atheists

[Starcrash]

no not at this time, when I log off. Then they will speak.

According to the "11 hours ago" in the headline of your post, you were posting at nearly 2 am in the morning Eastern Standard Time (where I reside). I can't speak for anyone else here, but I can happily explain why I wasn't chatting while you were posting...

I've already seen this before, this idea that people don't respond to you because they're afraid. If you'll head on down to the bottom of the thread and look at the box labeled "thread information", you can see who is logged on and browsing this thread. If you don't see an atheist's name there, then you can probably deduce for yourself why it's so quiet here... it has nothing to do with fear. Many of us enjoy debating with theists because we feel that we're actually right and can prove it effectively, and irrational theists (*cough*) make us look even better.

 

[TheAristocat]

I think the plan is simply to pin Kerry down and engage him in any reasonable discussion, but he doesn't seem interested. Kerry boasted, "Hi , are you an atheist, praise God I have been looking for one, yes I ran the others off and they will not talk to me anymore. So how you doing... what would you like to discuss?"

I asked him if there was a specific line of reasoning he frightened them away with and offered to discus the creation account and Noah's flood. So far he has not responded to my post, nor to the others. I think he's demonstrated he is not serious about having a discussion. Oh, well.

Well, I'd be open in discussing the secular creation account with you. What are your views of abiogenesis, panspermia, meteor impacts, and evolution? Not necessarily looking for a debate, but if I have concerns I hope I can bounce them off of you and see where they go. I wanted to take a class on Evolution in college, but it wasn't going to count toward my degree. I only ended up getting a little of it in my Botany class. But maybe we can start with abiogenesis or whatever you're most comfortable with.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, I'd be open in discussing the secular creation account with you. What are your views of abiogenesis, panspermia, meteor impacts, and evolution? Not necessarily looking for a debate, but if I have concerns I hope I can bounce them off of you and see where they go.

I'd love to be included in this discussion. I accept the evidence for common descent and abiogenesis, but I am also a Christian.

Abiogenesis, meteor impacts, and evolution are all factual; I've not seen any good evidence for panspermia nor does it appear to be necessary to explain life on Earth.

 

[Cycel]

I'd love to be included in this discussion.

By all means. More the merrier.

I accept the evidence for common descent and abiogenesis....

Abiogenesis, meteor impacts, and evolution are all factual; I've not seen any good evidence for panspermia nor does it appear to be necessary to explain life on Earth.

I agree with all this. I won't rule out panspermia, but like you I don't think it is necessary.

 

[Cycel]

Well, I'd be open in discussing the secular creation account with you.

But not the biblical account? That's quite common. Most creationists prefer to skirt away from discussion of Genesis, I think because it is too difficult to defend. They'd rather go after the boogeyman than face the difficulties of defending the literature that causes them to reject evolution in the first place. So in focusing on evolution we are treating the symptoms and not the cause of evolution's rejection. For creationists it is the safer bet.

 

[Cycel]

Well, I'd be open in discussing the secular creation account with you. What are your views of abiogenesis, panspermia, meteor impacts, and evolution? Not necessarily looking for a debate, but if I have concerns I hope I can bounce them off of you and see where they go.

No problem.

Abiogenesis: Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds. The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon (from Wikipedia).

This would be my view of how and when life most likely arose on Earth. There is plenty of evidence life existed that long ago, not so many ideas on how the process came about – yet.

Meteor impacts? Not sure what you want to talk about here. It’s clear meteors and comets do bring to Earth compounds and elements necessary to life on Earth. If the astronomers are correct Earth actually formed by accretion of material in the solar cloud. I accept this theory as well.

Evolution – for me it is a given.

I wanted to take a class on Evolution in college, but it wasn't going to count toward my degree. I only ended up getting a little of it in my Botany class. But maybe we can start with abiogenesis or whatever you're most comfortable with.

If you like.

No one has yet demonstrated how life originated but there is ample research showing that all, or most, of the necessary components that comprise a living organism are formed naturally by a host of processes on Earth, or are delivered to Earth with comets, asteroids and meteors. That biologists haven’t yet figured out, in detail, how life formed naturally is not an argument against them making the discovery in the future. Many creationists make this erroneous claim.

************

Here I’ve been going on making the assumption you are a creationist. Am I correct? If so, are you the Old Earth or the Young Earth variety?

 

[CoooCaw]

Paul debated with the atheists of his day, the epicureans

his conclusion was that they were very superstitious; just like contemporary atheists

 

[AvalonXQ]

Paul debated with the atheists of his day, the epicureans

Epicureanism is not an atheist philosophy. Epicureans were essentially polytheistic deists.

