Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The latter,Pascal's wager gets a little silly. You might as well because I can see no way in which a little sensible deism would hurt you, and if it makes you happier, who cares?

That is what I thought you meant; I wanted to be sure, though. Thank you for your patience.

Notice "want" doesn't entail "happiness" - in this life, at least. If I knew that God existed (whichever God it is), then I would allow myself (understandably) to be subject to its doctrine (ie. I would follow its rules; I would do whatever was commanded of me in order to avoid going to hell, and to ensure my reunion with loved ones). Doesn't sound like a very "happy" life, does it? A happy afterlife, sure. But a happy life - the only life I can be sure of?

This would, however, not include deism; in which case I can understand where you're coming from. But the thing is, if your version of deism entails that God does not play an active role in our reality, and does not impose divine doctrine upon us, then what is the point in believing in a deistic God? Adhering to deism would still be a burden upon my shoulders, because I would be torn between what is a potential lie and what I can confidently determine to be reality.

That's tricky, I know. Let me explain it in another way. A baseless belief is still a baseless belief, whether I'm required to acknowledged holy doctrine or not. A deistic belief system is just as detrimental as a theistic belief system. Any such belief system underpins practically every other decision I make throughout my life. To allow such a baseless belief to serve as the cornerstone of my life should seem undebatably ludicrous. When I make a conscious decision, I want it to be founded upon rationality, not "might as well" propositions. This, in the end, will provide for a much more fulfilling life. Does this make sense?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes, but with only around 80 years to live, rationality seems kind of pointless.

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Yes, but with only around 80 years to live, rationality seems kind of pointless.

Do you see that as being a rational conclusion?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, yes, if you live for such a short period of time, you are better off doing whatever the hell you want.

of course, if you define a rational decision as one that can't take an irrational course, then no.

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, yes, if you live for such a short period of time, you are better off doing whatever the hell you want. of course, if you define a rational decision as one that can't take an irrational course, then no.

So, your rational conclusion is to suggest that it is better for one to live one's life irrationally? Do you see where I'm headed with this?

It's like saying, "Nothing is certain." Well, are you certain of that?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Paleface2500 It amazes me how you do this. There is no evidence proving or disproving omnipotence, Therefore omnipotence does not exist.

No one said that. But because there is no reason to believe omnipotence exists, it is irrational to believe that it does. There is no reason to believe in unicorns, pixies, leprechauns or honest politians either, do you believe in them? For that matter, there is no reason not to believe in Vishnu, do you believe in Vishnu?

If not, then by your own statements, you are a fool.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The latter,Pascal's wager gets a little silly.

A little silly? It was laughable in Pascal's own time, it's even more so when modern-day fundamentalist Christians resurrected it and pretend it's any less laughable. It just demonstrates how ludicrous the fundamentalist mind really is.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Agnos So, your rational conclusion is to suggest that it is better for one to live one's life irrationally? Do you see where I'm headed with this? It's like saying, "Nothing is certain." Well, are you certain of that?

Yes, but it depends on if you believe that rational thinking can cause you to act irrationally.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Cephus A little silly? It was laughable in Pascal's own time, it's even more so when modern-day fundamentalist Christians resurrected it and pretend it's any less laughable. It just demonstrates how ludicrous the fundamentalist mind really is.

I was being soft, I didn't want this to get in to a discussion of Pascal's theorum.

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Yes, but it depends on if you believe that rational thinking can cause you to act irrationally.

I'm curious: Are you a deist?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Cephus A little silly? It was laughable in Pascal's own time, it's even more so when modern-day fundamentalist Christians resurrected it and pretend it's any less laughable. It just demonstrates how ludicrous the fundamentalist mind really is.

I was being nice, I didn't want to discuss Pascal in depth.

[Agnos]

If you are a deist, GM, were you attempting (in the past several posts) to rationalize your irrational belief? That is, were you actually saying that it is rational to belief something irrational? Is this what fuels your deistic beliefs? That it is rational to think irrationally?

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, I never said that was why I believe, I was just saying that if it would make you happy to believe in God and it would do you no harm, why not. And I'm not really a deist, either.

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary No, I never said that was why I believe, I was just saying that if it would make you happy to believe in God and it would do you no harm, why not. And I'm not really a deist, either.

Understood. I won't ask anymore personal questions. I believe you understand why I deny a baseless belief simply because it will make me "happy", which I argue it will not.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I thought that you thought it would make you happy, I misunderstood your statement.

[RickSp]

I am moment of absence of mind I clicked on Killer's site. Highly amusing. On a page titled "MENTAL PROBLEMS FOR ATHEISTS ", I came across these gems.

An absurdest tautological pretzel:
"Faith is not rational or provable by definition--faith is the basis for rationality".

