Why do Atheists Bother?

[nl]

Jesus trumps it all and people are saved if they really follow Him, regardless of the church they belong.

Oh? Mormons as well? You sound quite liberal.

I do believe that there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church (even though the RCC has taught that this does not exist). I also believe that there can be salvation inside the RCC, inside eastern orthodox churches and inside other diverse places but not without the involvement of the Savior/Redeemer, Jesus Christ and not without the involvement of the Holy Spirit.

The LORD knows those who truly are His. (2 Timothy 2:19)

Many that are first shall be last and the last first. Many are called; few are chosen. (Matthew 19:30)

 

[nl]

...People do live and evaluate decisions according to a "code" or set of values that they live by. It would be chaos if people evaluated each decision without a beginning set of values to shape the way that they initially filter and analyze information.

Based upon your own set of semantics and definitions, some would call that code their "religion". Religion can be defined broadly or narrowly. Some definitions that are more narrow would say that religion includes a belief in God. Some definitions of religion that are more broad would say something like religion is a code that you live by.

Many say the etymology of religion lies with the Latin word "religare", which means “to tie, to bind.”

Many societies and organizations as well as many individuals have a "code" that they live by that binds them. IMHO, that "code" may or may not include a theistic element.

On the topic of definitions, from some perspectives, atheism really means "anti-theism" or "anti-God" and not just a neutral position of being "Without belief" or "Without theism".

Like the definition of religion, definitions can be broad or narrow.

atheism (plural atheisms)

1. (narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).

Source: atheism - Wiktionary

In many contexts, atheists do have beliefs and practices (like a religion).

Atheists seem to believe in abiogenesis or life created from non-life. Abiogenesis has not been seen but it has its believers.

 

[nl]

It's interesting, but Christians seem to disagree with one another a whole lot more than atheists disagree with other atheists.

This is sad and somewhat true. Jesus told his followers to pray for unity (John 17) but I reckon that over the centuries, this has been done too little.

Jesus told his disciples to "Seek first the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:33) but IMHO some have pursued rather strongly their own earthly fiefdoms.

 

[nl]

Brainfreeze, that is what they are saying about you. They think you have been led astray.

Do you know what is really taking place here? It is the evolution of religious belief itself. Christian belief is fracturing into numerous spin-off subspecies. Some of them over time, perhaps the Mormons, will totally divest themselves of the Christian name itself, just as the Christians once rid themselves of the Jewish label and created a wholly new religion.

Professed Christians are individuals and so are professed atheists. Both come in a variety of attributes and expressions.

Over the centuries, it has been sad but true that people have made generalizing assumptions about groups of people and not really understood them. Over the course of history, this has been done concerning gender, race, color, creed and religion.

Genuine Christians are grafted into the Jewish tree and heirs of promises made to Abraham and promises made by God even earlier. Christianity has roots that go back to "In the beginning, God created..."

 

[john832]

On the contrary, really -- evolution is quite testable and repeatable. Speciations from one major organism to another, as well as different evolutionary adaptations, have in fact been observed on numerous occasions, including different types of Primroses, Brassica plants, and the well-documented E. coli bacteria from Richard Lensky's long-term experiments. What "facts" does evolution lack that serves to discredit the theory?

You have some evidence of a kind becoming another kind do you? That would almost warrant "Second Coming Type".

 

[john832]

Oh, come on, now.

Instead of rambling about the notion that I have no life, or that I'm "pathetic" or "sad," try pointing out what I've said that might be construed to imply that I'm saying "nothing of substance." AFAIK, I've been adequately responding to the vitriol on this thread, and I'd like to think I've been sufficiently clear and precise.

This doesn't have to devolve into ad hominem attacks and bitter sarcasm.

Basically, what I have seen is that anyone who disagrees with you and the theory is guilty of a vitriolic attack.

 

[john832]

Just about everything. Anytime I hear statements about evolution from anti-evolutionists it is typically misconstrued.

To tell you the truth, I see that all the way 'round.

 

[john832]

SoulWeaver, you're playing with the boundaries for classification to try to prove something, but you're failing to take into account that evolutionary process itself inherently supersedes the boundaries of classification: animals mutate, and eventual become very different things. It is humankind who classifies it. It does not itself require our classification for it to be a process that happens anyway.

Fish evolved into amphibians, and amphibians evolved into reptiles, and reptiles evolved into birds. It doesn't matter to the process's validity what boundary we place on what is a 'kind' or what is a 'phylum' or a 'genus', they are just man made terms to allow us to sort things into categories for easier examination. The basis for the theory still stands; animals mutate over long periods of time,change environments, die off, some are selected, mutations are carried over to new generations, some prevail, some don't, and we end up, today with huge variation across the globe because of all of these factors.

What boundary do you want to set? I mean, do you want me to show you a 'horse kind', that magically turned into a 'dog kind'? Such a request is utterly intellectually dishonest and ignorant of how the progression within like species occurs. Of course a horse doesn't just evolve into a dog, (and the reason we classify 'species' is exactly for that reason; dogs reproduce with like species, horses reproduce with like species). That doesn't mean that evolution is false, it means that certain evolved genes are reproductively compatible with other certain evolved genes.

And you have the mounds upon mounds of fossils of the intermediates between fish and reptiles? Where are all these bones hidden?

 

[john832]

What boundary do you want to set? I mean, do you want me to show you a 'horse kind', that magically turned into a 'dog kind'? Such a request is utterly intellectually dishonest and ignorant of how the progression within like species occurs. Of course a horse doesn't just evolve into a dog, (and the reason we classify 'species' is exactly for that reason; dogs reproduce with like species, horses reproduce with like species). That doesn't mean that evolution is false, it means that certain evolved genes are reproductively compatible with other certain evolved genes.

So, a kind doesn't evolve into another kind but that does not make evolution false? What is the mechanism? Magic? Smoke and mirrors might be closer to the truth.

Yes I do want that demonstrated, because that's exactly what you're teaching.

Yep, me too, I keep asking where the bones are buried. Assertions are made and special creation is scorned, but the voluminous evidence of intermediates and transitional species seems to have gone missing. If we entertain the idea that fish evolved into reptiles, then the number of intermediate stages (after all, this happens over millions of years) would be astronomical. Fins slowly changing to legs. The head being reshaped and the eyes slowly moving around. A tail fin gradually changing into a serpentine tail.

Where are all these fossils kept? Some super secret evolutionary storehouse? The evidence ought to be piled up all around us.

 

[john832]

No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is the theory explaining the progression of life from singular celled organism to all the genetic variation we see today. Just because a dog does not evolve into a horse does not mean that evolution does not happen, it means that evolution happens in a different way than you demand to hear.

Would you say that because apes have not been observed to evolve into cats, that apes evolving into humans is a ridiculous notion? Because that's effectively what you're saying.

Again, evolutionary theory is a method to explain a creation without a Creator.

When you boil it down, this is the real thrust of evolution. No God and no rules.

 

[john832]

There is absolutely no evidence that has been found to prove the theory of macro-evolution.
Scientist's are still trying to find this missing link to show actual evidence to support specie to another specie evolve if there even is one, which I doubt there is.

I keep asking where the bones are buried.

The only evidence they has been proven has been for micro-evolution.
The adaptation of an animal from a cold environment to a warm environment, and vise versa.
Also this includes the same style of a family group evolving, for instance the wolf of the canine family where we get our dog breeds from in the canine family.

An adaptative feature that God created in all kinds.

As a matter of fact archaeologist have been finding more and more each year evidence to prove the places and people that are mentioned in the old and new testaments did exist. They have found numerous ruins in digs for places that once scientists have tried to say were just myths.

Shhh, you aren't supposed to know about that.

 

[kaylagrl]

Again, evolutionary theory is a method to explain a creation without a Creator.

When you boil it down, this is the real thrust of evolution. No God and no rules.

​ I love that they put "probably" like that will cover them...just in case.

 

[kaylagrl]

Indeed I wonder sometimes why atheists bother. Even after attempting to correct the misunderstanding about what evolution is, I still see someone asking for someone to show a horse magically turning into another modern species of a different family. Why would you continue to insist that this is what evolution teaches when such a thing is so opposite of evolution that it would totally derail the theory. This is just continual demonstration of a complete lack of information and understanding about evolution.

