Why do Atheists Bother?

[Percepi]

These fossils are everywhere. We have a large mountain near our house and they are all
over it. Has to be from a flood,just as the bible say's. The whole earth was underwater.Every mountain,every hill,everything.
But you have to read the bible.

You present a claim.
We debunk it.
You present another claim.
We debunk it.
You present another claim.
We debunk it.

At what point are you going to acknowledge that your prior points were wrong? And if you believe your prior points aren't wrong, why don't you explain why they aren't wrong rather than moving onto something else? Because you'll throw about 20 different things out way and we'll debunk them all. Then, in the future in a different thread, you'll post the same exact stuff during a different debate.

These fossils are everywhere. We have a large mountain near our house and they are all
over it.

Instead of explaining why you're finding fossils on top of the mountain near your house, I'm going to ask you a few questions so that you have to actually address this issue.

Do you know how mountains are formed?

 

[kaylagrl]

[video=youtube;xRB2nGha7OY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRB2nGha7OY[/video]

Thanks for posting,will check it out tomorrow.

 

[Timeline]

I see it as a mistake to claim one needs more faith to believe in abiogenesis. The choice we must make is between a supernatural origin of life, or a natural origin. You believe it requires more faith to accept a natural origin of life and less to believe a supernatural or magical origin.

Science readily explains how stars and planets formed without supernatural intervention. I fully expect the mystery of life's natural rise will one day be solved as well. I feel no urgency to plug God into the gap. I am content to wait for the explanation. The problem with the supernatural approach is that it is not really an explanation at all. It is a surrender to the unknown. It is a way of sidestepping the search for a natural explanation.

It has taken you "4.54 billion years" to get where you are; And you are 62 years old! Do you suppose that science will have that answer for you?

Don't wait for science. It's far too slow. God already told you where life comes from and how it can continue. Ironically, life is extended eternally for those in Jesus Christ - so that, perhaps, we will be around to see what "science" comes up with next. But, then again, our spiritual lives after our physical deaths is less than clearly explained in the Bible. Perhaps we will not be aware of happenings on the earth.

Of course, I must include this story/parable because I am sure that it will come up anyway:

Luke 16:19-31
[SUP]19 [/SUP]“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. [SUP]20 [/SUP]And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, [SUP]21 [/SUP]and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. [SUP]23 [/SUP]In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. [SUP]24 [/SUP]And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ [SUP]25 [/SUP]But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. [SUP]26 [/SUP]And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ [SUP]27 [/SUP]And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— [SUP]28 [/SUP]for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ [SUP]29 [/SUP]But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ [SUP]30 [/SUP]But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ [SUP]31 [/SUP]But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Some would argue that this is only a parable. Others would point out that the rich man could see Lazarus (in heaven) and was aware of his brothers (on earth), but it does not tell us that he (rich man) is aware of what was currently happening in their lives - only that he was aware of their state when he saw them last (physically).

 

[nl]

I see it as a mistake to claim one needs more faith to believe in abiogenesis. The choice we must make is between a supernatural origin of life, or a natural origin. You believe it requires more faith to accept a natural origin of life and less to believe a supernatural or magical origin.

Science readily explains how stars and planets formed without supernatural intervention. I fully expect the mystery of life's natural rise will one day be solved as well. I feel no urgency to plug God into the gap. I am content to wait for the explanation. The problem with the supernatural approach is that it is not really an explanation at all. It is a surrender to the unknown. It is a way of sidestepping the search for a natural explanation.

In some circles, it seems that natural selection and random mutations are invoked as being the equivalent of "gap fillers".

 

[T_Laurich]

Straw man? Only an analogy? What are you going on about? He presented the brain as functioning like a coin toss, not I. If that is not what he meant then I don't understand at all what he is talking about. Perhaps you can explain using other language so I will understand?

Is religious thinking somehow bound up in this? I am at a total loss. It is my impression that I make my own decisions. Does the Bible say otherwise? Are you two Calvinists perhaps?

No problem, here is what he is saying.

According to your view: the universe began through random chance. And then randomly atoms started to form. And then through mathematical chance the earth formed, and after it rained on the rocks for millions of years, a protein was formed by lightning hitting the water. Then through chance the proteins gathered and formed a single celled organism. And natural selection with evolution 'guided' these cells into evolving. and finally we get you.

Now here is the question, if your brain is made purely by chance, how can you trust your own thought? How do you know that these series of random events have given you a brain that can or does discern the truth, and how do you know that you are not simply blindly "dancing to your DNA" as Richard Dawkins would put it.

