Why do Atheists Bother?

[john832]

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.

I refer you to post #166.

 

[Lizathrose]

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.

Right, then. Hang on.

"Either is a condescending "super smart and superior" genius atheist attitude that frequents Christian sites to try to what? Impress us with a sophisticated vocabulary while simultaneously saying absolutely nothing of substances at all? Maybe to make yourself feel good about….yourself? It makes you seem really sad in my opinion, but at least you are around God and His people I guess. I have asked you a couple questions that never got answered when I first started this site before I knew you were an atheist, but I can’t figure out a logical reason for your comments here other than you just like you make yourself seem smart amidst what you see as unintelligent people. If that’s not your purpose here I would like to know what it really is, because this just makes you seem really pathetic and I honestly feel much pity for you if your life is this sad. Jesus can help that too by the way, and He’s drawing you here for some reason. Please do yourself the biggest favor of your life, drop your foolish pride and seek Him in truth, because you have already demonstrated Romans 1:22 perfectly. Look at that, you can add Bible teacher to your resume."

I had to highlight your last sentence. It serves to demonstrate how bitter and insincere the thrust of your post was. Other than a reflection of your hostile disposition, there's really no reason to have worded your post in such a fashion at all, and you and I both know that. You haven't offended me at all -- you've merely demonstrated what I've consistently observed in this thread. And that, if anything, is pathetic.

 

[Jimbone]

Right, then. Hang on.

"Either is a condescending "super smart and superior" genius atheist attitude that frequents Christian sites to try to what? Impress us with a sophisticated vocabulary while simultaneously saying absolutely nothing of substances at all? Maybe to make yourself feel good about….yourself? It makes you seem really sad in my opinion, but at least you are around God and His people I guess. I have asked you a couple questions that never got answered when I first started this site before I knew you were an atheist, but I can’t figure out a logical reason for your comments here other than you just like you make yourself seem smart amidst what you see as unintelligent people. If that’s not your purpose here I would like to know what it really is, because this just makes you seem really pathetic and I honestly feel much pity for you if your life is this sad. Jesus can help that too by the way, and He’s drawing you here for some reason. Please do yourself the biggest favor of your life, drop your foolish pride and seek Him in truth, because you have already demonstrated Romans 1:22 perfectly. Look at that, you can add Bible teacher to your resume."

I had to highlight your last sentence. It serves to demonstrate how bitter and insincere the thrust of your post was. Other than a reflection of your hostile disposition, there's really no reason to have worded your post in such a fashion at all, and you and I both know that. You haven't offended me at all -- you've merely demonstrated what I've consistently observed in this thread. And that, if anything, is pathetic.

And still can't answer the question.

 

[kaylagrl]

Great debate on what's being debated here.Interesting questions and answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm going to let this calm down a little before I start correcting the colossal nonsense being asserted from both sides.

 

[Human]

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.



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.

First of all, using the Ken Ham model of 'kinds' rather than domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species is a deliberate effort to compartmentalize organisms in such a way as to attempt to invalidate the theory of evolution by asserting the non-existence of evolutionary progresses that the theory of evolution doesn't assert the existence of.

The mechanism for evolution is mutation and natural selection, which inevitably leads to the furtherance of beneficial mutational changes in a lineage. All lineages took specific paths, furthering specific mutations, in a specific pattern. You are essentially asking for proof that two random species you pluck from thin air evolved into one another as proof of evolutionary theory (horse into dog, for instance), even though the particular lineal evolutions you demand proof for are not the evolutionary lineages that the theory upholds! Understand the nature of the progression of time, and we can apply your request to any historical account.

What you are asking of me is like me saying to you; 'I want you to prove to me that Jesus' resurrection happened before his crucifixion, and if you can't prove it, then Jesus is a made up man'.

It's impossible for me to show you a horse evolving into a cat, because THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

List of transitional forms - RationalWiki

There is a list of transitional fossils, and while yes, of course the number of transitional fossils IS monumental, you request more and more and more, even when clear examples are presented. It is kind of like me taking a photograph every day to prove my life, and you saying 'no, that's not enough, I want two photographs a day', and when I take two photographs a day, you say 'no, I want six photographs a day'. The request will go on forever.

Finding intermediary fossils is not easy, simply BECAUSE of their age. Many are buried very deep underground, have succumbed to weather, tectonic shifts, rising sea levels, erosion, and all the other geological effects of Earth. That isn't to say that thousands don't exist; they do.

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.

Evolutionary theory has got nothing to do with creation, in its proper sense. It only deals with the progression of already established life. And the underpinnings of the theory don't delve into metaphysics, simply because that is not science's purpose, not science's definition, and not science's department.

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
  
  
  
  Note the omission of the word 'metaphysical' there?
  
  
  

 

[nl]

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".

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

Such as?


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."

OK. Duly noted. Definitions do vary and the variances can include broad and narrow differences as well as entirely different meanings. I want to be fair (and accurate). Thanks.

 

[john832]

Evolutionary theory has got nothing to do with creation, in its proper sense. It only deals with the progression of already established life. And the underpinnings of the theory don't delve into metaphysics, simply because that is not science's purpose, not science's definition, and not science's department.

So, then the idea that nothing exploded in a big bang 18 to 20 billion years ago is not part of the evolutionary scheme? The earth cooled and then torrential rains washed down over rocks and produced a chemical soup that somehow came alive?

In other words, evolution CAN"T explain the origin of species? Charlie got it wrong after all?

 

[Human]

So, then the idea that nothing exploded in a big bang 18 to 20 billion years ago is not part of the evolutionary scheme? The earth cooled and then torrential rains washed down over rocks and produced a chemical soup that somehow came alive?

In other words, evolution CAN"T explain the origin of species? Charlie got it wrong after all?

Darwin never tried to explain the origin of life. The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which only deals with established life. Darwin tried to explain the progression of established life and the origin of species, in otherwords, how organisms simply 'became different organisms' or speciated. There is a difference. Darwin wasn't a cosmologist, he was a biologist.

Darwin was also brought up in a Christian environment and contrary to popular opinion, wasn't an atheist nor did he set out to disprove the existence of God. He studied Anglican theology at Cambridge University and intended to become a minister of the church before he embarked on his discoveries about evolutionary theory.

The Big Bang wasn't his department, the progression of established life was.

 

[Leannaix]

So, then the idea that nothing exploded in a big bang 18 to 20 billion years ago is not part of the evolutionary scheme? The earth cooled and then torrential rains washed down over rocks and produced a chemical soup that somehow came alive?

In other words, evolution CAN"T explain the origin of species? Charlie got it wrong after all?

Not only does the big bang theory have nothing to do with evolution. It also is not a theory that nothing exploded, and has nothing to do with primordial soup.
The big bang theory deals with the expansion of the universe, all the way back to singularity, which is just the word we use for all the matter in a dense form that it would look like if we reverse the forward progression of the universe's expansion that we have discovered today. There is ample evidence for the bibg bang, and as far as I know, most christians don't really have a problem with it. Big bang theory does not postulate what began the expansion, where all the matter came from in the first place, nor does it have anything to do with abiogenesis. Most christians I know have no qualms accepting the Big Bang Theory. The only difference between me and them is that they claim God did it and I don't make that claim.

 

[Cycel]

So nuts and bolts so we all know....thanks

??? Sorry, I don't follow.

 

[Cycel]

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

Read the book, Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin and you will have your answer.

 

[Anonimous]

Hmm? So those people who converted to the Mormon faith and to the Jehovah's Witnesses within my family were all converted by the Holy Spirit? No? The Holy Spirit only converts people to true Christianity?

Sorry, but from the atheist stand point there is no Holy Spirit. What I see is people being converted by charismatic purveyors of a new religious message -- new, at least, to those who are converted.

1. no
2. yes

 

[Lizathrose]

And still can't answer the question.

Entertainment -- nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jimbone]

Entertainment -- nothing more, nothing less.

