Originally posted by LemonJelloOK, let's try again.
You didn't merely make the less controversial assertion that atheists by definition lack belief in a god or gods. Now I would like to know what bizarre, provincial definition of spirituality you are using.
Spirits are supernatural beings. Niads, driads, tree spirits, evil spirits, good spirits, whatever. These are all related in some way to some god or gods, whether in mythology or modern religion.
Spiritual means those things relating to spirits - as opposed to the body and physical stuff.
Atheists, denying those gods and acknwledging only the physical (what you can touch and see and measure) cannot believe in spirits.
Happy now?
Originally posted by muppymanThank you for underlining my point more eloquently than I ever could!
The bard actually wrote "The lady doth protest too much methinks"
Can't help wondering if you also misquote your bible so blatantly when trying to make a point that seems convenient to you.
You delight in pointing out a completely trivial, non-consequential error and then draw a meaningless and illogical conclusion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point under discussion!
Really well done!
Originally posted by CalJustIn the spirit of fair play I would just like to say ... - no, wait, fair play isn't supernatural so it cant have a spirit and being an atheist I can believe in it anyway!
OK, let's try again.
Spirits are supernatural beings. Niads, driads, tree spirits, evil spirits, good spirits, whatever. These are all related in some way to some god or gods, whether in mythology or modern religion.
Spiritual means those things relating to spirits - as opposed to the body and physical stuff.
Atheists, denying those gods and acknwle ...[text shortened]... the physical (what you can touch and see and measure) cannot believe in spirits.
Happy now?
Of course when it comes to drinking spirits, you cant keep us atheists out!
How come there are so many creationists, IDers, and other anti-science people...
That's a pretty backward statement. Creation and Intelligent Design are not anti-science; it's just the opposite. Science points to a supernatural origin of the universe, and of life. Science is about making observations, then coming up with the best possible explanation for them. Here are some observable facts; you can count how many times I mention God, the bible, or religion:
-Peptide bonds can't form in environments of water, oxygen, or ultraviolet. Therefore, proteins (and therefore cells) could not have naturally formed in the sea, on land with oxygen, or on an earth with no oxygen, as there would then be no ozone to block out UV. What other kind of environment could there have been?
-Even disregarding the previous statement, and supposing the first cell actually did form: how could it have evolved the processes of metabolism and reproduction in what must have been a single generation? For a cell to naturally evolve these, there must be new generations, which means it must have already had these properties (circular logic).
-Natural selection cannot explain the occurence of new traits in organisms. Natural selection does just that: it selects from among existing traits; it doesn't create new ones. There are mutations of deletion, mutations of repetition, etc., but there are no mutations of addition.
-What about sexual reproduction? How could asexual beings naturally evolve two different sexual systems that are completely useless without each other? Not only would they both have to evolve, but they would have to evolve in the same place at the same time, or else there would be no generation following. Keep in mind that this is not just two different mutations that happened to occur simultaneously in the same place, but two different series of mutations that, again, are useless on their own until both are fully evolved and used together.
-The Laws of Entropy, Causality, Biogenesis, Conservation of Energy, as well as the Cell Theory all show that neither the universe nor life could arise by natural laws of science.
-We have 11 different systems in our bodies. 10 of them need to function properly for us live, while the 11th must function properly for us to procreate. Which system evolved first? If 10 systems are necessary for our life, then which one was the last to evolve? None of these 10 systems has a purpose on its own, nor does any subset of these systems, as the purpose of each one is to keep us alive, and none will be useful until it is fully evolved. So how could they all evolve at the same time, without even being functional? This cannot be attributed to chance mutations.
-The fossil record shows many millions of fossils of completely formed species that are distinct from other species. However, there is not a single fossil of any species in a transitional state. At best, with very lenient arguments, there are a handful of questionable fossils of intermediate states, but this is hardly any support, given the alleged billions of years of intermediate states. This would seem to indicate that species, since their origin, have been complete and distinct.
Note that I don't claim that these points prove the existence of a supernatural being. I'm simply claiming that the best explanaition for these things, in my opinion anyway, is that the universe (and life) had a supernatural origin. You may disagree, but then you'd need to find a better explanation of how these things can occur naturally.
