When it uses established science to embellish an idea that cannot be substantiated....that is my beef.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
“Why are atheists so interested in God?”
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
When it uses established science to embellish an idea that cannot be substantiated....that is my beef.
Why else does he need to be so insistent about something he can't prove?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you are saying that you have no beef with the theory of evolution?
I wish you would make up your mind.
siti
Well-Known Member
Hmmm! Yet more projection perhaps? I wonder if that is that why you are having so much difficulty answering my question?
siti
Well-Known Member
Why do you? Answer that, and I suspect you'll see what's going on with Professor Dawkins.
Science presupposes a conclusion about its theory, which is backed up by nothing but supposition built on more supposition. If a premise is flawed at its beginning, then nothing you build on it will stand up.
What makes you think that the Creator uses anything that is not "natural" for him? If he created the natural laws, he can override them. Who is science to say that he cannot exist or exercise his power in any way he chooses? There is much in science that is based on effect rather than cause.....we are living in the effect, arguing about the cause.
Why can't it be him? Intelligent design is seen everywhere....."Perfectly plausible"? And who deems that it is perfectly plausible? The ones who want God to disappear? Who interprets the evidence to fit the theory? Can the "evidence" really be relied upon when a master deceiver is in the world?
What is "natural" or "nature"?...can you define it for me?
Oh there is evidence for adaptation in abundance...but when that evidence is expanded to encompass ideas that cannot be substantiated; ideas that take it right out of any reasonable ball park, then you have fiction masquerading as fact.
Can you name other areas of science that deliberately embellish ideas that can't be substantiated?
I thought that was obvious.....people's eternal future is based on what they accept as truth.....to show them that God has a purpose in our being here, that there is a reason for all the trials of this life, and a future for the faithful ones that is better than anyone can even imagine....why would I NOT want to tell them about that? It is what Christ commissioned us to do....remember?
What is Dawkins motive? I am at a loss to find one that could possibly justify your support of him...other than to eliminate any consequence for abandoning God and joining the opposition.
I have thought long and hard about all of it....I have examined the evidence with a critical eye....evolution is designed to take people away from belief in a Creator.....pure and simple. Who would be behind such a ploy.....I wonder?
How could such a pathetic lie have gained so much support with so little actual evidence? Is this mob mentality at work on a grand scale? The answer is obvious to me.
I have already alluded to adaptation. This is a scientifically provable event that has taken place under laboratory conditions and well documented. If you look at articles on "Speciation" you will see that adaptation is used to prove evolution. They even call it "micro-evolution" to separate it from "macro-evolution"......yet most do not see them as separate processes. They see them as one process over a long period of time. But is that true?
In all the experiments conducted on speciation, we did not find one single instance where a species moved out of it taxonomy and into a new one. Variety was created within one species...nothing more. To suggest that new creatures can be created this way when there is no hard evidence is pure supposition and educated guessing. If you read their articles you will find the tell-tale language of suggestion masquerading as facts. There are no facts to back up what the scientists assert in this process, supposedly occurring over millions of years. All they can say with any certainty is that they think it "might have" or "could have" happened....not that they can prove that it ever did.
When Darwin observed the finches on the Galapagos Islands, he did not find new species of birds, but several new species of finches. The tortoises he found were different to the ones on the mainland too but still tortoises, as were the iguanas who had adapted to marine life.....they were still clearly identifiable as iguanas. Their species had not changed but small adaptive features had developed to preserve the species in a new location with different food sources.
siti
Well-Known Member
After your last couple of posts, all that is obvious to me is why atheists feel a fervent compulsion to oppose religious fundamentalism. I honestly think your contribution has done more to answer the title question of this thread than anything else. Your argument boils down to the suggestion that everyone who believes in evolution is either knowingly or unwittingly taking the devil's side in the great controversy between the almighty Creator and his angelic warriors against Satan and his demon hordes...yes? And yet here you are boldly claiming that scientific theories somehow lack credibility and supporting evidence?
siti
Well-Known Member
Jim, your question is being answered I think - the key reason why atheists are interested in discussions about God is to oppose the very kind of anti-scientific thinking that is on display in this thread - sadly, this kind of thinking even influences educational policy in some parts of the world...as long as that is the case, someone has to stand against it I think. And that's going to be reflected in discussion forums like this one.
I understand your opinion. Was just asking if you could name other areas of science which deliberately embellish ideas that can't be substantiated.
Not for me. Atheists really are more like a herd of cats than a cogent hive mind, which always make me vaguely surprised by accusations of collusion and conspiracy.
Altfish
Veteran Member
People do not elect Presidents because of their belief in the Easter Bunny.
People do not discriminate against gays because of their belief in Santa Clause
People do not get tax deductions for believing in Santa Clause
See the pattern, you have to understand the influence and damage and favouritism that religion gets in this world.
That's why we are interested in gods.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Some of us do!
I believe in a Deity, but I am also an atheist.
I cannot see how Deists can be Theists. And so I believe that everything, all nothing, and all energy is the Deity.
But mankind is so small when compared to the Universe and all that lies beyond that it beggars belief in a Deity that is aware of us, let alone interested. As disinterested and unaware of us as we are of any single tiny hair on the back of our little fingers.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Book sales and speaking engagements, just like any other faction author and speaker.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello. Yes, that is why someone trying to use science to 'prove' that there is no creative intelligence behind our universe is silly (not that all atheists do that, though that was the mentality I had when I was an atheist). So it is not science that is the problem (I have a PhD in astronomy!) but those that try to use it beyond what is reasonable. Many people - myself included - were led to God through science by the way. Of course I can't prove God exists, just that it makes that hypothesis the most robust one, IMHO.
Last edited:
