*What Is Death To An Ahteist*?

[JScott]

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

You do not know what kind of life there is beyond our solar system, thats a fact.

Your view is flawed. There is no evidence that intelligence brought all life into existence.

You 're simply in denial.

There is zero evidence of life period out beyond our atmosphere,do you agree ?

Im not in denial, I just dont believe the flavor of the last 2000 years, God, exists.

Thats right there is zero evidence of life beyond space as we know it, however, odds are, there is life out there besides us.

 

[HUGGY]

You 're simply in denial.

There is zero evidence of life period out beyond our atmosphere,do you agree ?

No sir. It is YOU that is in denial. The very fact that life exists here is prima facia evidence of life elsewhere. Your inclination would only hold true if there was no evidence of life at all and if that true this debate would not be occurring.

Without faith, one cannot make that extrapolation... There is no scientific proof of life outside this planet, yet you certainly believe there is...

Your faith in your belief is obviously strong, despite no corroborating evidence...

An intelligent debate with you? How awkward! No. I don't. I suspect there may very well be based on the fact that it has happened already. Even if there was a God, which I do not find any evidence to support, there is no evidence that this God could not have "created" more life elsewhere. The out right lies and fabrications in the Bible discredit it as any form of proof of ANYTHING but the concept of a God cannot be discounted just because of the errors in human involvement. There is though less proof of God than of life.

 

[Dr.House]

No sir. It is YOU that is in denial. The very fact that life exists here is prima facia evidence of life elsewhere. Your inclination would only hold true if there was no evidence of life at all and if that true this debate would not be occurring.

Without faith, one cannot make that extrapolation... There is no scientific proof of life outside this planet, yet you certainly believe there is...

Your faith in your belief is obviously strong, despite no corroborating evidence...

An intelligent debate with you? How awkward! No. I don't. I suspect there may very well be based on the fact that it has happened already. Even if there was a God, which I do not find any evidence to support, there is no evidence that this God could not have "created" more life elsewhere. The out right lies and fabrications in the Bible discredit it as any form of proof of ANYTHING but the concept of a God cannot be discounted just because of the errors in human involvement. There is though less proof of God than of life.

So you have a belief in the likely existence of something without scientific or physical proof /evidence of such?

That is faith...

You cannot make the extrapolation you are trying to make without faith...

 

[Sarah G]

Sorry bout that,



1. I can't imagine how dark and empty death must seem to an atheist?
2. Does anyone who is an atheist want to share their thoughts about this?
3. And can you explain why I would want what you believe in about death, and being dead?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Why don't you share what death is to a racist..

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

We have absolutely no clue as to how much life there is in the universe. Because the universe is infinite, we will never know how much life there is. Even if there is life out there and, statistically there most likely is, we still may never encounter it.

And don't define life using only our particular form of carbon based life as a model.

You keep saying there is plenty of evidence of god yet you cannot seem to prove to any scientific standard that a god actually does exist.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Do you deny the possibility of a creator ?

I do not believe there is a creator because there has been no proof. Give me absolute proof of the god you believe in and I would have to believe. No one has provided that proof to me but science has given me a logical process and a basis for extrapolation that religion does not.

It seems more likely to me that there is no god.

 

[HUGGY]

Without faith, one cannot make that extrapolation... There is no scientific proof of life outside this planet, yet you certainly believe there is...

Your faith in your belief is obviously strong, despite no corroborating evidence...

An intelligent debate with you? How awkward! No. I don't. I suspect there may very well be based on the fact that it has happened already. Even if there was a God, which I do not find any evidence to support, there is no evidence that this God could not have "created" more life elsewhere. The out right lies and fabrications in the Bible discredit it as any form of proof of ANYTHING but the concept of a God cannot be discounted just because of the errors in human involvement. There is though less proof of God than of life.

So you have a belief in the likely existence of something without scientific or physical proof /evidence of such?

That is faith...

You cannot make the extrapolation you are trying to make without faith...

