atheists

[Imperfect]

There is no proof of evolution. They just have a couple bones with a theory attached to them.

 

[Cycel]

... I for one Know for CERTAIN that God exists.... Does God need to hit you in the head with a brick before you'll know for certain?

Then you would agree that the following statement is also true of yourself: "In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’ "

Directline, I suspect that many atheists reserve a place for a little doubt as to their certainty regarding God's non-existence, but I also know that many believers also have a kernel of doubt. Not all share the certitude exhibited by yourself and Carl Jung.

Addendum: the page number in my above post should read 50, not 100.

 

[Cycel]

There is no proof of evolution. They just have a couple bones with a theory attached to them.

If you are looking for one objective fact that proves evolution, then I would have to agree with you, but it is the weight of all the evidence combined that becomes overwhelming. It is not just a couple fossil bones, there are many thousands and on top of that there are many lines of converging evidence from fields of study outside of the study of fossils.

You've perhaps not read Darwin's Origin of Species, but what he does is systematically build the argument with such a preponderance of information that by the end of the book his conclusion seems inescapable, and he does it without bones. In 1859 when he published there truly were only a couple of fossils, so he relied on other lines of investigation.

 

[Huckleberry]

You write as if you think that only atheists accept evolution. See Francis Collins book, The Language of God. He is an evangelical Christian, is perhaps America's leading geneticist, and fully accepts evolution. He is not alone.

So-called Christians may believe in/accept macro-evolution,
but in order to do that, they must reject the Bible, at least in part.
So by rejecting any of the Bible, how are they Christians?

 

[Cycel]

A Gnosis = no knowlege = dont know (there is a god)
I have a video where, within seconds, steven Hawking makes three statements.....

1. There is no god
2. The universe is marvellously designed (by who??????????????)
3. I am very grateful for that(to whom??????????)

Some scientists have been critical of Hawking for using the kind of language he does, because among some people it causes confusion. But Hawking follows in the tradition of men like Einstein who also invoked 'God language'. Einstein famously said, 'God does not play dice with the universe,' but in his private letters clearly stated he was an atheist. Hawking uses the same kind of language, but it does not mean he thinks the universe needs a creator. Dawkins too says nature looks designed but when you listen to him long enough you come to realize he does not mean it had to be created by a higher Being.

Don't read too much into what you think Hawking is saying in a video clip. Borrow his book, A Brief History of Time from the library, or read some of his other popular publications, and you will get a better handle on what he is truly meaning to say.

 

[Cycel]

So-called Christians may believe in/accept macro-evolution,
but in order to do that, they must reject the Bible, at least in part.
So by rejecting any of the Bible, how are they Christians?

The Bible says, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live," but I hardly think you want to execute all these New Age Wiccans. If you followed the Bible you'd be out stoning women along with the hardcore Muslims and chopping off hands. Christians do not follow huge swaths of the Old Testament and have arguments to explain why, but they still call themselves Christian. I think, more to the fact, Christianity is contained exclusively in the New Testament, though I don't think it speaks directly against evolution (How could it? Evolution wasn't known in that era).

Not following one aspect of a pronouncement in the Good Book does not mean a person is not a Christian. If it did I suspect there would be no Christians at all.

 

[Godslyric]

I spend most of my days working around atheists... and a few of them are good friends. I get to communicate Christ often to them in a very mutual and respectful manner in the course of a week, or a month whenever the opportunity presents itself...Living in a marine environment (that has 90% of the men here being from very hard backgrounds, and put up with no BS what so ever), us Christians are a minority (and also the Christians here are just as hard edged) so getting along is imperative... My pier is known as the God dock, because we have several Christian boats here that house Christians on them, and the Atheists here (which are the majority) call it The God Dock with a friendly timber in their voices, not discourse... MY POINT is this, a loving respectful heart isn't just found in a Christians chest...Having said that...Ministering is something we do with atheists, and agnostics, not Christians, they already know Christ, well, hopefully anyway...how could I do that if I felt discourse in my heart for them?...The idea that Christians can take a stand against them contradicts what Christ teaches, (and yes I am aware that we are to shake the dust off our feet when its time). Where is the Love in condemnation? How can you bring someone to Christ with hate? Spreading the Word means dealing with non believers, not fellow believers...Christianity's not a self-service station...I was a foul minded, hot tempered thug that needed Christ in the worst way, if Christians turned their backs on me, where would I be? This is our Job, to Love our brothers, and bring the light of Christ to them...It can sometimes take years to bring a man to Christ...Cant do it with discourse brothers...

