance, but did not discuss how artists discovered a lot of optical effects during that time. Maybe you should learn something about what you bring up instead of just trying to destroy my arguments. It gets kinda boring having to explain and rebut you all the time. We rarely discuss anything else. Also, if you accept some things once in a while, then it will lead to better discussion. I try to accept what you say, but it's always about evolution vs. creation science or how Christianity destroys the world.

 

[james bond]

No. Disbelief in things that lack evidence is the default position, as defined by everyone.

You're flailing badly from your first statement. Even the internet atheists rebut your argument. One of their arguments is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Because it's such a dumb claim, it gets the laughter that it deserves.

.No it isn't . You're jumping to conclusions of what you want to show. Not collecting stamps could mean you collect coins. Collecting coins could be a hobby. You're also comparing different things. God is supernatural. The other is natural.

Atheists don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for unicorns.
Atheists don't belief in Santa because there is no evidence for Santa.
Atheists don't believe in gods because there is no evidence for gods.

Unicorns could exist in the imagination. No one has found an unicorn, but we have many unicorn depictions from imagination.
Santa is based on a real person who lived, St. Nicholas. It is a children's legend we, as parents pass on, so they have time to enjoy being children.
There is no evidence for gods, but there is evidence for God. Scientists believed in God before the 1850s when the religion of atheism took over. You cannot demonstrate the present is the key to the past, for example.

Atheists are usually wrong and no fun .

So, the same as your god. More special pleading on your part.

For those outside of your religion, there's no difference between your claims and the claims of every other religion. All of them say they're the special ones. None of them can demonstrate that they're special. So, they're all using special pleading fallacies.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. I can demonstrate Odin is a myth. OTOH, Christianity has the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical document. It is the best selling book year after year.

Also, you're not using fallacies correctly . Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

 

[james bond]

Winner

You're jumping to conclusions, too.

= WINNER. Man, I should get a chicken dinner.

 

[Hollie]

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....

i'll wait.......

He's right under your nose . Just the fact that you have eyes that are tied to your brain is evidence for God. Your eyes sees things in two dimensions and your brain converts it to three and shows depth.

Even Darwin wrote in OoS:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”



Have you seen the flatland movie? They are two dimensional characters, but somehow able to recognize what the see as only lines or points and recognize them as two dimensional objects or flatlanders..

Nonsense.

The "Magical, Supernatural Eye" cannot have occurred without the supernatural hand of the godsb, is an old ploy of the hyper-religious.


Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

CB301: Eye complexity

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
   
   All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate γ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Where's the evolution? I answered your question. You're welcome. Also, I destroyed your invisible God argument. It's not just the eye, but how the brain works with both eyes. The eyes project a 2-dimensional picture onto the brain. Did you watch the interesting video? Will you watch it when you have time? It might give you some new ideas.

Long time ago, I explained how if you cover one eye and have a friend stretch a rope across your room, i.e. some room you are familiar with, then you would have trouble discerning where the rope is unless you compare it to some item you know in the room. One eye destroys the brain being able to let you know where the rope is due to lack of the eye not being able to discern the depth perception. I do not think we know how the brain does this; the video states something similar from one dimension to two dimensions.

Thus, your answer does not address the complexity of the eye, but how the eye and brain works together. Atheists are wrong again. They cannot explain many things. In fact, you brought up the Renaissance, but did not discuss how artists discovered a lot of optical effects during that time. Maybe you should learn something about what you bring up instead of just trying to destroy my arguments. It gets kinda boring having to explain and rebut you all the time. We rarely discuss anything else. Also, if you accept some things once in a while, then it will lead to better discussion. I try to accept what you say, but it's always about evolution vs. creation science or how Christianity destroys the world.

Im afraid that cartoons and string are a poor substitute for actual peer-reviewed studies.


One in the eye for intelligent design


Evolution Education: Evolution of the Eye Special Issue

I was hoping you could offer some relevant data to first offer some evidence for your gods and then some evidence to support a claim that your gods had a magical hand in creating the all-knowing, all-seeing eye.

But, as we know, the ID'iot creation ministries are not concerned with facts, they are concerned with furthering dogma.

What we believe - creation.com

 

[james bond]

are you senile ...

"death penalty"

That could be you after you die and you end up on the wrong side of Hades. I hear it can get hot there, too.

your heretic destroyed the tablets, the phony 10 commandments you pray to are forgeries. the message could only have been the reiteration of the religion of antiquity the crowds behavior was not the issue as that of the selfrightious indignation of moses.

No quotes or verses from your 1st century book? How can the 10 commandments be phoney when it was given to head honcho Moses. Another blasphemy against M and you called him a heretic.

"The Commandments (in Jewish Tradition)
First Commandment (Exodus 20:2)
I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6)
You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7)
You shall not take the name of the Lord Your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.

Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11)
Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord Your God, in it you shall not do any manner of work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your man-servant, nor your maid-servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.

Fifth Commandment (Exodus 20:12)
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord God gives you.

Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not murder.

Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not commit adultery.

Eighth Commandment (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not steal.

Ninth Commandment (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:14)
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his wife, his man-servant, his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s."

The Ten Commandments | My Jewish Learning

What you are doing is quibbling and not presenting any evidence besides the blasphemy. You are also in violation of the first three commandments. I guess from your view, you were in bondage. Atheists put pagan gods before them such as The Satanic Temple. Also, belief in "no God" could mean belief in Satan as cold is the absence of heat and evil is the absence of good -- What is a pagan? What is paganism? | GotQuestions.org. As for the 3rd commandment, you accuse Jesus' people and Jesus of persecuting and victimizing the innocent when they are probably far from being innocent, i.e. have no objective morals and worship false gods before them including Satan.

 

[james bond]

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....

i'll wait.......

He's right under your nose . Just the fact that you have eyes that are tied to your brain is evidence for God. Your eyes sees things in two dimensions and your brain converts it to three and shows depth.

Even Darwin wrote in OoS:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”



Have you seen the flatland movie? They are two dimensional characters, but somehow able to recognize what the see as only lines or points and recognize them as two dimensional objects or flatlanders..

Nonsense.

The "Magical, Supernatural Eye" cannot have occurred without the supernatural hand of the godsb, is an old ploy of the hyper-religious.


Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

CB301: Eye complexity

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
   
   All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate γ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Where's the evolution? I answered your question. You're welcome. Also, I destroyed your invisible God argument. It's not just the eye, but how the brain works with both eyes. The eyes project a 2-dimensional picture onto the brain. Did you watch the interesting video? Will you watch it when you have time? It might give you some new ideas.

Long time ago, I explained how if you cover one eye and have a friend stretch a rope across your room, i.e. some room you are familiar with, then you would have trouble discerning where the rope is unless you compare it to some item you know in the room. One eye destroys the brain being able to let you know where the rope is due to lack of the eye not being able to discern the depth perception. I do not think we know how the brain does this; the video states something similar from one dimension to two dimensions.

Thus, your answer does not address the complexity of the eye, but how the eye and brain works together. Atheists are wrong again. They cannot explain many things. In fact, you brought up the Renaissance, but did not discuss how artists discovered a lot of optical effects during that time. Maybe you should learn something about what you bring up instead of just trying to destroy my arguments. It gets kinda boring having to explain and rebut you all the time. We rarely discuss anything else. Also, if you accept some things once in a while, then it will lead to better discussion. I try to accept what you say, but it's always about evolution vs. creation science or how Christianity destroys the world.

Im afraid that cartoons and string are a poor substitute for actual peer-reviewed studies.


One in the eye for intelligent design


Evolution Education: Evolution of the Eye Special Issue

I was hoping you could offer some relevant data to first offer some evidence for your gods and then some evidence to support a claim that your gods had a magical hand in creating the all-knowing, all-seeing eye.

But, as we know, the ID'iot creation ministries are not concerned with facts, they are concerned with furthering dogma.

What we believe - creation.com

Can you explain what your links are for? I asked for links before to understand your claims and you did not provide them. Now you provide links with no statements to explain.

It sounds like your misunderstanding of ID and creationism, again, so will just ignore. You need to get out more. I need to get out more, too, and should take a break from USMB.

 

[Hollie]

"Okay, if atheism is just based on no God and no morals, then demonstrate no God or gods exist."


ok.

look behind you......do you see a god?
no?

look to your left.....any god there? no?

look to your right.....see any god?. no?

look in front of you...
down on the ground....
up in the sky.....

see any god?

no?

there ya go........demonstrated that there is NO god.


So now YOU PROVE there IS a god.....

i'll wait.......

He's right under your nose . Just the fact that you have eyes that are tied to your brain is evidence for God. Your eyes sees things in two dimensions and your brain converts it to three and shows depth.

Even Darwin wrote in OoS:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”



Have you seen the flatland movie? They are two dimensional characters, but somehow able to recognize what the see as only lines or points and recognize them as two dimensional objects or flatlanders..

Nonsense.

The "Magical, Supernatural Eye" cannot have occurred without the supernatural hand of the godsb, is an old ploy of the hyper-religious.


Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

CB301: Eye complexity

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
   
   All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate γ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Where's the evolution? I answered your question. You're welcome. Also, I destroyed your invisible God argument. It's not just the eye, but how the brain works with both eyes. The eyes project a 2-dimensional picture onto the brain. Did you watch the interesting video? Will you watch it when you have time? It might give you some new ideas.

Long time ago, I explained how if you cover one eye and have a friend stretch a rope across your room, i.e. some room you are familiar with, then you would have trouble discerning where the rope is unless you compare it to some item you know in the room. One eye destroys the brain being able to let you know where the rope is due to lack of the eye not being able to discern the depth perception. I do not think we know how the brain does this; the video states something similar from one dimension to two dimensions.

Thus, your answer does not address the complexity of the eye, but how the eye and brain works together. Atheists are wrong again. They cannot explain many things. In fact, you brought up the Renaissance, but did not discuss how artists discovered a lot of optical effects during that time. Maybe you should learn something about what you bring up instead of just trying to destroy my arguments. It gets kinda boring having to explain and rebut you all the time. We rarely discuss anything else. Also, if you accept some things once in a while, then it will lead to better discussion. I try to accept what you say, but it's always about evolution vs. creation science or how Christianity destroys the world.

Im afraid that cartoons and string are a poor substitute for actual peer-reviewed studies.


One in the eye for intelligent design


Evolution Education: Evolution of the Eye Special Issue

I was hoping you could offer some relevant data to first offer some evidence for your gods and then some evidence to support a claim that your gods had a magical hand in creating the all-knowing, all-seeing eye.

But, as we know, the ID'iot creation ministries are not concerned with facts, they are concerned with furthering dogma.

What we believe - creation.com

Can you explain what your links are for? I asked for links before to understand your claims and you did not provide them. Now you provide links with no statements to explain.

It sounds like your misunderstanding of ID and creationism, again, so will just ignore. You need to get out more. I need to get out more, too, and should take a break from USMB.

I can see you're a bit befuddled. As you are making claims to supernatural gods who, by supernatural means accomplish supernatural acts, I'm just trying to hold you to a standard.

I have supplied links to peer reviewed science data that provides you with substantive resources. You have offere nothing but cartoons and string tricks to support both your claims to the gods and to supernatural intervention.

How am I supposed to know if it was your gods or some other gods who are responsible for creation of the all-knowing, all-seeing eye?

 

[mamooth]

You're flailing badly from your first statement. Even the internet atheists rebut your argument. One of their arguments is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"The internet atheists"? Who are these people? In any case, the statement is not strictly correct.

For example, if there is an absence of evidence of an elephant in my living room, that is evidence of the absence of the elephant in my living room.

Suppose I am told, "an elephant will dance in your yard every night at sunset". I watch for ten thousand nights, and the elephant never appears. That is good evidence that no, the dancing elephant is not real. Not absolute proof, but absolute proof is not needed.

Same for gods. If there's no evidence for them anywhere, when evidence is expected, then the best conclusion is that they don't exist.

You're jumping to conclusions of what you want to show. Not collecting stamps could mean you collect coins. Collecting coins could be a hobby. You're also comparing different things. God is supernatural. The other is natural.

As evasions go, that was awful. None of it even attempted to address the issue.

Bald is not a hair color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not believing in gods is not a religion.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. I can demonstrate Odin is a myth.

And I say I can demonstrate your god is a myth. So again, you're back to special pleading.

OTOH, Christianity has the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical document.

Historical, in some places. Non-fiction? Nonsense.

It is the best selling book year after year.

So Harry Potter is real? Wizards exist? Cool. I knew it. As I have visited Hogwarts, there was already good evidence for it.

lso, you're not using fallacies correctly. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

That's exactly what you're doing, so I'm clearly using it correctly. You keep saying your god is special, but you can't demonstrate it in any way.

 

[james bond]

I can see you're a bit befuddled. As you are making claims to supernatural gods who, by supernatural means accomplish supernatural acts, I'm just trying to hold you to a standard.

I don't think I am befuddled at all. It is the atheists. This is because I answered your comments about an invisible God adequately. Also, atheists do not understand God. They usually state something silly like if God created everything, then who created God? I don't think atheists know just "who" created the universe, Earth, and everything in it. One of important things to know and understand is no one created God. God always existed. This is why secular scientists believed in an eternal universe before and the steady state theory. Another contradiction? However, we have found there was a beginning. Atheists are usually wrong. Atheists cannot explain what was there before the beginning.

Why do I need to waste my time reviewing peer-reviewed science? Can you explain what things were peer-reviewed and what was being discussed during the review? I think I can decide whether it is worthwhile reading. In fact, I just said that I'm going to take a break from USMB.

As for the eye, I suppose you mean our eyes which we just discussed. “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” Proverbs 20:12. Now, can you tell who the creator is?

 

[Hollie]

I can see you're a bit befuddled. As you are making claims to supernatural gods who, by supernatural means accomplish supernatural acts, I'm just trying to hold you to a standard.

I don't think I am befuddled at all. It is the atheists. This is because I answered your comments about an invisible God adequately. Also, atheists do not understand God. They usually state something silly like if God created everything, then who created God? I don't think atheists know just "who" created the universe, Earth, and everything in it. One of important things to know and understand is no one created God. God always existed. This is why secular scientists believed in an eternal universe before and the steady state theory. Another contradiction? However, we have found there was a beginning. Atheists are usually wrong. Atheists cannot explain what was there before the beginning.

Why do I need to waste my time reviewing peer-reviewed science? Can you explain what things were peer-reviewed and what was being discussed during the review? I think I can decide whether it is worthwhile reading. In fact, I just said that I'm going to take a break from USMB.

As for the eye, I suppose you mean our eyes which we just discussed. “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” Proverbs 20:12. Now, can you tell who the creator is?

I think you’re completely befuddled.

I’m simply holding you to a standard of demonstration that you’re obviously not willing or able to meet.

Ok, your testimony is that your particular version of supernatural gods has, by supernatural means, supernaturally created all of existence. Your claims to gods are but one, partisan version. let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your appeals to gods we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) hold supernaturalism against by way of standard.

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it? No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it seems to be playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that men in white gowns inhabiting a supernatural realm are involved with our existence.

 

[anynameyouwish]

You're flailing badly from your first statement. Even the internet atheists rebut your argument. One of their arguments is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"The internet atheists"? Who are these people? In any case, the statement is not strictly correct.

For example, if there is an absence of evidence of an elephant in my living room, that is evidence of the absence of the elephant in my living room.

Suppose I am told, "an elephant will dance in your yard every night at sunset". I watch for ten thousand nights, and the elephant never appears. That is good evidence that no, the dancing elephant is not real. Not absolute proof, but absolute proof is not needed.

Same for gods. If there's no evidence for them anywhere, when evidence is expected, then the best conclusion is that they don't exist.

You're jumping to conclusions of what you want to show. Not collecting stamps could mean you collect coins. Collecting coins could be a hobby. You're also comparing different things. God is supernatural. The other is natural.

As evasions go, that was awful. None of it even attempted to address the issue.

Bald is not a hair color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not believing in gods is not a religion.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. I can demonstrate Odin is a myth.

And I say I can demonstrate your god is a myth. So again, you're back to special pleading.

OTOH, Christianity has the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical document.

Historical, in some places. Non-fiction? Nonsense.

It is the best selling book year after year.

So Harry Potter is real? Wizards exist? Cool. I knew it. As I have visited Hogwarts, there was already good evidence for it.

lso, you're not using fallacies correctly. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

That's exactly what you're doing, so I'm clearly using it correctly. You keep saying your god is special, but you can't demonstrate it in any way.

as for the bible being the BEST SELLING book every year....

Sales are over inflated because; churches buy them to give to children in their congregation, the Gideons are still buying them and putting them in hotels and motels, and people buy them as gifts for family members.

MOST people do NOT actually buy a bible for themselves.

If we go just by people buying books for themselves the bible wouldn't make the list of top 100