Atheism = self defeating. (page 21)

Caedes

I just assumed that Stephenmyers was a sock puppet!

Finkelstein

In light of recent scientific findings ... Creationism = self defeating

In the total accumulation of known discoveries which include astrophysics, earth geological evolution , biological evolution, each practice supports one and another, that's not to say there is still more to learn.

So based from all of this acquired knowledge to date, it would intellectually correct to say that anyone who proclaims this universe was created by an intelligent designer is ignorant upon the facts structured in reality.

towerwatchman

Anony Mous

I am evoking intelligence not deity. What exactly you call it makes no difference. If you invoke an intelligence, you not only have to come up with the established facts of how our Universe came into existence but also how your intelligence came into existence. You now have 2 problems to solve.

You need to stick to the subject matter, 'what is the known cause that generates or creates information'. And that would be intelligence. I am not discussing the origin of the universe.

The point is that I've proven to you it doesn't require an intelligence to come up with these things and your only response is:

If you are referring to things that were done in a lab, yes that was done under the supervision of intelligence.

I haven't noticed, you're just making a baseless statement, if you're so sure of it, you can prove it. You've failed to prove it ergo you're wrong.

Failed to prove what?

Finkelstein

So towerwatchman does your personal savior save you from being intellectually dishonest ?

towerwatchman

Caedes

What makes you think that you get to define what atheism means? The reason I am an atheist is because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods, I have not seen or heard anything that makes me think that the claims of theists hold any merit whatsoever. You are welcome to show me some evidence if you think you have something.

That sounds more Agnostic than Atheist. Agnostics sit on the fence.

I would also disagree with your statement that atheism is unique, personally as a rational human I accept that theism covers a wide variety of positions from people who claim to speak to god, know that he exists, believe s/he/it exists, think that on the balance of probabilities god does exist all the way through to not sure/ vaguely spiritual, I don't think it is up to me to define the meaning for those people other than a belief in god. So tell me where do you sit in the theism spectrum?

I am a Christian by science, logic, reason and faith.

Now you on the other hand don't seem to have read or understand the wide variety of positions that atheists hold, I would say that my position is probably common to most atheists and that my definition would be accepted by most as well.

Notice you label theist as ‘other than a belief in god.’ What would be the antithesis of that statement? “other than the non-belief in god. ” It does not come with stipulations, such as " because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods,

towerwatchman

cofty

In relation to DNA "information" is nothing but a metaphor

What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must the origin of life researcher ‘explain the origin of’? Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’ A block of binary code in a software program is information. DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotide bases that produce a specific effect; therefore DNA contains information. DNA sequences are improbable and specifically arranged to perform, this is functional information similar to CAD – CAM. Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from? Let’s bring cause and effect. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.

Finkelstein

The Creationist's view of information that contravenes their own personal beliefs.

towerwatchman

cobweb

There is an umbrella. Google atheism and you get a box defining it as: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism incorporates both ways of thinking. An atheist may make a positive statement about the non existence of a deity.

True Atheism.

Personally, I will say that I have a lack of belief in a God

Stepping from strong atheism to soft atheism; soft espouses “lack of belief” or “absence of belief” which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belive. Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God.

in the absence of any evidence. It is a rational approach to demand evidence to be provided before accepting something as true. It is up to the believer to produce that evidence before assuming that thing's existence.

That would lean towards Agnostic.

My position is that it is more technically accurate to state a lack of belief in God. Just like it is more technically correct to say, I have a lack of belief in Santa Claus. But I have no issue really with saying Santa Claus doesn't exist because without any evidence why should I even consider it?

There is an interesting thing about life, it is that it does not start with reason and ends with faith. A child’s mind is very limited and does not inform the child for the reason of her trust, but as she runs into her father’s arms she does so because of an unspoken trust that those arms will hold her. A child begins with faith that is then proven by reason. Over time that trust will be tested, and it is the character of the parent that will establish that trust to be wise. One starts life believing in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Zeus, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster but overtime reason proves them wrong. My faith has substance, it is rational, based on the confirmed knowledge that Jesus has proven who He claims to be, God incarnate. Some accept by faith, I by reason. My faith is not orphaned by reason.

Finkelstein

towerwatchman

cofty

@stephenmyers complaining that natural selection does not explain the origin of DNA is like complaining gravity doesn't explain rainbows.

In order for natural selection to work, DNA had to be there first.

DNA proves that all living things evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years

The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct on is the determining factor[s]. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or dis advantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.

Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual which reproduce the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.

Atheism = self defeating.

Share this