Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

Good arguments. Well made.

In case you are genuinely concerned, there is also reason/evidence/logic demonstrating how atheists are wrong.

 

[Phantasman]

But neither necessarily are a result of faith. Faith, using the definition I gave earlier, is believing something despite an absence of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. If you believe the world is flat or otherwise, it may be that you actually have sufficient reason to believe so. A position, on its own, isn't necessarily faith-based unless the person who accepts the position does so for no reason other than faith.


Again, that's not faith since it depends first upon presenting the evidence and having two opposing views presented and debate in front of them. They are making a determination as to which side of the argument they found more compelling - we don't have "faith" that they will get it right. Reason leads us to the belief that a number of people, when presented with opposing views and evidences, will reach a consensus and be able to determine which of the two arguments is stronger.


The existence of uncertainty doesn't negate the existence of knowledge. The very fact that we use evidence to overturn convictions is a demonstration that faith isn't involved in the judicial system, but an unbiased and tentative application of assessments.


False. Not all beliefs are based on, or derived from, faith.


False. Atheists don't necessarily believe (on faith or otherwise) that God doesn't exist, nor is faith strictly a necessary requirement to be a theist.


False. People can and do make rational, non-faith based judgements.

If you stick your finger in an electrical plug, will you get shocked? Some have faith that they will. Why? Knowledge obtained by past experience. But their faith can be misguided. What if the breaker is off? Even if it's on, only the hot side carries current, the ground side of a two prong plug doesn't shock you. So faith is not based on evidence, unless the knowledge is obtained first.

Ask someone to stick their finger in an electrical plug and see how many will do it. The ignorant person won't due to their faith of what will happen, not what may happen. The knowledgeable one will also use faith in a greater way due to his knowledge. But there is no guarantee that he won't get shocked. A dumb electrician wired it backward.

When you meet someone driving towards you on a two lane road, why do you not stop and cringe till they go by? Faith that they don't want to hit you head on. But it's never a guarantee the driver may have just broke up with a love and wants to end it all, or a tie rod breaks sending the car into your path.

Everyone uses faith. It's just not understood till it's understood.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

All theists are faith based thinkers unless they are agnostic theists.

Not really. To be agnostic is to believe that should a deity exist,it would necessarily be unknowable.

So to accept that premise and still believe in a deity is to admit that faith is the mechanism of belief. They are the same, just more honest about it(less likely to try to use bunk science as grounds for belief)

 

[Revoltingest]

In case you are genuinely concerned, there is also reason/evidence/logic demonstrating how atheists are wrong.

Many have tried, but all have failed.
The fundamental problem is that we're neither right nor
wrong....disbelief in gods is neither provable nor disprovable.
It's a personal orientation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you stick your finger in an electrical plug, will you get shocked?

Yes. If the socket is plugged into the wall.

Some have faith that they will.

That's not faith. A person can have very good, rational reasons to assume they will get shocked.

Why? Knowledge obtained by past experience.

Then that's not faith. If you only believe something because of past experience and evidence, you do not believe it on faith.

But their faith can be misguided. What if the breaker is off? Even if it's on, only the hot side carries current, the ground side of a two prong plug doesn't shock you. So faith is not based on evidence, unless the knowledge is obtained first.

But you just admitted yourself that a person might not get shocked if certain criteria are met. This demonstrates that you DO have a certain expectation of events based on prior understanding or knowledge of the situation and similar situations. You are not making a judgement based on faith.

When you meet someone driving towards you on a two lane road, why do you not stop and cringe till they go by? Faith that they don't want to hit you head on.

Again, that's not faith. You have good reasons, generally, to believe a person won't drive their car into you.

But it's never a guarantee the driver may have just broke up with a love and wants to end it all, or a tie rod breaks sending the car into your path.

It doesn't have to be a guarantee - it still doesn't require faith to have a reasonable expectation of reality.

Everyone uses faith. It's just not understood till it's understood.

Once again:

Faith is believing something despite a lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

So, if you have a good reason to believe something, even if you are not certain about it, you cannot be said to believe it on faith.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Wow. Way out there, Don.

When one loves others, his/her own life is not escalated above others, which is clearly your thought process.

When one commits suicide, they are only concerned with only how THEY feel and not how the act effects others that must continue living with the act. Yet you don't see it as selfish, since their only concern is how it effects themselves.

Maybe you need to reread what suicide is. To give ones life for another is not suicide. To take ones own life without regard for others, is selfish, no matter how you try to explain it to me.

Regarding me as selfish from my views, seems pretty ignorant from my perspective. You don't know me at all, and those who do, would disagree with your assessment, from or brief conversation.

Judge not.

I have no idea the relevance of your first sentence. Maybe it is YOU that needs to re-read the definition of suicide. And, feel free to quote the part that states "without regards to others", or "is selfish". From the victims perspective, suicide is the solution that will alleviate their torment. Do you not agree? You ask for me not to be judgemental, but calling their actions, selfish, insensitive, disregardful, unreasonable, and self-serving, sounds pretty judgemental to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that these victims are committing suicide, simply to demonstrate their selfish and insensitive nature? Or, is it YOU that considers their actions selfish and insensitive? Ignoring the victims psychological make-up, and levels of torment(911 victims jumping from the Towers), your assessment is sanctimonious at best, and ignorant and callus at worst.

I am under no illusion that you will not entertain any other point of view, or address any of my questions, but others reading this post might feel differently. I have seen far too many of these victims, to know that society itself has a lot to answer for. It is easy to have all the answers, when you don't directly participate.

You may be loved by millions, but your comments reflect the apathy, insensitivity, and indifference of an uncaring society. I have heard these comments many, many times before. And, I keep repeating that it is not about you, it is about them. If you wish to dismiss them as having a problem with clarity, purpose, or just being selfish, then you are not alone in that way of thinking. I think we should simply agree to disagree. Don

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In case you are genuinely concerned, there is also reason/evidence/logic demonstrating how atheists are wrong.

I would love to hear this evidence.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

How was god created then? Wait a minute! I've got it! God worships ANOTHER god who created him. And THAT god worships YET ANOTHER god who created HIM. Man, you sure showed me the error of my ways.

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

Of course. Because we are all made of garbage. Good point.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

I don't recall anyone making this assertion. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to point me to someone who did?

 

[Milton Platt]

From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

That is a false statement

 

[Milton Platt]

FAKE NEWS!!!! Everybody knows spontaneous generation, evolution, and abiogenesis and biogenesis are really all the same thing and it's perfectly appropriate and suitable to use them all interchangeably.

Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis or biogenesis, and abiogenesis is not the same as biogenesis. Look up the definitions.

 

[Milton Platt]

According to Wikipedia the God in more or less serious teachings -- the Superior Being. Most High.

That does not answer how one determines if a god exists.

 

[Milton Platt]

Are all theists delusional lunatics then? Are you judgemental?

Can you answer the questions, please?

 

[Milton Platt]

1) Do not mix the god of atheism with the God of Theism. The god of atheism can not produce life, because he is not existent. The God of Theism miraculously (it means without laws of physics) can.
2) Dr. Pasteur has found following law, in his formulation: "life can only be produced by life" (to my memory). Then, because laws of nature are scale-invariant, on the macro scale of billion years there are no Frankensteins either.

1)There is not god of atheism. The phrase is oxymoronic.
2)Your interpretation of his experiments is incorrect. People used to think flies spontaneously appeared in rotting meat, for instance. That is what he is talking about, not abiogenesis. You are flat out wrong.

Are you a serious poster, or just stringing people along with stupid posts?

 

[Phantasman]

Yes. If the socket is plugged into the wall.


That's not faith. A person can have very good, rational reasons to assume they will get shocked.


Then that's not faith. If you only believe something because of past experience and evidence, you do not believe it on faith.


But you just admitted yourself that a person might not get shocked if certain criteria are met. This demonstrates that you DO have a certain expectation of events based on prior understanding or knowledge of the situation and similar situations. You are not making a judgement based on faith.


Again, that's not faith. You have good reasons, generally, to believe a person won't drive their car into you.


It doesn't have to be a guarantee - it still doesn't require faith to have a reasonable expectation of reality.


Once again:

Faith is believing something despite a lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

So, if you have a good reason to believe something, even if you are not certain about it, you cannot be said to believe it on faith.

I see that we disagree on what faith is. I accept the legal term:

Faith:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
   
   
2. 
   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
   synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

Number 1 is the instances I gave about the electric plug and the road. Number 2 is what the mind accepts through experiences on a higher plane than physical understanding.

Trust is a point you reach. Faith is ongoing. It builds upon itself.

Trust:
1. firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

Words can be misleading, as I have posted over and over. I'll spare you the scripture gnosis says about them, but I have posted them in other threads.

 

[Phantasman]

I have no idea the relevance of your first sentence. Maybe it is YOU that needs to re-read the definition of suicide. And, feel free to quote the part that states "without regards to others", or "is selfish". From the victims perspective, suicide is the solution that will alleviate their torment. Do you not agree? You ask for me not to be judgemental, but calling their actions, selfish, insensitive, disregardful, unreasonable, and self-serving, sounds pretty judgemental to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that these victims are committing suicide, simply to demonstrate their selfish and insensitive nature? Or, is it YOU that considers their actions selfish and insensitive? Ignoring the victims psychological make-up, and levels of torment(911 victims jumping from the Towers), your assessment is sanctimonious at best, and ignorant and callus at worst.

I am under no illusion that you will not entertain any other point of view, or address any of my questions, but others reading this post might feel differently. I have seen far too many of these victims, to know that society itself has a lot to answer for. It is easy to have all the answers, when you don't directly participate.