Proof positive that run-on sentences are to be avoided. This one happens to be completely meaningless.
"A belief system that asserts that there is no God, which therefore asserts there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality, and that therefore asserts that ultimately, nothing is necessarily true, and therefore ultimately, nothing is necessarily right, clearly realized, ultimately forces the emotional realization that life is meaningless."

Say what? I fear that Killer thinks this constitutes argument.

And my favorite of all:
"The emotional realization that life is meaningless leads to suicide."

Ah Killer, as an atheist, my life is full of meaning. It just doesn't include your imaginary friend.

Also worth checking out is bizarre poem about Jeffrey Dalhmer and a discourse arguing that Jeffrey Dalhmer is in heaven and Mother Theresa is in hell (better a cannibal than a nun), as well as an odd rant about the evils of Lutheranism, Hinduism, Mormonism, and psychotherapy among other topics.

Rather a bizarro fun-house.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Does having a link like that count as spamming?

[littlebear]

In response to

One of the most difficult things for evolutionists to confront is the beginning of life.

rez said

I support the notion of slow gradual growth over long periods of time. I do not know what you mean by "confront." Do you mean to compare and examine or come face to face with something that threatens a certain "belief?"

I mean to come face to face with something that threatens a certain belief. It is far easier to develop a theory that deals with the evolution a species than it is to deal with the theory of non life evolving into life. Personally, I think evolutionists do a poor job of the first and try to avoid the second. The reason evolutionists always point to a single instance of the creation of life is if there were several such instances, who is to say each species of life did not have its own beginning? After all, science heartily defends the creation of the first and supposedly only instance of life. If their theory is correct, does it not in itself prove that several instances of life may have formed in the same way? You do not have to go far down that road until cross species evolution begins to unravel. Genome research has led some to believe that there were several instances of life which were created by chance. For obvious reasons, evolutionists are hard against the multiple life form creation theory. Evolution within the species is unrefutable. Cross species evolution, however, requires a single instance of the creation of life. How many times have you heard we all evolved from a single ancestor, sometimes said to be an amoeba, or now I am hearing from some form of bacteria.

I am not an evolutionist. I believe God and God only can create life. I will never try to prove that belief because it is a matter of faith. Those who attempt to prove their articles of their faith do not have a real understanding of what faith means. For that reason, I do not subscribe to the "Intelligent Design" theory. If someone desires to believe it as an article of faith, so be it. But to attempt to prove it is counter productive. I consider those who do attempt to prove Intelligent Design as being in the same boat as those who go bananas every time someone claims to have found Noah's ark.

I feel it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism. When you remove the constant references of "millions and millions of years", subjective thought processes, and highly disputable evidence from the theory, it boils down to nothing. The only thing evolutionists have going for them is evolution has been dubbed a "science." If you held this "science" to the same tests as say nuclear science, however, it would be so discredited as to be rediculed. Humanists, however, have to point to something that refutes Bibical accounts, hence evolution lives on.

[Agnos]

Quote by: littlebear I am not an evolutionist. I believe God and God only can create life. I will never try to prove that belief because it is a matter of faith. Those who attempt to prove their articles of their faith do not have a real understanding of what faith means. For that reason, I do not subscribe to the "Intelligent Design" theory. If someone desires to believe it as an article of faith, so be it. But to attempt to prove it is counter productive. I consider those who do attempt to prove Intelligent Design as being in the same boat as those who go bananas every time someone claims to have found Noah's ark.

That is, of course, your perogative. Though, considering that, I sure hope you wouldn't be the type of person to oppose having evolution taught in public schools. Are you that type of person? I mean, in light of your "faith", it sure would be inappropriate of you to carry that faith into the public arena. Are you one to oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools?

[pikatore]

Quote by: littlebear In response to rez said I mean to come face to face with something that threatens a certain belief. It is far easier to develop a theory that deals with the evolution a species than it is to deal with the theory of non life evolving into life. Personally, I think evolutionists do a poor job of the first and try to avoid the second.

Personally, you haven't read a single word in this thread.

Countless times I have referenced the Miller-Urey experiment:

Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This experiment proves that under the extreme conditions of the Earth back then, non-life can generate life. Organic molecules and complex proteins have
been created from non organic compounds.

Prions cause mad cow disease, but are not alive, they are simply proteins that have the ability to use surrounding materials to replicate themselves.

Hence, a plausable and realistic explanation for how life came to be.

Your one? God snapped his fingers? Sorry, for me, it doesnt cut.

The only reason you would have your views is because of either:

a) the evolutions you talked to were either ignorant or argued badly.
b) you are actually oblivious to the magnitude of the proof supporting evolution, and how it began via abiogenesis.