A False Dilemma, in Atheism

Good to see you return to the fray. No try to make sense!

 

Where are the witnesses you might bring forth that state as a fact a fish crawled up onto land and became a human?? Or how did chance go so far to produce a human eyeball?....let alone an entire human body? What witnesses might you bring forth that can differentiate the fact that humans contemplate their mortality, record history, converse in a written language, and care for the preservation of the earth while other species do not??? What are the witnesses for your atheistic creed that mankind is the beginning and end of all things?

 

No stupidity doesn't raise my ire. Having faith doesn't raise my ire. What raises my ire is confusing the two.

 

It means you do not know how to confront directly. You prefer backhanded comments to direct confrontation by saying things like "got it".....end of story.

 

Yes you do confuse faith with stupidity because you are faithless.

 

Nope, you are the person who confuses the two. Claiming there is proof of god is stupidity. Believing in god is faith.

 

Believing there is no God is faith. Prove me wrong.

 

There is a gigantic body of evidence in support of evolution - evidence of various different kinds, all pointing to the same process. There is no disagreement about that process. Thus, evolution is a foundation of all modern biology.

The idea that mankind is the beginning and end of all things comes from religion, not science.

 

What you think is not proof of anything.

You make a false analogy comparing something real (Vinyl record) with something real (mp3 file) -- as being the same as a fake product of your imagination being compared with anything that is real.

"Mind is dualistic based" is simply nonsense that you seem to think sounds scientific. It is a total failure in every case when you religious people try to sound scientific.

 

Believing in no unicorns is faith. Believing in no ghosts is faith. Believing in no Flying Sphaghetti Monster is faith. And we can come up with a million more imaginary human creations that we can't prove don't exist.

You want to belive in imaginary creatures that man created that is your faith. Embrace it but don't expect stupidity to be contagious.

 

Again and again the constant demands for you people to prove a negative. Can you prove the Easter Bunny is not real? If you can't then the Easter Bunny must be real.

I would ask you to prove your theism claims but we all know that won't happen.

But, but, but, but....the Bible....but... but...

I WANT TO SEE ONE NEW ARGUMENT OUT OF YOU PEOPLE THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED.

 

All of the above seems like (to use a technical term) mumbo jumbo. Pure presence my arse.

 

I don't see how morals matter more in a universe with a God. Who says God cares about human morals at all? Anymore than we care about the morality of ants

 

About a billion or so fossils. And then of course endless examples of evolution occuring in our lifetimes. But no evidence will ever convince the willfully ignorant.

 

The religion is atheism and the science is "pseudo science".

 

The fossil record has not shown any evidence of evolution. There is adaptation and selectivity but one species has NEVER "evolved" into another species. Sorry, I am not attacking your faith.....but it may seem that way.

 

Now that is sneaky! Instead of one like, you broke up your thought into four posts and got four likes. It must be divine inspiration.

 

You're making vague and unsupportable accusations here.

Biology is not pseudoscience. And, evolution IS one of its foundations.

You can say all the stuff you want about atheism - I just no longer see that it matters. In the first place, I suspect that a large percent of atheists are agnostic and simply not making any decisions based on the possibility that there exists some sort of supernatural.

 

If you are a declared atheist it is ridiculous to say you are an agnostic. Agnostics are just indifferent. Atheists profess a belief, a faith, that there is no Creator that created us with good intentions.
Not all biology or science is "pseudoscience". Only Science in search of a reason to support your belief is pseudoscience.

 

Those of us who understand that conscience is a gift from God. You're welcome.

 

Dude, Morgan Fairchild is like 1000 years old. Naked? I just lost my dinner.....thanks alot.

 

I don't really accept you cut and dried definitions on what is atheism, etc. The thing is, I don't make decisions on the basis of anything related to a god, a god's existence or nonexistence. Suggesting that is like a religion is ridiculous. Religions are active. Religions require some sort of worship or recognition or personal involvement. Atheism doesn't have to be like that. Maybe it is for someone, but it sounds REALLY weird to me - I'm going to do X because there is no god to care?? What's that?

As for your comment on science, science isn't defined like that. Science has a methodology. The question is whether the methodology is followed. You don't have to ask a scientist about beliefs before hearing about his science. You don't have to care what Einstein believed or what Newton believed. It doesn't help you to know that Darwin was a devout believer in god.

 

Thats not an answer. Or even an attempt at one. Plus obviously morality isnt at all tied to a belief in God. You only have to look at the world today to see that.

 

What? Darwin was an agnostic.

 

Always you people say what god is or isn't, what god does or doesn't do, what god gives or takes away -- but you can NEVER provide any proof that your god exists. Why is that?