 

[Godslyric]

PS...My post was in reply to the thread in general, Im still trying to get the hang of these chat rooms...

 

[Imperfect]

If you are looking for one objective fact that proves evolution, then I would have to agree with you, but it is the weight of all the evidence combined that becomes overwhelming. It is not just a couple fossil bones, there are many thousands and on top of that there are many lines of converging evidence from fields of study outside of the study of fossils.

You've perhaps not read Darwin's Origin of Species, but what he does is systematically build the argument with such a preponderance of information that by the end of the book his conclusion seems inescapable, and he does it without bones. In 1859 when he published there truly were only a couple of fossils, so he relied on other lines of investigation.

who is darwin. hes merely a human. mortal. no different than you or me. he has theorys. elaborated philosophies that confuse the vulnerable mind into believing the rubbish he says.

 

[Cycel]

PS...My post was in reply to the thread in general, Im still trying to get the hang of these chat rooms...

Godslyric, pleased to make your acquaintance. I've been at this a few years now (though I am new here), and yes, it does take a bit to get a grasp on the codes and so on. You seem to have a very easy going demeanor, I look forward to sharing your thoughts.

 

[7seven7]

Sometimes people are misquoted. I don't know, but that doesn't sound like anything a Pope would say.

The following is a quote from Pope Francis:
"I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am. Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good."

The Pope seems to be saying that if the atheist offers respect and friendship he gives the same back. He also seems to reflect Matthew 7:1, "Judge not that ye be not judged." There's more. He doesn't say it is okay to be an atheist. He says he will offer respect and not judge.

He goes on to say: "As I am a believer, I know that these riches are a gift from God. I also know that the other person, the atheist, does not know that." So he does not say it is okay to be an atheist. He says the atheist lacks the understanding of the believer.

Can you see TRUE Christianity just pouring out of this thread! Lol God bless you, friend.

 

[Cycel]

who is darwin. hes merely a human. mortal. no different than you or me.

Not sure how his being human relates to your argument. Every significant advance in our knowledge and technology has been made by us moral humans.

he has theorys. elaborated philosophies that confuse the vulnerable mind into believing the rubbish he says.

He proposed only one theory. Philosophy is not part of it. What persuades people is the strength of the evidence. As I said previously, it is the accumulative weight of all the evidence brought together that is so compelling.

 

[Godslyric]

Godslyric, pleased to make your acquaintance. I've been at this a few years now (though I am new here), and yes, it does take a bit to get a grasp on the codes and so on. You seem to have a very easy going demeanor, I look forward to sharing your thoughts.

Thank you for the kind welcome...This site is the first site I have been on that has so many different perspectives communicating with each other, with a pretty high level of respect...Most site would blow up with anger on these topics...I have to take my hat off to all you people, you keep it pretty civil, interesting, and worthwhile ... Glad to be here, and thanks again for the welcome...

 

[Cycel]

Can you see TRUE Christianity just pouring out of this thread! Lol God bless you, friend.

Hello 7Seven7, glad to finally chat with you. Your posts contain a log that I agree with, I must say. This one I am not grasping though. Sometimes, I admit, I can be slow on the uptake.

Oh, and your handle is a bit of a puzzle. It's no reference to Seven of Seven, is it?

