PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
. I'm too lazy, but I'll make an effort. Thanks.
I agree with everything that Lynette has said here, though I (obviously) disagree with her conclusions. Atheists and theists have a profoundly different way of seeing the evidence.
I have heard (unverified: if this is untrue or has been refuted or never happened then please don't flame me!) that we have found hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurs Rex skull. Now, under the assumption that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, such a find would be absolutely impossible. The creation scientist is going to look at this as evidence that dinosaurs and humans could have coexisted, and thus use this as support for a 6,000 year old earth.
The evolutionist/atheist is going to want to hold off on making any conclusion at all on this! See, this would destroy the lens through which he percieves the world, bolster the creationist case, and generally look bad for evolution itself because of the millions of years that such a theory requires.
The creationist is ready to announce that this is proof of a 6,000 year old earth. The evolutionist wants further review and study, to find out how that is possible.
Who's right? I don't know, I don't care. The point is that we have a theist reading the evidence one way, and an atheist reading the evidence another way. A good healthy debate can and should result from this so that we can get to the truth of the matter.
The ultimate, on-topic point to all of this is: I disagree with the notion that atheism is a position of ignorance. It is a position that is as carefully researched and as faithfully believed as my own theistic position. It is a careful consideration of the evidence as the individual sees it point. I see the same evidence point a different way.
Is there a theistic reason for this? YES! Check John 6:44 and Acts 13:42: the Word of God isn't meant for everyone, but only for those God intends it. Better yet, look at Matthew 7:13-14! Not only is the gospel message not for everyone, but only a very few will ever respond to God's call.
Now I'm off topic again, and I'll shut up.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
Heavenly Father,
Please forgive your humble servant for thinking that this comment was stinkin' hilarious. I pray your blessings on this board and my time spent here in Jesus' name,
AMEN.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
http://arlettaq.spaces.live.com
Oh yes of course Pratagoras the great Phenomenologist and teacher of virtue who concluded he could not verify the existence or non-existence of the gods.
So... if we cannot escape ourselves or our inherent nature to engage in anthropomorphic-projectionism then wouldn't it be prudent to delve into the nature of consciousness and begin analyzing why we are attracted in one way and not the other? Why we are not evolving to the other side when our rational mind and intelligence dismisses mysticism?
If we are to accept secular humanism as an evolution of consciousness giving up old and useless thought patterns and moving towards an enlightened time where rationalism and logic will become the norm and if those in the leading sciences who have so much influence on society and daily life lean toward the secular humanistic world views, which we all know most do, then why is there so much disturbance in the world today? Why have the problems not lessened in the world? Why are things not getting better? If we are evolving in the right direction why does the world situation not reflect this?
Do you believe the human race is continuing to evolve or are we beginning to see a devolution of homo sapiens? Where is the evidence we are evolving in the right direction?
The way this atheist interprets the evidence of what you have to say is that theists and atheists are SO different that we may as well be considered different species. Borders on racism. I know it's unintentional, but this kind of latent (and sometimes not so latent) elitism is inherent in religious ideology.
I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I agree. Maybe the difference is the use of a capital letter. Everyone is born atheist, but someone like me is an Atheist who has arrived at the position through a lifetime of experience and study.
Never having held a god belief, I look at this somewhat differently. My atheism is due to ignorance as I am completely ignorant of any valid reason to believe in a god or even any real grasp of what this god thing is supposed to be. Though I may have read other's opinions on why they believe there to be a god and the text that is supposed to be the account of the Christian's god interacting with humankind, I never found reason to form such a belief and therefor never had to "arrive" at atheism through study as there has never been a time when I was not an atheist. In other words, I'm still an atheist in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as when I was born.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I was actually trying to make the same point you did.
If such a discovery were made, somebody was wrong previously, and the creationist IS the first to jump and say that it is evidence of his position without studying the other possibilities. I've always hated that.
Sorry for not being clearer!
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
Well, uh, er ...... by this point I usually have to post a big ol' warning that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum. Then I have to follow up and remind everyone not to sling insults or call each other names.
Guess I don't have to do that this time.
Carry on!
(Glad you're back Cory T!)
