the bradster:
Actually, YOU are the one that believes humans came from "mud" (clay, dust, etc.)! Isn't that what Genesis says? The irony...
There is no irony. Genesis says that God created man in his image. Abiogenesis basically states that life popped up out of the mud or "soup" (with a few lightning bolts and such).
rem,
The funny thing is that it's clear you didn't get the point. Perhaps I was too subtle.
The funny thing is you forgot to make your point.
The only thing that bugs me is when theists, who believe because of faith - which can be a beautiful thing, choose to go beyond that paradigm and claim that their beliefs have some rational foundation.
I doubt that is the only thing that bugs you about theists. What bugs me about atheists is that they think their naturalistic beliefs are more rational than general beliefs in creation. I'm not going to argue about it right now.
Oh, yeah, and you've also made severally demonstrably false claims.
you mean this(?) :
You have made a positive claim, yet you have not backed it up with any facts. I'm sure there are some naughty scientists out there that manufacture evidence,
why do I need facts? You are admitting what I claimed.
but there is no conspiracy theory like you are making it out to be.
You just made up a conspiracy theory. You are accusing me of perpetuating one when I did not and wasn't even thinking that. Given your paranoia on the subject... perhaps there is something there I should look into.
The peer review process, though not perfect, goes far in weeding out the chaff.
When I was a student in public school I was never taught why evolution or abiogenesis were true. The problems with evolutionary and abiogenesis theory were not brought up by the teachers or the curriculum. Both are taught as simple truth and evolutionary theory is used to explain the most amazing specializations. Naturalism is being promoted religiously in schools. I wasn't around when they used manufactured evidence to convince people evolution is true. Some of what was shown like "lucy" I am currently looking into. They aren't trying to prove to students that evolution is true though. They have learned that they don't need to do that. Kids will believe what they are told. They are just saying it is true, teaching links and ancestry. I went through it. I know what I was told and how I was told it.
Can we be friends?
If you want to be my friend quit acting like you are smarter, more logical or rational than I am. I respect humility and I only make friends with people I respect.
If you have some particularly aggregious examples that are still considered valid today, I'm all ears.
I can't say any of it is purely authentic. There is so much spinning and doctoring I honestly can't comment on the authenticity of today's specimens. I will give it more attention. You admit yourself though that there have been deceptions which perhaps effected peoples faith in evolution.
You don't have the foggiest idea what an atheist is.
Apparently I didnt know what a gnostic atheist was. I know WTF an atheist is.
"all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods." -- agnosticism/atheism with Austin Cline
If your assertion is correct then Austin Cline's foggiest doesn't meet your requirements either. I thought you pulled the gnostic atheist term out of your butt. You should know that "gnostic atheist" is a more obscure term than "strong atheist." You are wrong to say that I was not an atheist on the basis that I was also a strong atheist.
I know of no atheists personally who refuse to accept the possibility of a god.
You may not know any but they exist.
LOL. You claim that I don't know you, but apparently you have the balls to assert that you know me!
You claim to be an atheist. All I did was agree with that and say I was like you, an atheist. You seemed to be saying that I was always irrational and never an atheist or a real rational atheist. My balls are of normal proportions in this matter, sir.
It's not difficult to figure out why you are now a theist. Your sense of logic was never fully formed.
You insist that I am the pot and you are the kettle. Your sense of logic seems to exclude philosphy. A fully developed sense of logic includes philosophy.
Gnostic Atheists are not rational because they believe there is proof against the existence of gods when there is not.
Then by your own words you are irrational if you try to deny the Christian God because you would be demonstrating gnostic atheism.
Ah but it (the universe) does (require unicorn), because this Unicorn created the universe. Now disprove it.
Mehr elitar Atheist Kuhmist. You compared the belief in Unicorns to belief in God. You have changed your analogy. You now say God is a Unicorn. This is a completely different assertion than someone saying a creator to the universe (God) exists. You are accepting the existence of God and saying that the creator is a unicorn. You are creating a religion around a certain creator instead of rationalizing (away?) the existence of a creator. You are comparing the logic of your religion to the logic of theism. They do not compare.
But in the end you sound like a cool kid. Just keep your options open.
I'm not cool and I'm not a kid. I just sound, look, act, walk and talk like one. Just keep your options open.
I can be your friend if you stop trying to elevate yourself.