How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Subduction Zone]

We've been through that before. I will go over it perhaps tomorrow for your edification again. You don't have to believe what I say, but that's ok. Kind of like National Geographic which you don't think is a good source of information because you didn't like what it said about sediment. However, it gets detailed and I am willing to discuss it ASAP, but time is closing in and I am human, that means I need to rest somewhat. Unlike God's rest on the "7th day..."
So would it be a fair statement to make that you USED TO believe in God when you belonged to a church, but you no longer believe there is a God or gods, is that right?
And bye for now--hopefully later we can go over the purported difference of dates some imagine when it comes to Jesus' birth.

Yes, you are much closer now. Lacking a belief in is not an active disbelief. When one says "I lack a belief due to a lack of evidence" then the lacks of belief is a rational one. If I do not believe in God because I do not like God that is a self contradicting irrational claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What a pile of laughable rubbish ..

So, no such quotes ha?

So do you now believe that Gods exist ?

No.

Sounds like you don't understand the difference between

"I don't believe X is true"
and
"I believe X is false"

I'm sorry for that, but that's a you-problem.

Ha ha ha ha ha.. Donut

The level of conversation is dropping faster then a feather in a vacuum

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An atheist is, according to the Oxford Dictionary, "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." So? Does that fit your mindset?

Note how your very own posted definition doesn't say "a person who believes no gods exist".

Think it through.
"someone who positively believes / asserts that there are no gods"

vs

"someone who doesn't believe the claim that there are gods"

Do you understand the difference?

 

[McBell]

Prove it. I think that you will only be able to show that people are not "your kind of Christian". But even the Bible warns you not to hold that sort of belief.

They seem to have difficulty understanding that merely proving a difference has no bearing on the right or wrong of said difference until AFTER it is established which is right and which is wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They seem to have difficulty understanding that merely proving a difference has no bearing on the right or wrong of said difference until AFTER it is established which is right and which is wrong.

For those cases where right and wrong can be known.

 

[McBell]

For those cases where right and wrong can be known.

Well, there is that.

However, to declare something is wrong simply because it is different is nothing more than wishful thinking.
ESPECIALLY if you can not demonstrate which is right and or which is wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you are much closer now. Lacking a belief in is not an active disbelief.

It's not an active disbelief? Come on -- let's get real for a change -- what is it, an inactive disbelief? I guess I don't understand and perhaps we will never see "eye to eye," but I will do the research for you again about the wrongly interpreted time gap by many about Jesus' birth. Have a good day, I have lots of things to do today and hopefully will get to one of the reasons you think the Bible is not true and show you how wrong people are about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you are much closer now. Lacking a belief in is not an active disbelief. When one says "I lack a belief due to a lack of evidence" then the lacks of belief is a rational one. If I do not believe in God because I do not like God that is a self contradicting irrational claim.

P.S. It seems to me that you have a problem with the Bible and you are not sure whether you believe in God or whether there is a God (or gods). I am glad to know what I know from my studies of the Bible -- even if there are things that others may say are not true (I.e., Moses' sojourn in the wilderness, etc.). My life has changed for the better and whatever I do not understand now I look forward to knowing more about in the future. I am much happier now and lead a much better life than before I know what I know now. I will get to the understanding about whoever was the procurator or whatever it was with Jesus during that time period...and yes, from my vantage point (now) Itruly believe there is a God, a Creator. We may make tables, but there are things (like skies and clouds) that we don't make. I have concluded from observation and discussion that there IS a God who cares and more. But later for that if possible.
Oh yes, and here we go again -- I gave you the dictionary definition of atheism. So go argue with the dictionary people if you don't like their definition and want to make up your own definition, ok? Maybe there are other definitions in other dictionaries. If you don't like the definition I gave from the dictionary, ok...

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

There is the concept of Theistic Evolution, which has been accepted by most major Church institutions since at least the 1960s except those hardline conservative maniacs in the US

 

[Sargonski]

He never implied that. You will probably never understand what an atheist is.

Never implied what ? .. what is that atheists do not understand about being an atheist .. Tell us O - atheist leader ... whose beliefs are based on logical fallacy .. just like the flat earthers .. and the religious right creationists.

and let it be said about such a post .. what a laughable joke .. desperately trying to come to the defense of a position you know naught .. Really ? does it get much more pathatic ? then crying .. Ohhhhh .. Ohhhhhh "you will never understand me"

What is there to understand mate ? -- we are all ears to hear what wisdom the grand Atheist Poobah has to reveal about what an atheist is ?!

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. It seems to me that you have a problem with the Bible and you are not sure whether you believe in God or whether there is a God (or gods). I am glad to know what I know from my studies of the Bible -- even if there are things that others may say are not true (I.e., Moses' sojourn in the wilderness, etc.). My life has changed for the better and whatever I do not understand now I look forward to knowing more about in the future. I am much happier now and lead a much better life than before I know what I know now. I will get to the understanding about whoever was the procurator or whatever it was with Jesus during that time period...and yes, from my vantage point (now) Itruly believe there is a God, a Creator. We may make tables, but there are things (like skies and clouds) that we don't make. I have concluded from observation and discussion that there IS a God who cares and more. But later for that if possible.
Oh yes, and here we go again -- I gave you the dictionary definition of atheism. So go argue with the dictionary people if you don't like their definition and want to make up your own definition, ok? Maybe there are other definitions in other dictionaries. If you don't like the definition I gave from the dictionary, ok...

No, I have no problem with the Bible. I merely understand it better than you do and you do not seem to like that. When one realizes that it is a man written book that does not appear to have any link to any god then one can appreciate it for what it is.

I have a 'problem" with people that abuse the Bible. There is a big difference.

 

[Sargonski]

So, no such quotes ha?



No.

Sounds like you don't understand the difference between

"I don't believe X is true"
and
"I believe X is false"

I'm sorry for that, but that's a you-problem.


The level of conversation is dropping faster then a feather in a vacuum

Yes .. your level is dropping very quick ... your beliefs based on fallacy .. just like the flat earthers and religious right creationists.

Your disagreement with my position .. negates the need for specific quote .. The claim on the table ... the conversation you jumped into .. involved a statement about God. having no bearing on what you believe to be true or false .. so who is it that does not understand .. and who's problem is this ?

I have asked for clarification .. what means "GOD" .. what is being defined as a Godly power? If you have no comment on this question .. why are you here .. other than to drop the level of conversation fastar than a feather in a vacuum .. and project some of your logical failings onto others ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not an active disbelief? Come on -- let's get real for a change -- what is it, an inactive disbelief? I guess I don't understand and perhaps we will never see "eye to eye," but I will do the research for you again about the wrongly interpreted time gap by many about Jesus' birth. Have a good day, I have lots of things to do today and hopefully will get to one of the reasons you think the Bible is not true and show you how wrong people are about that.

There are all sorts of inactive disbeliefs. If one does not have enough information to react either way then an inactive disbelief is best. Here is a clear example. Let's say that you are a juror at a trial. A man has been accused of murder, but the evidence against him is very weak. If you cannot find that person "guilty" on that limited evidence and vote "not guilty" that is an example of an applying an inactive belief. Many people confuse a verdict of "Not guilty" with a statement by the jury that the man did not do what he was accused of. That is not the case at all. The job of the prosecutor is to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something. Voting Not Guilting is telling the prosecutor that he did not make his case.

In a criminal trial that can suck because the prosecution does not get another chance. Our system sometimes protects the guilty because it is viewed that it is a greater wrong to imprison and innocent man than to let a guilty man go free. A juror would be perfectly in the right if he or she was not strongly convinced that the charged person was guilty and they let that person go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never implied what ? .. what is that atheists do not understand about being an atheist .. Tell us O - atheist leader ... whose beliefs are based on logical fallacy .. just like the flat earthers .. and the religious right creationists.

Being wrong and rude means that you do not merit a response. I was not rude to you. Why were you so rude to me?

and let it be said about such a post .. what a laughable joke .. desperately trying to come to the defense of a position you know naught .. Really ? does it get much more pathatic ? then crying .. Ohhhhh .. Ohhhhhh "you will never understand me"

It is hard to say, but you may lack the mental capacity to understand, or you may not be honest enough to understand, or simply to angry and arrogant to understand. Take a chill pill, be polite, and we may be able to have a conversation. So far you have only demonstrated that I am correct.

What is there to understand mate ? -- we are all ears to hear what wisdom the grand Atheist Poobah has to reveal about what an atheist is ?!

Oh my, more arrogance and anger. Try again.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When one says "I lack a belief due to a lack of evidence" then the lacks of belief is a rational one.

And @YoursTrue & I don’t believe in abiogenesis for that very reason.

Yet you do believe in it, despite that lack of evidence.

Based on bias? I mean, since the evidence isn’t there, it must be bias.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But even the Bible warns you not to hold that sort of belief [of who is a Christian or not].

Where?

I find the opposite is true….

1) Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-43); to determine which ones are wheat and which ones are weeds, requires judgment. (Jesus said both weeds and wheat would exist.)

2) Matthew 7:21-23. Jesus’ words about denying some who call him “Lord.”

3) 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. (Self-explanatory.)

 

[McBell]

And @YoursTrue & I don’t believe in abiogenesis for that very reason.

Yet you do believe in it, despite that lack of evidence.

Based on bias? Or evidence (lack of)?

That you set your standard of evidence so high when it comes to abiogenesis and so low for your favoured deity is rather interesting.
Especially if you think your blatant double standards should be taken seriously.

 

[Astrophile]

No, shallow thinkers believe that the first complex and synergistic structures eventually created themselves; that no intelligent builder was needed to build the code which built its parts and then arranged in working order.

The first ones needed to have the genetic code assembling them, created. To think no intelligent direction was needed, to me and other thinkers, is not thinking.

Do you think that the intelligent builder created itself? If not, who do you think created it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That you set your standard of evidence so high when it comes to abiogenesis and so low for your favoured deity is rather interesting.
Especially if you think your blatant double standards should be taken seriously.

That’s the argument I used with you guys!

What is the level of evidence for abiogenesis?
Yet you’re all for it!!! lol.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you think that the intelligent builder created itself? If not, who do you think created it?

Science has already answered this question, in discovering energy’s nature: “energy has always existed”.

So, Jehovah has always existed.