Is Atheism Dead ?

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

That's interesting, but it's contrary to the account given in Genesis, no?

I don't know about that. I don't take Genesis as an exhaustive scientific explanation of these things. Its purpose I think is to establish that there is order in all living things and human beings are at the pinnacle of this order. God is a God of purp ...[text shortened]... tudents of biology.

Please don't pretend that there is no pressure to conform to the status quo.

Seems to me that your secularist professor is a bit of a dinosaur. Of course there is a certain amount of pressure to conform in all academic fields, well, probably in all fields I think.

I have no argument with your choice to believe in a god or gods, that's something personal to you and if you gain comfort from it I can only see it as a good thing. I don't share your belief, obviously. I do find the veneration of scripture to be a somewhat questionable habit, but again, if you find it beneficial in your life that's absolutely fine by me.

@avalanchethecat

I have no argument with your choice to believe in a god or gods, that's something personal to you and if you gain comfort from it I can only see it as a good thing. I don't share your belief, obviously. I do find the veneration of scripture to be a somewhat questionable habit, but again, if you find it beneficial in your life that's absolutely fine by me.

Please don't expect me to say - "Thank you for your permission."

About the OP of this thread. I do not think Atheism is dead by any means.
I do believe that for many thinking people, as we move more into the 21rst century it will be harder for some to ignore the evidence of intelligence of some higher kind responsible for things like, DNA, reproduction system, digestive system, respiratory system. But mainly the machinery of micro biology going on in the cell.

If you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" because of hoot and hype, I think you should. "Black Box" meaning inferring that Darwin only knew a blob of jelly like substance was down there like a obscure little realm where no one knew if anything significant was going on.

We know better now. Things like the factory nature of the machines coordinating together as they do don't happen without intelligent planning.

I don't think I will rehash points I made previously in the thread. Interested people can start from the top to view certain things about this I would say.

@avalanchethecat said
Seems to me that your secularist professor is a bit of a dinosaur. Of course there is a certain amount of pressure to conform in all academic fields, well, probably in all fields I think.

I have no argument with your choice to believe in a god or gods, that's something personal to you and if you gain comfort from it I can only see it as a good thing. I don't share ...[text shortened]... questionable habit, but again, if you find it beneficial in your life that's absolutely fine by me.

YouTube

I think you will like this it is all about conforming to avoiding standing out.

Jordan Peterson - Why People are Afraid to Stand Out | The Zebra Story

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat
[quote] I have no argument with your choice to believe in a god or gods, that's something personal to you and if you gain comfort from it I can only see it as a good thing. I don't share your belief, obviously. I do find the veneration of scripture to be a somewhat questionable habit, but again, if you find it beneficial in your life that's absolutely fine b ...[text shortened]... the thread. Interested people can start from the top to view certain things about this I would say.

How very bizarre that you seem to imagine I would expect gratitude from you.

I think you're probably right, I think it will become harder for some people to ignore the 'evidence' of a higher intelligence. I think this is an inevitable consequence of the dilapidation of our educational systems.

@KellyJay
Good video, you were right I did enjoy it. Reminded me of a story about sheep, but it's a pretty long story and probably irrelevant so I won't bore you with it.

@avalanchethecat

How very bizarre that you seem to imagine I would expect gratitude from you.

The sickeningly condescending tone prompts me to remind you, I am not at all influenced by what you deem is ok for me if it makes me happy, and some such other patronizing snobbery.

@avalanchethecat said
How very bizarre that you seem to imagine I would expect gratitude from you.

I think you're probably right, I think it will become harder for some people to ignore the 'evidence' of a higher intelligence. I think this is an inevitable consequence of the dilapidation of our educational systems.

So, just to be clear, you never provided evidence for macroevolution.

You did not state the number of alleged transitional fossils that exist (which is the only evidence for it and those fossils are in dispute.)

Nor did you acknowledge that the theory of evolution’s central claim of speciation has never been observed or demonstrated by an experiment and therefore is not based in science.

Instead you did what evolutionists often do - you shifted the conversation to creationism.

If I believed the theory of evolution, I wouldn’t want to talk about why I believed it either.

@pb1022 said
So, just to be clear, you never provided evidence for macroevolution.

You did not state the number of alleged transitional fossils that exist (which is the only evidence for it and those fossils are in dispute.)

Nor did you acknowledge that the theory of evolution’s central claim of speciation has never been observed or demonstrated by an experiment and therefore is not ...[text shortened]... m.

If I believed the theory of evolution, I wouldn’t want to talk about why I believed it either.

I provided a great deal more evidence than you have for the Genesis account, and yet you are happy to believe that.

Your childish insistence on the 'number of alleged transitional fossils that exist' is risible and worthy of ridicule.

Speciation is evident in the fossil record. I understand that you are unable to grasp this simple fact, but that doesn't negate it. Perhaps you'd care to link the peer-reviewed paper detailing the alleged attempts to demonstrate speciation in bacteria to which you alluded earlier? No? Ah well.

