Darwin vs DNA

[JakeStarkey]

The "thinkers" here keep repeating, more loudly and more angrily, unfounded and unsound allegations. They can’t prove that God does not exist, but they nonetheless assert it. Thus, they do have a faith in their assertion. They can deny it over and over and over, which changes nothing.

Neither philosophy (read them for the proof of this) nor empirical data can prove their point.

CandySlice's anger and Loki's frustration (see how he asserts faith is not faith) are interesting to observe.

 

[LOki]

The "thinkers" here keep repeating, more loudly and more angrily, unfounded and unsound allegations. They can’t prove that God does not exist, but they nonetheless assert it. Thus, they do have a faith in their assertion. They can deny it over and over and over, which changes nothing.

Neither philosophy (read them for the proof of this) nor empirical data can prove their point.

CandySlice's anger and Loki's frustration (see how he asserts faith is not faith) are interesting to observe.

You cannot prove that I don't have faith. Sorry about your retarded self-inflicted luck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok.

 

[LOki]

Ok.

 

[CandySlice]

Loki melts down and CandySlice reverts to name calling. OK, guys, whatever But you since you believe a god does not exist, then you have a faith. Tsk Tsk Tsk

This is a transparent attempt to invalidate rationally held beliefs by defining ALL beliefs a faith.

You have earned your credentials: you're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Nothing like watching a self professed 'christian' lose it and start name calling and lying to prove his point. Are they all this mean and petty?? I've never found any that didn't share this common trait.

Well, here's the problem with that, Jake. I never made the statement that God just absolutely does or doesn't exist. I'm open to any and all possibilities not just a select few. My 'faith' if we must call it that is strengthened , if anything, the deeper I dig. I find it to be the grandest of mysteries and new data seems to come in everyday. It's said the unexamined life is one not worth living. I do believe that. All Im looking for is how I fit into things and the Bible, in and of itself doesn't give me all those answers, no matter what you say. It's an edited, cherry-picked text at best. Edited by MEN that wanted to keep us ignorant, superstitious and in the dark. I don't discount the story, I simply think there's more to it.

Lately I've been reading the Book of Enoch. I don't know what to think about him. Is he a true prophet and visionary or just a crazy old coot that got hold of a pen and some foolscap and started scribbling? Because if he's the real deal THAT'S a scary story. True? False? Who knows. But it's right there in the Dead Sea scrolls, written by the Essenes who DID exist.

I like to see all the possibilities. You I've seen. The world is full of you guys.

You call me a liar because I won't bend to your will. Why is that? You know I didn't lie to you or anybody else here. Mainly because I haven't made any claims to knowledge I don't really have. I don't know the difference between faith and fact or whatever it is you guys are tussling over. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. In the end isn't it the thing that comforts you the most? The thing you don't have to defend by calling other people liars and all those names you are so fond of? And by the way, how does that fit into your vision of what God wants for us? Do you have some kind of eclesiastical white out that lets you say anything you like and then it gets erased or magically forgiven in some mysterious manner? Because your kind of religion scares me. It's mean and petty and condescending and if I thought that's all there was I'd end my search right now because it ain't worth knowing.

 

[LOki]

The "thinkers" here keep repeating, more loudly and more angrily, unfounded and unsound allegations. They can’t prove that God does not exist, but they nonetheless assert it. Thus, they do have a faith in their assertion. They can deny it over and over and over, which changes nothing.

Neither philosophy (read them for the proof of this) nor empirical data can prove their point.

CandySlice's anger and Loki's frustration (see how he asserts faith is not faith) are interesting to observe.

Oh, the "frustration." lulz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, atheists and IDers and Creationists are all frustrated in their faiths not being accepted as empirical data.

 

[ima]

The only rational position to have is to be an agnostic: no god has yet been proven with actual tangible facts, but if it ever is, I'm open to changing my mind.
All other beliefs are for fools and wishful thinkers.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Things change when God speaks to you.
2. Maybe those here who stand in disbelief, are not worth speaking to by God?
3. One wonders???


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[newpolitics]

The only rational position to have is to be an agnostic: no god has yet been proven with actual tangible facts, but if it ever is, I'm open to changing my mind.
All other beliefs are for fools and wishful thinkers.

The term agnostic doesn't answer the question of whether believe or not, just what you claim is knowable. If you are an agnostic, you are probably an atheist, because you do not possess a belief that deity exists. A belief either exists or it doesn't (law of excluded middle). There is no third option for something existing.