 

[ColinCat]

No problem, here is what he is saying.

According to your view: the universe began through random chance. And then randomly atoms started to form. And then through mathematical chance the earth formed, and after it rained on the rocks for millions of years, a protein was formed by lightning hitting the water. Then through chance the proteins gathered and formed a single celled organism. And natural selection with evolution 'guided' these cells into evolving. and finally we get you.

Now here is the question, if your brain is made purely by chance, how can you trust your own thought? How do you know that these series of random events have given you a brain that can or does discern the truth, and how do you know that you are not simply blindly "dancing to your DNA" as Richard Dawkins would put it.

Maybe that's all we are doing. Following the wiring of our brain. You have to agree that a psychopath is acting to what he thinks is right. His brain may have different wiring to someone who is compassionate?

Just a thought.

 

[T_Laurich]

Maybe that's all we are doing. Following the wiring of our brain. You have to agree that a psychopath is acting to what he thinks is right. His brain may have different wiring to someone who is compassionate?

Just a thought.

Based on what evidence? I completely disagree, if your words are true then lets do a logical moral breakdown...

A person breaks the law, is it wrong? I say yes, but in your world view I only say yes because of the wiring in my brain. The person who broke the law says no because of their wiring... Who is correct? How can you even judge this as being correct or false? If you say "BECAUSE WE HAVE MORAL LAWS!" where do they come from, in your philosophy everyone has a different moral law, the criminals moral law told him it was okay to break it. If you say "MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T BREAK THE LAW SO THERE FOR THEY ARE WRONG!" If this is true, what happens when majority of people do break the law, is it then correct? If you say "BUT GOVT GAVE US THOSE LAWS!" Yes but the govt. only decided those laws because of their wiring, it does not make those laws correct.
This goes for stealing, rape, pedophilia, homosexuality, bigotry, murder, and everything else.

The problem is, the world does not show evidence of you're hypothesis. For instance, let's say a person wrongs another. When the person confronts the other by saying "You did this to me and that's wrong". The other person will either deny the claim that they did it, OR make an excuse of why they do not follow the parameters of the claim. For instance, a poor child is caught stealing some food. The robbed person catches the child and says "Give me back my food you thief". The child will either say "I never took your food" or "But I am hungry and have not eaten". They do not say "to hell with your moral standard I have my own". There is a moral law that is obvious to everyone.


But here is a question how do you prove that it is just the wiring? How do you prove that we are dancing to the DNA of our brain... Because wouldn't the answer come from the wiring, thus making it circular reasoning?

 

[ColinCat]

Based on what evidence? I completely disagree, if your words are true then lets do a logical moral breakdown...

A person breaks the law, is it wrong? I say yes, but in your world view I only say yes because of the wiring in my brain. The person who broke the law says no because of their wiring... Who is correct? How can you even judge this as being correct or false? If you say "BECAUSE WE HAVE MORAL LAWS!" where do they come from, in your philosophy everyone has a different moral law, the criminals moral law told him it was okay to break it. If you say "MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T BREAK THE LAW SO THERE FOR THEY ARE WRONG!" If this is true, what happens when majority of people do break the law, is it then correct? If you say "BUT GOVT GAVE US THOSE LAWS!" Yes but the govt. only decided those laws because of their wiring, it does not make those laws correct.
This goes for stealing, rape, pedophilia, homosexuality, bigotry, murder, and everything else.

The problem is, the world does not show evidence of you're hypothesis. For instance, let's say a person wrongs another. When the person confronts the other by saying "You did this to me and that's wrong". The other person will either deny the claim that they did it, OR make an excuse of why they do not follow the parameters of the claim. For instance, a poor child is caught stealing some food. The robbed person catches the child and says "Give me back my food you thief". The child will either say "I never took your food" or "But I am hungry and have not eaten". There is a moral law that is obvious to everyone.


But here is a question how do you prove that it is just the wiring? How do you prove that we are dancing to the DNA of our brain... Because wouldn't the answer come from the wiring, thus making it circular reasoning?

I wasn't saying its true. I was just throwing it out there. I'm not talking about laws or morals. Let's just talk about sanity and insanity. Is it possible that sane people have a different brain wiring to insane people?

Or did god decide who would be sane or insane?

When I mean insane I don't mean someone with 20 cats or a compulsion to collect milk cartons.. I mean the real nut jobs lol.

