Ask Me Help Desk - Atheists do not believe,How?

For Saved:

http://enough_already.tripod.com/creation.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

That website seems to be very confused. The person who wrote it seems to misunderstand evolutionary theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

ACK---KBC, my apologies. I have to spread the love first, but you're right. I was looking at what you wrote, and not who wrote it. I, too, play devil's advocate, so I apologize for taking your words out of context.

I still mean what I said...I just don't think that you, personally, are close-minded. I was going with the argument, and I should have paid better attention to who wrote it.

That's called being biased,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Asking, you make an interesting point. I believe that every theory is entitled to some scientific investigation. It may well turn out that some theories are very obviously not fitting with the evidence, and some theories may blow open a whole new field of science, but both of these theories are, at the beginning, scientific and worthy of investigation.

For example, string theory, it fits no evidence and it makes no observable predictions, is this not a scientific theory?

I think you may be able to get me to agree with you on the falsifiability front, that the existence of a god is not falsifiable and so is not a scientific theory. But i'm not utterly convinced of that, at the moment, string theory is not falsifiable, although it may well be with the newer colliders coming in the next few years.

Hi Capuchin! I'd certainly be willing to consider granting Creationism status as a hypothesis that bears investigation, IF it were falsifiable. But it's not falsifiable as far as I know. What would it take to show it's not true?

And, for now, it is not a theory that explains how the world works like the three other ideas you mentioned--Newton's theory of gravity, Relativity, and Evolution. I'm not up on string theory enough to argue that point. But as for evolution, we have literally 150 years of research from thousands of scientists to support evolution. Whereas Creationism just doesn't have any scientific evidence to support it. If scientists could test Creationism and get government grants to do the work, you can bet they'd jump on it!
Asking

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsoksirhc

Why can't you compare one to another? I don't believe in a biblical god, but I can accept that one may exist. Do you just not respect people's right to have different beliefs than yourself?

I never said that I didn't. But comparing apples to dump trucks doesn't make a logical argument to the alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

I'll try this again.

See...it DOES make sense to some people that a gas and a god are equal in importance. Would you say that oxygen, which you breathe every day, has less importance than your god? I would say they're equal in importance, because without one, you would have no reason for the other. Or--if you gave a person who couldn't breathe the choice between accepting God as their saviour, or a gas that could save their life--which becomes the more immediately important "thing"?

What I'm trying to say is that your logic doesn't work. If god could always be, then gases could always be. How can you prove different? How can logic say that one thing can exist always, because it's a GOD, and another can't, because it's just a gas? How do you know that the gas isn't a god too?

And I'll try it again too. There is no logic and no rationale for believing that an animate being and an inanimate object are equal in importance. None. Now, people are allowed to believe what they want and have their own views, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said views are logical. Yes, I would say that oxygen has less importance than my God, because my God created said oxygen in order to sustain my life. And, in the second instance, I would expect the person who couldn't breathe to accept God as their savior because in the very word "savior" it specifies God as the one who can save or restore their very life. The God would be the more immediate important "thing". You're still wrong. Gases are inanimate and had to have come from some source. God, being all powerful and all intelligent and the creator of all things does NOT have to have come from anywhere. You can't prove otherwise. Let me see you worship oxygen or hydrogen, or carbon monoxide. Just because you give something worship doesn't make it a true god. People today worship money, does that mean it's a true god? God absolutely can always be... a gas doesn't have that option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Sparkle

Ive never believed in God, maybe thats to do with my parents telling me nothing like that exists. But some people genuinely belive and are quite often better peope for it. Religion and faith can be a good thing provided it doesnt get out of hand and infringe upon other peoples right to fait

My parents didn't teach me to believe either. They also didn't teach me NOT to believe. They told me it was up to me. When believing in something is optional, it's hard to take it seriously. So even when I tried to believe, I couldn't. When I was little, my friends were all Catholic and they told me I was going to go to Hell. So when I was 7 or 8, I tried hard to believe in God so I wouldn't go to Hell when I died. I was really scared. But I just couldn't honestly believe. So I decided not to believe in God or Hell and I felt better.

I tried to believe again when I was about 14. I went with my friends to Sunday school, but I kept asking lots of questions and the Sunday school teacher asked me not to come anymore. I was NOT disruptive. I was always a good student, quiet, shy kid in school. So it's not like I was making trouble. She just didn't like my questions. Many people tried to convert me when I was a teenager and in my early 20s, and I got tired of that. I didn't feel like they treated me very respectfully. They would dismiss my own thoughts and not listen to anything I said and tell me I was wrong. I was unpersuaded and bored by them after a while.
Asking

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Just because you give something worship doesn't make it a true god.

Good point, maybe one day you'll realise that.

Darn it! I have to spread the love again!

Bravo, Cappy! Bravo! I'd give you a standing ovation for that if I could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

Although an object can be destroyed it's energy can not be. At least as far as we know right now. So you are right gasses haven't always existed but the energy contained in those gases has. An atom is stored energy. You can destroy an atom but in the process you release energy. That energy could then used to form a different atom. That energy will always be and it always has been. Maybe your religion isn't that different from science after all. Shame you won't study it.

Nice try, but no. As far as anything that's gone into the creation of the gas, any particle, any energy, any anything, it has not always been, it went into existence with the creation of the gas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Good point, maybe one day you'll realise that.

And maybe you will as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Like i said, evolution explains the order of animals and plants. Anything that is not ordered enough to live just dies and does not pass on the disorder. Evolution is anything but random.

Evolution explains nothing. The sooner you realize that, the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Like all good scientists, Darwin was happy to entertain contrary evidence. All (good) scientists consider that their hypothesis may be wrong and they look for facts that could prove it wrong. But while Darwin spent years looking for holes in his own theory, he believed that it was fundamentally correct, which it was. It has been confirmed over and over again. Darwin wanted to know how inheritance works--because DNA and genes hadn't been discovered yet. But he did not think the peacock's tail or the eye disproved his theory. That's a myth.
Asking

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

I never said that I didn't. But comparing apples to dump trucks doesn't make a logical argument to the alternative.

I agree. Comparing the matter that the big bang and the universe was born from with a fictional character doesn't make sense. I guess I'll just start acting like some of the people here and refuse to see that while something isn't important to me, it may be to someone else.

Hey I can think of other people who saw things they didn't like as inferior. They were called nazis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Like all good scientists, Darwin was happy to entertain contrary evidence. All (good) scientists consider that their hypothesis may be wrong and they look for facts that could prove it wrong. But while Darwin spent years looking for holes in his own theory, he believed that it was fundamentally correct, which it was. It has been confirmed over and over again. Darwin wanted to know how inheritance works--because DNA and genes hadn't been discovered yet. But he did not think the peacock's tail or the eye disproved his theory. If you are saying he doubted his own theory, that's not true.

Asking

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Evolution explains nothing. The sooner you realize that, the better.

The sooner you realise that it does make sense when you think about it the better, but I think we both know that you won't even consider the possibility, tell me I'm wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

And maybe you will as well.

Sorry, I don't worship anything. What am I meant to realise about worshipping nothing? That nothing is not a true God? What are you trying to tell me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Have you ever read the origin of species? He goes on to suggest a way that the eye could have evolved a few pages after suggesting that it might be puzzling. He uses the same kind of asking a question then giving an answer throughout the whole book, it's the way he wrote. He was not puzzled by the eye.

Good answer!
Asking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Sorry, I don't worship anything. What am I meant to realise about worshipping nothing? That nothing is not a true God? What are you trying to tell me?

Obviously your blind devotion to science as the end-all/be-all of answers is a form of worship. So now you're saying science is nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by albear

the sooner you realise that it does make sence when you think about it the better, but i think we both know that you wont even consider the possibility, tell me im wrong

And the same can apply to you, once you consider how little sense it actually makes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsoksirhc

I agree. Comparing the matter that the big bang and the universe was born from with a fictional character doesn't make sense. I guess I'll just start acting like some of the people here and refuse to see that while somthing isn't important to me, it may be to someone else.

Hey I can think of other people who saw things they didn't like as inferior. They were called nazis.

Comparing people who don't believe in evolution to nazis... that is absurb for one but childish. It seems to me you are the one that can't handle differentiating opinions?

Comment on mountain_man's post

Very much in agreement. Good response!

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Obviously your blind devotion to science as the end-all/be-all of answers is a form of worship. So now you're saying science is nothing?

Scientists are committed to thinking things through based on evidence--information that can be measured accurately and verified. That is, everybody sees the same thing. So if I go outside and measure how bright the sky is today and 50 other people measure it and get the same number, we can all agree on how bright the sky is. This is the same way everybody operates normally every day.

If every time you take a certain freeway, you get caught in heavy traffic, you'll conclude that it's a bad way to go and take another route. It doesn't matter whether you are a Christian or an atheist. So science is just taking that way of thinking and formalizing it. You can call it "worshipping" science, but it's not any different from the way other people think in their practical day to day lives.

Where scientists differ from believers is in NOT taking some things on faith. If a friend tells us that the freeway is always clogged at 4 o'clock but it never is when we go on the freeway, we'll ignore their assertions instead of taking it on faith, EVEN if the friend says that God told them it was true.
Asking

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

And the same can apply to you, once you consider how little sense it actually makes.

I rest my case

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountain_man

Comparing people who don't believe in evolution to nazis....that is absurb for one but childish. It seems to me you are the one that can't handle differentiating opinions?

Hmm. I'd say that I handle other's opinions pretty well. Especially since I've already stated that I don't mind if others believe in God. What I do have a problem with is when people say that my beliefs are insignificant. For example, if someone were to say that the substance that the universe were born from doesn't matter, and that their beliefs are more important, for example saying that God can exist when matter couldn't have. I didn't compare anti-evolutionists to nazis. I compared people who can't accept that others have their own beliefs to nazis. If you don't believe me, you can go read my post again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsoksirhc

Hmm. I'd say that I handle other's opinions pretty well. Especially since I've already stated that I don't mind if others believe in God. What I do have a problem with is when people say that my beliefs are insignificant. For example, if someone were to say that the substance that the universe were born from doesn't matter, and that their beliefs are more important, for example saying that God can exist when matter couldn't have. I didn't compare anti-evolutionists to nazis. I compared people who can't accept that others have their own beliefs to nazis. If you don't believe me, you can go read my post again.

The nazis attempted to whip out an entire race of people and did pretty well at that, so to compare anyone on this board to nazis is childish and absurb.

I believe in God, you don't; we obviously will not get any farther than that with each other. Take care

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

It seems a bit silly to me for someone to say "If i believe in reincarnation, I will be reincarnated, and if I believe in a final death, then I will have a final death". Both Christianity (within it's denominations, at least) and Atheism are fairly clear about what happens after death, and are very clear that it will happen to everyone.

I don't wish to apply the "salty bag of water" to everyone, since, if it's true, it applies regardless or not of whether I want it to. People can believe as they wish but I don't believe that what they believe will change squat.

I havent heard of a religion that states that whatever you think will happen after death will infact happen exactly the way you believe. Although that might be a very nice religion to be a part of.

I wasn't sure about the 2 possibilities at all. I am only sure about one of them.

I think maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the content of one's belief about what happens after death actually determines what will happen to that person in the future. What I object to is the assertion, whether by believers or skeptics, that their formulation of the relevant distinctions and implied choices that face us as humans is the only possible formulation, and therefore that everyone else must accept and choose between the alternatives that they offer. The distinctions we make and the alternatives we allow may have nothing to do with what happens to us after we die, but they can make a huge difference in how we relate to each other in the meantime. That's what concerns me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

If evolution worked, wouldn't there be life everywhere since evolution states that the universe was created at once?

If I thought your description of "evolution" was accurate, I wouldn't believe it either. Until you take the trouble to at least learn what the theory does and, equally important, does not purport to describe and explain, don't expect your arguments against it to be taken seriously by anybody who has actually studied it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG.

If I thought your description of "big bang" was accurate, I wouldn't believe it either. Until you take the trouble to at least learn what the theory does and, equally important, does not purport to describe and explain, don't expect your arguments against it to be taken seriously by anybody who has actually studied it.

>Thread Closed<