Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[deepthought]

Firstly, thank you for showing a more humane and mature attitude.

Thank you for your opinion, but not helpful here in trying to show them God's love.

No situation is resolved when reaching the lowest common denominator of threats. Homward, you could learn a lot from this genuinely lovely person.

In reply to evolution/chance over design argument. Let me try to give an example. Have you ever played the game 'Guess Who'? You have a board of about 50 different faces and have to guess which one your opponent has by a process of elimination. So let's twist this a bit to help us understand natural selection. You have 50 species and 1 foods source. Of those, 30 species can eat the food, 20 can't. Therefore 20 species die and 30 remain to pass on their genes.

Those species breed and the next generation are placed on the board. A predator with speed=3 arrives. Any species which don't have a higher speed, or a stealth quality for example are eaten, they do not breed. The ones who are faster breed the next generation and all of these now have either stealth or speed>3 and can eat the food source. This is a gross simplification but shows how natural selection can create useful qualities.

We live on a planet with an air environment, so there is not a species I am aware of that does not 'hear' in some way. There are species born without sight because in their environment, that species has evolved to have no need for it.

I am not a Geologist, or geneticist. I am a sound designer. I had a Church of England school education and have read the bible cover to cover and can probably quote a lot of it from memory to this day. There is nothing I have read in that book to make me believe what it says is the truth. Not back, no matter how they justified it, and definitely not today. It feels fiction in every fibre of my being. It does not take effort to not believe, it is not because I have found something other than the bible to believe in. It felt wrong from day one. Darwin's theory of natural selection does make sense to me. No amount of threats or love will change that.

For me, it is that feeling that makes the choice for me. You can say I choose to reject Christ. Well no, I concede that there is enough written evidence to substantiate the fact there was a man who would later be known as Jesus. Do I believe he was the Son of God? No, as I do not believe there is a God. Do I believe he believed? Unknown. The historical Chinese whispers which have occurred since biblical times present no adequate evidence either way of any personal account. You would need the Gospel of Jesus in order to begin that theory and even then there would be no evidence he actually wrote it. Forgery, fraud and identity theft is hardly a modern ideal! Genesis 27 if I recall!

Many thanks again JesusSaves for your humanity.

Best wishes.

dP

 

[nl]

The genetic change takes place in the mechanism that creates both eyes.

How would that genetic change happen? How would the data get captured?

 

[nl]

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No faith is required.

The basic observations concerning life have remained unchanged for thousands of years of human history:

1) Life begets life.
2) Offspring resemble their parents.

Despite many tries in their labs, life has not yet been produced from non-life.

Offspring continue to resemble their parents. Evolutionary progress in the next generation has not been proven. In the mythical Lake Wobegon, the children are all "above average" but not in reality.

Adherents to the evolutionary religion seem to believe and pretend that life basics have changed but they have not changed.

 

[deepthought]

How would that genetic change happen? How would the data get captured?

Ok here is a good example. My eyes have a form of Photophobia meaning the pupils open a lot faster than they close. I can see quickly in the dark compared to others but i'm blind as a bat if it gets bright! This is due to a genetic mutation I inherited from my father. I have to wear sunglasses if it is even slightly bright outside. Now I work in Theatre, a place where I spend a lot of time in the dark. I have met my long term partner who works in the same environment. She also has photophobia which she inherited from her mother. As a result, our children are very likely to have it. No plan, just a result of adaptation due to the environment in which we live and work.

 

[JesusLives]

But do you basically agree with him though? Cos if you do then don't veil it with niceties.

I agree to God's word that tells me the wages of sin is death, however, God gave us a way out of that situation, so no I don't agree with telling people they are going to hell because only the individual and God know that. Men look on the outward appearance and the Lord looks on the heart. I can't judge not my job. So not veiling with niceties just trying to show and reflect God's love.

 

[Jda016]

No student would say he believed only because he had faith in the professor.

I think you know, as well as I do, that there are some who believe in evolution simply because they read it or heard their professor tell them it was so, just as there are people who claim to be Christians only on the basis on what their pastor said.

there are people who believe in evolution and Christianity who have never delved any deeper into it than what they have casually heard/ observed.

