Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

Great. Show us this empirical proof?

I just asked God if I could tell you about it, and He said He wants YOU to ask so that this might be fulfilled:

Seek, you will find.

Knock, it shall be opened to you.

Ask, you will receive.

In each case, you must be the originator of the action, as it's hard to think of any unconditional promise in scripture that is based off caustic skepticism and passive "action".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've stepped through that entire dialogue on this forum and others in real time with real people, and I hereby note that you ducked each point I made.

Because none of them are relevant to anything I'd actually say. Why should I respond to arguments I never made?

That much ducking = denial. Checkmate.

Fabricating an argument and then expecting me to debate it with you = delusional.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Wait just a sec! I think you have a double standard here. Is there a worldwide conspiracy that makes most people believe in God or is it that most people are confused regarding the facts?

You've simply made an assertion in your mind that scientists are less prone to data conclusion errors than others. The truth is, if there is no God, you would be forced to conclude that the overwhelming majority of people (which includes the subset of say, biology scientists) are prone to some grave errors...

Checkmate.

Do you even chess bro?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Let's set aside for a second that the overwhelming majority of people that hold you particular set of superstitions also recognise evolution as valid science. Even if every single religious person believed as you do, that would not make it any more true.

The fact is this has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with the fact that the overwhelming bulk of the data confirms evolution as true, with not a single point of falsification that could undermine it.

And even if evolution were to be falsified and overturned, that STILL would not in any way verify creationism; only positive evidence for creationism could do that, of which we have none.

Your quest work is basically the same as that of Sisyphus.

 

[Revoltingest]

If what you say is true, than simply ask God for testable, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical evidence--to come to you soon--and watch him go! That is, if what you say is heartfelt, and it sure seems like it is, go for it!

I would NEVER ask ANYONE to "just trust Jesus" without EVIDENCE.

To ask an unevidenced being a question would require belief that the being exists.
As for the claim of testable evidence of its existence, what experiments do you offer?

 

[LuisDantas]

That must be true of atheists also, since most of the ones I know are nice people and not trolls who prey on everything I say at religious forums...

I don't see grounds for a comparison, since atheism does not require much if anything from atheists, let alone from others.

In any case, you seem to want to say something that is only hinted at. Here is looking forward for the decision to say it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell your dentist, when you have non-impacted wisdom teeth, for example, that you just "want them out", because they don't help you to chew, removing them won't affect your jaw alignment or orthodonture, won't affect your speaking voice, and because you love self-mutilating yourself with completely unneeded elective surgery . . .

How come appendix came off this famous "human vestigial" list?

How come we don't need body hair any more? How come in most latitudes, humans die after one night without clothing?

So now you are claiming that wisdom teeth are vestigial. Please make up your mind

And the appendix is still on the vestigial list. You do not know what a vestigial organ is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because research showed the use of the appendix.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-function-of-the-human-appendix-did-it-once-have-a-purpose-that-has-since-been-lost/

The invention of fire and use of clothing

​

But it is still vestigial since it does not do work in its original capacity. Vestigial does not mean "worthless".

 

[ChristineM]

But it is still vestigial since it does not do work in its original capacity. Vestigial does not mean "worthless".

It is not functionless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The truth is, if there is no God, you would be forced to conclude that the overwhelming majority of people (which includes the subset of say, biology scientists) are prone to some grave errors...

Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened. Galileo did, after all, spend some time on in-home detention because the overwhelming majority of people were wrong and they didn't want their comfy illusion about how significant and important we are burst, and because the idea of Heliocentrism was believed to attack and deny Christian beliefs.

 

[Shad]

I didn't say atheists are delusional,

Denial is rejection of a truth in full or part truth. So the basis for such a denial is mental thus a delusion. If you had used rejected instead of denial you wouldn't be placing atheist in a specific category by mere use of words used. Rejection carries no such implications.

but to be an atheist, one must accept as axiomatic that the overwhelming majority of persons are delusional and in denial, which doesn't line up with truth.

Nope. One could have been indoctrinated as per the family unit which is typically how religions continue.

 

[Audie]

Isn't it the same?

Hi Quest

No, it actually is not the same.

Pasteur actually did not disprove abio. He did something much more limited, which is, he showed that under the exact situations he tested,
life did not spontaneously arise. All he did was get a data set that showed
certain things do not work.

At the time, it was accepted-by some- as sufficient to show that mice to dont generate from old rags, or whatever.

There's a vastly greater number of things he did not try.

It is as if Dr. Pasteur had proved man cannot fly when each of his tries at an airplane failed.

It may be true, and it may be false that abio is impossible. Nobody knows.

If it is impossible we will never know it, because there will always be more things not tried.

Does that make sense?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I just asked God if I could tell you about it, and He said He wants YOU to ask so that this might be fulfilled:

Seek, you will find.

Knock, it shall be opened to you.

Ask, you will receive.

In each case, you must be the originator of the action, as it's hard to think of any unconditional promise in scripture that is based off caustic skepticism and passive "action".

Uh-huh. That's not empirical evidence then.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Making up numbers? But I witness the gospel of Jesus Christ to up to hundreds or thousands of persons a year. Only a very few of the persons I encounter are atheists or even agnostics. I think many thousands of responses is statistically significant.

You're asking me to trust your judgment - your assessments of people and your memory - over my own and the data I presented to you earlier, which, typically, you just ignored.

Is there a worldwide conspiracy that makes most people believe in God

If by God you mean your god, the god of the Christian Bible, most people reject that god.

That must be true of atheists also, since most of the ones I know are nice people and not trolls who prey on everything I say at religious forums...

