atheism

quote:

---

The difference is that religions require *blind faith*.

---

I would disagree. My faith appears logical and not at all blind. For example: I see an automobile; I have faith in an engineer, I see a house; I have faith in an architect. If you write a letter is the information in the ink?Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity. So, I see the ordered and complex world around me and easily place faith in a 'designer'.Your view, on the other hand, requires a blind faith assumption that matter came from nowhere for no reason and formed itself into complex information systems against everything we observe today.DS: Are you are saying that God is such that He cannot be known by man or that He simply doesn't exist? Either way, you are claiming to know something about God. This claim to knowledge is inconsistent with your claim to be an atheist."

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-06-2002]

quote:

---

Matter does come from nowhere it has been experimentally observed

---

"The vacuum fluctuation served to bring into existence the spacetime 'stage' and populate it with raw energy in the form of a small number of fundamental fields, perhaps even gravity as the MOST fundamental field. All else may have emerged...almost miraculously...as this quantum system cooled and found itself by chance trapped into one path of evolution favoring universes like ours as the outcome."Quoted from Dr. Sten Odenwald; evolutionistYeah, that sounds like its going somewhere. "Somehow", "by chance", "almost miraculously" this stuff happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Actually he is a cosmologist....

​

And his ask ask the astronomer page that you presumeably quote from (as you didn`t give a book or journal reference) is here:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/acosmbb.html

​

So which question does he answer that to? This is the perfect opportunity to examine a creationists quote along side the original....

---

Can a cosmologist be an evolutionist too? The original question and quote is here...I did not intend to take anything out of context, sorry for not providing the link. http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2030.htmlNote the first sentence of the quote I left out. "We don't know"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:

​

Its a fairly safe assumption to say that you must input intelligence and information to output order and complexity.

---

quote:

---

Either I'm getting old or I need another drink, but I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means - at least in the context of living systems.

​

Punisher, pretend that I'm ignorant and please explain just what you are describing here. Since I really only understand those things that have a relationship with the real, concrete, empirical world, a specific example from nature - not pseudo-philosophical handwaving - would be appreciated. (Cobra, if you're reading this, I see the quoted sentence as a prime example of a Shannon-Weaver system that has reached maximum information entropy.)

​

Honestly, from here, it appears you've managed to put pop pseudo-science, argument from personal incredulity, and cyber-babble into one sentence. Impressive...

---

I'm picking up trace amounts of sarcasm and condecension. Oh wait, I've identified it; an insult. Your well thought out post is a prime example of what I thought to be a simple observation/assumption. You took letters and placed them together to form words, you spaced the words at certain intervals in order to get sentence structure. The information from your post did not come from the computer or the keyboard; it came from you inputting intelligence and information the result being an ordered and complex insult in english language expressed in written form.BTW, pour me a drink too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
punisher

​

you're really starting to get aggressive.

​

but since you're right, give me a solid, indisputable piece of evidence that discounts the possibilty that god does not exist. one piece of evidence that would make stephen hawking gape.

​

that's your challenge.

​

but maybe you'd like a drink first.

---

I apologize if I insulted anyone. I'll take that drink; care to join me?QS: first answer this question: There are three basic types of agnostics. I wonder which kind you are.The first says, `I don't know, but I wish I did.' The second says, `I don't know, and I don't care.' The last says, `I don't know, you don't know, and nobody can know.

first answer this question: There are three basic types of agnostics. I wonder which kind you are.The first says, `I don't know, but I wish I did.' The second says, `I don't know, and I don't care.' The last says, `I don't know, you don't know, and nobody can know.QS: You skipped this question. Care to comment?

Just to make sure I understand correctly, let me see if I can summarize an atheist evolutionist.Everything we see around us is the result of time and chance acting on matter. Nothing else exists unless it is the result of this process. Your beliefs have been built on reason and not some ancient book. Is this a fairly accurate picture?

You are getting to the root of my question which is this: How can an evolutionist believe in the validity of reason? How can time and chance acting on matter produce reason? If you see a chemical reaction, it doesn't occur to you to say that it is true or false, it just is. So, my Christian/creation beliefs are just a complex chemical reaction in my head. And your beliefs are simply a different chemical reaction. So why do you think my chemical reaction is false and yours is true. It appears that atheist evolutionists borrow reason from theism to argue their case. For those who do not believe in God, the only consistent position is nihlism. Basically, anything goes. If we are the process of chemical reactions, then the strongest survive and absolute standards of right and wrong do not exist. Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. So, your atheism must rest on an unsupported presuppostion, not on a claim to reason.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
[B] Best not to go down the path of absolute "right and wrong", since christianity can't make the same claim either. [/QUOTE]Actually, Christianity states that God's word is the absolute standard.

quote:

---

1.)Today, we agree incest is bad. In the old testement, it was a pretty common thing. In fact, the then commandments make specific reference to not coveting thy neibhors wife, but says nothing about having the hots for your sister.

---

Not true: read Leviticus 18; incest was outlawed shortly after the Israelites left Egypt.

quote:

---

2.)THE INQUISITION! Ain't it great! The INQUISITION! need I repeat?
3.)um Crusades... nasty mess that.

---

A favorite yet weak argument. First, I won't mention the millions and millions that have been killed by atheist/evolutionist fueled beliefs (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot). Second, I challenge you to find Scriptural support for the inquistion and the crusades. Many ignoble things have been done in the name of "God" but that does not negate the Truths laid out in His word. That argument is like saying St. Andrews Cross is a symbol of racism simply because a group like the skinheads choose to wave it as their banner.

Joz, can you read my post #49? and respond? It is a follow up to my original post to which you responded. Thx

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Oh please dont Hovind-ize the board with this utter nonsense about evolution. Stalin and Pol Pot murdered millions to keep themselve in power and Hitler murdered jews because he thought thats what God wanted...he says so in his book,Mein Kaft. Evolutionary science is simply OBSERVATION of change. True evolutionists DONT PARTICIPATE in the process...they merely record it. As soon as you start to participate,thats no longuer evolutionary science...it becomes EUGENICS,which is what Hitler tried to do...the creation of a perfect race.

---

I'm not sure what Hovind-ize means. I know who he is but I don't read his stuff. My examples of Hitler and Stalin was more of a side note. My response was similiar to yours. True Christians understand that the crusades and the inquisition were misguided and NOT an example of Biblical Christianity.

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-11-2002]

I thought the topic was atheism. Sorry if I mis-read the subject line of the post. I am discussing the evidence in a number of threads.

No need to get short, I am involved in a number of threads, give me some time.

quote:

---

What does the misapplication and distortion of a scientific theory by political players and idealogues have to do with the validity of the theory?

---

Nothing, that was the point of my post. Someone mentioned the inquistion and the crusades in an attempt to invalidate Christianity.

quote:

---

You are oversimplifying evolution to say that it is only 'time and chance acting on matter'. The big part you are leaving out is selection by the environment. Those individuals with a greater ability to reason would have been selected for if it was a reproductive advantage.

---

Selected by whom? The environment? Could you be more specific? Isn’t that the same thing as saying time and chance?

quote:

---

Post-modern relatavism?
Be careful, this will almost certainly backfire on you. If there is no objective reality and all perceptions are equally valid, then Satanism is just as "true" as Christianity.

---

My example was from an atheistic standpoint. Am I correct in stating that our thought processes (according to your belief) are nothing but chemical reactions?

quote:

---

OK, but what does this have to do with Biology and the ToE?

---

I’m sorry; I honestly don’t understand the question.