Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[paddoboy]

This is me finding out for myself.
I get why it is called a fact, but I’m baffled as to why it is a fact. It seems as though it is simply accepted as a fact.

That's because of the agenda and baggage you have which prevents acceptance of anything that may conflict with your mythical beliefs. We also have that same situation with a couple of impressionable, gullible members, who like telling us we are being invaded by Aliens from distant worlds, when the facts tell us that we have no conclusive evidence of any life existing off this Earth....yet.

That you have to do research in order to explain it to me, tells me that you just accept it as a fact. It t tells me that you don’t know why it is a fact.

Regardless of what another human being says, it is what it is. If it is a fact, then everyone should be able to access the truth of it on some level. There seems to be nothing that connects us to darwinism. It seems like an idea tagged on to the fact of evolution. And we’re all supposed to accept it, because some folk have the power to implement it. That’s how it seems to me.

Not everybody want's the truth revealed, as it may burst their bubble/cocoon and shatter that warm. pleasant inner glow.

It’s not that I reject it. I see no real good explanation of the evidence for it. It doesn’t make any sense to me, and to billions of others.

The force is strong when someone has been brainwashed since early childhood about belief in some magical spaghetti monster that created the universe and you and me, particulalry when the scientific evidence is such that to deny evolition and Darwinism, is akin to rejecting the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth in favour of a flat Earth.

Why do you accept it?
What is the evidence that allows you to independently accept it. Or do you trust the scientists that expound it.

Nothing wrong in trusting the overwhelming majority of the experts and professionals in any particular field. We all trust or have a type of faith in those people, in every walk of life and every day...including yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is none and the science has shown that such is only a myth.

Can you post links that confirm this claim?

I comprehend enough to realize that you are a fraud. I would also suggest that your overlords will probably have disowned you by now, after such an appalling effort to defend ID.
You need another white charger Jan.

It fascinates me how you you make stuff up, then proceed to act as though what you made up is true.
It’s becoming more interesting than darwinism.
I think if I pursue this ability, I will get closer to why you actually believe the idea is true.

 

[(Q)]

I don’t know much about, what is termed “microevolution”, yet I can see that it works.
We don’t need elaborate science, biology, physics, or math, to understand it. Why do we need it with darwinism?

What is considered "macro-evolution" IS micro-evolution over longer periods of time. So, you accept changes in species over short periods but reject changes over long periods of time. How silly is that?

 

[paddoboy]

Can you post links that confirm this claim?

That we have no evidence for any supernatural/paranormal entity? Common knowledge Jan, and simply put, supernatural and paranormal concepts are unscientific.

It fascinates me how you you make stuff up, then proceed to act as though what you made up is true.
It’s becoming more interesting than darwinism.
I think if I pursue this ability, I will get closer to why you actually believe the idea is true.

It fascinates me how you are gullible enough to expect any reasonable person on this forum, to believe and/or accept your nonsense, when it is painfully obvious, it is you that is making up stories to support your mythical beliefs and reject science.

Let me again make it clear....Darwinism and the theory of evolution are scientific facts, and when you wake up tomorrow, it will still be a fact. It will take far more then any Tom, Dick, Harry or Jan, to change that on a public science forum, open to anyone.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So can I.

Well you will be ok.

There may be many human species right now.

Big foot ?

As far as I can tell, humans like us have always been.

And rode dinosaurs?

Or do you trust the scientists that expound it.

I trust the scientific method to present a theory which can be rejected by others who can establish the theory is wrong.

The problem for theists is science provides well researched material that, in general, casts grave doubts on their beliefs which have been formed from reading their good book.
If they could be as critical of their good book, as they are about well presented science, they may realise that their good book was perhaps not divinely inspired but a collection of ancient stories that one must work hard upon to suggest that such a book could be inspired by anyone more than ancient men with little knowledge when compared to today's scientists.
If one seeks intervention of the Devine for inspiration perhaps one could look at the various inventions that science has delivered. If this god exists would his inspiration have shut down two thousand years ago or could he be behind the inspiration that had Dawin presenting his idea.
Religion it seems is not the correct path to enlightenment if it requires it's followers to reject well established science and in the absence of knowledge rely on ancient beliefs and superstition.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

is such that to deny evolition and Darwinism,

Glad to see you made the distinction.
I must be getting through to you.

 

[paddoboy]

Glad to see you made the distinction.
I must be getting through to you.

You miss the point as usual, or just purposely being obtuse and playing dumb. Or more godlike dishonesty????
Let's clear that dumbness up....
what I said...
The force is strong when someone has been brainwashed since early childhood about belief in some magical spaghetti monster that created the universe and you and me, particulalry when the scientific evidence is such that to deny evolition and Darwinism, is akin to rejecting the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth in favour of a flat Earth.
Or perhaps more of the truth of where you are coming from is revealed? Perhaps you are also a flat Earther?

 

[Jan Ardena]

paddoboy

I don’t reject evolution.
I don’t reject darwinism.
I just don’t think it’s a scientific fact (darwinism).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Mmm... Yet it does move.

Alex

 

[billvon]

We're not talking about 'gods'.
There can logically be no list of ''Gods''.

Yet, in fact, there are such lists.

Therefore your logic is incorrect.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I just don’t think it’s a scientific fact

It is a scientific fact that is the point...you not accepting it does not change the fact that it is a scientific fact ... You may reject it but it is a scientific fact..read Popper and please try and understand the terminology used.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Big foot ?

No.

I trust the scientific method to present a theory which can be rejected by others who can establish the theory is wrong.

So do I.

The problem for theists is science provides well researched material that, in general, casts grave doubts on their beliefs which have been formed from reading their good book.

I don’t see that as a problem at all.
If there was evidence that shows darwinism, the way it shows evolution, there would be no point in denying it.
The real problem is that you only accept it because it suits you. You cannot explain why you personally accept it. Do think darwinism is true?

If they could be as critical of their good book, as they are about well presented science, they may realise that their good book was perhaps not divinely inspired but a collection of ancient stories that one must work hard upon to suggest that such a book could be inspired by anyone more than ancient men with little knowledge when compared to today's scientists.

You seem to think theism is based on scripture.
That’s not how it goes.
You also seem to to have a warped and limited view of ancient history. Is that by design?

If one seeks intervention of the Devine for inspiration perhaps one could look at the various inventions that science has delivered. If this god exists would his inspiration have shut down two thousand years ago or could he be behind the inspiration that had Dawin presenting his idea.
Religion it seems is not the correct path to enlightenment if it requires it's followers to reject well established science and in the absence of knowledge rely on ancient beliefs and superstition.

Weird way of talking about theism and religion.
You’re the one who rejects established science, just by accepting what some scientists tell you, because it helps you to deny and reject God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is a scientific fact that is the point...you not accepting it does not change the fact that it is a scientific fact ... You may reject it but it is a scientific fact..read Popper and please try and understand the terminology used.

You do not know that it is.
You’ve admitted that much.
Yet here you are rallying the “it’s a fact” cry.
Evolution is the fact. Darwinism is a theory that attempts to explain the facts. But there is nothing, other than some scientists testimony, that confirms it. Millions of people are like you, they only parrot what has been told to them.
There is no feeling, or intuition, that everyday folk like me and you, can intuit. It can only be learnt. Doesn’t that strike you as weird?

 

[(Q)]

Evolution is the fact. Darwinism is a theory that attempts to explain the facts. But there is nothing, other than some scientists testimony, that confirms it.

Why do creationists have to resort to lying to make their point? Are their arguments so weak they can't support their creationist position? Do they lie because they are so afraid for the truth of their ancestry? Do they believe they are special products of an invisible super being?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I don’t see that as a problem at all.

That is a problem.

Do think darwinism is true?

I don't know what you mean by "Darwinism" really. I do think links provided and that you rejected are valid.

You seem to think theism is based on scripture.

No I think it's based on superstition generally and in the case of Christianity that the foundation can be traced to astrology.

You also seem to to have a warped and limited view of ancient history.

Why do you say that? It is what it is. I just read it I don't judge it and interpretation is reasonably narrow...what's not to like.

You’re the one who rejects established science, just by accepting what some scientists tell you, because it helps you to deny and reject God.

I accept the particular scientific model that is on the table as it is for general purposes a scientific fact.

God does not even figure in any discussion in science...you could make it science...you know present a hypothesis, make observations, present a theory referencing evidence, publish your paper in a peer reviewed journal...otherwise you merely indulge speculation.

Oh and I found this...

“The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book.” —Robert Schadewald (1943–2000),

Now that hints at the historical situation that in the time the Bible was written folk back then believed the Earth was indeed flat...now if folk wish to claim the Bible was written under Devine inspiration I think they run up against the obvious concern which questions why such inspiration did not reflect reality and let these ancient folk believe something that was clearly incorrect.

Further it is interesting that many flat earthers today cite the Bible as authority for a flat Earth and reject a body like NASA whilst saying that NASA simply lies ... Do you feel comfortable to be on the side of the flatearthers.

Alex

 

[billvon]

Evolution is the fact. Darwinism is a theory that attempts to explain the facts.

Darwinism explains why evolution works.

But there is nothing, other than some scientists testimony, that confirms it.

And over a century and a half of research in half a dozen different fields.

There is no feeling, or intuition, that everyday folk like me and you, can intuit. It can only be learnt. Doesn’t that strike you as weird?

Nope. Try learning to fly a plane by "feeling and intuition" - and then get back to us how well that works (if you survive the attempt, of course.)

Some things you have to learn, even if they disagree with your preconceptions.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Doesn’t that strike you as weird?

If "that" refers to your position perhaps yes.

There is no feeling, or intuition, that everyday folk like me and you, can intuit.

OK I get you.
You just don't buy it.
And I can understand why that is the case for you.
But it is the best we have and the door is wide open for anyone to enter with a better scientific model.

I think you try to point out that folk like me "believe" science...on that point you and I approach things differently...it is not a case that I believe, it is more a case that I firstly understand the scientific method and secondly understand science merely offers models to explain what we observe...to the third, I understand science does not in effect claim to have the truth, and certainly many folk on the science side talk as if they have the truth, and I have no doubt that models can be replaced as we learn more, with a better model. So far what you refer to as "Darwinism" is not science but a term coined, it seems, by creationists, and so to use it is meaningless really. What we can talk about is The Theory of Evolution...and I will admit I have not read the paper if that makes you happy...in any event I simply do not approach science from a feeling point of view as there is no room for it.

My problem with religion is it claims to have the truth, it claims Devine inspiration and it can not admit when it is shown to be wrong.

When you, and I mean you, approach anything it comes from a position of belief, what belief is irrelevant really, but you consider the proposition then make a personal judgement based on your belief.

Clearly the key to your belief system is the notion that there must have been a creator (there is no evidence for this one way or the other), and this leaves you accepting of the good book that shares and supports that belief..and everything now is considered thru the filter of your fundamental belief.

It leaves you less critical of things that support your belief in general and critical of things that you take as in opposition to your belief...that is the way it goes.

To enjoy a scientific approach one merely accepts that the model science provides is the best model to date, that it is not merely something someone has made up and above all is presented as a clear statement, a "paper", in a publication where it will be seen by folk well qualified to consider the matters in the paper and that "peers" can cruely tear it to shreds.

I can't imagine religion surviving if that approach was applied to it's it's various notions.

You can feel what you like but do not underestimate the neutrality of science and the power that gives us.
Alex

 

[(Q)]

Please please please show where science refutes God? This should be interesting.
The only claim I have made, is that I am a theist. This means I believe in God.
Given the title of the thread, I will happily explain what I know about believing in God.

Jan is a dinosaur.

Religion is in decline across the Western world. Whether measured by belonging, believing, participation in services, or how important it is felt to be, religion is losing ground. Society is being transformed, and the momentum appears to be unstoppable.

 

[Jan Ardena]

that

Why doesn’t it strike you as weird?

But it is the best we have and the door is wide open for anyone to enter with a better scientific model.

I’m not too sure about that. It is based on opinion. There doesn’t appear to be a reason to add that we all came from a single cell, then branched of into the variety of life we see today.
I get that it is a theory. But what was the need for Darwin to assume such a drastic change.
I get natural selection.
Aside from the science, it makes good sense to ordinary folk. But dogs turning into whales...?

I think you try to point out that folk like me "believe" science...on that point you and I approach things differently...it is not a case that I believe, it is more a case that I firstly understand the scientific method and secondly understand science merely offers models to explain what we observe...

I understand that as well.
But Darwin didn’t observe one type of animal evolving into a completely different type.
He observed what we all know and accept today. That organisms adapt to their circumstances. Not that they completely change into different types.

So far what you refer to as "Darwinism" is not science but a term coined, it seems, by creationists, and so to use it is meaningless really.

I think it encompasses the idea that has grown from the theory of evolution. Also it is easy to express.

My problem with religion is it claims to have the truth, it claims Devine inspiration and it can not admit when it is shown to be wrong.

There quite a few problems with religion in this day and age, which is why I don’t mix it with theism, when in discussion. Do recognise the distinction between religion and theism?

When you, and I mean you, approach anything it comes from a position of belief, what belief is irrelevant really, but you consider the proposition then make a personal judgement based on your belief.

I would say the same about you, and all the contributors in this thread. So it’s not a biggie.

Clearly the key to your belief system is the notion that there must have been a creator (there is no evidence for this one way or the other), and this leaves you accepting of the good book that shares and supports that belief..and everything now is considered thru the filter of your fundamental belief.

With all due respect, you’re not really in a position to comment on my belief in God, or whether or not there is any evidence for God.
For you there is no God. That’s as far as you can take it. The rest is just your opinion.
If there is no God, there can be no evidence for God.
You’re position is like that of a blind person who has been convinced by other blind folk, that everybody is blind, and all that talk from people who claim to see, is delusion.
So I appreciate what you’re saying, but it is ineffective. Anyway moving on...

It leaves you less critical of things that support your belief in general and critical of things that you take as in opposition to your belief...that is the way it goes.

All this because I don’t accept darwinism.

To enjoy a scientific approach one merely accepts that the model science provides is the best model to date, that it is not merely something someone has made up and above all is presented as a clear statement, a "paper", in a publication where it will be seen by folk well qualified to consider the matters in the paper and that "peers" can cruely tear it to shreds.

I don’t think that is the case with darwinists.
They seem to fit everything to the darwinist paradigm. If it doesn’t fit, leave it out.
How come scientists aren’t interested in Giant skeletons that have been found?

I can't imagine religion surviving if that approach was applied to it's it's various notions.

Religion is a complex subject matter.
It’s not necessarily based on theism.
If it deviates slightly from theism, it is no longer theistic. I find a lot of religions are very secular in their approach. Meaning their authority is not God. Like I said , it quite complex.

You can feel what you like but do not underestimate the neutrality of science and the power that gives us.

I don’t.
Which is why I question the phenomenon that is “darwinism”.