“Why are atheists so interested in God?”

[Jim]

Your post tells us that the concept of evidence is foreign to you

”Evidence” chest-pounding is ”Evidence” rituals in recreational amateur no-rules debating are a degree requirement now? Another update that I missed.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

That is your problem. Biblical Truth is far from being the truth. You err in claiming that others know that your invisible friend exists. In fact if one reads the Bible literally it is very easy to demonstrate that he does not exist.

Again, this is God's claim, not mine. However I agree with God in everything He declares. Because He has proven Himself to me in many ways, through many providences and mostly by His very real presence in me. The gift of the Holy Spirit convinces a man, but His Word is enough. God says all men know that He exists and that He is their judge, and yet they do not know Him. But some do know Him, because He has revealed these things to some and not to others. He has all power and is able to do this and to save whom He will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Evidence” chest-pounding is rituals in recreational amateur no-rules debating are a degree requirement now? Another update that I missed.

He made a claim about evidence. He had none, hand waving is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, this is God's claim, not mine. However I agree with God in everything He declares. Because He has proven Himself to me in many ways, through many providences and mostly by His very real presence in me. The gift of the Holy Spirit convinces a man, but His Word is enough. God says all men know that He exists and that He is their judge, and yet they do not know Him. But some do know Him, because He has revealed these things to some and not to others. He has all power and is able to do this and to save whom He will.

No, it clearly is not. You appear to be very confused. The Bible is a work of man. It is blasphemy to claim it is the word of god.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

No, it clearly is not. You appear to be very confused. The Bible is a work of man. It is blasphemy to claim it is the word of god.

The Bible also says that Satan speaks to God's people and directly contradicts God's words. He did that to the first woman, Eve, and she was deceived. And he attacks all God's saints the same way. But God's sheep will not be lead away ultimately by the voice of devils. We have the Great Shepherd of the sheep leading us. We hear Christ's voice, and Christ knows His own. But we will not hear the voice of devils. Praise God.

 

[SomeRandom]

Do you mind terribly if I come back for an indepth response a little later?
I feel like I should format it properly and I can't do that on my phone.
I just wanted to address this real quick.

"It is important to remember that:

1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.
2. Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages."

Can anyone hazard a guess as to who this ancient ancestor was, since he was neither a chimpanzee, nor a human being?
Don't we need to have evidence for all the splitting and branching that isn't just on diagrams and illustrations?

I don't know if it's reasonable to expect "science" to know literally every single transitional species.
Fossils are formed in quite extreme circumstances. And in the animal kingdom with scavengers, there simply won't be fossils of every living species to ever exist.
Instead what happens is you can extrapolate what and who goes where, using existing knowledge of bone formation, skeletal structures and previous fossils in the lineage. Probably even easier to do with technology these days. There are gaps, yes. I don't know if they're as big as the "anti" side likes to claim though. I recall learning about the formula, if you like, used to piece together dinosaur skeletons and even how they show their family tree. It was not exactly sci fi leaps of logic. Which is a slight shame, but no matter.

Also if you're using a 101 site, it's obviously going to use phrases like "seems to" and "it's likely" because it's breaking down information to show you the inner mechanics. I'm not sure why this is a problem, I remember our science teachers using similar language in younger year levels. That's just layman translations. Do scientific journals use such language? Maybe, like I said I don't tend to read such material normally.
I'm not really seeing an issue here though.

 

[Notanumber]

i see you think of yourself as a .....free man

run .....while you can...

There would be no point in running to Holland.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible also says that Satan speaks to God's people and directly contradicts God's words. He did that to the first woman, Eve, and she was deceived. And he attacks all God's saints the same way. But God's sheep will not be lead away ultimately by the voice of devils. We have the Great Shepherd of the sheep leading us. We hear Christ's voice, and Christ knows His own. But we will not hear the voice of devils. Praise God.

So what? The Bible is obviously full of errors to anyone that has seriously studied the book. You should try to do that some time. Here is a hint for you:

The Adam and Eve story is a myth.