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Aww, Susan! You caught me right before I was going to call all of the evolutionists in this forum "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect." Dammit! I'll have to save that one for my district manager when I quit BK.
It's good to be back, although that comment seems strange even when I type it. A Christian who enjoys an atheist forum. What IS this world coming to?
It's probably because I just got blasted by a fellow Christian because I think Jack Chick is a complete dingus, and you guys have a gentler way of disagreeing with me. Sad, isn't it?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
Not from my perspective. You have always been an honest debater and that is why people like having you here. it doesn't matter that we disagree, what matters is you are willing to state your beliefs and admit there may another way of looking at things. Were not going to kill you for having an differing view, were just going to kill the argument with logic and reason. LOL!
It is REALLY good to have you back, I wish I could say the same for other theists who have come back recently.
This is too funny to "mod out" of the post. (Especially since it was said in jest.)
Who wudda thunk that it would be the theist who did the cussing on the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum?!? Not to mention, I'm letting him get away with it!
By the way, Cory, it's not the evolutionists that are "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect". It's the Westboro Baptist Church.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
http://arlettaq.spaces.live.com
"By the way, Cory, it's not the evolutionists that are "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect". It's the Westboro Baptist Church."
I think some neanderthal skeletons are rolling in their graves right about now...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I've read all of the comments on this thread. From what I have read, everyone is trying to figure out if a baby is born as an atheist, or not born as an atheist.
So, just to pose the question for the sake of argument... Couldn't a baby be born as an agnostic?
If we assume that a new baby has no evidence for, or against god, then it unable to know if a god exists or not. There is no information to compare and analyse. I sort of feel like I'm missing something here.
The baby would have to know of the concept of a god before it could even consider the question of whether one exists. To a baby, mom and dad are god.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Actually atheists are Made. Yes, we are born without the knowledge of the concenpt of God. Therefore, we cannot be non-something we have not idea about. Atheists are only atheists once they learn about the concept of God and realize what it is a bunch of B.S.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
I'd like to ask something about being made into an Athiest.
From what I have observed many people that hold strong athiest positions, and actively try and pursuade others to stop believing often are raised in very fundamentalist families and taught at fundamentalist schools. In this way they are made because of the simple minded and uncritical nature of most religious instituions.
Every religios system has a rich and diverse set o ideas contained within it, there is officially sanctioned debate. This goes for Christians, Hindus, and Moslems. You have a multitude of positions within Catholic doctrine on even fundamental issues such as the relative divinity of Jesus.
The promblem is that simple minded folk in all belief systems tend to ignore the tough questions and critical viewpoints and try to repress them. Thsi goes for the Christian as well as the Communist. Its a problem of dogma and ideology that prevents inquisitive minds from tackling the bigger issues.
As a result of this problem those with a higher capacity to question and absorb subtlety are marginalized to the point that the completly reject all of the beliefs they were originally taught. Instead of reconciling faith and reason they abandon faith.
To illustrate this point furhter, you can see the same reaction with anyone bombarded with strict ideological conditioning. Many Cubans who come to the U.S are completely opposed to all socialist measures, and are strict capitalists. They reject everything found in Marxist thoght even the valid points it makes cocerning our system.
This is not because of a true philosophical inquiry but because they got so sick of having communist propaganda forced down their throats that now everything asocciated with it is rejected.
See any parallels?
...taught it... or create it.
I should start a cult like that L Ron Hubbard dude-- he made mad-ass money.
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual character
I can't believe I just found that now... that's too funny. It's good that my humor is appreciated. I'm pretty much up for any Westboro Baptist Church joke. Those guys bring it on themselves.
I don't believe the wool has been pulled over my eyes. I look at the order in creation, and believe that that order was enforced by Someone Very Intelligent. I have yet to see a plausible mechanism by which one species would change wholesale into another species. I don't believe that adding a timespan of millions of years would allow for that to happen.
I don't debate that microevolution--variation within species--exists. I don't believe that macroevolution--the changing of one species into a completely new species--has ever happened. I even can accept speciation. (The Bible says "each after its own kind," "kind" is not analogous to "species" as I understand the term to be defined.)