 

[Cycel]

How could four legs of the giraffe evolve in a coordinated fashion? ... In observations today, I see only four-legged creatures with an elegant, coordinated walking process.

Yes you do. NL, you are trying to make this far more difficult than what it is. You are asserting that the giraffe could not have evolved from a smaller ancestor because evolution had no way of coordinating the development of all four legs. You are arguing that the odds against evolution being able to produce an end product – today's giraffe – with four legs all the same length is against the odds. This is what I think you are saying.

My argument is that evolution works no differently than breeding of domestic animals. In the one instance humans are selecting for desired characteristics while in the other natural selection is at work. Your objection – as noted – is that in the case of the giraffe, evolution would have provided the evolved end product with four legs of different lengths. Yet oddly enough humans have created the Great Dane and the Chihuahua, strangely enough with legs of the appropriate length. This example of the dogs alone demonstrates that your assumption is false. In creating these two breeds individual instructions to each leg was not provide by the breeder.

Evolution has no need to coordinate length of each leg independently any more than does the breeder of domesticated animals.

We don't see failing designs for four-legged walking that are on their way to being naturally selected out of existence.

An estimated 99.9 % of all animals that ever lived are extinct. So in effect there have been thousands of species culled. Many species have gone extinct in our own era, so how can you say we have never seen any that have been selected out?

Has evolution and natural selection gone on hold for four-legged creatures for recent centuries of recorded human history? The natural selection path for blind evolution would require a large volume of dead, rotting failures.

Look at the number of malformed human fetuses you can find on-line. Most don't survive. Certainly those malformations born in the wild are just as common, but we will never see them. Mammals typically give birth in dens or in secluded areas. The 'rotting failures' (as you call them) are there. Just do an image search. Among humans roughly half of all embryos are spontaneously aborted, many even before the pregnancy is recognized. Of those examined genetic abnormalities are found in about half. In fact we all carry genetic mutations. In those of us lucky to be born most mutations are neutral, some are detrimental, and a few are beneficial. Over many generations beneficial mutations come to dominate.

If Noah and his family actually existed then it was mutations that led, in only about 6000 years, to the different geographical races we see among humans today. Evolutionists require about 200,000 years for those same developments.

I saw my two dogs run yesterday and their legs all matched and worked together well to run well.

That's wonderful! You inadvertently have confirmed my point. Dogs were bred by humans. Whether it is the smallest breed that fits in the palm of the hand or the largest, their legs don't need special instructions for growth from the breeders anymore than naturally evolved giraffes needed special instructions for leg coordination.

 

[deepthought]

The basic observations concerning life have remained unchanged for thousands of years of human history:

1) Life begets life.
2) Offspring resemble their parents.

Despite many tries in their labs, life has not yet been produced from non-life.

Offspring continue to resemble their parents. Evolutionary progress in the next generation has not been proven. In the mythical Lake Wobegon, the children are all "above average" but not in reality.

Adherents to the evolutionary religion seem to believe and pretend that life basics have changed but they have not changed.

Umm. Hate to argue with you on this but they have managed to create RNA, the building blocks of life within a lab.
Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory - Wired Science

As for where these components came from on the earth...

Paleontologist Presents Origin of Life Theory :: Texas Tech Today

Offspring look like their parents, but I do not look like my great great great great great great great grandfather.

 

[Cycel]

I think you know, as well as I do, that there are some who believe in evolution simply because they read it or heard their professor tell them it was so, just as there are people who claim to be Christians only on the basis on what their pastor said.

There are many who know nothing about evolution but who accept the proposition. So yes, I agree, but I hope this wouldn't be true of university students who are studying biology and it certainly wouldn't stump scientists in the field. These individuals should know the evidence.

One classic piece of evidence for evolution is the placement of the laryngeal nerve. In fish it runs from the brain to the gills near the heart, but fish have no neck so the route is direct. In the giraffe the nerve still takes the same route from the brain, down the long neck to the heart, and back up again, when all it needs to do is run from the brain directly to the larynx only a few inches away; but the giraffe evolved from a fish like ancestor.

Watch the video an get a visual demonstration. It is only 4 minutes long.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube

 

[Jda016]

So, because the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe is longer than it needs to be is proof that they evolved from fish? Really?

