"Only God can judge me!" Religious debates rerun

[firedragon]

But I've never seen any atheist that felt the need to take the position that they just don't know how life arose and don't feel the need to give an answer for it.

Everyone "needs" something. You have a need too. Thats not relevant to what I said.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Everyone understands the theoretical and philosophical importance of Abiogenesis to the evolutionary theory, but the prebiotic soup remains a detached hypothesis.

 

[danieldemol]

It strikes against very core foundational aspects in both the old and new testament which clearly show that:
a) Death did not originally exist.
b) Death entered into the world by sin.
c) God, as Jesus, rescued us by sacrificing Himself in our place, so that we may have eternal life again.
d) One day death will cease to exist.

Death is recorded in the fossil record going back 3.48 billion years, so a) is only true in the sense that life didn't exist once, other than that it is manifestly clear that death is much older than human existence.
b)Is clearly false as sin began with humans, death is older than humans by millions of years.
C) is Christian dogma - to me Jesus was simply too flawed to be a God
D) Is an empty promise based on no evidence

 

[danieldemol]

But I could name a lot of things that results in increased procreation or a reduction in your competition that you absolutely would not agree is a moral thing to do.
Like murdering all those of an opposing race like the nazis did, or forcibly inseminating a huge swath of the Asian continent like Gengis Khan is believed to have done.

The Nazis failed. Genghis Khan would not have been successful in the modern world and besides he was probably as religious as the old testament authors who also allowed atrocities to be committed against conquered tribes

 

[Piculet]

by asking them and observing their actions

That's a purely subjective opinion.

 

[firedragon]

The Nazis failed. Genghis Khan would not have been successful in the modern world and besides he was probably as religious as the old testament authors who also allowed atrocities to be committed against conquered tribes

Mate. You just made an opinion out of thin air saying Ghenghis khan was "probably" religious etc etc.

Why?

 

[firedragon]

Death is recorded in the fossil record going back 3.48 billion years, so a) is only true in the sense that life didn't exist once, other than that it is manifestly clear that death is much older than human existence.
b)Is clearly false as sin began with humans, death is older than humans by millions of years.
C) is Christian dogma - to me Jesus was simply too flawed to be a God
D) Is an empty promise based on no evidence

You have misunderstood "death" in the Bible where many people do speak about "You shall surely die" which is in their minds a physical death but its not. This death is a spiritual death which is because of sin, and I am referring to the Bible.

 

[Rise]

Everyone "needs" something. You have a need too.

Your statement is not relevant to what I said, and doesn't refute any point I made.

Which was that I've never seen an atheist who thought it was ok for them to not have an explanation for how life arose. They all assert that they know how it arose. Even though they don't have evidence it could happen, let alone proof that it happened.

In contrast, religious people are often ok with ambigui

Thats not relevant to what I said.

Indeed that comment you are referring to was not intended to be refute what you said, which is why I prefaced it by saying "On a related note, I'd like to point out".

I merely wanted to take the opportunity to expound more on my original point to help you better understand what I was trying to say.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Everyone understands the theoretical and philosophical importance of Abiogenesis to the evolutionary theory, but the prebiotic soup remains a detached hypothesis.

Your statement does not refute any point I made.

No point I made depending on the assumption that abiogenesis isn't a hypothesis, or the assumption that no one understands how important it is to the evolutionary hypothesis.

Which is what I was pointing out to you in my last post: That your points were irrelevant to my post. Nothing in my post assumed that abiogenesis and kind to kind evolution were the same theory. Nor required assuming they were.

So for you to try to "correct" that is an error, since I never made that mistake in the first place and nothing in my post depended on assuming that was the case.

The error in your perception probably comes from the fact that for the purposes of my example I talked about someone who believes in both happening as a matter of fact (As many atheists do). That is not to be confused for believing that the two hypothesis are the same thing (which I did not assert).

 

[firedragon]

Your statement is not relevant to what I said, and doesn't refute any point I made.

Which was that I've never seen an atheist who thought it was ok for them to not have an explanation for how life arose. They all assert that they know how it arose. Even though they don't have evidence it could happen, let alone proof that it happened.

It is not about "is it okay". It is about what the theory of evolution is. You are making a straw man simply because you do not wish to accept a simple, small correction in your thesis about abiogenesis or whatever you called by "mineral to man" and evolution.

Anyway the rest of your comments seem like you are just gonna refute everything so have a great day. Cheers.

 

[Rise]

It is not about "is it okay". It is about what the theory of evolution is.

That's why your statement was irrelevant to any point I made.

Your mistake was that you took my statement of "mineral to man evolution" as a combining of abiogenesis and kind to kind evolution into the same hypothesis.

That is not what I said. You merely assumed that was what I meant.

It was not what I meant.