 

[7seven7]

Hello 7Seven7, glad to finally chat with you. Your posts contain a log that I agree with, I must say. This one I am not grasping though. Sometimes, I admit, I can be slow on the uptake.

Oh, and your handle is a bit of a puzzle. It's no reference to Seven of Seven, is it?

Hahahaha sorry mate, it was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic about how people try to live their whole lives as Christians but forget about the "showing love" part.
I like the number 7. Means "complete" in the Bible. Not saying I'm complete. Just always knew it as God's phone number lol

 

[Cycel]

If I say I do not believe in the tooth fairy, that means I have a personal belief that the tooth fairy does not exist. Atheists struggle with this concept: "You can have a belief for something and also against something". A negative belief is still a belief.

I want to try a different approach. A few moments ago I Googled "gods of India." I wanted to find the name of a deity about which I had previously not heard. I found the name Parvati. All I know about this god is that it is female and belief in it is apparently very wide spread. That much I gleaned when I looked down the list of names presented. I don't believe this goddess exists for the simple reason that it is not part of my cultural heritage and I simply have no reason to think it is real. Let me ask you. Can this simple assumption that Parvati is not real constitute a true belief?

Last week I saw on the news that a new species of mammal has been found in South America. I don't recall anything about it except that is nocturnal and might be a cat. My understanding that this animal exists is based on the news report. Is this now a belief that I hold?

Beliefs, I think, are generally more nuanced than that, wouldn't you say? When we say that a Christian believes in God, that implies the holding of views that at the very least would be sufficient to fill a small pamphlet, or for some people something the size of a book would be required. If I were to tell you I don't think God exists do you need anymore information than if I were to say I don't think Parvati exists?

Christians have a system of belief that could fill many pages. Atheist are simply making a statement. They don't believe in the existence of God/Pavarti. Is that truly a belief or is it simply a statement of fact about an assumption being made?

 

[Cycel]

Hahahaha sorry mate, it was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic about how people try to live their whole lives as Christians but forget about the "showing love" part.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

I like the number 7. Means "complete" in the Bible. Not saying I'm complete. Just always knew it as God's phone number lol

Okay, definitely not a Star Trek reference. LOL

I like the number 10. When I was a child my grandmother and I use to play bingo together. I always picked a card with the number ten.

 

[CoooCaw]

Rhetoric.

Have a look at Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, by Donald Prothero.

The case for evolution is simply overwhelming. If you prefer a shorter book and one written by a Christian then have a look at Francis Collins, The Language of God.

There has never been ONE missing link discovered

nor ONE example of a POSITIVE mutation in the genome

all you have is blind dogma being perpetrated by men who would rather believe ANYTHING than that they are answerable to a creator


the most intellectually honest geologists who really know their subject realise that Geology does not prove evolution but assume that it is the biologists who have the evidence
the most intellectually honest biologists who really know their subject realise that Biology does not prove evolution but assume that it is the geologists who have the evidence

 

[Cycel]

There has never been ONE missing link discovered

When I set down to play a game of chess for the first time with someone new I often know within the first couple of moves whether that person understands anything about the game beyond the basic rules. If you're familiar with chess you will know what I mean. So too when discussing evolution certain questions give away a great deal about the questioner's level of knowledge. This opening move tells me evolution is not your game. Would you agree?

nor ONE example of a POSITIVE mutation in the genome

Well then, just one should suffice: the gene that permits the digestion of lactose.

 

[Imperfect]

Not sure how his being human relates to your argument. Every significant advance in our knowledge and technology has been made by us moral humans.


He proposed only one theory. Philosophy is not part of it. What persuades people is the strength of the evidence. As I said previously, it is the accumulative weight of all the evidence brought together that is so compelling.

hes human. he doesnt know. he has theorys. i would quote scripture, but you being an atheist, that doesnt mean much to you.

and his evidence will be old within the next year or so and scrapped for a new theory based on "new evidence"... the truth dont change, brother. science theorys change like the seasons. this is a fact.