I read a scientific PDF article ( http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf ) that brings this particular youtube video into question. Also a quick google search found evolutionist sites with articles that said this nerve doesn't discount or disprove the possibility of intelligent design (that's not even looking at Christian articles about the nerve).

I'm sorry, but Dawkins is essentially saying,
"This nerve is longer than nessecary, therefore there can not be an intelligent Designer.
Hah! Take that theists!"

It is a HUGE leap in logic (if it is even logical at all) and frankly it sounds a bit childish.

I know Dawkings is the main champion for Athiesm, but he is hardly biased. He pretty much HATES everything that has to do with God, especially when he gets on TV and tells people to literally mock Christians or anyone else who believes in God.

Can you imagine an anti-gay person getting on TV and telling the world to mock gays?
Can you imagine a rascist getting on TV and telling the world to mock anyone who isn't white?
But get Anti-God Dawkins on the stage and tell the world to mock all those who believe in God and its perfectly ok.

evolutionists need to get a better spokesperson than Dawkins, because he clearly hurts the credibility they are trying to claim with his biased hatred of God.

 

[mustaphadrink]

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No faith is required. This is all nonsense. I will bet you that everything you witnessed on the DVD was staged. No atheist would respond that way. No one teaching evolution would be so inept. What were the names of the professors being interviewed? No student would say he believed only because he had faith in the professor. What is the title of this DVD? I think you've been had.

The most important words in your post are "This is all nonsense." A statement that does not have once ounce of credibility to it because you have not seen the video; you have not heard what the Professors said; you made a very scientific statement "I bet...; you imply that all atheists say exactly the same thing; you imply that all students think the same way; and you finish with another verifiable statement "I think...."

I have been told numerous times that atheists only deal in reason and logic. Obviously by your response that is a furphy as there is nothing at all reasonable or logical in what you said as it is all based on ifs, buts, maybes, I think, I bet. You know all those sort of claims that are far from reasonable and logical. They are nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to something that you cannot deny because you have not seen the DVD and you are thrashing around trying to substantiate your fairy story which you obviously get upset about if anyone suggests it is all hot air.

Now, if you had said, "that sounds very interesting, I would like to see it for myself, can you give me details of the DVD" you would have some credibility, but the fact is your comment shows that you are a rusted on atheist who believes whatever he is told by other atheists and cannot pin an original thought together to save your life.

No doubt pejorative language and ad hominen attacks with next to no substance are your forte.

Logic and reason? Piffle.

 

[mustaphadrink]

So, because the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe is longer than it needs to be is proof that they evolved from fish? Really?

I read a scientific PDF article ( http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf ) that brings this particular youtube video into question. Also a quick google search found evolutionist sites with articles that said this nerve doesn't discount or disprove the possibility of intelligent design (that's not even looking at Christian articles about the nerve).

I'm sorry, but Dawkins is essentially saying,
"This nerve is longer than nessecary, therefore there can not be an intelligent Designer.
Hah! Take that theists!"

It is a HUGE leap in logic (if it is even logical at all) and frankly it sounds a bit childish.

I know Dawkings is the main champion for Athiesm, but he is hardly biased. He pretty much HATES everything that has to do with God, especially when he gets on TV and tells people to literally mock Christians or anyone else who believes in God.

Can you imagine an anti-gay person getting on TV and telling the world to mock gays?
Can you imagine a rascist getting on TV and telling the world to mock anyone who isn't white?
But get Anti-God Dawkins on the stage and tell the world to mock all those who believe in God and its perfectly ok.

evolutionists need to get a better spokesperson than Dawkins, because he clearly hurts the credibility they are trying to claim with his biased hatred of God.

I am reposting your post because it is so good and I would like to add that I SAW and HEARD Richard Dawkins say on TV that he was not an atheist, he was an agnostic.

 

[nl]

Umm. Hate to argue with you on this but they have managed to create RNA, the building blocks of life within a lab.
Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory - Wired Science

RNA is a complex series of molecules with the potential to store information but it is not life.

Only life (and God Himself) have ever begotten life. The basic rules of life have not changed.

 

[Cycel]

The basic observations concerning life have remained unchanged for thousands of years of human history:

2) Offspring resemble their parents.