Note also that these observations are purely scientific. I've made no appeal to God or religion. I've simply laid out the facts, and then given what I believe is the best explanation. I don't believe that atheism can give a better explanation to reconcile all of these scientific observances.
Now, if I wanted to persuade you to believe in the biblical story of creation, that is a completely different argument altogether. It would involve the validity of the Bible as a whole, the credibility of Moses as the writer, etc. Unfortunately, I don't believe I possess sufficient knowledge to make that argument, but I do believe that these observances are enough to claim that the best explanation for the universe and life is supernatural.
Originally posted by JirakonScience does not point to any supernatural origin of the universe whatsoever.
How come there are so many creationists, IDers, and other anti-science people...
That's a pretty backward statement. Creation and Intelligent Design are not anti-science; it's just the opposite. Science points to a supernatural origin of the universe, and of life. Science is about making observations, then coming up with the best possible explanati ...[text shortened]... enough to claim that the best explanation for the universe and life is supernatural.
-Peptide bonds can't form in environments of water, oxygen, or ultraviolet. Therefore, proteins (and therefore cells) could not have naturally formed in the sea, on land with oxygen, or on an earth with no oxygen, as there would then be no ozone to block out UV. What other kind of environment could there have been?
Indeed. Good thing primitive earth had no oxygen. Peptide bonds can form in water though, provided we have a reducing atmosphere. UV isn't a challenge either - more than 90% of UV is screened by only a few mm of water.
Actually, I can't be bothered with the rest. It's all been shown to be rubbish, fundamentalist lies before. I'm not going through it again.
It's all been shown to be rubbish, fundamentalist lies before
First of all, I'd like to know how any of these points were determined to be fundamentalist. They're just occurences that are observed. What does that have to do with biblical fundamentalism (which, I assume, is the type of fundamentalism you're reffering to).
You haven't given a better, natural explanation to any of those observances. You merely tried to guess that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere, and that this negates one of my points. You can't simply be provided a reducing atmosphere. Can you give some evidence to back up your claim? And even if you can, this was clearly not the strongest point in the list, as almost all the rest allow the first cell to form.
Keep in mind that this topic must be approached with an open mind. If one is fixed in their ideas, any evidence that seems contrary to the opposing view will be enough to keep them fixed.
Actually, I can't be bothered with the rest.
I honestly don't believe that statement, and I don't think you really believe that's the reason you didn't respond to anything else.
Originally posted by JirakonAll the points you posted were wrong, and trivially so. So there are only two possibilities:
They're just occurences that are observed.
...
I honestly don't believe that statement, and I don't think you really believe that's the reason you didn't respond to anything else.
1. You think they are right. This could be because you are ignorant and lacking in intelligence or simply have not bothered to think about them because you believe everything your pastor tells you. But your ability to write clearly and spell correctly makes me think that you are not particularly lacking in intelligence.
2. You know they are wrong and are essentially lying.
Now before we proceed to show how wrong you are, imagine for a moment that you are wrong and tell me whether I am correct about 1 or 2 or whether you would have a third explanation.
Do you claim to fully believe all your claims? What will you do if I show that one of them is not only false but obviously so to any reasonably intelligent person?
Originally posted by JirakonActually, considering one of the subjects I studied at university (and is a personal interest of mine) is paleobiology, you can bet there is data allowing paleoclimatic reconstruction.
It's all been shown to be rubbish, fundamentalist lies before
First of all, I'd like to know how any of these points were determined to be fundamentalist. They're just occurences that are observed. What does that have to do with biblical fundamentalism (which, I assume, is the type of fundamentalism you're reffering to).
You haven't given a bett ...[text shortened]... don't think you really believe that's the reason you didn't respond to anything else.
All the O2 on the planet comes from the splitting of water molecules by the PSII complex of photosynthesis, just prior to the fixing of CO2 (or O2 in about 30% of cases, under current atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, and assuming Rubisco specificity of approximately 88:1 and an ambient temperature around 20 - 25C).
Believe me, I have an open mind, but not so open that the top of my head falls off. If you want to debate this, believe me, I can write the essay straight off the top of my head, and indeed have done it many, many times before here.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut before you do, let him at least tell us whether he actually believes his points are genuine or whether he is just trying to waste your time.