Everybody on this thread that has disagreed with you is a decent poster arguing in good faith.

The troll might be the one who keeps trying to tell others what they do or must believe, who repeats refuted claims, who keeps promising to provide evidence of his god but then contrives deflections and excuses for not doing so, and then cries checkmate.

I didn't say atheists are delusional, but to be an atheist, one must accept as axiomatic that the overwhelming majority of persons are delusional and in denial, which doesn't line up with truth.

There you go again, trying to tell others what they must think. Sorry, but I reject your analysis. Nobody has to think that.

Except perhaps you. By your own tortured reasoning, you just contradicted yourself. If the only way to view people with whom one disagrees and who one thinks are in error is to judge them as delusional and in denial, then you also must consider atheists delusional and denial, assuming that you disagree with them, and after you just denied thinking that.

You have a very uninformed concept of atheists and atheism. I strongly suggest that you cease with your derogatory descriptions of us given that fact.

I just asked God if I could tell you about it, and He said He wants YOU to ask ...

Now you're ... never mind. It's nice that you two can chat like that. Was it God that told you that atheists are delusional?

 

[Polymath257]

Where did I claim faith is my proof? I asked God for empirical, trustworthy evidence. He responded, so AFTER I responded in faith, "trusting" Him for salvation.

So you believed in this deity *before* you asked? In what other situation do you have to believe something before getting evidence of it?

 

[Polymath257]

If what you say is true, than simply ask God for testable, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical evidence--to come to you soon--and watch him go! That is, if what you say is heartfelt, and it sure seems like it is, go for it!

I would NEVER ask ANYONE to "just trust Jesus" without EVIDENCE.

how do you ask a non-existent being for anything?

Or, for that matter, how do you ask something you don't think exists for anything?

 

[Polymath257]

I just asked God if I could tell you about it, and He said He wants YOU to ask so that this might be fulfilled:

Seek, you will find.

Knock, it shall be opened to you.

Ask, you will receive.

In each case, you must be the originator of the action, as it's hard to think of any unconditional promise in scripture that is based off caustic skepticism and passive "action".

I've tried that. I got no response. Prediction made. Statement concerning existence refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've tried that. I got no response. Prediction made. Statement concerning existence refuted.

Standard reply, your search was not true enough, or some other related claim. A twist on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is becoming painfully clear that logic, intuition, reason, facts, and evidence, can never compete against devils, angels, God(s), talking animals, miracles, and a father figure promising everlasting life. Belonging to any club led by a Deity would be the ultimate club, or the ultimate crutch. Since no one could see, understand, or falsify this Deity, membership requires only faith. Unfortunately, critical thinking and the scientific method of inquiry, must be left at the door. A wall of Religious dogma must be erected to protect members from intuition, logic, and evidence. The beliefs of those within the club must continuously be bathed in religious dogma, to insulates them from even considering that they might be wrong. Members are even taught how to defend their faith, by following scripted responses to specific questions. Hence, we observe the same playground logic, the same immature deflections, and the same truth claims by default because of unfalsifiability.


Religion is like a slow poison killing your body. It kills individuality, and the mind's ability and desire to excel. There is only one difference between the two. Religion masquerades as the medicine that will give you the true meaning of life, and awards you with immortality for pious servitude. Both have an extremely low level of certainty. Once you become aware of what Religion is doing to you, it has already turned you into a one-dimensional lifeless being. Your collective behavior is a prime example of when humans are told HOW to behave artificially. This is not how Nature had intended for humans to express their own unique behavior naturally. Our founding fathers were wise to keep religion out of the government when framing the Constitution. The competition between Religious factions would preclude all other government affairs. Don

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@questfortruth I would still not mind getting an answer as to rather you think evolution being wrong would refute atheism- or that atheists could not attempt to establish their worldview outside hard materialism.

Atheism is as old as many theistic worldviews. It goes back to ancient philosophies like Carvaka, the Cyrenians, Pyrrhonism, and others.

Atheism in ancient times tended to establish itself on mind-only epistemology. By this I mean the notion that only contact object-mind impressions can be called verifiable information.

I await your thoughts.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

@questfortruth I would still not mind getting an answer as to rather you think evolution being wrong would refute atheism- or that atheists could not attempt to establish their worldview outside hard materialism.

Atheism is as old as many theistic worldviews. It goes back to ancient philosophies like Carvaka, the Cyrenians, Pyrrhonism, and others.

Atheism in ancient times tended to establish itself on mind-only epistemology. By this I mean the notion that only contact object-mind impressions can be called verifiable information.

I await your thoughts.

Unless you both enjoy posting to draw attention to your pseudo-sophistry, what is it about Atheists that you both seem to not understand or choose to ignore? Atheists believe that there is a near zero degree of certainty to confirm the existence of a God(s), or the supernatural(not the unexplained). It is ONLY because of the lack of evidence, that Atheists maintain the absence of a God(s) belief. They choose NOT to abandon their individuality and creative minds, to simply "jump on the bandwagon" and accept a popular myth. This "mind-only epistemology" can be easily changed by providing any objective evidence, NOT MAKE EXCUSES! It is irrelevant if Evolution is right or wrong. It has nothing to do with evidence for the existence of a God. You do not win by default, even if it were somehow proven that Evolution was NOT the correct explanation. Also, verifiable evidence means exactly that, evidence that CAN BE VERIFIED. Supernatural beliefs, and opinions are not included in this category. Can you imagine what would happen to the credibility and objectivity of science, if it were to submit to all the beliefs and popular opinions of the majority?

There are 7 countries in the world where you will never have to defend your religious.beliefs. Why are there no mass exodus to get there? Don