betsy Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Here's something to consider: It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man - Alexander Vilenkin, co-author of The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem (quoted by William Lane Craig in his book, "On Guard" p.92) Edited July 17, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 But you believe that there is no God! I have no reason to believe. You believe in neo-darwinism with not a single irrefutable evidence to support it because it counteracts the belief that there is a Creator. Incorrect. My belief in evolution exists independent of the existence of a creator. Since there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of creator. the belief in one has no bearing on the other, in fact, if there was a shred of evidence for a creator, it would not preclude evedence of evolution. That is not rational. Faith is belief without proof or evidence. Faith is not based on rational thought. I agree. Do you go about arguing about the aliens? Do you go on forums debating with those who believe that aliens visited the planet and sowed the seeds of life? Arguing that they're wrong and you are right? Not so much argue, but mock... Do you argue so strongly about these aliens that it drives you mad? Makes you lose your cool? Sputtering and spitting and stoop to calling names? Makes you stomp off in a sulk and tantrum? Do you come back to the same topic for more???? No...but I have no problem laughing at them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Incorrect. My belief in evolution exists independent of the existence of a creator. Since there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of creator. the belief in one has no bearing on the other, in fact, if there was a shred of evidence for a creator, it would not preclude evedence of evolution. How many times does this have to be stated in this thread. Betsy continually ignores it or simply doesn't understand it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Neo-Darwinism - states there is no GOD. Darwinism - states that there is a God and this is how GOD did it...it is the study of creation. Find one quote by C Darwin where he clearly states "there is no GOD" ....You will not find such a thing. Neo - Judaism ------------Neo-Christianity -------------Neo- Islamis --------------is just that NEW - contrived _ twisted ------and a lie ------------if Darwin were alive today he would rebuke the neo-Darwinism crowd - If Christ were alive he would dispise what is Christianity --------------and if Mohamid was alive today he would explain that murder and suicide are bad but legitimate straight on war is good... The debate between Darwinists and Christians is an argument feuled by revisionism...a lie on both parts. Once the founder of a movement or corporation or religion is gone - others take over and alter policy ...to their liking and percieved personal agenda and needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Neo-Darwinism - states there is no GOD. No it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 How many times does this have to be stated in this thread. Betsy continually ignores it or simply doesn't understand it at all. Of course she ignores it. If she didn't, she'd cease to have any phantoms demons to fight crusade against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 No it doesn't. Would assume that it did! The new Darwinist are from this generation..not from Victorian times. Back in Darwins time - God was the corner stone to the estabishment and established thought. Those reading Darwins books did not jump up and say - This proves that there is no God. What I assummed was that the new or neo-Darwinist ideology would be more secular and that seeing atheism is more out in the open than in Darwins time - that the todays atheists would embrace the Darwin herald as their own and that IT was total proof that there was no God- Just my assumption though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 No it doesn't. Show me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Show me. The onus is on you to show where it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 The onus is on you to show where it does. Come on now - You are the educated student - or you might even be one of those slick professors at the University of Lethbridge....You are more equipped to dig up the info than I the lowly grade 10 drop out -----and what does the onus on me meant? I don't even know what onis means....actually I do - so in the spirit of love the anis is on you...I rest my case and sit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 You are more equipped to dig up the info than I the lowly grade 10 drop out. I said Neo-Darwinism doesn't say God doesn't exist. What info is there for me to dig up? You said it does say God doesn't exist. If it does, you should be able to point to where and prove me wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 I said Neo-Darwinism doesn't say God doesn't exist. What info is there for me to dig up? You said it does say God doesn't exist. If it does, you should be able to point to where and prove me wrong. On the average - Darwinists are atheists? On the average...I would assume through the use of a bit of logic from what we see when talking about creation vs. evolution . That MOST of those who do not believe in god toss Darwinian concepts at you...as proof...These atheists use Darwin as a primary weapon in nearly all discussions. It might be that I am not clear on what neo-Darwinism is - I assumed it was modern Darwinism - logic would dictate that the modern Darwinists would be even more secular though fashionable modernity than not...so - again - logic would dictate that modern Darwinists are more apt to be atheistic than tradtional Darwinists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I have no reason to believe. Yet you waste your time mocking faith. You say you have no reason.....well, faith does not need any reason! At least, be honest to yourself. Incorrect. My belief in evolution exists independent of the existence of a creator. Independent my foot! Baloney! I'll show you why I say baloney.... Since there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of creator. ....right here! See that? evolution and Creator. In one statement! the belief in one has no bearing on the other, For atheists, it has a very significant bearing! Having all things created means atheism is busted, dead and buried! in fact, if there was a shred of evidence for a creator, it would not preclude evedence of evolution. Anyway, I'm talking about Intelligent Design. Why it's a rational alternative, especially for you guys! If you read the explanation about what Intelligent Design theory is all about, you'd see that the possibility of evolution is not off the