10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

[BlueMoose]

10 Questions for Atheists:​

-I´m somewhere in the middle still searching but...

Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
-I did win the 1000 times in a row in a roulette playing just one number, dont you believe me, it has been written as i write it.


Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
-I´m still searching God and I appreciate all good passages in every religion, but if I dont accept Jesus as a mangod I burn in hell, thats narrowminded ?


Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
-Still searching the nature of God while wondering meaningfulness of doing so.


Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
-Closest thing at that sense is that that I have concluded is that everything is manifestation of God.


Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
-Sometimes its not.


How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
-Hmmmmmm...even in ancient rituals fellow humans were sacrified, not to mention Crusades, Inquisition, Northern Ireland conflict, Israel/Palestine, cleaning out the natives in N&S America, anyway you looked history and wars, the God is always dragged in, Gott mit uns, In God we trust, if not directly but least undirectly religion has been almost in all conflicts. It has used people to do something they wouldnt or couldnt do, and rationalize or accept it to themselves ?. Its called mass-hypnosis, authority over reason.
Like Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims.

Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
-Christian ~ believer of NT to be the prove of that they are right, other sources...no. Bias, yes.

Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
-You feel what you feel. Are you trying to provoke me, teaching me or looking just for answers, I´m FEELING confused. If educating is sharing knowledge of best of hes understanding, is it a bad thing ?

Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
-I dont know the truth since I´m not a God.

And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?
-Give me a example, or should I. The NT, why does have it anymore validity than my native mythology of Gods in Kalevala ?

 

[lightgigantic]

-----more complex organism------------
---------------------------------------
-----slightly more complex organism-----
---------------------------------------
-----less complex organism-------------

If you find homo sapiens on the lower line then there is an issue. Of course everything is where you would expect it to be. The organisms on the higher layers also appear to be modified forms of the older organisms.

- You have 'transitional' forms such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik:

- The fossil record is also in harmony with present biogeography, the phylogenetic tree and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.

Of course this is an extensive topic and not something that can be written in full on a religious forum thread.

Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on inductive reasoning

True of False?

 

[BlueMoose]

True...and False.
Evolution is based on inductive reasoning caused by inductive reasonings of ones surroundings ? True or False ?

 

[Star-gazer]

1.Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?

A lot of people also claim to have seen and experienced, bigfoot, aliens, Loc Ness moster, and ghosts, yet there is no solid proof for any of them. Unless there is solid proof of something existing, I can't bring myself to believe in it.

2.Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?

First of all I have never called a Christian "narrow-minded". I respect other peoples beliefs.

3.Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?

How is that? Evolution is not blind faith, and if you think it is I suggest you pick up a book or study evolution closer.

4.Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

Do you know anything about Evolution?

5.Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?

Because Creationism and Intelligent design are not science. Creation has no answers or evidence, while science does.

6.How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?

I can't answer that, because I don't think that.

7.Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?

Your getting science and religion to intertwined in that question. They are two completely diffrent subjects, one searches for truth through evidence and study, the other relies on a text written by people who thought the world was flat.

8.Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?

I can't answer that question either, because once again I don't do that.

9.Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?


Knowledge is gained through study, which is what I do. Belief is gained through mental acceptance of a claim as truth.

10.And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?

Have you studied science at all?! Do you even know what evolution is? Or are you not believing it only because it contradicts what you were taught and now believe.

I'm also tired of the whole Creation vs. Evolution debate, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I think we should all just agree to disagree, its getting old, its always the same thing over and over.:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

True of False?

False. Again. Give it up.

 

[iceaura]

First i will start of by saying that too much variation performing the same function= Illogical. There is no reason or explanation for it from a purely evolutionary standpoint.

Sure there is. One of the alleged weaknesses of evolutionary theory is how easily a clever person can come up with bogus explanations within it. There is plenty of reason and explanation for almost anything, within evolutionary theory. It generates hypotheses like mad.

You have no idea what an evolutionary viewpoint would be. Neither do most Creationists. There is a reason it took so many thousands of years, and such a dedicated and thorough genius, to come up with the theory and make it stick. It's a very difficult concept.

 

[lightgigantic]

False. Again. Give it up.

Ok then

Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on deductive reasoning
True or false?

 

[iceaura]

Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on deductive reasoning
True or false?

False. "It's" based on a picture.

You are using "based on" to spin something. It isn't an explanation of evolution, in the first place.

 

[lightgigantic]

False. "It's" based on a picture.

You are using "based on" to spin something. It isn't an explanation of evolution, in the first place.

interesting comment
So Snakelord's response bears no connection to John99's question
hmmmm ....

 

[iceaura]

So Snakelord's response bears no connection to John99's question

I thought it answered the question reasonably, for this forum.

The question was about the fossil record, and Snakelord posted a picture of a piece of the fossil record that bore directly on the issue.

What are you trying to say, here ? Are you trying to suggest something in cryptic enough fashion that you aren't responsible for a direct statement ?

 

[lightgigantic]

I thought it answered the question reasonably, for this forum.

The question was about the fossil record, and Snakelord posted a picture of a piece of the fossil record that bore directly on the issue.

What are you trying to say, here ? Are you trying to suggest something in cryptic enough fashion that you aren't responsible for a direct statement ?

and what was the fossil record supposed to indicate exactly? (- apart from pictures of course ...)

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on inductive reasoning

That was hardly "an explanation of evolution" and more a mention of how the fossil record fits into it. But to answer your question, yes.


'In following the strict rules of logic one could claim that no matter how many arguments appear to confirm the theory there is technically still the possibility of it being wrong. However in realistic terms, when several sound arguments lead to agreement on the same conceptual model, the odds against the theory being wrong become so extremely small that for all practical purposes there can be no other answer. If we look at a puzzle board and have a piece that appears to fit on one side but then is matched on another side, then three and then finally all sides seamlessly fits into a puzzle, isn’t it a bit ridiculous to continue arguing about whether it belongs.' - David Esker.


P.S Thanks for starting my name with a capital letter

 

[lightgigantic]

That was hardly "an explanation of evolution" and more a mention of how the fossil record fits into it. But to answer your question, yes.

thanks - I guess that puts Iceaura's suggestions in proper context

'In following the strict rules of logic one could claim that no matter how many arguments appear to confirm the theory there is technically still the possibility of it being wrong. However in realistic terms, when several sound arguments lead to agreement on the same conceptual model, the odds against the theory being wrong become so extremely small that for all practical purposes there can be no other answer. If we look at a puzzle board and have a piece that appears to fit on one side but then is matched on another side, then three and then finally all sides seamlessly fits into a puzzle, isn’t it a bit ridiculous to continue arguing about whether it belongs.' - David Esker.

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

P.S Thanks for starting my name with a capital letter

just a penny for the pauper to be proud of

 

[SnakeLord]

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

1) Never saw what?

2) I know it gets thrown around a lot, but the word 'proof' should be left to alcohol and mathematics.

just a penny for the pauper to be proud of

Keep it, it's probably a months wages for you

 

[lightgigantic]

1) Never saw what?

evolution of course

2) I know it gets thrown around a lot, but the word 'proof' should be left to alcohol and mathematics.

that's why I used the phrase "a practical fact", on the basis of Eskar's "realistic terms", just to make it easier for you to answer the question.

So we will try again

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

Keep it, it's probably a months wages for you

If you think it's delightful to see your name with a capital letter, you probably need it more than me

 

[SnakeLord]

evolution of course

Well, given the context of what is being discussed, no.. I never actually had the good fortune of seeing a t-rex drop dead. From the statement given earlier I never actually had the luck of seeing the puzzle being made either but one can still work out where the pieces go.

In a broader context it certainly has been seen. One such example would be in Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids). Two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

Seen what?

If you think it's delightful to see your name with a capital letter, you probably need it more than me

I guess it's just an English thing..

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
evolution of course
”
Well, given the context of what is being discussed, no.. I never actually had the good fortune of seeing a t-rex drop dead. From the statement given earlier I never actually had the luck of seeing the puzzle being made either but one can still work out where the pieces go.

You don't see the slippery slope you are on?

you have never seen it yet you can see where the pieces fit in?

In a broader context it certainly has been seen. One such example would be in Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids). Two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

that doesn't seem sufficient to justify all that goes down in the name of evolution (like fish growing legs and feathers for instance)

“
so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?
”
Seen what?

the full dimensions of evolution (that you are trying to insist we swallow)

“
If you think it's delightful to see your name with a capital letter, you probably need it more than me
”
I guess it's just an English thing..

fascination with pennies
yes, you are probably right

 

[SnakeLord]

you have never seen it yet you can see where the pieces fit in?

Never seen what? Fossils?

that doesn't seem sufficient to justify all that goes down in the name of evolution (like fish growing legs and feathers for instance)

You honestly think a 30 second forum post can be deemed sufficient to justify the whole of evolution? How naive is that?

the full dimensions of evolution (that you are trying to insist we swallow)

What? Kindly provide more details with what you mean when you say "the full dimensions.."

What is it exactly you're saying has not been seen?

 

[John99]

-----more complex organism------------
---------------------------------------
-----slightly more complex organism-----
---------------------------------------
-----less complex organism-------------

If you find homo sapiens on the lower line then there is an issue. Of course everything is where you would expect it to be. The organisms on the higher layers also appear to be modified forms of the older organisms.

- You have 'transitional' forms such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik:

- The fossil record is also in harmony with present biogeography, the phylogenetic tree and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.

Of course this is an extensive topic and not something that can be written in full on a religious forum thread.

Archaeopteryx was a bird, that all.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1275

Why would you think that Tiktaalik was a transitional species and what do you think about alligators? They must be stuck.

 

[SnakeLord]

Archaeopteryx was a bird, that all.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ls.php/id/1275

1) We are discussing scientific issues here. As a result of that I have to express my concern to linking to an ID site, the author of which expresses his love for jesus on his home page and claims that ID is science, (it isn't). Amusingly enough he even claims that ID involves no supernatural agents while being under the impression that 'god did it'.

2) Secondly it is worth noting that "it is just a bird" is the opinion of that same author that think god dun it and is a qualified lawyer, not a scientist.

"The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds." - Here

Archaeopteryx is not "just a bird, that's all".

3) Luskin goes on to state: "(I personally hope people might consider "Option C,"--that perhaps birds did not evolve from dinosaurs or other reptiles.)" which is really quite bizarre given that the person he uses in his entire argument, (Feduccia), has the view that birds did indeed evolve from reptiles, (a common ancestral reptile). So what is Luskin trying to argue exactly?

4) As for the 'digits' issue that Luskin claims is "powerful evidence".. Here

5) Can we please start again but this time provide a link to.. something scientific as opposed to something that espouses intelligent design?