 

[Cycel]

Paul debated with the atheists of his day, the epicureans

his conclusion was that they were very superstitious; just like contemporary atheists

Avlon is correct. The Epicureans were not atheists, rather they were much like 18th century deists.

Wikipedia says, "Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives. It states that gods, matter, and souls are all made up of atoms. Souls are made from atoms, and gods possess souls, but their souls adhere to their bodies without escaping. Humans have the same kind of souls, but the forces binding human atoms together do not hold the soul forever."

I suspect Paul would have been hard pressed to find an atheist, in our modern sense, among his contemporaries.

 

[megaman125]

I suspect Paul would have been hard pressed to find an atheist, in our modern sense, among his contemporaries.

To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
Psalm 14:1

It seems the authors of the Bible had no trouble finding atheists or understanding the concepts of atheism. I could also quote the obvious Romans chapter 1.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

What abominable deeds do I do exactly?

 

[megaman125]

What abominable deeds do I do exactly?

You sin just like I do. Maybe different sins, or different amounts of sin, but it's all sin nonetheless, and all sinners need forgiveness.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

You sin just like I do. Maybe different sins, or different amounts of sin, but it's all sin nonetheless, and all sinners need forgiveness.

Ah I was hoping for more than that! you could've made my life sound exciting LOL

 

[megaman125]

Ah I was hoping for more than that! you could've made my life sound exciting LOL

Umm... sorry to disapoint, I guess. Lol

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Umm... sorry to disapoint, I guess. Lol

Between work, kids and the pets I don't have much time for abominable deeds... Hence my question lol.

Before Danschance reports me again, I'm not mocking, but did people have more time to do all this sinning back then? Because no one has much time
For anything these days!

Or have we just changed our sins to suit the times?

 

[Starcrash]

Paul debated with the atheists of his day, the epicureans

his conclusion was that they were very superstitious; just like contemporary atheists

Is this anything other than name-calling? Exactly what do you think this adds to the debate?

Superstition is seeing a pattern where it doesn't exist, usually caused by lack of attention to dis-confirming evidence. There are many religious examples of this, such as believing that prayer works because you notice when you get what you ask for and forget that you even prayed when you don't get what you asked for (because there's no result to remind you). Atheists, if anything, would be inattentive to patterns that you believe exist, which doesn't make them superstitious but rather in denial... assuming that those patterns are real.

If you're going to quote an authority like Paul, you have to cite it. I know the word "superstitious" didn't appear in any of Paul's letters, and I don't recall him suggesting a description of the idea, either. In fact, I don't even recall Paul discussing atheism in any capacity.

 

[Starcrash]

To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
Psalm 14:1

It seems the authors of the Bible had no trouble finding atheists or understanding the concepts of atheism. I could also quote the obvious Romans chapter 1.

Obviously this passage doesn't apply to atheists because there are atheists that "do good". Or... the verse is mistaken. It's upsetting to me that so many Christians get preconceptions of atheism from bible verses rather than studying actual atheist behavior.

 

[CoooCaw]

Is this anything other than name-calling? Exactly what do you think this adds to the debate?

Superstition is seeing a pattern where it doesn't exist, usually caused by lack of attention to dis-confirming evidence. There are many religious examples of this, such as believing that prayer works because you notice when you get what you ask for and forget that you even prayed when you don't get what you asked for (because there's no result to remind you). Atheists, if anything, would be inattentive to patterns that you believe exist, which doesn't make them superstitious but rather in denial... assuming that those patterns are real.

If you're going to quote an authority like Paul, you have to cite it. I know the word "superstitious" didn't appear in any of Paul's letters, and I don't recall him suggesting a description of the idea, either. In fact, I don't even recall Paul discussing atheism in any capacity.

18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

Paul Before the Areopagus

22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Paul debated with the atheists of his day, the epicureans

his conclusion was that they were very superstitious; just like contemporary atheists

The irony of this statement!

You speak to any atheist, and they'll pretty much agree on a lot of things in the bible. Don't kill or steal, no adultery, love thy neighbour, live a good life etc.

The divide between Christians and Atheists appears ONLY BECAUSE of the superstitious and supernatural elements. That is the only real divide between us. We both live to the same standards and ideals as you do. We just don't believe the supernatural part of it.

 

[Starcrash]

18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

Paul Before the Areopagus

22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

Thank you for the citation (found in Acts 17). Were these people atheists, though? They had several alters to several gods. Atheism, by definition, doesn't hold a belief in any god.