I used the phrase "mineral to man evolution" to describe people who believe both abiogenesis and kind to kind evolution are a fact.

simply because you do not wish to accept a simple, small correction in your thesis about abiogenesis or whatever you called by "mineral to man" and evolution.

As I just pointed out: the fact that you think you needed to correct that is based on a false assumption you made that I was saying something I wasn't.

You are making a straw man

I am explaining to you why your statement was irrelevant to my post.

You only think it's a strawman because you don't understand what I'm explaining to you.

I do believe that what I posted above in this post should be sufficient, however, to help you understand why your original statement was irrelevant to my points. Because you were operating under false assumptions.

Anyway the rest of your comments seem like you are just gonna refute everything.

If you make wrong statements then why wouldn't they be refuted?

Why are you afraid of people refuting what you say if you're confident what you said is true?

 

[firedragon]

That's why your statement was irrelevant to any point I made.

Your mistake was that you took my statement of "mineral to man evolution" as a combining of abiogenesis and kind to kind evolution into the same hypothesis.

That is not what I said. You merely assumed that was what I meant.

It was not what I meant.

I used the phrase "mineral to man evolution" to describe people who believe both abiogenesis and kind to kind evolution are a fact.



As I just pointed out: the fact that you think you needed to correct that is based on a false assumption you made that I was saying something I wasn't.




I am explaining to you why your statement was irrelevant to my post.

You only think it's a strawman because you don't understand what I'm explaining to you.

I do believe that what I posted above in this post should be sufficient, however, to help you understand why your original statement was irrelevant to my points. Because you were operating under false assumptions.




If you make wrong statements then why wouldn't they be refuted?

Why are you afraid of people refuting what you say if you're confident what you said is true?

Nice. Cheers.

 

[Rise]

Nice. Cheers.

Considering you just got done trying to falsely chastise me for not "accepting a simple, small correction in your thesis", it's ironic that you don't seem to be taking a simple correction to your own claim with any grace.

Just saying "nice" comes off as a snarky dismissal of my valid points, with no admission on your part that you were wrong and made a false accusation of me based on faulty assumptions.

 

[Rise]

Death is recorded in the fossil record going back 3.48 billion years,

You can't prove that that layer was deposited 3.48 billion years ago.

Go ahead and try to find the evidence. It isn't there.

What you'll inevitably find is that circular reasoning is employed to reach that conclusion.

They date rocks by how old they think a particular species is. But they have no way of measuring the age of a species. So they date the age of a species by what layer of rock it's found in. That's called circular reasoning. It's a logical fallacy.

so a) is only true in the sense that life didn't exist once, other than that it is manifestly clear that death is much older than human existence.
b)Is clearly false as sin began with humans, death is older than humans by millions of years.

Your conclusion falls apart without your claim about the age of death being true.

C) is Christian dogma - to me Jesus was simply too flawed to be a God
D) Is an empty promise based on no evidence

You are engaging in the fallacy of "Red Herring".

Your statement is irrelevant to the point you are responding to, and a distraction that veers off onto an unrelated topic.

My point was that you cannot be a believer in minerals to man evolution and be a believer in what the Bible says.

I also went further to point out that you can't really call yourself a Christian if you believe in minerals to man evolution (and fully understand why the two beliefs are mutually exclusive) because you're rejecting the most central and core idea of the entire Bible: The fall of man into death and Jesus's redemption of man from death.

You haven't refuted either of those points.

You're veering off onto an unrelated topic about whether or not you think the Bible is true, and the reasons for why you think it's not true.


I should also point out, that what I stated is not "dogma" by definition. It's something that is plainly and explicitly stated in Scripture as being true.
Dogma is when a religious authority makes a statement about what they have concluded the truth is. Something does not have to be a dogma when you can plainly read it in the Bible and don't need an authority to tell you that is what it means. Although a religious authority could decree that what the Bible plainly says is true, and thereby make it a dogma, you never needed a dogma to reach that conclusion in the first place. Therefore, to call a belief dogma is to falsely imply that it's an interpretation of what you think the truth is based on factors that may not even be drawn from Scripture (like church tradition, logic, etc), rather than just an objective plain reading of Scripture.
And what I stated about what the Bible says about the fall, death, redemption by Jesus, and the defeat of death, is plainly and objectively stated in Scripture. There's no need for reaching an indirect conclusion by interpreting the implications of what is said in Scripture, or relying on church tradition in order to reach that conclusion. It's explicitly and plainly declared in Scripture to be true.

 

[Rise]

The Nazis failed.

You are committing the fallacy of "Irrelevant Conclusion".

Whether or not the nazis failed in achieving their goal is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Therefore, your statement doesn't refute any point I made.

That point was that they felt morally justified in what they were trying to do.
Because they had a worldview based in natural selection which led them to conclude that it's good for society to kill off bad genetic stock. And if it's good to do that, then they think that gives them the moral right to do it. Nay, you could even go further and say they thought they had a moral duty to do it.

Genghis Khan would not have been successful in the modern world and besides he was probably as religious as the old testament authors who also allowed atrocities to be committed against conquered tribes

You are committing the fallacies of both "Irrelevant Conclusion" and "Red Herring".

Your claims that:
a) Genghis Khan couldn't succeed today.
b) That he was probably religious.

Are completely irrelevant to the point I made and do not refute anything I said.

The point I made was that you have no moral basis for saying Genghis Khan's actions were wrong based on the measurement of natural selection alone.

His spree of raping and murdering his way across Asia have achieved more "success" by the definition of natural selection than probably anyone else in history.

Researchers speculate that 0.5% of the population today might trace their DNA to the male side of Genghis Khan. And that there's a large section of Asia where as much as 8% of the population may trace their lineage to the male side of Genghis Khan.

On what basis would you try to say his actions were wrong if you're just an atheist who believes in minerals to man evolution?

 

[firedragon]

Considering you just got done trying to falsely chastise me for not "accepting a simple, small correction in your thesis", it's ironic that you don't seem to be taking a simple correction to your own claim with any grace.

Just saying "nice" comes off as a snarky dismissal of my valid points, with no admission on your part that you were wrong and made a false accusation of me based on faulty assumptions.

No problem Rise. I submit to your accusation. Have a great day.

 

[danieldemol]

It doesn't help the average person's lack of critical thinking in this area when academics who don't hold to this dogma are professionally burned at the stake and excommunicated.

I don't appreciate your extremist rhetoric here, to the best of my knowledge no academics have been burned at the stake or excommunicated for not believing in evolution. Sure there are some folks who have lost teaching positions for teaching things outside of the scientific consensus as fact, however they are free to take up employment outside public teaching activities, and that is as it should be.

Also it's not like Ken Ham and his like employs people who believe in evolution at Answers in Genesis and the like, so it seems hypocritical to suggest that the government should employ people to teach creationism.

 

[danieldemol]

You are committing the fallacy of "Irrelevant Conclusion".

Whether or not the nazis failed in achieving their goal is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Therefore, your statement doesn't refute any point I made.

That point was that they felt morally justified in what they were trying to do.
Because they had a worldview based in natural selection which led them to conclude that it's good for society to kill off bad genetic stock. And if it's good to do that, then they think that gives them the moral right to do it. Nay, you could even go further and say they thought they had a moral duty to do it.

Sure they believed they had a moral duty to kill off bad genetic stock, but it was a delusion, and one which ironically resulted in a good number of them being removed from the gene pool at war, which demonstrates that it is not conducive to being selected to turn on your fellow humans.

You are committing the fallacies of both "Irrelevant Conclusion" and "Red Herring".

Your claims that:
a) Genghis Khan couldn't succeed today.
b) That he was probably religious.

Are completely irrelevant to the point I made and do not refute anything I said.

The point I made was that you have no moral basis for saying Genghis Khan's actions were wrong based on the measurement of natural selection alone.

His spree of raping and murdering his way across Asia have achieved more "success" by the definition of natural selection than probably anyone else in history.

Researchers speculate that 0.5% of the population today might trace their DNA to the male side of Genghis Khan. And that there's a large section of Asia where as much as 8% of the population may trace their lineage to the male side of Genghis Khan.

On what basis would you try to say his actions were wrong if you're just an atheist who believes in minerals to man evolution?

I'm not an atheist, so I can't really answer your question, but I see no reason why a person can't believe in evolution and compassion, in which case rape is wrong because it is not compassionate.

 

[danieldemol]

That's a purely subjective opinion.

Sure it is, as is your opinion. The main difference is that my opinion is based in honest enquirey and observation of actions, whereas yours is based on religious bigotry

 

[Piculet]

for not believing in evolution. Sure there are some folks who have lost teaching positions for teaching things outside of the scientific consensus as fact, however they are free to take up employment outside public teaching activities, and that is as it should be.

If they teach that the theory of evolution is false, I understand — if they only refuse to teach it is fact, what you say would be entirely unreasonable and unfair.

 

[danieldemol]

Mate. You just made an opinion out of thin air saying Ghenghis khan was "probably" religious etc etc.

Why?

Genghis Kahn's religion was Tengrism.
Genghis Khan - Wikipedia

 

[Piculet]

Sure it is, as is your opinion. The main difference is that my opinion is based in honest enquirey and observation of actions, whereas yours is based on religious bigotry

Once again we witness the connection between atheism and arrogance. Oh no, wait, you're not an atheist. You simply reject the revelation from God, but you believe He exists. Even shaitan knows God exists.