Believe me, I have an open mind, but not so open that the top of my head falls off. If you want to debate this, believe me, I can write the essay straight off the top of my head, and indeed have done it many, many times before here.
Originally posted by JirakonWhere did this suddenly come from??
How come there are so many creationists, IDers, and other anti-science people etc etc
That's a pretty backward statement etc etc
-The Laws of Entropy, Causality, Biogenesis, Conservation of Energy, as well as the Cell Theory all show that neither the universe nor life could arise by natural laws of science.
Note that I don't claim that thes ...[text shortened]... y claiming that the best explanaition for these things, in my opinion anyway, is that etc etc
This argument looks pretty much like a new thread, like so many of the others, so I will abandon my thread and disappear again.
Overall, I believe I got my answer: although there does not seem to be any concensus as to what comprises "spiritualtiy", atheists are no less keen to convert theists than the other way around!
😀
In peace,
CJ
Do you claim to fully believe all your claims?
I do.
What will you do if I show that one of them is not only false but obviously so to any reasonably intelligent person?
That seems like a somewhat subjective question. If you can show that it's obviously wrong to any reasonably intelligent person, and I've been believing it's right, then I've been living without even having reasonable intelligence, so I couldn't judge whether you're right or not. But if it logically follows that my point is wrong based on your evidence (as long as it's ture), then at least I might be able to follow that, and I'll be happy to concede the point.
You know, the two possibilities you gave me (ignorance or deceit) are very much the same as those for evolutionists, from a creationists standpoint. In fact, if you simply replace "your pastor" with "evolutionary scientists" in the first point, it basically sums up what a creationist believes about an evolutionist.
So I would ask you the same question you just asked me.
Do you truly believe all of your claims?
Originally posted by JirakonThis doesn't follow. Lack of evidence could be the real problem, not lack of intelligence.
If you can show that it's obviously wrong to any reasonably intelligent person, and I've been believing it's right, then I've been living without even having reasonable intelligence
If your church is anything like mine was, they are taking pains to keep you from even hearing the arguments and evidence for evolution. The most you'll ever hear about them is a brief summary from an apologist who immediately 'refutes' the statement right after it's presented.
Originally posted by CalJustSpirituality doesn't solely sit within the bounds of the supernatural. Your definition is extremely limiting. The human spirit can reside in and of the will of man, his hopes, dreams, desires and urges to meet all those things. It is not necessarily precluded by a belief structure of any sort. For me and possibly for many other atheists spirituality is just the normative urge to question existence and I'd go so far as to suggest that same urge is what leads theists to their belief in god(s).
OK, let's try again.
Spirits are supernatural beings. Niads, driads, tree spirits, evil spirits, good spirits, whatever. These are all related in some way to some god or gods, whether in mythology or modern religion.
Spiritual means those things relating to spirits - as opposed to the body and physical stuff.
Atheists, denying those gods and acknwle ...[text shortened]... the physical (what you can touch and see and measure) cannot believe in spirits.
Happy now?
So atheists can be spiritual, even if they have no time for magic.
If your church is anything like mine was, they are taking pains to keep you from even hearing the arguments and evidence for evolution.
First of all, I'd like to point out that nothing I mentioned in this thread could logically show that I belong to a church. I've been trying to make completely scientific arguments. I'm not using any knowledge I gained in church for this argument.
(Just to be clear, I do belong to a church, but I've yet to post anything here that I learned from it)
Second, I'd like to dismiss the notion that all the knowledge I possess either comes from or is skewed by my church. When it comes to my personal life and behavior, I would definitely consult the Bible and my church. But this matter of origins can be argued from both sides by purely scientific methods. When I examine the evidence (and I have examined the evidence from both sides on my own), I personally come to the conclusion that the best way to reconcile the scientific observances of today is to believe that the origin of life and the universe is supernatural.
But perhaps I've been unfair. Perhaps the scholars I've seen, heard, and read of who present the case for evolution have simply been far underqualified. Maybe there are those who can still make a convincing argument for evolution that better explains these observances. If there are any, I certainly am not aware of them.