 

[Thief]

Probably much better than you are. Did you ever study anything past grade school? Your post tells us that the concept of evidence is foreign to you.

not at all.....start a thread

go for it

 

[Subduction Zone]

not at all.....start a thread

go for it

No need. Since this would be a scientific question we can go by the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

The same basic concept applies to all forms of evidence. To even begin to have evidence one needs a testable idea. If your idea is not testable then it cannot have evidence that supports it. All you have is handwaving, not evidence. Please note that I have not said that there is evidence against god since I too would have to have a testable hypothesis to make that claim. I can only state that I do not know of any evidence for a god.

 

[Audie]

The Bible also says that Satan speaks to God's people and directly contradicts God's words. He did that to the first woman, Eve, and she was deceived. And he attacks all God's saints the same way. But God's sheep will not be lead away ultimately by the voice of devils. We have the Great Shepherd of the sheep leading us. We hear Christ's voice, and Christ knows His own. But we will not hear the voice of devils. Praise God.

Just for my interest and all..would you
say that the bible is always exactly true?

Careful tho.. maybe better not to hear me..
nothing worse than a awful atheist atheist asian.

Excepting maybe Ol' Nick himself, incarnate.

 

[SomeRandom]

I like the Berkley's Evolution 101 site because it keeps things relatively simple for those of us without science degrees and who get lost in the jargon. Strip the subject matter of its jargon and you have the bare bones of the issues. The simplicity reveals things that hide in the jargon.

This is a bit long so I'll break it up....

For example....

"Using shared derived characters:

Our goal is to find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. Specifically, we are interested in shared derived characters. A shared character is one that two lineages have in common, and a derived character is one that evolved in the lineage leading up to a clade and that sets members of that clade apart from other individuals.

Shared derived characters can be used to group organisms into clades. For example, amphibians, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, birds and mammals all have, or historically had, four limbs. If you look at a modern snake you might not see obvious limbs, but fossils show that ancient snakes did have limbs, and some modern snakes actually do retain rudimentary limbs. Four limbs is a shared derived character inherited from a common ancestor that helps set apart this particular clade of vertebrates.

However, the presence of four limbs is not useful for determining relationships within the clade in green above, since all lineages in the clade have that character. To determine the relationships in that clade, we would need to examine other characters that vary across the lineages in the clade."

Now, does the fact that many living things on this planet have four limbs automatically mean relationship? Obviously it does...but then it doesn't. Or is this something science grasps to assume that this must be true? Do you see the diagram? This is all based on assumption, not real testable evidence.

It also states....

You assume that they are just randomly or haphazardly assigning lineages to the fossil record. I sincerely doubt that, you can literally see the fossil record for yourself with a simple click of a button these days.
It's not like they find fossils with evidence of having four limbs and declare it automatically direct ancestors to X. That's not how really biology or indeed palaeontology works.
But since you're using a 101 site it's going to be simplified by default. It's essentially cutting out the lengthy process they use and giving you spoonfuls of data to try to help see how the process works. In essence what happens is the boffins use the skeletal remains we have found, the skeletons of today's species and what they know about both to help them fill in the blanks. It's more mathematical in a sense I guess.
Again you can see this for yourself. It's actually quite cool.

You're assuming they're using assumptions. Based on what? That they're grouping things into categories that you appear to object to? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

That puts things into perspective now doesn't it? In a 60 second timeframe of earth's existence, no multicellular form of life was in evidence for the first 50 seconds! Another 4 seconds for vertebrates to appear and another 4 seconds for flowers to make their mark on the world.....the remaining time had to produce everything else including us. Now tell me if that sounds reasonable to you?

Well yeah. See your incredulity is based on our human and rather limited understand of time. I mean earth's very existence is but a blink of the eye. It always has been. Hell I learned that from my pundit (priest) as a kid. Not sure how that's unreasonable?
Christians often say the same of our existence according to God's understanding. I fail to see the issue here.
I mean what is the time frame of creation exactly?

 

[SomeRandom]

Continued...

You see, under the heading of MACROEVOLUTION it says....

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.


It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."

Now do you see a discrepancy in what is stated in the latter part here, to what is said in the beginning and middle part of the quote?

First it was 3.5 billion years and now it's 3.8 billion years, but that was not anywhere close to the timeframe suggested for complex lifeforms to make their appearance. If out of 3.8 billion years we had to wait until the last few 'seconds' for multicellular life to evolve, do you see a problem? They already know that multicellular life didn't make an appearance for most of that time. So what are we to make of these things? It isn't exactly cohesive, is it?

They continue....

"Looking at complexity:

Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?

Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.

Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?"

Do you see the sneaky suggestion?...."seem to be"...."likely to"...."must have evolved"
How can these traits evolve gradually? How does a sightless creature develop eyes or even know that sight would be an advantage if it has never experienced that faculty? How can so many different eyes evolve in creatures that need various forms of vision? Same with hearing or taste or smell?

Does nature know about aerodynamics so as to design the various configurations of wings on so many different creatures? How did they get the idea that flying would be a good thing to evolve in the first place? My logic tells me that design...especially exquisite design, needs an intelligent designer. Science is not doing anything to dispel that obvious truth.

The 3.8 vs 3.5 might just be a case of failing to update records. It might be referring to something specific in the timeline, I dunno. I mean this is a 101 site. I don't expect it to picture perfect.
Also yes likely to, seems to. That's just how science speaks to laymen. Again my own science teachers used similar phrases when discussing Newton's laws of freaking physics. You going to tell me that that renders the law of gravity null and void now too?

How can so many different eyes evolve? Different geographic locations vary widely, which renders different results in genetic mutation by default. Different eyesights, as it were, developed to adapt to different situations. Taste developed as a way to distinguish poison in plants. Smell developed as a way to hunt and escape being hunted.

Our own eyes fail to see everything on offer. Other species see more than we do. Why? Well I don't know actually. I'm not a biologist. Not really my area of expertise, like I said, I'm more of Lit nerd. I mean I like science, I was fairly decent at maths. Just found arts more entertaining.
Go ask a biologist if you're curious.

How did flying creatures get the idea to fly? Well they probably found that the longer one is able to glide the better chance one has to escape various predators.
If you wish to see exactly how a wing evolved, may I suggest a road trip to your local natural history museum or hell even zoos nowadays.

Now no one, not even the Hitch can take away your faith in our Lord. That's perfectly fine. I just don't see why evolution, macro or micro if you like, ever precludes God. It seems more indifferent to the concept. People can believe in a creator and still have no qualms about ToE.
It explains existence on earth, not religion.

Also yes I did end up using my phone after all.
My poor laptop was mysteriously bourboned. RIP.

 

[Dell]

One ignorant or foolish thing I’ve seen people saying about atheists is some variation of “If atheists really don’t believe in God, then why are they so interested in Him?” This is sometimes followed by saying or insinuating that they must secretly really believe in God, or have some need or desire to.

Maybe what they’re so interested in is not God himself, but the popularity of believing in some God-with-a-capital-G or other? Maybe the reason they’re so interested in that is because of the popularity of using some God-with-a-capital-G as an excuse for cruelty, vandalism, violence and oppression?

ETA: Including vandalizing forums, and intrusive, invasive and oppressive behavior in forums.

Well most atheist love science and psychology. Religion is part of human nature and history, so therefore it is naturally interesting to atheist. But also it nice to see some one educated to finally "Get it", that being come to reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guess the question is, why do they get so emotional when talking about God. Or things like evolution.

Who is they?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The whole last 6 lines of your op were nothing but a crude display
of bigotry on your part.

And you dont even know it?

Ok....

Wel, the first thing you ever said to me was like
that. Semi retracted later with a half way sort of
thing that just made it worse, so I dont expect
you took the cure yet.

If you are engaged in some sort of spiritual quest,
you've some real basic stuff to work on before
you try for any of them higher planes.

I still don't see it, @Audie ...
Two of us reading the same thing, but drawing different conclusions. Perhaps Poe's law is at play?

 

[Audie]

Who is they?

People he concocts so as to have
someone to whom he is superior?

Or maybe he got the idea from
fundy-central, having let someone
else make it up for him?

I've heard the line before, they get it,
somewhere, but not from actual
observation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

People he concocts so as to have
someone to whom he is superior?

Or maybe he got the idea from
fundy-central, having let someone
else make it up for him?

I've heard the line before, they get it,
somewhere, but not from actual
observation.

You get that he was defending atheists, right? Not that I need defending, but he certainly wasn't potting atheists.

 

[Audie]

You get that he was defending atheists, right? Not that I need defending, but he certainly wasn't potting atheists.

I think i am out of tune

 

[Deeje]

But since you're using a 101 site it's going to be simplified by default. It's essentially cutting out the lengthy process they use and giving you spoonfuls of data to try to help see how the process works. In essence what happens is the boffins use the skeletal remains we have found, the skeletons of today's species and what they know about both to help them fill in the blanks. It's more mathematical in a sense I guess.
Again you can see this for yourself. It's actually quite cool.

It isn't the simplicity per se....its the basic idea that life is a fluke....that everything that appears to be cleverly designed is a fortunate mutation or just a product of some natural process....but I have yet to see the word "mutation" attached to something beneficial....it is invariably something detrimental....and unattractive.

...yet evolutionists would have us believe that there were literally billions of fortunate 'mistakes'....Google "beneficial mutations" and see how many there are....and how life altering they are.

You're assuming they're using assumptions. Based on what? That they're grouping things into categories that you appear to object to? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

I see that they assume a great many things.....like whale evolution for example....

There is not a single shred of evidence that any of these creatures are even related....yet here is the diagram that suggests that this is a line of evolution in action. Who said? I see four completely different creatures at four different times in history...and you are correct, fossils are rare making this scenario even more far fetched. Its a case of "looks like...so it must be". I don't buy it.

I mean what is the time frame of creation exactly?

Science calculates the age of the universe.....and the Bible says that God took time to prepare the earth from a formless and desolate planet to one where life could thrive. He created by increments, all that has existed. It took 6 creative periods of undetermined length to accomplish the task assigned to each "day", (obviously not 24 hour days) .There is no wizard in the sky, poofing things into existence. God worked long and hard on his creations. Everything is coded with pre-programmed information that is transmitted by DNA to the next generation.....information does not pop out of thin air. Who wrote the codes?...millions of them...?

How can so many different eyes evolve? Different geographic locations vary widely, which renders different results in genetic mutation by default.

Given the likelihood of beneficial mutations ever occurring in the first place, and the staggering number of them that had to occur in each living thing....and that every kind of eye had to develop independently.....can you imagine the odds against that ever taking place?....and that's just with eyes.....add hearing, taste, touch, digestion, elimination, balance, breathing, hormones, brain function, instinct.....etc. and you begin to see how ridiculous this whole thing is. You think suggestions will carry it to the masses.....only to those gullible enough to want to believe it IMO.

How did flying creatures get the idea to fly? Well they probably found that the longer one is able to glide the better chance one has to escape various predators.

So gliding made wings grow eventually....? are you serious? Why didn't mice and rats develop wings then?....or antelope? Didn't they get the memo?

If you wish to see exactly how a wing evolved, may I suggest a road trip to your local natural history museum or hell even zoos nowadays.

I have seen many documentaries on evolution and I can't help but notice how much is taken for granted, though none of it has any proof whatsoever. They will just provide these lovely computer generated animations and people think they are real....

I just don't see why evolution, macro or micro if you like, ever precludes God. It seems more indifferent to the concept. People can believe in a creator and still have no qualms about ToE.
It explains existence on earth, not religion.

Micro is observable...it never goes beyond one species of creature. Look at horses....they assume that the small creatures they say are the first equines were horses but they don't really know. Its guessing. They haven't got anything concrete to establish lineage or even relationship to modern horses...its all suggestion and inference. God created all the living creatures because he said he did...he said nothing about creating evolution. Besides, what is the point of concentrating on how living things change if you have no idea how life even began? Answer that one and the rest answers itself.

Also yes I did end up using my phone after all.
My poor laptop was mysteriously bourboned. RIP.

An interesting way to die

.....nothing more frustrating than trying to post on a phone or iPad. Def much easier on a laptop.