That's very much what I thought, and to me and I'll try to be a little nicer, that's sad. You come to parade your "sophisticated vocabulary" and look down your nose at the dumb Christians for "Entertainment". Not a very noble or impressive cause if you ask me. Even in my most wild drug fueled, anger filled, not give a (care in the world), atheistic, what you see is what there is, religion was a man made system to control weaker men, punch you in the face for looking at me wrong days, I would have told you the same thing only in a much more "colorful" manner. Is this really the best way possible you have to use your time? That sister is sad, but I think that you may just be here because He wants you here. Admit it there is something about us irrational, delusional, ignorant Christians you just can't resist. You know you love Jesus, admit it. Seriously though I've seen a bunch of things in this life and there is more to it than what the TV and School tell you. Keep hanging around, you might just learn something really important.

 

[Lizathrose]

That's very much what I thought, and to me and I'll try to be a little nicer, that's sad. You come to parade your "sophisticated vocabulary" and look down your nose at the dumb Christians for "Entertainment". Not a very noble or impressive cause if you ask me. Even in my most wild drug fueled, anger filled, not give a (care in the world), atheistic, what you see is what there is, religion was a man made system to control weaker men, punch you in the face for looking at me wrong days, I would have told you the same thing only in a much more "colorful" manner. Is this really the best way possible you have to use your time? That sister is sad, but I think that you may just be here because He wants you here. Admit it there is something about us irrational, delusional, ignorant Christians you just can't resist. You know you love Jesus, admit it. Seriously though I've seen a bunch of things in this life and there is more to it than what the TV and School tell you. Keep hanging around, you might just learn something really important.

What in the world are you on about? You're being wildly accusatory and presumptive at this point. Chill.

 

[Jimbone]

What in the world are you on about? You're being wildly accusatory and presumptive at this point. Chill.

NP, chilled. 8^)
You still know you like us though.

 

[Dude653]

Typical atheist philosophy.....
Because you are christian, you are a blind follower you are narrow minded. Therefore, you should free your mind and think exactly as I do.

 

[Tintin]

I do have to shake my head at some of the things some Christians say/believe about evolution and how it works. The whole 'if humans evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?' question and many others just show a seriously uninformed understanding of evolution. I think one needs to study this stuff to a degree to understand it. I'm not a science type at all but I'm interested in this stuff and in thinking critically.

I was taught evolution at school (it was a state mandate, despite the fact that I attended two Christian schools). I was taught evolution at school, at the movies, on TV, at museums, zoos, gardens, in books, magazines, music etc - the list goes on. Most churches in Australia are fluffy on the early chapters of Genesis - they don't want to seem to side with either the evolution or biblical creation worldview, but from my experience they definitely have the mindset of paying tribute to theistic evolution. I was brought up with a biblical creation understanding.

People here know my opinion of evolution but I heard both sides of the story before making a decision what to believe. And I found evolution wanting, even as a young child. It struck me as complete and utter nonsense and the prophets of evolution (sorry, scientists/philosophers) seem to change their tune more often than some people change their underwear!

 

[Cycel]

So, then the idea that nothing exploded in a big bang 18 to 20 billion years ago is not part of the evolutionary scheme? The earth cooled and then torrential rains washed down over rocks and produced a chemical soup that somehow came alive?

In other words, evolution CAN"T explain the origin of species? Charlie got it wrong after all?

Two others before me have had a whack at explaining to you how you got it wrong. I might as well chime in as well. Keep in mind that Darwin was discussing biological evolution that came about once life forms were already established. He never addressed the origin of life, only its evolution. So did Darwin get it wrong? No. You can't get wrong what your are not addressing in the first place.

You, on the other hand, appear quite befuddled. You don't seem to understand what evolution is about. Allow me to come to your defense though. Astronomers do often talk about the evolution of stars and galaxies. To understand their meaning you have to know something about astronomy, but I am not sure you have that background either. I have discussed this issue with other conservative Christians, so just know that you are not alone in your confusion.