Evolutionists dont know what it is.Everyone I talk to has a different explanation. How do you expect us not to be confused?

 

[john832]

​ I love that they put "probably" like that will cover them...just in case.

Not much of an insurance policy, is it?

 

[Cycel]

On the topic of definitions, from some perspectives, atheism really means "anti-theism" or "anti-God" and not just a neutral position of being "Without belief" or "Without theism".

You are saying this is what you want it to mean?

My Oxford dictionary explains that atheism is from the Greek 'a' meaning without and 'theos' meaning God. Hence atheism means without God. However, I have been asked many times, "Why do you hate God?" My answer: I do not hate God. This is what comes from the claim that atheism means "anti-theism" or "anti-God".

Like the definition of religion, definitions can be broad or narrow.

atheism (plural atheisms)

1. (narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).

I can go along with the above. I simply do not accept the existence of any gods.

In many contexts, atheists do have beliefs and practices (like a religion).

Such as?

Atheists seem to believe in abiogenesis or life created from non-life. Abiogenesis has not been seen but it has its believers.

I have to stop for now, but no, I don't have a belief system on the origin of life. You have a belief system tied to a supernatural belief in a deity. You make specific claims about how life originated. I do not. I am saying only, "Let's not make any claims until science discovers the explanation."

 

[john832]

Evolutionists dont know what it is.Everyone I talk to has a different explanation. How do you expect us not to be confused?

"Millions of years" pretty much covers it all. After all, given enough time, anything could happen.

Violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[kaylagrl]

Brainfreeze, that is what they are saying about you. They think you have been led astray.

Do you know what is really taking place here? It is the evolution of religious belief itself. Christian belief is fracturing into numerous spin-off subspecies. Some of them over time, perhaps the Mormons, will totally divest themselves of the Christian name itself, just as the Christians once rid themselves of the Jewish label and created a wholly new religion.

Christians didnt rid themselves of the Jewish label.Christ was a Jew as were his first followers.Some of the Jews didnt accept Christ as the Messiah but the first Christ followers were Jews.And those who werent still worshiped with Jews.Catholics I think consider themselves the first "Christians" and that is where the split began I think.

 

[john832]

Christians didnt rid themselves of the Jewish label.Christ was a Jew as were his first followers.Some of the Jews didnt accept Christ as the Messiah but the first Christ followers were Jews.And those who werent still worshiped with Jews.Catholics I think consider themselves the first "Christians" and that is where the split began I think.

It is actually a little (much) deeper than that but that is for another thread, it is way off topic here.

 

[kaylagrl]

It is actually a little (much) deeper than that but that is for another thread, it is way off topic here.

Umm humm but he brought it up in a rather backhanded way.So I wanted to at least make a comment.The first Christians were Jewish and everyone worshiped together.I dont see the veer coming before the Catholic church began but go ahead and start a thread on it.Would be interesting.

 

[Jimbone]

Oh, come on, now.

Instead of rambling about the notion that I have no life, or that I'm "pathetic" or "sad," try pointing out what I've said that might be construed to imply that I'm saying "nothing of substance." AFAIK, I've been adequately responding to the vitriol on this thread, and I'd like to think I've been sufficiently clear and precise.

This doesn't have to devolve into ad hominem attacks and bitter sarcasm.

ad hominem attack- means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

First off here is the definition of ad hominem attack, I was not attacking your character just simple asking about the motivation behind your comments here and offering my opinion on what it may be. I actually made it clear it was only my opinion and even asked you to clarify what it truly is, which you didn’t even answer by the way. If this can be considered an ad hominem attack then surely you coming on here declaring that anyone that doesn’t blindly accept evolution simple can’t understand it (implying you are just smart enough to understand something we lack the intelligence to grasp), is an ad hominem attack against most people on this site. What I did was smack you in the mouth with truth and it offended you as truth usually does when we are blind to it. If what I accused you of doing isn’t true then just clear it up, and the only thing you’ve been “sufficiently clear and precise” about is playing the victim in -->my opinion<--. If what I said offended you, I apologize, but I still can’t think of any logical or rational reason for these kind of comments then what I said in the last comment. If I’m so dead wrong then clear it up for everyone.