Maybe you (or someone else) could suggest a good book that would make me a believer in that concept. Not the atheist equivalent of a Ray Comfort book (what a waste of money Intelligent Design vs. Evolution is turning out to be... what was I thinking?) I promise to add it to my reading list (which is getting longer and longer and longer since I appear to be spreading myself far to thin lately!)
My first goal is still getting a freelance writing business up and running. Three to six months from now, God willing. Then I should have more time for reading (reading and writing are the writer's keys to success).
But if I could get some ideas in the meantime, I promise to consider them in due time with an open mind.
I still re-iterate this: I am not in the dark about various sides to the Great God Debate. I have heard both sides in broad strokes. If anyone can suggest where I might pick up the finer details of the non-Christian position, then I will be very interested in that material.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
I always appreciate your humor, Cory. I suspect you're even funnier in person (even if you are a theist).
If you haven't read The End of Faith by Sam Harris or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins yet, I highly recommend both.
By the way, I understand the lack of time vs. the stack of books waiting for me. Both grow larger every day. Oh well, someday maybe I'll get to retire and those books will all still be waiting for me.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
[Hi, I'm new and I'm sure it shows]
Gosai wrote
Consider "non-theism" rather than "ignorance". Avoiding emotive words in your arguments makes them more palatable to both sides and prevents argument. But I suck at doing that myself.
Netsui wrote:
Not really, since agnosticism is an epistemological conclusion, and you can't conclude something before you can understand the logic to draw that conclusion. Not even something as blatantly obvious as "nothing's provable". I don't feel that you could reasonably expect to find agnostics younger than about six.
Arletta wrote:
and kmisho wrote:
Scientists are as human, opinionated and bigoted as anyone. Dissuading them of their life's work is HARD, for anyone. Also, "crackpot" hypotheses get less time than "reasonable" ones. Few physicists would even look at the evidence for a perpetual motion machine. They have only so many hours in the day.
Generally the requirement is that the evidence is far more than needed to push the balance of probability past the tipping point, so it's often easier to give enough evidence to get a little past the tipping point, then wait for the die-hards of the old republic to retire.
Science doesn't work because scientists are magically more open minded than real people, but because it is based on openness of research: journals demand peer review, that financial interests be declared, the ability to duplicate results, and so on.
CoryT wrote:
You can put a prayer on an atheistic board, and not only not get shouted at for it, but indeed make readers laugh more than the original post. Surely there can be no doubt that you're going to kick ass as a writer
Heck, if you wrote a book on apologetics, I might even buy it!
[pro tip, though: ascribing negative emotions to your reader ("you hate X"
T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }
Part of writing is, of course, knowing your audience. You can look at some of my very early posts and see that it took me quite a bit of trial and error to know what I can get away with in regard to this particular audience. My early interactions usually invoked colorful arguments.
I thank you for the compliment. I've always had a talent for writing, I just figure now is the time in my life when I should turn talent into dollars and get paid for doing what I love. And, I won't come home smelling like stale french fries! BONUS!!
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
Finding comfort in having answers for things that are not understood is common. Especially if they are easy answers that don't require extensive research and education.
As for your second question:
Fear
All are Born atheist.
IMO the core difference between atheist and theist is courage.
Since you have never debated evolution with a real creationist, how could you possibly know that? I can give you an extensive list of creation scientists who are no pigeons. I assure you. One example is A.E. Wilder Smith who held three doctorates
As for the notion that we are born atheists, there are problems with that position. First, "appeal to the past" is a logical fallacy. Something (in this case atheism) does not become true because it is old. Second, humans are in their greatest state of ignorance as infants. This does not help the atheist position. Third, if we are going to appeal "antiquity" (the logical equivolent to this bogus claim), then we must also appeal to the infancy of the human race. Theism is older then atheism. The ancients always believed in a God or gods in some form or another. Lasty, there is no way to prove we are born atheists. The only way a person can make such an assertion, is if they first assume atheism to be true then engage in curcular reasoning.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
Please show me a creation argument with no logical fallacies. Did he have a doctorate in biology? Also calling them creation scientists is extremely misleading, they are not scientists, they are theologians at best!
