Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[Jack]

sax and violins.

[Zinkovich]

Everyone always forgets the bass

We'll show you brass, woodwind and string players someday! *shakes fist*

[Chris the Chees]

OK, Chris, here's my challenge to you, showing all on this forum that YOU are dishonest also: show me the places in this thread where I was I "shown to be false."

Now, while I descide whether or not to slap you with an infraction for insulting me even after you were asked to drop the insults by Isherwood, I will actually respond to this rather rudely articulated little challenge: -

Killer Argument: -

"Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith."

Contradicted accurately by Isherwood: -

"Atheism does not suppose its own belief system. Atheism is the rejection of your belief system should you believe in gods. We don't intend to prove the non-existence of gods. We do say that the theists have failed to prove their notion of a god using reason and logic. We do not accept unsupported and fanciful notions regarding supreme deities. There is no evidence of them, so we feel no need to acknowledge other's belief in them."

As such Athiesm is not a negative, but the rejection of a positive, which contradicts the following,

Killer Argument: -

"Atheism is a negative."

Now I could continue this all day, but I have to go to work; but thtere is still time for this gem: -


Killer Argument - "Evolution itself is not scientific."

Well, i don't think I need to quote any individual post which disproves this, there are so many to choose from.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kuroko I am going to present an argument on this forum separate to this one but, I need to clear some thing up. Even if CLEAR evidence of god were presented, would it even matter. To me it would seem as though Atheists are more then without religion, the majority we have seen here on Volconvo have demonstrated an almost focused disdain for god, an almost anti-god mentality. From one extreme to the other in my books.

This disdain you interpret to be directly aimed at your god, which you believe to exist, which you probably take offense to. i direct my disdain at the arguments for this gods existence, because so far, theyve been illogical. glad weve sorted that out.

and btw if clear, unbiased, conclusive evidence for God was presented, id be more than interested (itd be the find of the millenium). dont make generalisations.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Now, while I descide whether or not to slap you with an infraction for insulting me even after you were asked to drop the insults by Isherwood, I will actually respond to this rather rudely articulated little challenge: - Killer Argument: - "Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith." Contradicted accurately by Isherwood: - "Atheism does not suppose its own belief system. Atheism is the rejection of your belief system should you believe in gods. We don't intend to prove the non-existence of gods. We do say that the theists have failed to prove their notion of a god using reason and logic. We do not accept unsupported and fanciful notions regarding supreme deities. There is no evidence of them, so we feel no need to acknowledge other's belief in them." As such Athiesm is not a negative, but the rejection of a positive, which contradicts the following, Killer Argument: - "Atheism is a negative." Now I could continue this all day, but I have to go to work; but thtere is still time for this gem: - Killer Argument - "Evolution itself is not scientific." Well, I don't think I need to quote any individual post which disproves this, there are so many to choose from.

Isherwood replied regarding one type of atheism, and I respect what he wrote, in the sense that he did a great job articulating his stance.

The type of atheism I referred to is, "There is no God" atheism--"strong atheism."

~~~

Macro-Evolution is NOT scientific: it is a theory of cross-kind adaptation that has never been observed or proven. As such, it is an historical fanciful notion with no basis in reality or scientific observation.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood At least address the correct science. Evolution addresses adaptations and differentiation in species. It does not attempt to explain how life came to be.

For the record, please, what is the correct name of the field of "scientific"study that gives theories about the origin of life without God? Abiogenesis? Cosmology?

Thank you, sir.

[The Dunedan]

I believe the word you're searching for is "Biology." This is the field of scientific inquiry within the purview of which Evolutionary theory falls. Other theories, totally unconnected to and independant of Evolution, describe possibilities for the origins of the first living organisms. Evolution is a theory which describes the progression of random mutations from single ancestor species to single or multiple descendant species; it has nothing to say regarding how the process got started in the first place.

[Chris the Chees]

Isherwood replied regarding one type of atheism

No that IS athiesm. Athiesm is a rejection of the argument that God exists, it is not a belief system.

Stong Athiesm? Just a made up term to try and support a truly terrible argument. Wikipedia search results for 'Strong Athiesm': -

"No results found. For help on searching within Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Searching."

it is a theory of cross-kind adaptation that has never been observed or proven.

Wong

But you are of course wrong for another reason, nothing in the past can be 'observed' first hand, all we can do is study the results or products of past events or developments. Would you deny that the Battle of Waterloo occured because their is no current method of observing it first hand?

This kind of wishy-washy post-modernistic rubbish has no place in serious debate.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No that IS athiesm. Athiesm is a rejection of the argument that God exists, it is not a belief system. Stong Athiesm? Just a made up term to try and support a truly terrible argument. Wikipedia search results for 'Strong Athiesm': - "No results found. For help on searching within Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Searching." Wong But you are of course wrong for another reason, nothing in the past can be 'observed' first hand, all we can do is study the results or products of past events or developments. Would you deny that the Battle of Waterloo occured because their is no current method of observing it first hand? This kind of wishy-washy post-modernistic rubbish has no place in serious debate.

Chris, before you pontificate on what athEism is and is not, please try to at least spell the word correctly that you are talking about. It makes you oh so much more credible, bro.

Would you deny that God parted the Red Sea because there is no current method of observing it firsthand?

This kind of rabid anti-God post-modern rubbish has no place in serious debate.

[The Dunedan]

Chris, before you pontificate on what athEism is and is not, please try to at least spell the word correctly that you are talking about. It makes you oh so much more credible, bro

Before you pontificate on spelling, you might want to use proper grammar.

Chris, before you pontificate on what athEism is and is not, please try to at least correctly spell the word that you are talking about.

Fixed it for you. Now will you please go away? You're making us Christians look like idiots here.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument Chris, before you pontificate on what athEism is and is not, please try to at least spell the word correctly that you are talking about. It makes you oh so much more credible, bro.

Chris' spelling isn't what you should concern yourself with. Instead, consider trying to mend your argument now that he's broken it in half over his knee (as several of us did before him).

Would you deny that God parted the Red Sea because there is no current method of observing it firsthand?

Red sea? More like red herring.

I can't speak for Chris. I deny the parting of the red sea for a variety of reasons. At the top of the list is the fact claims which contradict existing proven claims default to false until proven true and there is no proof the red sea parted.

This kind of rabid anti-God post-modern rubbish has no place in serious debate.

Did you honestly just type that? Did you honestly state the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Chris the Chees]

Chris, before you pontificate on what athEism is and is not, please try to at least spell the word correctly that you are talking about. It makes you oh so much more credible, bro

Considering that I and several others have killed your argument; you should worry about your own credibility, not mine.

Would you deny that God parted the Red Sea because there is no current method of observing it firsthand?

Yes. But not because of that, but because it breaks physical laws.

This kind of rabid anti-God post-modern rubbish has no place in serious debate.

KA, I would advise against delving into subjects which you know absolutely nothing about; intellectual postmodernism clearly being one of them.

[littlebear]

Isherwood said:

At least address the correct science. Evolution addresses adaptations and differentiation in species. It does not attempt to explain how life came to be.

I take this as a personal insult. Obviously, that is what you intended. The problem with forums is they select immature individuals who break the rules without consequence, yet are ever the policeman when they deem someone else has broken them.

Every evolutionist addresses the beginning of life. I've heard the explanation of how certain substances (chemicals) came together under just the right circumstances, and poof life sprang forth more times than you have days in your life. It is essential for evolutionists to point to the creation of the first amoeba as a basis for what everything else evolved from.

Get it right, Isherwood, or give it up. Your might consider the preceding quote:

What i find amusing is anytime some starts to lose an argument, be theist, atheist whatever, they always result to insults and accusations. You can always tell who is loosing. They are the ones who contribute nothing to the argument, only sarcasm, quips and irrelevant dialog.

[Chris the Chees]

I take this as a personal insult.

While I am not rude enough to speak for the other moderators, I honestly fail to see where you are coming from in terms of that being an 'insulting comment'. That is not an insult, but a statement of fact. Evolution does NOT deal with the origion of life or the creation of the universe. It deals with the development of species once life was established. You can take insult from that if you want, but in all honestly if the facts upset you then you are destined to be upset.

Every evolutionist addresses the beginning of life.

No they don't, scientists with very specific areas of specialisation study the origions of life, scientists such as Harold Urey and Stanley Miller who performed experiments into the possibility of creating amino acids from inorganic enviroments.

Get it right, Isherwood, or give it up.

I think that is actually advice you should consider yourself, before offering it to other individuals.

[Jack]

I can't control how you take something I say. If you think I'm being personally insulting in my remark, you're free to report my post to the administrator or other mods.

You may want to take some time to read through the numerous threads here regarding evolution and creationism and see how many times this same bit of misinformation has been corrected.

I meant exactly what I said, address the correct division of science when speaking about the creation of life. It doesn't matter what you've heard, the definition of evolution can be easily found, like this one from Princeton;

# development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer" # (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Nothing there about the origins of life. That would fall under the biological sciences.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: The Dunedan Before you pontificate on spelling, you might want to use proper grammar. Fixed it for you. Now will you please go away? You're making us Christians look like idiots here.

Yeah, you really sound like a Christian.

Yeah, you sound really like a Christian.

My sentence was grammatically correct.

[KillerArgument]

Revision of my two basic premises, with more specific terms, and supporting statements:

1) "Strong atheism" ("There is no God"), is a position or view held by faith.

Supporting logic: The reason the idea "There is no God" must be held by faith, if it is to be held at all, is because it is an ~unprovable~ idea.


2) The idea that life originated from non-life is physically non-demonstratable and scientifically unproven.

Additional logic: Therefore, something more than physical reality must have been present when life originated.


Please let me know if I have improperly represented your side:

Atheist argument: Only the physical world exists. I see no evidence of God in the physical world. I have never seen God. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your Imaginary Friend. I am sticking with the idea that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God.

[This could be said to be true if it were true that only the physical world exists. -KA]


Abiogenesis argument: There is nothing other than physical matter in the universe. Therefore, whatever happened in the beginning, God did not create life because only physical things exist, and logic proves that God does not exist.

[These would be true statements if it were true and provable that only physical things exist, and if it were true that logic could prove either the existence or non-existence of God.-KA]

[KillerArgument]

Examples of correct grammar (we love to argue about anything):

"spell the word correctly"

"hit the ball forcefully"

"open the window quickly"

All are correct.

[Century 25]

New here.. putting my oar in the water.. atheists have nothing to prove.. reality speaks quite well for us. It is the theists that constantly harp on about one deity or another.. through disasters.. wars.. deaths.. but their "god" never seems to be of any help.. the "prayers" unanswered..

I notice the MO here is familiar.. if you can't win a debate with facts & logic.. you attack the person and/or try to divert the issue to another topic.. lol..

[Jack]

Welcome to Volconvo, Century 25. You certainly picked a hell of a thread to post to first. :)