"Faith" being purely an element of choice exists without the need for any supporting evidence. If there were no other stars.. No other planets ...then the supposition of life elsewhere would be of "faith". They do in fact exist. The knowledge of them has come as of late as even the stars were not recognized as the same animal as our sun at the time of the writing of the bible. Humankind did not know what those twinkling objects were. It wasn't until just recently that there was any proof of any planet outside our own universe. It took the gravity of a huge gas giant such as our own Jupiter to make a distant star wobble measurably in space to prove the existence of extra solar planets. Now to date they have discovered hundreds of them. The effort remains keen to find smaller planets in the proper proximity of a suitable star to offer the possibility of life elsewhere. Recognizing that stars are "suns" and planets have formed in other solar systems is certainly PROOF of some of the necessary components of the foundations needed to sustain life. To deny science is heading in that direction is ignorant.

To take "men" at their word, which I do not, the last physical "proof" of God was the Moses Tablets..as far as I know. Of course I believe that story a hoax. The tablets are not available to test for whether a man chiseled the writing or "God" did some fancy laser inscribing that could not have possibly been done at the time with common implements and tools. In fact there is nothing available to suggest a man or many men could not have done all of the things ascribed to "God" throughout history.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, there are references to things such as "Leviathan" but it's not clear what is meant. And there were thousands of species of dinosaur yet no mention in the OT.



How do you know that? Or is that just a guess as it's the only thing that could possibly explain/defer the question? We have plenty of layers of fossils, but nothing that looks like a world wide flood.

Well, since I've never heard of Micheal DeAnglo and can't find and mention of him on the internet, that's not a high standard is it?

There are pockets of fossils found all around the world.

Prove it.

Look for yourself.


The World

Now prove there is life outside our atmosphere.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Floods have happened, and frequently. There's no evidence of a single world-wide flood, however.

What about them? The Earth has changed and what were once seas/oceans are no longer, and mountains have raised up.

There is no evidence the global flood did not happen right ?but there is evidence of major flooding.

I think you need to look more into the grand canyon for evidence of the global flooding.

There is evidence of global flooding world wide at the tops of mountains.

Link?

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

 

[Dr.House]

An intelligent debate with you? How awkward! No. I don't. I suspect there may very well be based on the fact that it has happened already. Even if there was a God, which I do not find any evidence to support, there is no evidence that this God could not have "created" more life elsewhere. The out right lies and fabrications in the Bible discredit it as any form of proof of ANYTHING but the concept of a God cannot be discounted just because of the errors in human involvement. There is though less proof of God than of life.

So you have a belief in the likely existence of something without scientific or physical proof /evidence of such?

That is faith...

You cannot make the extrapolation you are trying to make without faith...

"Faith" being purely an element of choice exists without the need for any supporting evidence. If there were no other stars.. No other planets ...then the supposition of life elsewhere would be of "faith".

You are making an unscientific extapolation... Just because stars and planets exist is not evidence that life exists on them... You are extrapolating what happened on earth (either divine creation or crawling from the ooze) to events on unseen worlds...

Edit: You are using "non causa pro causa" logical fallacy in your extrapolation....

They do in fact exist. The knowledge of them has come as of late as even the stars were not recognized as the same animal as our sun at the time of the writing of the bible. Humankind did not know what those twinkling objects were. It wasn't until just recently that there was any proof of any planet outside our own universe. It took the gravity of a huge gas giant such as our own Jupiter to make a distant star wobble measurably in space to prove the existence of extra solar planets. Now to date they have discovered hundreds of them. The effort remains keen to find smaller planets in the proper proximity of a suitable star to offer the possibility of life elsewhere. Recognizing that stars are "suns" and planets have formed in other solar systems is certainly PROOF of some of the necessary components of the foundations needed to sustain life. To deny science is heading in that direction is ignorant.

The existence of said planets (still a therory at this point, BTW) is not evidence that life exists on any of them... It takes faith in your belief that there could be a place where live exists... You are making a "leap of faith" in subscribing to this belief...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because all behavior is learned behavior.

The roots of racism are in primitive xenophobia. What don't you understand about that?

Many of our behaviors are rooted in evolution. Just think of the fight or flight response. Once it was a completely necessary response to danger but today that same flight or flight response is not always appropriate and is a major cause of stress related diseases.

So you think an adult is mature enough for rational thought and a child is not.

Is it more rational to be a racist ? now the next problem for your view .how come only a small minority of humans would be considered a racist if it is a part of evolution ? we both agree that it is a learned behavior.

Every single person on Earth is prejudice of one thing or another.

Prove it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you have a belief in the likely existence of something without scientific or physical proof /evidence of such?

That is faith...

You cannot make the extrapolation you are trying to make without faith...

"Faith" being purely an element of choice exists without the need for any supporting evidence. If there were no other stars.. No other planets ...then the supposition of life elsewhere would be of "faith".

You are making an unscientific extapolation... Just because stars and planets exist is not evidence that life exists on them... You are extrapolating what happened on earth (either divine creation or crawling from the ooze) to events on unseen worlds...

Edit: You are using "non causa pro causa" logical fallacy in your extrapolation....

They do in fact exist. The knowledge of them has come as of late as even the stars were not recognized as the same animal as our sun at the time of the writing of the bible. Humankind did not know what those twinkling objects were. It wasn't until just recently that there was any proof of any planet outside our own universe. It took the gravity of a huge gas giant such as our own Jupiter to make a distant star wobble measurably in space to prove the existence of extra solar planets. Now to date they have discovered hundreds of them. The effort remains keen to find smaller planets in the proper proximity of a suitable star to offer the possibility of life elsewhere. Recognizing that stars are "suns" and planets have formed in other solar systems is certainly PROOF of some of the necessary components of the foundations needed to sustain life. To deny science is heading in that direction is ignorant.

The existence of said planets (still a therory at this point, BTW) is not evidence that life exists on any of them... It takes faith in your belief that there could be a place where live exists... You are making a "leap of faith" in subscribing to this belief...

In an infinitely large system the likelihood of there being only one life form (us) is highly improbable.

The magnitude of possibilities makes it very likely that there is life in the universe other than on earth.

But I can accept the fact that we may never know for certain.

Infinity is a really big number after all.

 

[Dr.House]

In an infinitely large system the likelihood of there being only one life form (us) is highly improbable.

The magnitude of possibilities makes it very likely that there is life in the universe other than on earth.

But I can accept the fact that we may never know for certain.

Infinity is a really big number after all.

The Christian can also argue that because of the magnitude and complexity of what makes up life forms that it is very likely that it couldn't have happened randomly and that divine creation is also very likely... Again, it is faith in your beliefs that allow you to hold onto that belief...

We all have faith in certain beliefs...

BTW, "you" does not refer to you personally here...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fossils - Window To The Past (Home)

Why would you think there would be a preserved fossil for every animal that ever walked the earth?

I would think there would be a transitional fossil for every major group that crossed over.

The point gould and eldredge made was there was no change at all.

Thats not what they said at all. What they said was there were evolutionary changes then a stasis of evolution for a long period of time, then a change again.

They appear suddenly with no change ?
Punctuated equilibrium: come of age?
by Dr Don Batten

The concept of punctuated equilibrium (PE) is explained. The development of the idea since its inception by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge is traced, as well as some of the controversies. PE consists of two aspects:

(1) an observation—that the fossil record is characterised by

(a) abrupt appearance of species, and

(b) stasis, or lack of substantial change, throughout a species’ range in the fossil record; and

(2) a theoretical attempt to explain how this pattern can fit an evolutionary (naturalistic) model for the origin of species.

Gould and Eldredge claimed that the abrupt appearance of species could be explained by the transition occurring quickly, geologically speaking, in small, isolated populations such that the transitional forms would be highly unlikely to be preserved. They claimed that this theory arose out of biology, but there is no empirical biological basis for such speciation events. It seems that the ‘mechanism’ was adopted because it ‘explained’ their observation of the fossils (they are both palaeontologists). Gould gave air to ideas of macromutational change to explain major transitions and fueled perceptions that PE’s rapid speciation was a form of ‘hopeful monsters’ evolution. Gould and Eldredge denied that this is what they meant.

The debate over PE has given publicity to stasis as a serious problem for evolution (how can you believe in evolution, or change, when the fossils testify to stasis, or lack of change?). The recognition of the reality of abrupt appearance and stasis corroborates what creationists have been saying since Darwin—that the evidence fits special creation combined with the results of a worldwide Flood. In this context, Wise’s ‘punc eq creation style’ is also discussed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source

Punctuated equilibrium: come of age?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Without faith, one cannot make that extrapolation... There is no scientific proof of life outside this planet, yet you certainly believe there is...

Your faith in your belief is obviously strong, despite no corroborating evidence...

An intelligent debate with you? How awkward! No. I don't. I suspect there may very well be based on the fact that it has happened already. Even if there was a God, which I do not find any evidence to support, there is no evidence that this God could not have "created" more life elsewhere. The out right lies and fabrications in the Bible discredit it as any form of proof of ANYTHING but the concept of a God cannot be discounted just because of the errors in human involvement. There is though less proof of God than of life.

So you have a belief in the likely existence of something without scientific or physical proof /evidence of such?

That is faith...

You cannot make the extrapolation you are trying to make without faith...

Exactly

 

[Skull Pilot]

In an infinitely large system the likelihood of there being only one life form (us) is highly improbable.

The magnitude of possibilities makes it very likely that there is life in the universe other than on earth.

But I can accept the fact that we may never know for certain.

Infinity is a really big number after all.

The Christian can also argue that because of the magnitude and complexity of what makes up life forms that it is very likely that it couldn't have happened randomly and that divine creation is also very likely... Again, it is faith in your beliefs that allow you to hold onto that belief...

We all have faith in certain beliefs...

BTW, "you" does not refer to you personally here...

My only problem with religion is that there is absolutely no empirical proof that there is a god. Until there is I cannot believe a god exists.

We do however have empirical proof of life (us). And I am always careful to say that statistically the very fact that we exist makes it highly likely that in an infinite system other life exists.

 

[HUGGY]

An intelligent debate with you? How awkward! No. I don't. I suspect there may very well be based on the fact that it has happened already. Even if there was a God, which I do not find any evidence to support, there is no evidence that this God could not have "created" more life elsewhere. The out right lies and fabrications in the Bible discredit it as any form of proof of ANYTHING but the concept of a God cannot be discounted just because of the errors in human involvement. There is though less proof of God than of life.

So you have a belief in the likely existence of something without scientific or physical proof /evidence of such?

That is faith...

You cannot make the extrapolation you are trying to make without faith...

Exactly

Hold applause.

In order to have a rational intelligent conversation on any subject there has to be agreement on the definitions and usage of the wordage. This debate was surprisingly good until the definition of "faith" was stretched beyond it's author's and keepers(dictionary) scope and intent by House and yourself. I enjoy good debate but it gets tedious when the energy to define common minutia exceeds the pleasure of discourse. I do not agree that "faith" encompasses all desire to follow information to fact in the learning process.

 

[JScott]

There are pockets of fossils found all around the world.

Prove it.

Look for yourself.


The World

Now prove there is life outside our atmosphere.

You do know the history of the area, right?

There were oceans and lakes in that area. The ground in that area was very unstable for millions of years and the ice age helped carve out the canyon as well.

Hehe.. the odds are there is life outside of our solar system. NASA has found quite a few planets that are very Earth-like. NASA - Search Results

 

[JScott]

There is no evidence the global flood did not happen right ?but there is evidence of major flooding.

I think you need to look more into the grand canyon for evidence of the global flooding.

There is evidence of global flooding world wide at the tops of mountains.

Link?

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

There is no scientific proof of a world-wide flood. Find a non religious link.

 

[JScott]

So you think an adult is mature enough for rational thought and a child is not.

Is it more rational to be a racist ? now the next problem for your view .how come only a small minority of humans would be considered a racist if it is a part of evolution ? we both agree that it is a learned behavior.

Every single person on Earth is prejudice of one thing or another.

Prove it.

Its a fact. Believe it or not.