Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#77310 Feb 24, 2013
How many big bangs havethere been? It would seem our universe isn't going to cycle into another expansion like that...
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#77311 Feb 24, 2013
The natural world as it exist without human beings or civilization has a particular systematic way of working. Systems in nature will cycle and reproduce following set patterns.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#77312 Feb 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well atheist are trying to change the meaning to mean that.
Atheist sure have a hard time keeping your believes straight.
Yet alone just the definition of the word atheist.
Merriam - Webster
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
"who believes". That's a positive assertion. Seeing as there is no proof of your belief It's FAITH.
Faith:
"Synonyms: devotion, piety, religion"
Ah yes Atheism is a Religion.
Not really. It is easy to show how the dictionary is not a valid source for a definition of atheism. Most people are theist of some sort or other. In fact atheists are badly outnumbered. It is a reasonable assumption to make that the definition for atheism was written by Christians or Jews.

Now Langy, I know it hurts your brain to do so, but would you go to a group of atheists for a definition of Christianity?

In fact I have a deal for you, if you let the dictionary define atheism for me I get to define Christianity for you.

Atheism is better defined as a lack of belief in God, not as a belief that he does not exist. And if you want us to "prove" that god does not exist all I have to do is to point you to the Null Hypothesis, one of the basic logic tools for debates and logical thinking. It says, when you get down to brass tacks, that an unsupported claim can be safely ignored. If I claim there is a Magic Teapot on the other side of the Moon you can safely ignore that since I have no evidence of its existence. When you proclaim your belief in a God that demands you worship him and occasionally practice ritualized cannibalism I can ignore those claims of yours since there is no evidence to support them.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#77313 Feb 24, 2013
Except, it seems, our entire universe....

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#77314 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Not really. It is easy to show how the dictionary is not a valid source for a definition of atheism. Most people are theist of some sort or other. In fact atheists are badly outnumbered. It is a reasonable assumption to make that the definition for atheism was written by Christians or Jews.

Now Langy, I know it hurts your brain to do so, but would you go to a group of atheists for a definition of Christianity?

In fact I have a deal for you, if you let the dictionary define atheism for me I get to define Christianity for you.

Atheism is better defined as a lack of belief in God, not as a belief that he does not exist. And if you want us to "prove" that god does not exist all I have to do is to point you to the Null Hypothesis, one of the basic logic tools for debates and logical thinking. It says, when you get down to brass tacks, that an unsupported claim can be safely ignored. If I claim there is a Magic Teapot on the other side of the Moon you can safely ignore that since I have no evidence of its existence. When you proclaim your belief in a God that demands you worship him and occasionally practice ritualized cannibalism I can ignore those claims of yours since there is no evidence to support them.
I disagree most people are agnostic at some time maybe but not atheist.

You see there are two words with different meaning and you want to call yourself one title while using the definition of the other word.

Most atheist on these threads are using the correct title as they are positively asserting that no God or gods exist.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77315 Feb 24, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>There is really nothing new. Everything is just reproduced by cyclic patterned systems. Patterns are shown and followed.
'This flesh body of man'=under the sun'

Taking the chapter as a whole it points out that even gods are nothing new. Everything get's new attributions but we are frankly talking about the same old.
If you analyse it, there is nothing against looking further and deepen our understanding. Since it was there all along.

It's only with christianity that you get bans on looking into gods creation...but those are thus man-made bans to protect their claimed authority.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#77316 Feb 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree most people are agnostic at some time maybe but not atheist.
You see there are two words with different meaning and you want to call yourself one title while using the definition of the other word.
Most atheist on these threads are using the correct title as they are positively asserting that no God or gods exist.
No, you are wrong. You don't get to use a dictionary written by Christians to define atheism unless I get to use a dictionary written by atheists to define Christianity.

And if you look at the etymology of the word it does not support that definition: a(without)theism(a belief in god). So all that says is that atheists lack a belief in god. Yes, most of them will say that god does not exist, but asking them to prove he does not exist is as ridiculous as demanding that Christians disprove the existence of leprechauns.

My point is that it is up to people who believe in something to supply the evidence for it.