You may be loved by millions, but your comments reflect the apathy, insensitivity, and indifference of an uncaring society. I have heard these comments many, many times before. And, I keep repeating that it is not about you, it is about them. If you wish to dismiss them as having a problem with clarity, purpose, or just being selfish, then you are not alone in that way of thinking. I think we should simply agree to disagree. Don

You may want to watch "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart. My point is based on the same. The angel shows the effect on others with a potential suicide thought (never being born) of the main character.

When anyone is shown their worth, suicide is usually not a concern. When the mind conceives it is worthless (to self and others), it is ignorant of potential and importance (to self and others). When an individual cannot "cope" with the ignorance of love (of self and man), he is presented with the option of a cure of such depressive ignorance. Like any obstacle, you get better when you overcome it or you give up and the obstacle remains.

I said that the act of suicide is one of selfishness. The act of intercourse is a selfish act as well.

Both wanting whats best for self.

If you use todays standards, there are plenty of websites now disagreeing with my view. It's the "new way" of thinking. Participation trophies instead of winners, another change in social thought.

I gave my point, you gave yours. And readers can decide for themselves because it is a calculated choice.

I have been through the suicide remnants about 5 times in my life. First there is tears asking "why". Then after, anger, all citing "did he/she not consider the long term effects it would cause for US?".

See it as you like.

 

[shunyadragon]

Only to those who are blind to it. Billions throughout history would disagree with you.

Arguing from 'mass popularity of the belief in God' may be grounds for disagreement, but it is not an adequate argument for objective evidence, nor a coherent argument that God exists,

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You may want to watch "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart. My point is based on the same. The angel shows the effect on others with a potential suicide thought (never being born) of the main character.

When anyone is shown their worth, suicide is usually not a concern. When the mind conceives it is worthless (to self and others), it is ignorant of potential and importance (to self and others). When an individual cannot "cope" with the ignorance of love (of self and man), he is presented with the option of a cure of such depressive ignorance. Like any obstacle, you get better when you overcome it or you give up and the obstacle remains.

I said that the act of suicide is one of selfishness. The act of intercourse is a selfish act as well.

Both wanting whats best for self.

If you use todays standards, there are plenty of websites now disagreeing with my view. It's the "new way" of thinking. Participation trophies instead of winners, another change in social thought.

I gave my point, you gave yours. And readers can decide for themselves because it is a calculated choice.

I have been through the suicide remnants about 5 times in my life. First there is tears asking "why". Then after, anger, all citing "did he/she not consider the long term effects it would cause for US?".

See it as you like.

You might not be unaware that many people in our society do not have a "wonderful life". The movie is not real, or reflective of true social values. It is an oversimplification for entertainment purposes only. Just how do you think one develops his or her self-esteem, self-image, or self-worth(watching old movies)? Do you think that a kid being bullied for years, will develop positive self-worth, self-image, or self-esteem? Do you think that a person who is treated by society only as a stereotype, will develop a positive true image of self? The development of our self-worth is directly related to the development of our self-image. Many experiments have clearly suggested that how people are treated in society, directly affects their self-image. If you are always being treated as a God, you will certainly develop a more positive self-image and self-worth, than if you were being treated as an idiot or ignored.

I don't expect you to care or understand anything I say. It is always easier to judge a person by their actions, and simply ignore the cause. What you call a "selfish act", I call a "tragic act". It is society that creates the levels of individual expectations that, for many, are unattainable. Although our suicide rate is very low compared to our large population, at 42,000 suicides per annum, the US has the highest number of suicides in the world.

Are all assisted suicides selfish acts? What about those that voluntarily sacrifice their own lives to save another? Are they also being selfish and ignoring the long term consequences of their actions on others? Your view is just another cop out, to avoid understanding the causes of their actions. It would be more honest to say that you couldn't care less, and its their own fault. Me, me, me, me. Don

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I see that we disagree on what faith is. I accept the legal term:

Faith:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
   
   
2. 
   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
   synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

I already explained to you what definition of faith I was using. I've posted it THREE TIMES. Did you even read my posts?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If the planet is as old as science says it is, why didn't man over populate the planet eons ago? Instead of just the past 6,000 years? He doubled population in just the last 100 years. If man has been here over a million years, was he impotent until the last few millennia? Evolution has more holes in it that you're willing to acknowledge.

The global population only began to skyrocket a couple hundred years ago. Before that our numbers slowly increased over time, and didn't hit 1 billion until around 1800. Things like decreased childhood mortality, decreased childbirth mortality, and improved disease treatments are some of the things that lead to our population surge.

Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis or biogenesis, and abiogenesis is not the same as biogenesis. Look up the definitions.

You couldn't tell with all the "funny" ratings I wasn't being serious?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Many have tried, but all have failed.
The fundamental problem is that we're neither right nor
wrong....disbelief in gods is neither provable nor disprovable.
It's a personal orientation.

Respectfully, I disagree, as do millions of open-minded people who searched for God and found Him.