Babies are born knowing all but nothing. That is scientific fact. They have a pre-disposition by instinct to learn all they can from their parents. They are thus taught theism alongside anything else a baby can learn. However, babies can also learn for themselves, they can pick up language and learn how to walk. However, no child can really have a concept of God beyond "there's this magic bloke in the sky", but even then they will wonder how does he stay up there.
I remember my first impressions of religion, as a young child, a friend of mine of Catholic parentage used to tell me God lived up in heaven with Jesus, and that dead people went there, when he said up, I naturally thought it must mean on a hill. I had a very vivid dream which encapsulated this when my great gran died. I wrote it down in a surreal short story last year. I might post it up for general viewing actually. I wasn't exposed to religion at an early age, I kind of believed my friend in some way but not much of it made sense.
{edit - fixed quote}
Atheist Books
Please show me a creation argument with no logical fallacies. Did he have a doctorate in biology? Also calling them creation scientists is extremely misleading, they are not scientists, they are theologians at best!
My Response: That statement shows you are not abreast in this field of study. Here is a partial list of creation scientists.
Lynn Carta, Ph.D.,USDA, Beltsville
Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D., Iowa State University
Walter Bradley, Ph.D., Baylor University
Mark Clark, Ph.D., Cal State San Bernardino
David Rogstad, Ph.D., Jet Propulsion Laboratories
George Lebo, Ph.D., University of Florida
Gerald Cleaver, Ph.D., Baylor University
Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D., Ohio State University
Michael Strauss, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Alex Metherell, M.D. and Ph.D., former researcher at University of California Irvine.
Eric Klumpe, Ph.D., University of Texas
Erica Carlson, Ph.D., Purdue University
Kyle Cudworth, Ph.D. University of Chicago, Yerkes Observatory
Jeffrey Zweerink, Ph.D., UCLA
Evolution is a dying breed. Many scientists today either disbelieve in it or seriously question.
Babies are born knowing all but nothing. That is scientific fact.
My Response: No, it is not a fact. It is an assumption. And even if one were to grant your argument, it does not help the atheist cause. If infants are born atheists and ignorant, what does that say about atheism?
They have a pre-disposition by instinct to learn all they can from their parents. They are thus taught theism alongside anything else a baby can learn.
My Response: Being taught theism by their parents, does not in anyway prove that they were born atheists. Additionally, if being taught theism by their parents somehow negates theism, then being taught atheism must also of necessity negate atheism.
However, babies can also learn for themselves, they can pick up language and learn how to walk. However, no child can really have a concept of God beyond "there's this magic bloke in the sky", but even then they will wonder how does he stay up there.
My Response: That's not scientific. It's assumption.
I wasn't exposed to religion at an early age, I kind of believed my friend in some way but not much of it made sense.
My Response: This fact does not help your case. Again, if theism is negated because it is taught, then logically atheism is also negated because it is taught. You cannot have it both ways. Lastly, as I stated in my other post, the argument is a logical fallacy -- appeal Argumentum ad Antiquitam.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
Your list was copied and pasted from "Reasons to believe" a Christian group. I decided to do a little background check on these guys
Lynn Carta - Is an agricultural expert, not a biologist.
Guillermo Gonzalez - "Research Interests: Dr. Gonzalez is primarily interested in studying the late stages of stellar evolution through the use of spectroscopic observations. Recent work includes spectroscopic abundance analysis of post-AGB supergiants and RV Tau variables. He has also undertaken a study of the parent stars of the recently discovered extra-solar planetary systems. The results indicate that these stars have anomalous chemical abundances, suggesting some sort of unusual formation history." Where's his creationism?
Walter Bradley, Ph.D., Baylor University - Is a mechanical engineer
Mark Clark - Political Scientist
David Rogstad - Is a physicist, there are always mavericks of course. Does he have any expertise in biology.
George Lebo - An astronomer. That is not to say he is a physicist or a biologist.
Gerald Cleaver - Is a physicist at a Christian university.
Robert DiSilvestro - Nutritional biochemistry. Not a biologist. His subject is looking at what things are good and bad for us.
Michael Strauss - A physicist, cannot see anything that sets him as a theist. No interests in biology.
Alex Metherell - Biophysics and engineering. Biology?