Meanwhile, if you believe Noah's Ark and all that other nonsense here is a very short video with a question that a Christian should be able to answer:

&fe ature=em-subs_digest&list= TLJEyFrvGwwZY
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#77317 Feb 24, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The Incoherence of Atheism (Ravi Zacharias)
The incoherence of religious apologists in their understanding of the SLoT.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77318 Feb 24, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The natural world as it exist without human beings or civilization has a particular systematic way of working. Systems in nature will cycle and reproduce following set patterns.
I'll grant that several tried a tested methods of f.i. building a cup in an eye to support a lens can occur again and again, for the simple reason that they work and give an advantage.
There are countless more.
Or you might say that even chaos obeys a simple formula and will create a pattern sooner or later. And at base you would find chemistry.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77319 Feb 24, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Science can not correct your statements. It strives.;p
There are a lot of theories, but suppose we figure it out, uh science figures it out, then you will still owe us the answers to the theological questions about the dinosaurs!

Charles Idemi answered:
Science can not answer the given question. Period.

I totally agree therefore i leave it up to the expert such as yourself in theological matters, to anwer:

Are dinosaurs real? We presume so.*
More importantly:
Did they have a firm believe?
If they were gay, did this in any way or form diminish their believe?

*As proof we can attest their bones lying everywhere from the deepest valley and the highest sea (given plate-techtonics) and full acceptance in the creation museum and thus their place on Noah's ark.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#77320 Feb 24, 2013
Nimbletwig wrote:
Why can't evolution be a part of creation?
It could, but there are two contradictions between the Genesis account of the the creation and Evolution as proposed by mainstream scientists.

In the Genesis account, God created whales before he created the beasts of the earth.
According to mainstream scientsts, whales are descended from ungulate mammals.

In the Genesis account, God created the fouls of the air before he created the beasts of the earth.
According to mainstream scientists, birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#77321 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong. You don't get to use a dictionary written by Christians to define atheism unless I get to use a dictionary written by atheists to define Christianity.

And if you look at the etymology of the word it does not support that definition: a(without)theism(a belief in god). So all that says is that atheists lack a belief in god. Yes, most of them will say that god does not exist, but asking them to prove he does not exist is as ridiculous as demanding that Christians disprove the existence of leprechauns.

My point is that it is up to people who believe in something to supply the evidence for it.

Meanwhile, if you believe Noah's Ark and all that other nonsense here is a very short video with a question that a Christian should be able to answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =G9zGWDwL4uoXX&feature=em- subs_digest&list=TLJEyFrvG wwZY
So now Merriam-Webster is a Christian dictionary?

Please! LOL

Your argument is getting ridicules.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#77322 Feb 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So now Merriam-Webster is a Christian dictionary?
Please! LOL
Your argument is getting ridicules.
I said that the writers of it were Christians. It is a lie to try to use strawman arguments.

So once again, let's be fair. If you are going to let Christians define what the word atheism means then to be fair you have to let atheists define the word "Christian".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#77323 Feb 24, 2013
And Langy, did you watch the very short video that I linked?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#77324 Feb 24, 2013
Christianity has been clearly defined, SZ. It is a cult.Christians are religious cult members. No. Question about it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77325 Feb 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well atheist are trying to change the meaning to mean that.
Atheist sure have a hard time keeping your believes straight.
Yet alone just the definition of the word atheist.
Merriam - Webster
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
"who believes". That's a positive assertion. Seeing as there is no proof of your belief It's FAITH.
Faith:
"Synonyms: devotion, piety, religion"
Ah yes Atheism is a Religion.
Have a nice day and don't forget to go to church.
Posted else where by derek4
From: The Columbus Dispatch:
February 4, 2011
Church, without God
“Stan Bradley likes Bible stories, admires Martin Luther and uses expressions such as 'heavens, no.'
The Lithopolis man is president of a local congregation and rarely misses a Sunday service. Occasionally, he goes to his wife's church instead.
For these and other reasons, Bradley considers himself religious.”
He is also an atheist.
continued:
“Like Bradley, some atheists participate in organized religion for its social and psychological benefits.”
continued:
“Churches are great places to find friends, support and youth education, so nonbelievers and believers alike join congregations to fill those needs, he said.
He has spoken to elderly and sick people who can no longer go to church and they say they most miss the feeling of community.
Recent research from Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin backs him up. It found that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people, not because of belief but because of the friendships found at church.”
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith...
“religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people”[I have said this all along, and my posts are still on the board to confirm it. Now you hear it straight from the atheist, lol.]
Apart from it having christian composers i would say that Merriam-Webster is annoying and fails as a dictionary by being obtuse in it's definitions.
A definition is not supposed to repeat the very word it tries to clarify and define.(ex. process)