list. Of course, ID is also open to the possibility of a Creator. So why don't you address Intelligent Design? You worry too much about the possibility of a Creator....that you lose focus and reason! Not so much argue, but mock... Nice try. But it is so quite amusing for me to see how the tables are turned. All the labels that were thrown by so-called "rational" mockers of faith towards believers are now all neatly plastered to the faces of the New Atheists. And just like the tattoo on their messiah Dawkins, the label HYPOCRITE and IGNORANT are brightly stamped on their foreheads! No...but I have no problem laughing at them Oh not as much as I'm enjoying myself now....watching all the attempt at bravado yet ridiculous contortions! ENEMIES AT THE GATES! ENEMIES AT THE GATES! It's pandemonium in the kingdom of Dawkins. That's not so surprising...after all, it does say in the New Testament somewhere.... "The gates of hell cannot prevail against Me." Edited July 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Yet you waste your time mocking faith. I think he's mocking stupidity, not faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In eternity there is no time - evolution and creation is the same thing - creation happened in an instant - all evolution is - IS like a sped up bit of film footage - It's creation - and the developement of everything - when God said let their be light _ it might have taken a billion years for light to reach distant parts of the void..To God it was instant...to us mortals it was slow motion because we are slow in the mind and spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Anyway, I'm talking about Intelligent Design. Why it's a rational alternative, especially for you guys! Not in the face of corrosion. You'd have to be both stupid and irrational to ever believe that rust was a good idea. Rust and of course hemorrhoids - I'm sure there's a list a mile long of really stupid things that refute the notion there was anything intelligent behind their creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) You said that we don't know everything. That we could be wrong about any number of things, despite truly overwhelming evidence. That's a fact. And I agree with you there 101%! Not knowing everything and yet believing - that, is faith! Having no proof and yet believing - that, is faith! You continue to misinterpret my point. So look at it this way, Betsy: You don't know there are no faeries in Ireland. You cannot--cannot--be 100% positive that they're not there. But you probbaly don't think there are faeries in Ireland, and your not believing it is not of the same level as religious faith. It isn't. For that matter, you don't know--100%--that you even exist, but are instead a product of some other being's infinitely complex dream. However, given our admittedly narrow understanding of existence and objective reality, such wonderings are basically flights of fancy; things could be profoundly different from what your own perceptions allow; but there's no good, solid reason to think so. We live by probablities, not by 100% knowing, in the ultimate, obejective sense. That's not a point about evolution versus religion; it applies generally to every single thing you think you do or do not "know." So, given our admittedly narrow understanding of existence and objective reality, the probability of evolution being whole-hog false is so incredibly low that it is actually perverse to deny it. And by the way---what you think of here as a "gotcha" moment--my remarks about not knowing--applies more to religious beliefs than to evolution. Edited July 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Yet you waste your time mocking faith. You say you have no reason.....well, faith does not need any reason! At least, be honest to yourself. I don't mock faith, I respect faith....until it infringes on my rights. Stupidity on the other hand, the act of wilful ignorance I deride. Independent my foot! Baloney! I'll show you why I say baloney.... ....right here! See that? evolution and Creator. In one statement! I think you see things only you can see. For atheists, it has a very significant bearing! Having all things created means atheism is busted, dead and buried! Not in the least. For one thing, let us suppose there is a Prime Mover. That being said, it does not rule out the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies or the beginnings of life and evolution. Nor does, if we suppose for a moment of a Prime Mover, confirm the existence of Jehovah, Angels or anything in the Judaic-Christian faith. Like wise the presupposition of a Prime Mover does not confirm the supremacy of Vishnu, Shiva or Ram. Anyway, I'm talking about Intelligent Design. Why it's a rational alternative, especially for you guys! No, ID is not rational. It relies on the supposition of supernatural events, which needs faith to believe. And as you said... Faith is belief without proof or evidence. Faith is not based on rational thought. Of course, ID is also open to the possibility of a Creator. ID relies on the supposition there is a creator. Which means it should be call a pseudo science So why don't you address Intelligent Design? Why? I reject it for lack of evidence. Without out evidence for the central supposition, there is no need to look deeper. You worry too much about the possibility of a Creator....that you lose focus and reason! Nice try. But it is so quite amusing for me to see how the tables are turned. All the labels that were thrown by so-called "rational" mockers of faith towards believers are now all neatly plastered to the faces of the New Atheists. And just like the tattoo on their messiah Dawkins, the label HYPOCRITE and IGNORANT are brightly stamped on their foreheads! You're babbling... Oh not as much as I'm enjoying myself now....watching all the attempt at bravado yet ridiculous contortions! ENEMIES AT THE GATES! ENEMIES AT THE GATES! It's pandemonium in the kingdom of Dawkins. That's not so surprising...after all, it does say in the New Testament somewhere.... "The gates of hell cannot prevail against Me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 I'm glad you consider it settled, then. Evolution has a thousand-fold more evidence to support it than does Biblical Creationism. Good. Toss the term "biblical" creation aside and lets look at plain old creation with out mans biblical interpretation of it. All cultures from the begining of time- even those without recorded religious manuscripts believe in creation. Evolution is merely the scientific disection of creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I think he's mocking stupidity, not faith. At faiths core is intelligence and a forever questioning and searching mind - Fundamentalists have stopped searching and questioning - which makes them as institutionalized as a career convict or a university professor who has not been out of school since he was 5 years old. Real religion is eternal - eternal questing..there is no final answer in this life - but there will be once you are in the hands of the eternal GOD - and for some reason people who pass on into that realm do not send back reports...It is called the mystery of God - and that is just the way it will always be - a great unsolvable mystery - for both atheist and believer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) At faiths core is intelligence and a forever questioning and searching mindI'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post because this is so fundamentally wrong that it's absurd. At faith's core is the acceptance once and for all of an answer. Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with "a forever questioning and searching mind" because faith already has the answer and no amount of logical deductive reasoning will convince the faithful otherwise. Edited July 20, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Toss the term "biblical" creation aside and lets look at plain old creation... That would be to deviate from the topic of discussion with betsy. We all accept creation. But, she's specifically a Biblical creationist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 That would be to deviate from the topic of discussion with betsy. We all accept creation. But, she's specifically a Biblical creationist. I didn't get the chance to follow your conversation with Oleg, but this boldened statement got my attention. What do you mean you accept creation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) You continue to misinterpret my point. So look at it this way, Betsy: You don't know there are no faeries in Ireland. You cannot--cannot--be 100% positive that they're not there. But you probbaly don't think there are faeries in Ireland, and your not believing it is not of the same level as religious faith. It isn't. For that matter, you don't know--100%--that you even exist, but are instead a product of some other being's infinitely complex dream. However, given our admittedly narrow understanding of existence and objective reality, such wonderings are basically flights of fancy; things could be profoundly different from what your own perceptions allow; but there's no good, solid reason to think so. We live by probablities, not by 100% knowing, in the ultimate, obejective sense. That's not a point about evolution versus religion; it applies generally to every single thing you think you do or do not "know." So, given our admittedly narrow understanding of existence and objective reality, the probability of evolution being whole-hog false is so incredibly low that it is actually perverse to deny it. And by the way---what you think of here as a "gotcha" moment--my remarks about not knowing--applies more to religious beliefs than to evolution. Given your explanation about the faeries....No, I'm not mis-understanding your thrust. Your reasoning is the same as MDancer's. Let me ask you these. I expect you to answer each question honestly. Do you argue strongly with those who believe in faeries? Do you debate strongly that there are no faeries, and that they're just a figment of a fertile imagination? Do you go openly calling those people who believe in faeries stupid, or ignorant etc..? Do you go to the extent of writing books that mock and ridicule those people who believe in faeries? Do you go about reading those books that mock and ridicule those people who believe in faeries? Do you go about supporting the views of the authors of the books that ridicule and mock those who believe in faeries? Is there a movement for those who don't believe in faeries? Whose purpose is to counteract those who believes in faeries? Just like the New Atheists counteracting the Faith Believers? Do you await the scientific evidence that will irrefutably prove that there are no faeries? Does science even try to find such evidence about faeries? Never mind the science community splitting hairs about it among themselves, with some strongly suggesting that they do exist! Do you correct your children at every turn - everytime they talk about faeries - correcting them and explaining that there are no such things? Have you played the role of the tooth fairy to your children? Have you dressed your children in fairy costumes? Have you posted anything in any forums that argumentatively or vehemently support your views about faeries? Have you stopped your school from reading fairy tales, or showing any movies or media that depict faeries? Have you even made any attempt at all - no matter how feeble it is - to stop the school from doing so? Edited July 21, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Given your explanation about the faeries....No, I'm not mis-understanding your thrust. Your reasoning is the same as MDancer's. Let me ask you these. I expect you to answer each question honestly. Do you argue strongly with those who believe in faeries? Do you debate strongly that there are no faeries, and that they're just a figment of a fertile imagination? Do you go openly calling those people who believe in faeries stupid, or ignorant etc..? If the belief in faeries were an institutional one, taught as a sacred truth, and had long been part of children's education; and many people still thought, and actively fought for, faerie beliefs to be taught as "alternate theories" to rigorous scientific understandings...then certainly the conversaiton would be similar. But just to clarify, I don't tell Creationists that they're "stupid" etc. Do you go to the extent of writing books that mock and ridicule those people who believe in faeries?Do you go about reading those books that mock and ridicule those people who believe in faeries? Do you go about supporting the views of the authors of the books that ridicule and mock those who believe in faeries? Is there a movement for those who don't believe in faeries? Whose purpose is to counteract those who believes in faeries? Just like the New Atheists counteracting the Faith Believers? These are all answered in the same way. Have you played the tooth fairy to your children? Yes. And Santa Claus. And if the ideas of Christianity held their rightful place, culturally and intellectually, I could play David and Goliath or Noah's Ark, too, or any number of myths; knowing it was a fun belief that they would grow out of by the time they were six or eight years old. Have you stopped your school from reading fairy tales, or showing any movies or media that depict faeries? Have you even made any attempt at all - no matter how feeble it is - to stop the school from doing so? If it were a serious type of attempted indoctrination, obviously I would be opposed to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.