 

[T_Laurich]

I wasn't saying its true. I was just throwing it out there. I'm not talking about laws or morals. Let's just talk about sanity and insanity. Is it possible that sane people have a different brain wiring to insane people?

Or did god decide who would be sane or insane?

When I mean insane I don't mean someone with 20 cats or a compulsion to collect milk cartons.. I mean the real nut jobs lol.

You have to talk about morality in your context.
Psychopath: a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

To say that they are "insane" is to attribute morality. If we do not discuss morality in your context we cannot answer the question.

But for the sake of the argument, lets say we are to call them insane, why do we do this? Because the wiring in our brain..
They say they are sane and we are insane, because the wiring in our brain...
In your word view it's a bunch of name calling and the only person that is correct is you.

Without morality there are no psychopaths...

 

[Word_Swordsman]

So here we go again.Whether you celebrate Christmas or you dont this sign is ridiculous...


What do kids want for Christmas? To skip church, atheist group says in billboard campaign | Fox 59

I've met eye to eye with lots of real atheists. Not one has shown signs of wanting to talk about that. They will discuss anything but religion. But I have met lots of depraved sinners that hate people that have any happiness in them, like Scrooge and all his darkness. Such hijack the mark of the atheist, but unlike them, make war on pursuit of happiness.

 

[Leannaix]

I've met eye to eye with lots of real atheists. Not one has shown signs of wanting to talk about that. They will discuss anything but religion. But I have met lots of depraved sinners that hate people that have any happiness in them, like Scrooge and all his darkness. Such hijack the mark of the atheist, but unlike them, make war on pursuit of happiness.

Pretty sure the bilboard is just trying to discourage child indoctrination. I don't know why that would be seen as making war on a pursuit of hapiness.

 

[Dan_473]

If I decided things on a coin toss, then I'd only get to work 50% of the time and I'd run 50% of red lights. I'd be dead.

then toss a hundred coins... or a million... does it make sense yet?

 

[Dan_473]

Straw man? Only an analogy? What are you going on about? He presented the brain as functioning like a coin toss, not I. If that is not what he meant then I don't understand at all what he is talking about. Perhaps you can explain using other language so I will understand?

Is religious thinking somehow bound up in this? I am at a total loss. It is my impression that I make my own decisions. Does the Bible say otherwise? Are you two Calvinists perhaps?

"He presented the brain as functioning like a coin toss, not I."

Yes, I was attempting to break down the steps, because when I present several steps at once, then the reply I receive indicates that you're not following what I'm saying... so, I was going slow... obviously, our brains are much more complicated than a single coin toss... but take it a step at a time... does your brain have nerve cells in it that fire?




"If that is not what he meant then I don't understand at all what he is talking about."

Yes, well, we'll work on that.




"Is religious thinking somehow bound up in this?"

Let's go slow... one step at a time... for now, let's talk about this like scientists, using a rational approach...




"It is my impression that I make my own decisions."

Good, let's go with that... how did you get that impression? please present only evidence based on observation and experimentation.

In the past, you mentioned getting up to get a coke or taking a walk... are you presenting these as evidence? If so, how do you know that those 'decisions' were not the result of deterministic processes? Or perhaps you're saying that they are?

 

[Dan_473]

No problem, here is what he is saying.

According to your view: the universe began through random chance. And then randomly atoms started to form. And then through mathematical chance the earth formed, and after it rained on the rocks for millions of years, a protein was formed by lightning hitting the water. Then through chance the proteins gathered and formed a single celled organism. And natural selection with evolution 'guided' these cells into evolving. and finally we get you.

Now here is the question, if your brain is made purely by chance, how can you trust your own thought? How do you know that these series of random events have given you a brain that can or does discern the truth, and how do you know that you are not simply blindly "dancing to your DNA" as Richard Dawkins would put it.

that's certainly an aspect of the larger subject... I was taking more of a 'the universe is deterministic' approach, in the hopes that Cycel would be able to follow the steps...

 

[damombomb]

You present a claim.
We debunk it.
You present another claim.
We debunk it.
You present another claim.
We debunk it.

At what point are you going to acknowledge that your prior points were wrong? And if you believe your prior points aren't wrong, why don't you explain why they aren't wrong rather than moving onto something else? Because you'll throw about 20 different things out way and we'll debunk them all. Then, in the future in a different thread, you'll post the same exact stuff during a different debate.



Instead of explaining why you're finding fossils on top of the mountain near your house, I'm going to ask you a few questions so that you have to actually address this issue.