"agnosticism" addresses the question of what you know or claim to know, or claim is knowable, while a/theism addresses what you believe or don't believe about any or all deities. They are two different things, because knowledge and belief are two different things (knowledge is a sub-set of belief) and are not mutually exclusive. Hence, you can be any combination of the two: gnostic theist (know and believe), gnostic atheist (know and don't believe), agnostic theist (don't know but believe), or agnostic atheist (don't know and don't believe). The only reasonable position, whether theist or atheist, is to be agnostic (agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist), because of our epistemic limitations, imo.

In other words, agnosticism is answering a different question than "do you believe in god?" It is answering the question, do you think you can know if a god(s) exist(s)? So when someone says, I'm an agnostic, its a non-sequitur, and likely, they are atheist.

It is usually only theists who are gnostics. Any atheist that is gnostic is deluding him/herself, because you can't know, with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist.

 

[newpolitics]

Yep, atheists and IDers and Creationists are all frustrated in their faiths not being accepted as empirical data.

I don't need faith to disbelieve a claim I am not making.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK.

 

[newpolitics]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIKeC9k2-Jg]The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship - YouTube[/ame]

This girl clarifies the point nicely about agnosticism, and about atheism (and theism), and also about positive claims and faith that we have been discussing. This is based on epistemology. Although it has been become generally accepted that "agnosticism" is a middle position between atheism and theism, it is not. It answers an altogether different question, and is not mutually exclusive to atheism or theism.

 

[newpolitics]

OK.

good, you get it, and you're laughing. now, stop saying it takes faith to disbelieve a claim that has no evidence. it's super annoying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

Nifty! Does this mean that you're finally ready to put your big girl panties on?

Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

That challenge was posted before too ... about a hundred times. Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

I have been given no reason to believe the creator is not eternal. The laws of nature that we are bound by he is not.

Is this your way of dodging how your theory contradicts nature ? that living organisms reproduce living organisms. God is that life that produced it is a more viable explanation that your side can produce.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I get it that you won't accept that if you don't believe that you have a faith in that disbelief. That is what I am laughing at.

No amount of philosophy or logic changes that.

OK.

good, you get it, and you're laughing. now, stop saying it takes faith to disbelieve a claim that has no evidence. it's super annoying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nonsense. By your inadequate notions of rational beliefs, since literally nothing can be "proven," then every belief is faith, and that's just retarded.

Lol. Call it retarded if you want, it's absolutely true. Believing anything other than your own existence as some sort of consciousness requires some amount of faith.

Never thought I'd find someone obviously intelligent to whom the basic premise of The Matrix would be profound. Always figured it was basic, run-of-the-mill philosophy in a retardedly shiny shell.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof." Faith is a specific kind of belief. All beliefs are not faith.

You can spin it all you want but every unprovable belief is taken on faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yup, Loki is retarded if he does not realize his belief in atheism is in fact faith.

Demonstrate. Or are you going to run away (again) like your superstitious tribe member, Youwerecreated?

What is there to run from someone that can't grasp simple explanations

 

[Youwerecreated]

CandySlice can stop the lying. I never said or suggested that you were ungodly, Show me exactly where I said that, please.

I have found that extremists, such as atheists or the Tea Party or libertarians or stormfronters, resort to lying when having trouble on the board.

Give yourself a break, CandySlice, and stop that nonsens.

That is a very interesting link. This is the kind of thing I find interesting and worth hearing about. I don't know why Jake and YWC feel it's so important to call people with earnest questions 'ungodly 'or some version of that. I also find it hard to believe that people with such flawed and irrational (and at times downright dishonest) answers to the simplest of questions aren't operating on some agenda that really doesn't have anyones best interest in mind. These people are the kind of folks that caused me to start asking questions in the first place. You just catch them in too many lies and half-truths to believe what they say. And when caught they don't have even the slightest hint of shame over their deceptions. They just glass it over and go on to the next Gospel According to Themselves.

Ah. Comes the Dawn. Finally!
I think your entire philosophy can be summed up as 'Believe like me or die'. And you evidently have no trouble name calling and throwing a tantrum of sorts when you are trapped. I also find it interesting that we finally see you starting to fray around the edges, calling on such disparate entities as the Tea Party and libertarians ( two things that don't seem to fit together too well, by the way), seing 'the Enemy' everywhere. Very telling. It's intersting how you integrate politics into your philosphy. I wasn't expecting that.

It all goes together with your slightly skewed idea of how we should see the world.

Personally despite the traits you keep trying to assign me, I have no problem reconciling one disipline with the other.


I think creationism and Darwin go together nicely.

I think the more you search the more the two not only dovetail but actually begin to compliment each other. But that's just me. . .on my own personal
search . . that really shouldn't bother you the way it does.

Uh oh becoming irrational now ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one is going to accept a link to yourself as proof of anything other than meglomania.

Grow up. Accept that belief in no god is a faith that no god exists.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof.

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

Get this for once, any belief that can't be proven is taken on faith.