Yes, offspring resemble their parents, as you say, but they are not identical are they. I have been told that I especially look like my father, but I am not identical. At this point I need to remind you of something you apparently have forgotten. Noah was only one of eight individuals remaining on Earth at the end of the biblical flood. Probably they were all members of the same clan so they would have shared a set physical characteristics – what biologists call a phenotype. Yet, in less than 6000 years by the reckoning of Genesis this one phenotype type had given rise to all the geographic races on Earth today. So much for children always resembling their parents. The difference between creationists and evolutionists on this point is that the first group imagines this happened in probably less than 4000 years, while evolutionist demand at least 200,000 years.

Given that this change in phenotype was so rapid in biblical terms it is surprising, as you point out above, that there have been few if any apparent changes in the last 2000 years. However, if the evolutionists are correct and the process requires thousands of millennium then the situation is understandable.

That said, if we really want to determine how much change has taken place in the human genome then we need to examine the genes of individuals from the past. Only then will we get a true handle on the rate of change over time.

NL, I don’t know if I asked, are you a YEC or an OEC.

Despite many tries in their labs, life has not yet been produced from non-life.

And if I told you that among the ancient Greeks there is a reference to a philosopher who said men would never fly? Never is a long time.

What if biochemists figure out a way to get a self-replicating molecule to form spontaneously in conditions thought to resemble the primeval Earth? What would you say?

 

[Cycel]

... I would like to add that I SAW and HEARD Richard Dawkins say on TV that he was not an atheist, he was an agnostic.

Dawkins, in The God Delusion, writes:

“Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extreme of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestone along the way.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’”

Further on Dawkins writes, “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.” (p. 50-51, 2006)

Now, I am not exactly sure what he means by the fairy remark, perhaps this was what you heard him say?

Just curious Must, where do you place yourself on the scale?

 

[Cycel]

Is there such a thing as an atheist?

This is what God thinks...

Roaringkitten, could you tell me in your own words what you think and why?

So, for example, I became an atheist at age sixteen. From that time till now I have not changed my mind. I believe God is a myth. Some people who don't know me personally have claimed I do believe in God, that I just don't know it yet. I think it is absurd that someone should make pronouncements about what another person believes when they have never met that person. Do you think it is possible to know what a person thinks when you have not met that person?

I assure you I am an atheist. I exist.

PS. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Cycel]

What is the title of this DVD?

The most important words in your post are "This is all nonsense." A statement that does not have once ounce of credibility to it because you have not seen the video; you have not heard what the Professors said; you made a very scientific statement "I bet...; you imply that all atheists say exactly the same thing; you imply that all students think the same way; and you finish with another verifiable statement "I think...."

Because we rarely can be certain of everything I frequently will add the qualifier, "I think." This lets the person I am responding to know that I am not pretending 100% certainty. If you want a figure though I am about 90-95% sure there is something very fishy about what you described.

Oh, by the way, whenever you think I am saying some group always thinks the same way about something, you can be pretty sure that is not what I mean.

I have been told numerous times that atheists only deal in reason and logic.

That would be Mr. Spock, though even he sees the world through a tinted visor. I will say that many atheists tend to be skeptics, and skeptics usually want good evidence for such things as talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections – miracles in general – flying saucers, alien abductions, ghosts and so on. But some atheists are only skeptical about God and religion in general, but will believe in flying saucers, alien abductions, ghosts and so on. I know a few who are like this.

Obviously by your response that is a furphy as there is nothing at all reasonable or logical in what you said as it is all based on ifs, buts, maybes, I think, I bet. You know all those sort of claims that are far from reasonable and logical. They are nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to something that you cannot deny because you have not seen the DVD and you are thrashing around trying to substantiate your fairy story which you obviously get upset about if anyone suggests it is all hot air.

Sorry to have not taken the DVD seriously, but creationists frequently claim to have put evolutionists on the spot. I just can't imagine an evolutionary biologist or some other individual with a PhD, someone who teaches evolution, being stumped. Makes no sense. Among my own friends, when we were in school, we could talk endlessly about the evidence for evolution. Today there is far more, but there was enough even in Darwin's time that the majority of scientists were persuaded. To suggest that today's university students don't even know as much as students in my time doesn't ring true.

Okay, I'll take a step back and consider this again. I don't know how many students were interviewed on the DVD. You saw it. How many were interviewed? It may be that 200 had a microphone put in their faces but that only six or so had no adequate answer to the creationist questioner. Perhaps it was those who couldn't answer who were put on the DVD? If so, then those students were not representative of the remainder. See what I mean? Still fishy.

...but the fact is your comment shows that you are a rusted on atheist who believes whatever he is told by other atheists and cannot pin an original thought together to save your life.

I'll let that pass.

Oh, "rusted on atheist"? Do you mean dyed-in-the-wool atheist? If, so you are bang-on.

By the way, I did ask for the name of the DVD.

I will tell you something that was going through my mind as I read your review of the DVD. Did you see the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? It is presented as a documentary, but in it there is a scene where Stein is at a podium addressing the student body of a university. Turned out later the scene was staged. There were also complaints by some interviewees that their conversations had been cut in such a way as to change the substance of what they had intended to say. At least one of the edited clips was later put on line along side the original. I could see why the interviewee was angry.

So, once again. What is the name of the DVD. I do want to check it out.

 

[mustaphadrink]

My argument is that evolution works no differently than breeding of domestic animals.

Your argument falls flat for one simple reason. Evolutionists tell us that over a period of a million years, or is that two, or is that 10, or is that 200 an amoeba turns into a fish, a fish turns into an amphibian, an amphibian turns into an animal, an animal turns into a human (that is the shortened version).

Now, with the breeding of a domestic animal a mouse does not turn into a rat, a rat does not turn into a monkey, a monkey does not turn into a horse, a horse does not turn into a giraffe.

When humans breed animals, they start with a dog and end with a dog. They start with a cat and end with a cat. They start with a monkey and end with a monkey. The start with a cow and end with a cow. In other words, nothing turns into anything. What they start with is what they end up with.

Now, that is what I call logic.

 

[nl]

NL, I don’t know if I asked, are you a YEC or an OEC.

I don't really like being labelled and "pigeon-holed". I have already made reference to a modified big-bang theory that begins from a plane rather than a point so that positively and negatively charged particles are kept away from each other as observed in the highly-ionized, plasma, electrically imbalanced, magnetically-influenced universe. The magnetic fields may reverse frequently so that electrically-imbalanced ions can be drawn in close and then expelled when the magnetic field reverses. That sounds like some form of OEC but not a typical position of anyone.

I also have high-sympathies for the position that says when the Bible in Genesis says "six days" that it is best understood to mean six days.

I acknowledge that the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion year old. Much of the talk from conventional science on age and distances assumes a constant speed of light. Yet, those same scientists also postulate black holes where the speed of light has been reduced to zero. My thinking is that if the speed of light can be slowed down, then it could also made to go faster. Constant, radioactive decay rates and assumed absence of decay isotopes in earlier geologic ages are other assumptions that change the game if found to be untrue. So, a universe and fossil record that appears to be old could actually be much younger if the assumptions change. The assumptions are big assumptions. Honestly, they could easily change. Hebrews 11:3 tells us God made things and did not leave behind the evidence of how He did it. It's another huge assumption and rejection of Hebrews 11:3 to think that all of the clues regarding the origins of heaven and earth are there for researchers to detect and decipher.

What if biochemists figure out a way to get a self-replicating molecule to form spontaneously in conditions thought to resemble the primeval Earth? What would you say?

That's a hypothetical question. It hasn't happened.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Because we rarely can be certain of everything I frequently will add the qualifier, "I think." This lets the person I am responding to know that I am not pretending 100% certainty. If you want a figure though I am about 90-95% sure there is something very fishy about what you described.

This is sufficient to say that you have shown that atheists are a cynical lot who believe there is no truth outside themselves. That my boy is a recipe for disaster as PRIDE always goes before a FALL.

You and all your atheist friends need to develop a bit of humility as it has been said they that think they know everything know nothing.

I will have to think about giving you the DVD details because what I have found when I do that the atheist usually uses the information to heap more cynical know it all comments which add nothing to an intelligent discussion. All they do is sneer and try and make everyone look as thought they are idiots to believe the truth. You are one of those judging by your comments about my facts.