Do you know how mountains are formed?

Amos4:13… 13For behold, He who forms mountains and creates the wind And declares to man what are His thoughts, He who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD God of hosts is His name.

Job38:4
…3"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?…

 

[john832]

You present a claim.
We debunk it.
You present another claim.
We debunk it.
You present another claim.
We debunk it.

At what point are you going to acknowledge that your prior points were wrong? And if you believe your prior points aren't wrong, why don't you explain why they aren't wrong rather than moving onto something else? Because you'll throw about 20 different things out way and we'll debunk them all. Then, in the future in a different thread, you'll post the same exact stuff during a different debate.



Instead of explaining why you're finding fossils on top of the mountain near your house, I'm going to ask you a few questions so that you have to actually address this issue.

Do you know how mountains are formed?

Instead of claims like this, let's see, where are all the intermediate species, the partially formed feet on a fish in place of fins?

Where are the intermediates with partially formed eyes?

Where are the intermediates with gills and partially formed lungs that don't work yet?

 

[hopesprings]

I see it as a mistake to claim one needs more faith to believe in abiogenesis. The choice we must make is between a supernatural origin of life, or a natural origin. You believe it requires more faith to accept a natural origin of life and less to believe a supernatural or magical origin.

Science readily explains how stars and planets formed without supernatural intervention. I fully expect the mystery of life's natural rise will one day be solved as well. I feel no urgency to plug God into the gap. I am content to wait for the explanation. The problem with the supernatural approach is that it is not really an explanation at all. It is a surrender to the unknown. It is a way of sidestepping the search for a natural explanation.

You don't need MORE faith to believe in abiogenesis. You need the same amount of faith as someone who believes in supernatural beginnings. I never once said it requires more faith.
i don't see coneeding supernatural intervention as a way of sidestepping the origins of life at all. I've heard atheists ask Christians "what would it take for u to stop believing in God?" I'd like to ask u....what if they never solve the mystery of life? What if they never find a natural reason it began? Would u even consider a supernatural cause at that point? Just wondering.

 

[Dan_473]

Maybe that's all we are doing. Following the wiring of our brain. You have to agree that a psychopath is acting to what he thinks is right. His brain may have different wiring to someone who is compassionate?

Just a thought.

Yes, maybe we are just following wiring... Cycel says he has the power to choose... so that's why I wanted to follow it out...

 

[Dan_473]

You have to talk about morality in your context.
Psychopath: a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

To say that they are "insane" is to attribute morality. If we do not discuss morality in your context we cannot answer the question.

But for the sake of the argument, lets say we are to call them insane, why do we do this? Because the wiring in our brain..
They say they are sane and we are insane, because the wiring in our brain...
In your word view it's a bunch of name calling and the only person that is correct is you.

Without morality there are no psychopaths...

True, a psychopath would then just be someone who acts apart from the norms of society.

 

[Percepi]

Instead of claims like this, let's see, where are all the intermediate species, the partially formed feet on a fish in place of fins?

Where are the intermediates with partially formed eyes?

Where are the intermediates with gills and partially formed lungs that don't work yet?

Is the following how the debate will go?

You claim there are no intermediate species.
We present examples of intermediate species.
You claim there are no intermediate species with x traits.
We present examples of intermediate species with x traits.
You claim there are no intermediate species with y traits.
We present examples of intermediate species with y traits.
You claim there are no intermediate species with z traits.
We admit we have not yet found those particular intermediate species.
You claim victory.

We have so many examples of transitional forms in which we can clearly see the evolution of numerous different traits over time. There will always be gaps in the fossil record and it's absolutely ridiculous to play this game where you expect us to provide examples of every single species that has ever existed.

I can provide numerous examples of transitional forms in which you can observe certain attributes forming such as wings, trunks, elongated necks, etc.,etc.,etc. Are you going to keep demanding proof until you find something I can't find and ignore all the proof I have dug up for you? If not, I'll gladly provide numerous examples of transitional forms.

Amos4:13… 13For behold, He who forms mountains and creates the wind And declares to man what are His thoughts, He who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD God of hosts is His name.

Job38:4
…3"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?…

Mountains are formed when plate tectonics collide into each other, pushing the land upward. This means fossils at sea level can (and were) pushed upward unto the peaks of mountains.

You don't care though, "God did it" is the only answer you need, want, and will ever consider - which makes it pointless for you to expect others to change their mind if you can't even open your own.