I really can't be bothered to do the rest. Are there any biologists? Could you give me one of these guys arguments for creationism? I would really like to read it. These guys try to show evolution wrong but none of them are biologists!!
Your argument was appeal to authority, you've offered no argument yourself.
By the way, I wasn't taught atheism. My parents are not religious but they are not atheists strictly speaking. I was exposed to some level of religion, just by living in society. Tell me of one child brought up without religious belief who really believes in God.
As for your argument "What does that say about atheism?" again it is poor. We are not saying we have the intelligence of babies, the opposite. Once we reached a certain age we realised that some of what we had been taught didn't make sense, we worked out a more logical way of gaining knowledge.
Atheist Books
Excellent catch, Jacob.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
You asked me to give you the name of a non-theological Doctor of biology, then when I do, you accuse me of appealing to authority. The point is that no matter who I list, you will just try as desperatly as you can to discredit them. This is how atheists do things.
You Stated: As for your argument "What does that say about atheism?" again it is poor. We are not saying we have the intelligence of babies, the opposite. Once we reached a certain age we realised that some of what we had been taught didn't make sense, we worked out a more logical way of gaining knowledge.
My Response: My point is that babies are not very intelligent. And, appeal to the past is still a logical fallacy. You have yet to deal with this fallacy and prove that atheism is somehow validated because humans are born without belief. Human's are born ignorant. Your argument only shows that atheism and ignorance are somehow tied together.
You asked me to give you the name of a creationist Doctor of biology, then when I do, you accuse me of appealing to authority. The point is that no matter who I list, you will just try as desperately as you can to discredit them. That's is how atheists do things.
You Stated: As for your argument "What does that say about atheism?" again it is poor. We are not saying we have the intelligence of babies, the opposite. Once we reached a certain age we realised that some of what we had been taught didn't make sense, we worked out a more logical way of gaining knowledge.
My Response: My point is that babies are not very intelligent. And, appeal to the past is still a logical fallacy. You have yet to deal with this fallacy and prove that atheism is somehow validated because humans are born without belief. Human's are born ignorant. Your argument only shows that atheism and ignorance are somehow tied together. As for creation scientists who specialize in biology, here is a partial list:
Richard Oliver Ph.D. (Biology)
David Kaufmann Ph.D (Anatomy)
John Scripture Ph.D (Biochemistry)
Inis Bardella B.S. (Biology), MD.
Duane Gish Ph.D.(Biochemistry)
Ken Kumming Ph.D. (Biology)
Dan Criswell Ph.D. (Biology/Microbiology)
David Dewitt Ph.D. (Neuroscience)
Frank Sherwin M.A. (Zoology).
Todd Wood Ph.D. (Biochemistry).
Gary Parker Ed.D (Biology)
Bert Thompson Ph.D (Microbiology)
David Menton Ph.D. (Cell Biology)
Joseph A. Mastropaolo Ph.D. (Physiology)
Carl Fliermans Ph.D. (Microbiology)
Ian Macreadie Ph.D. (Molecular Biology)
Andre Eggen Ph.D. (Molecular Genetics)
Lyubka Tantcheva Ph.D. (Biochemical Toxicology)
Walter Veith Ph.D. ( Zoology)
John K.G. Kramer Ph.D. (Biochemistry)
John Meyer Ph.D. ( Zoology)
Lane Lester Ph.D. (Genetics)
Alan Gillen, Ed.D. (Science Education)
Gregory Brewer Ph.D. (Biology)
Arthur Jones Ph.D. (Biology)
Kelly Hollowell J.D., Ph.D. (Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology)
Donna O'Daniel M.A. (Biological Sciences)
Glen W. Wolfrom Ph.D. (Animal Husbandry)
Mark Armitage M.S. (Biology)
Richard Lumsden Ph.D. (Biology)
Shall I continue? I can list just as many, and more who are geologists and astronomers who scoff at evolution. As for your challenge to make an argument, consult the scientists above.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
All these people are associated with the Institute for Creation Research. Nothing coming from these buildings is considered seriously for peer review. The Institute for Creation Research is a joke.
MY RESPONSE: Emotional responses never validate an argument. And if they were a joke, they would not have such a successful track record of defeating evolutionists in debates and writing.
God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen