The issue with atheism

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: randyvs

The bible is not the only holy text out there. It is just one of hundreds of choices. Science recognizes that any of those COULD be an answer (no matter how unlikely). Does your faith admit that "it just happened" is an option?

Does my faith admit that? No
That wouldn't be faith. I don't have a
Problem with you admiting it tho.

I' m not trying to boast I just think it's
awesome that scripture provides that
detail.

 The climax of God’s creative work was His extraordinary creation of man. “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7)

back on topic, what's it like to have to claim to worship nothing? It's pretty clownish to claim the inexistence of God since science claims to haven't find any proof. Don't all people worship something in their lives?

"I worship nothing" is as easily said as I can say "I have 20 legs and 70 eyes", it doesn't make it true either.

Why do you serve man? Because of man or because of God? You don't need to tell me.

But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant.

What science assembles through studies of the environment the scientist finds himself to be in is called an invention.

Modifying and abusing the earth and its properties comes with a cost.

The morals of the scientist define the nature of his/her inventions.

I'm not saying morals come from God, but some do. Scientist, why do you serve man? Because of man or God?

a reply to: randyvs

Strange my faith has no problem with it. Mind you polytheism tends to accept probabilities.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Speaking as a scientist. I serve humanity, because its my job and its the right thing to do. The Pharmaceuticals I help develop, serve a purpose.

The problem here however is assuming a scientist is an atheist. That is not an absolute.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: randyvs

Strange my faith has no problem with it. Mind you polytheism tends to accept probabilities.

I'm set'n here wondering if you're mess'n
with my head or what? Call me gun shy!
If you aren't I apologize.
If you are can you please make it
more obvious?

a reply to: randyvs

Neighbour

(a) I'm A polytheist. I follow the Gods of my Gaelic and Gaulish ancestors. They don't say the gods created man or the universe. The opposite in fact. Both occurred with out the divine causing it.
(b) I work as a Scientist (Pharmaceutical Chemist) in my Day Job.

Does this clarify (mmm butter)

So no I am not messing with you. I just happen to be outside your experience.

a reply to: Noinden

Very much thank you for clearing that up.
I don't understand my confusion sometimes.
And your polytheism is rare for me and sounds
very interesting.

a reply to: randyvs

You did something that few do here. You asked for clarification.

I'm a Celtic Reconstructionist (that would be the widest term, more correctly Senistrognata (ancestral customs in proto Celtic) and ldiachas (polytheist in modern Gaelic). My ways are quite different from your average Neopagan.

a reply to: Noinden

I don't want to get you to off topic so
that is just way more interesting
than atheism.

U2U

a reply to: randyvs

Message away, I'm about to bug out for the day.

a reply to: Noinden

How cool is that? A revival of the pre
Christian Celtic paganism if I have that
right?

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Based on what evidence? You don't have fossil records for consciousness.

Lol. This is a funny question coming from someone who thinks a collection of anecdotes and stories from 2000 - 6000 years ago is hard evidence. Though the answers to your questions, as always, are merely a Google search away.

I've already said, Evolutionist can't answer what was common ancestor to human-ape species leading back to most primitive cell. Evolution can't answers how many changes it needed for this original primitive cell to evolve into human being. Evolution stated slow gradual process. And you come up with believe that it takes only 3.x billion years for single cell primitives to transform in human being?

Why does a theory need to answer every question you can possiblly have about it? Do you not know how science works? Every time it answers a questions it spawns tons of new questions that need to be answered. If science had an answer to those questions it would be complete and we'd know everything, but we don't. HOWEVER that doesn't disprove evolutionary theory. Your questions merely show that we have a ways to go before we have the complete picture, but you actually need to disprove the evidence already EXISTING in favor of evolution if you want to disprove the theory.

As far as I can tell, you have neither scientific data, nor fact to prove it. Point me complete evolution chain from single cell microorganism to modern human, then we talk whether your 3.x billion years is possible. Until then, all you have is just faith.

As far as I can tell, you have closed your mind to this theory and are grasping at straws so you don't have to consider your opinion to be flawed.

That is why I suggest you to stay out. But you refused. This is the subject of creation under Biochemistry, Biology and Anthropology, Cosmology and Theology study. It has no place for evolution.

How about you learn about what you are talking about instead of telling people to stay out of a conversation? You were wrong and now you are trying to move the goalposts.

Just skip the introduction. We know how atom create matter.

To be honest, given your words on the matter I'm not sure you know anything about any scientific theory or law, so I'm going to assume ignorance on your part and address that.

That is what we are talking about until you chime in.

So why did you call it evolution if you were talking about abiogenesis?

Point to me complete evolution stages from single cell primitive to unknown common human ape ancestor to modern day human with their evolution timeline, then we can have discussion. The reason is I want to know whether abiogenesis have enough time for inorganic matter to evolve into basic primitive organic living cell.

Sigh... I know you won't read this or internalize this, but I'll try anyways.
Transitional fossil

Impossible standard of evidence

Finding transitional forms never impresses creationists, and for a very simple reason.

If transitional form B — fitting snugly between known species A & C — is found, creationists will suddenly demand that "actual" transitional forms — now between A & B and B & C — be located, lest (they declare) the existence of transitional forms to begin with is to be considered bunk.

Apparently, the only thing that would satisfy them is a complete, unbroken set of generation-by-generation fossils of every organism that ever lived in a direct line of descent from the first bacterium to Charles Darwin's grandfather.[4]

But no matter how many fossils are found, this demand is perpetually extended by the creationists all the way down to the individual level, looping us back around from the geological timespans that formation of species require to the shortsighted comparison of parent-child differences, where obviously no "transitional form" occurs (since we can safety assume that no further lines of descent exist between your own parents and yourself).

While this clearly absurd and impossible standard of positive evidence will never be met — nor could it be — creationists struggle to find even a single paleozoic panda as negative evidence against evilution. Oops.

Until then, I don't find your input useful. Sorry, if that offend you. I'm just trying to be honest. Evolution has no relevant in creation. So why don't you just leave this to Biochemist, Biologist, Anthropologist, Cosmologist and Theologist to deal with?

Really? The stubborn guy with his head in the sand shouting common creationist fallacies doesn't find the guy trying to correct him's input useful? Color me surprised! /s

Trust me, I've argued with enough of you people to know that nothing I will say on the matter will convince you. You are too busy telling yourself that you are right instead of being skeptical, looking at evidence and building a conclusion from there to actually change your opinion. You aren't going to stop me from trying though.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
back on topic, what's it like to have to claim to worship nothing? It's pretty clownish to claim the inexistence of God since science claims to haven't find any proof. Don't all people worship something in their lives?

In logic you can't prove a negative. Thus the go to belief while facing a lack of evidence is to adopt Occam's Razor. The idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. Assumptions here being ideas that lack evidence to support them being true.

No atheist is saying that disbelief in god comes from a position of science. It is a position of inductive logic. If you are going to claim god is true then you need to prove that is the case. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. We aren't make the claim of disbelief, we are just choosing not to believe YOUR claim of belief. So you need to prove god's existence; not us proving inexistence. After all, no one goes around disproving that unicorns exist. We just choose not to accept their existence because there is no evidence of existence.

But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant.

Evolution (and abiogenesis for the creation of life) is a better answer to where we came from than "god". It explains the process and outlines much of how the world's life works which helps us understand things. It also spawned the theory of genetics which makes modern medicine possible.

What science assembles through studies of the environment the scientist finds himself to be in is called an invention.

No it's called a theory or possibly a law depending on what the scientist is trying to explain or study.

Modifying and abusing the earth and its properties comes with a cost.

Literally EVERY action in the universe has a "cost". That is Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So clearly if you do something, something else will occur in response.

The morals of the scientist define the nature of his/her inventions.

This is a nonsense statement. Scientists create theories based off of collected evidence that show a process in nature. It has nothing to do with morality or "inventions". Though a designed experiment a scientist undertakes may be constrained by human morals (ex: a scientist not being able to do a dangerous experiment on children or something).

I'm not saying morals come from God, but some do. Scientist, why do you serve man? Because of man or God?

Morals are 100% relative to the person holding the morals. There is literally no moral that is absolute.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's good if you believe in fairytales

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

What is good if you believe in fairy tales?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant

No doubt from the religiously faithful.

But in all honesty, what a stupid concept - to label that which one does not believe.

I don't believe in dragons. Or that the moon is made of cheese. Or the earth is flat. Yet there is no 'aDragonist' or 'aMoonCheesist' monikers.

Why is it that people choose to label those who do not believe the claims there is a God or Gods and not other things?

I didn't ask to be called an 'atheist'. I'm not defined by what i do not believe due to lack of proof and evidence. Surely neither are you..?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol. This is a funny question coming from someone who thinks a collection of anecdotes and stories from 2000 - 6000 years ago is hard evidence. Though the answers to your questions, as always, are merely a Google search away.

What's so funny? I've asked for evidence, and you give me unverified theory.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why does a theory need to answer every question you can possiblly have about it? Do you not know how science works?

You ask why? I'm not asking for theory. I'm asking for evidence. If you don't have any, then why don't you just admit it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Every time it answers a questions it spawns tons of new questions that need to be answered. If science had an answer to those questions it would be complete and we'd know everything, but we don't.

Then perhaps you should not make any conclusion based on incomplete picture in the first place, like it takes 3.x billion years for inorganic matter to evolve into human being.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
HOWEVER that doesn't disprove evolutionary theory.

Who said anything about disproving evolution? My initial disagreement with noonebutme's opinion was that life can exist from inorganic matter.

But since you brought consciousness evolution, I did ask for evidence. Instead, you bring unverified theory.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Your questions merely show that we have a ways to go before we have the complete picture, but you actually need to disprove the evidence already EXISTING in favor of evolution if you want to disprove the theory.

I don't have to. You have yet bring complete evolution timeline from primitive single cell organism to complex multi-block cells human. Until you can make sense with 3.x billion years period of protocell evolution into human, then you have nothing.

I have already said you don't have the scientific data, but you refuse to listen. Now you want to argue with incomplete picture?

Perhaps you should refrain from replying.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
As far as I can tell, you have closed your mind to this theory and are grasping at straws so you don't have to consider your opinion to be flawed.

Nope. It just you trolling with evolution as an excuse.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How about you learn about what you are talking about instead of telling people to stay out of a conversation? You were wrong and now you are trying to move the goalposts.

Move the goalpost? Lol!
The goal post is to prove life exist from life. It's about disproving noonebutme's abiogenesis. It's about the origin of life. It's about spontaneous life existence vs gradual long period of evolution. It is Not about changes of life. I already stated the reason I'm asking for complete evolution timeline is to prove that abiogenesis don't have that much time.

The one who have no idea what the discussion is about, is you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
To be honest, given your words on the matter I'm not sure you know anything about any scientific theory or law, so I'm going to assume ignorance on your part and address that.


Sigh... I know you won't read this or internalize this, but I'll try anyways.

You are right. I'm not interested in evolution. I'm interested in the origin of life, how organic life create life, how chemical reaction responsible to trigger life etc..

But since you brought up consciousness evolution, I am interested with the EVIDENCE only.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
What's so funny? I've asked for evidence, and you give me unverified theory.

Because your evidence for your god isn't even close to the amount of evidence a scientific theory has backing it up.

You ask why? I'm not asking for theory. I'm asking for evidence. If you don't have any, then why don't you just admit it?

Evidence has been presented to you. I can't make the horse drink from the water. It's easy to keep moving the goal posts around and pretend like evidence doesn't exist if you don't ever read it. Furthermore, if you find my evidence lacking then you can always look it up yourself. It's not my responsibility to make sure you are adequately satisfied on the evidence front. It's your responsibility to challenger your own thinking. I know you don't want to as we are having a typical Creationist v Evolution fallacy wrangle, but that's how it is.

Then perhaps you should not make any conclusion based on incomplete picture in the first place, like it takes 3.x billion years for inorganic matter to evolve into human being.

Why do you need all the pieces of a puzzle to tell what it is? If I'm assembling a puzzle and I can see gray hairs, a fuzzy tail, cat ears, cat pays, whiskers, and a cat like body with much of the surrounding pieces and some of the interior pieces missing wouldn't it reason that the puzzle contains a cat in it? According to your logic we wouldn't be able to define ANY process ever because no scientific theory has all the pieces yet.

Who said anything about disproving evolution? My initial disagreement with noonebutme's opinion was that life can exist from inorganic matter.

I literally have no idea what your opinion is because I highly doubt your scientific proficiency.

But since you brought consciousness evolution, I did ask for evidence. Instead, you bring unverified theory.

"Unverified theory" is an oxymoron. Scientific theories are all heavily proven. A scientific process doesn't get to the point of being labeled a theory without tons of evidence proving it. This is why I doubt your scientific proficiency. I'm going to wager a guess that you believe the phrase, "It's only just a theory" without seeing the flaw in that statement.

I don't have to. You have yet bring complete evolution timeline from primitive single cell organism to complex multi-block cells human. Until you can make sense with 3.x billion years period of protocell evolution into human, then you have nothing.

Your request is an insane request. Asking the impossible doesn't magically mean that evolution is false.

I have already said you don't have the scientific data, but you refuse to listen. Now you want to argue with incomplete picture?

Perhaps you should refrain from replying.

Perhaps you should refrain from pretending you know how the scientific method works.

Move the goalpost? Lol!
The goal post is to prove life exist from life. It's about disproving noonebutme's abiogenesis. It's about the origin of life. It's about spontaneous life existence vs gradual long period of evolution. It is Not about changes of life. I already stated the reason I'm asking for complete evolution timeline is to prove that abiogenesis don't have that much time.

The one who have no idea what the discussion is about, is you.

This thread is about Atheism! You clearly don't know what the discussion is about. I'm just humoring your insanity.

The only idea that has real doubt is abiogenesis because it is just a hypothesis. It isn't proven enough yet to be called a theory. Though there is a lot of evidence suggesting it is true. As an atheist, I lean towards believing that hypothesis before believing "god did it". But that doesn't mean I accept it as true as thoroughly as I do evolution.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

back on topic, what's it like to have to claim to worship nothing?

before anyone can answer,


Can you explain why someone has to claim they worship nothing?


Can you explain the opposite why someone has top claim they do?

It's pretty clownish to claim the inexistence of God since science claims to haven't find any proof.

Atheists aren't doing this. yes maybe a few that make a name for themselves as atheists do but a lack of belief in something is not something people go about their day letting everyone know.

The only people making noise and claims about religious subjects are religious folks not non religious folk.

I'm not saying morals come from God, but some do. Scientist, why do you serve man? Because of man or God?

where are leaping to with this above?

are you saying scientists aren't religious people ?

But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant.

seriously?


just of the top my head,


for many 1000s of years humanity slaughtered each other based on ...someones interpretation of Gods words.


Still happens today and there are many other ways to guide humans to war now,

however in the past it was religious doctrines that lead the way,

I guess many started to see the bigger picture and realized that those in power were using God to manipulate people.

Some created their own beliefs others concluded that they don't believe in any God.

I wouldn't say too many scientific proofs turned people ignorant,

I would say that millions of people being killed under the disguise that its one Gods will or another' is enough to make some think out of the box and realize its men manipulating men to do mans will.

a reply to: noonebutme

I didn't ask to be called an 'atheist'. 

I could think of few other things to call ya?
I'm kidding I'm kidding! Don't hit me!