And we would not have this discussion of atheism as a believe if people would use a different dictionary.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77326 Feb 24, 2013
Description
God in the Age of Science? is a critical examination of strategies for the philosophical defense of religious belief. The main options may be presented as the end nodes of a decision tree for religious believers. The faithful can interpret a creedal statement (e.g. "God exists") either as a truth claim, or otherwise. If it is a truth claim, they can either be warranted to endorse it without evidence, or not. Finally, if evidence is needed, should its evidential support be assessed by the same logical criteria that we use in evaluating evidence in science, or not? Each of these options has been defended by prominent analytic philosophers of religion.

In part I Herman Philipse assesses these options and argues that the most promising for believers who want to be justified in accepting their creed in our scientific age is the Bayesian cumulative case strategy developed by Richard Swinburne. Parts II and III are devoted to an in-depth analysis of this case for theism. Using a "strategy of subsidiary arguments," Philipse concludes (1) that theism cannot be stated meaningfully; (2) that if theism were meaningful, it would have no predictive power concerning existing evidence, so that Bayesian arguments cannot get started; and (3) that if the Bayesian cumulative case strategy did work, one should conclude that atheism is more probable than theism. Philipse provides a careful, rigorous, and original critique of theism in the world today.
Features
A powerful response to philosophical attempts to justify religious belief

Engages head-on with Richard Swinburne and other leading philosophers of religion

Original and elegant arguments; written in a clear and accessible style

Reviews
"A rigorous but fair critique of the central problems of natural theology that forces readers to take atheism seriously."--CHOICE

Product Details
400 pages; 9.2 x 6.1; ISBN13: 978-0-19-969753-3
ISBN10: 0-19-969753-1

About the Author(s)
Herman Philipse is Distinguished University Professor at the University of Utrecht.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#77327 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I said that the writers of it were Christians. It is a lie to try to use strawman arguments.

So once again, let's be fair. If you are going to let Christians define what the word atheism means then to be fair you have to let atheists define the word "Christian".
" It is a lie to try to use strawman arguments"

So why do you try?

It's not a Christian Doctrine.
It is and has been for like 100+
Years the dictionary of the English language.

You just don't like what the word atheist means. Try using the word agnostic if you don't like atheist.

And quit running around like little kids claiming we're picking on you when we are just using the correct definition.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#77328 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Langy, did you watch the very short video that I linked?
Yes.

Like I've alway said science can't get dates right.

Go Figure!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#77329 Feb 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
" It is a lie to try to use strawman arguments"
So why do you try?
It's not a Christian Doctrine.
It is and has been for like 100+
Years the dictionary of the English language.
You just don't like what the word atheist means. Try using the word agnostic if you don't like atheist.
And quit running around like little kids claiming we're picking on you when we are just using the correct definition.
You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Do you need your strawman argument identified? Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Probably not. Most creatards don't understand the mistakes that they are making.

As I said, I don't mind how a Christian defines atheism, as long as he can back it up, if he does not mind how I define Christianity.

Once again, your definition is lacking. It is not quite correct.

And I see that you are ignoring the video that I linked.

For creatard literalists who believe in their Noah's Ark nonsense it simply points out how ridiculous the claim that there was a World Wide Flood and then in just a hundred years that there were several cities and the nation of Egypt. Not to mention the millions of people in the rest of the world.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mail thief tries to escape on kayak 10 min DILF 8
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min black shuck 152,935
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 12 min eleanorigby 37,812
Should the St Patricks Day parade be open to th... 15 min Rentboy Robbie 18
More than 20,000 soldiers 20 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 23 min Mechanic 3,053
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Roxie Darling 26,058
Is it possible to....... 3 hr beatlesinafog 621
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 3 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 7,863
More from around the web