You'd rather believe a fanciful story from a single book written by a pre-scientific priest with a vested interest in control of his flock than rationally consider the accumulated data of a century of scientific endeavour. I still await your explanation
of how these myths explain the concrete evidence of genetics and the fossil record, although of course I don't expect you to be able to offer such.

You really should take the advice of St Augustine of Hippo.

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

How very bizarre that you seem to imagine I would expect gratitude from you.

The sickeningly condescending tone prompts me to remind you, I am not at all influenced by what you deem is ok for me if it makes me happy, and some such other patronizing snobbery.

Your petulant whining prompts me to remind you that I have no regard whatsoever for your likes, dislikes, opinions and/or feelings. I will admit to a wry smile following your earlier admission that you are, in fact, an evolutionist at heart, however.

@avalanchethecat said
I provided a great deal more evidence than you have for the Genesis account, and yet you are happy to believe that.

Your childish insistence on the 'number of alleged transitional fossils that exist' is risible and worthy of ridicule.

Speciation is evident in the fossil record. I understand that you are unable to grasp this simple fact, but that doesn't negate ...[text shortened]... expect you to be able to offer such.

You really should take the advice of St Augustine of Hippo.

You haven’t provided any evidence. Saying evidence exists in the fossil record isn’t the same as identifying that evidence (not to mention explaining the Cambrian explosion and lack of pre-Cambrian fossils.)

And Christianity was founded on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, for which plenty of evidence exists. The book of Genesis is accepted by at least two other major religions (Judaism and Islam.) It’s not necessary for a Christian to believe in the creation account and many don’t.

Why is my asking for the number of transitional fossils “risible and worthy of ridicule?” Because you can’t answer it? Darwin said for his theory to be true, the number of transitional fossils would have to be “truly enormous.” Is it?

The attempt to create speciation from bacteria is well known. Just Google it. I’m not going to go to the trouble when you’re being obnoxious and likely would ignore it anyway. I don’t work for you. If you’re interested in it, find it yourself. It’s not difficult.

I’ll be happy to provide evidence for the creation account, which is essentially evidence for intelligent design. But first things first. I asked you to provide evidence for macroevolution. Saying a lot of scientists believe it doesn’t cut it. Your abrupt change in behavior from being reasonable and pleasant to being obnoxious when asked to provide evidence for the theory of evolution reveals how Darwin’s theory really isn’t a scientific theory, but a religion for atheists and a way for them to justify their atheism.

As I said previously, much more evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for the theory of evolution.

You couldn’t provide evidence for the theory of evolution and so changed the subject to creationism, which is what evolutionists always do. It’s as predictable as the sunrise.

@pb1022 said
You haven’t provided any evidence. Saying evidence exists in the fossil record isn’t the same as identifying that evidence (not to mention explaining the Cambrian explosion and lack of pre-Cambrian fossils.)

And Christianity was founded on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, for which plenty of evidence exists. The book of Genesis is accepted by at least two other major relig ...[text shortened]... e subject to creationism, which is what evolutionists always do. It’s as predictable as the sunrise.

The ONLY evidence you have for the supposed ressurection of Jesus is scripture. That's not evidence at all, it's barely even heresay. Show some evidence for the resurrection which is not scriptural. I asked you to do this previously, but of course you dodged the question because you cannot.

You are unable to reference these 'well known' attempts to create speciation? Ok. Perhaps you should stop pretending they exist then.

You cannot provide evidence for the 'creation account' because no such evidence exists. You have only scripture. If there was more, you would already have provided it rather than childishly beating your 'precise number of transitional fossils' drum. If I thought you were actually interested in educating yourself rather than just performing this tiresome pigeon-on-a-chessboard routine, I'd be delighted to offer guidance, but quite clearly you don't have that inclination. I'm content to allow you to continue to wallow in your ignorance.

@avalanchethecat said
@KellyJay
Good video, you were right I did enjoy it. Reminded me of a story about sheep, but it's a pretty long story and probably irrelevant so I won't bore you with it.

Glad you liked it.

@avalanchethecat

You cannot provide evidence for the 'creation account' because no such evidence exists. You have only scripture.

There are thirty one verses to Genesis chapter one. Could you tell me what indisputable scientific fact exists such that any of those thirty one verses HAS to be rejected as obviously not have happened?

Provide the near virtually unanimously agreed upon scientific information which renders it impossible for me to accept which specific sentence/s in Genesis chapter one.


IE. "Because we know this _______________ scientifically, it follows that this sentence/s of Genesis 1 cannot and should not be believed."

@avalanchethecat said
The ONLY evidence you have for the supposed ressurection of Jesus is scripture. That's not evidence at all, it's barely even heresay. Show some evidence for the resurrection which is not scriptural. I asked you to do this previously, but of course you dodged the question because you cannot.

You are unable to reference these 'well known' attempts to create speciatio ...[text shortened]... y you don't have that inclination. I'm content to allow you to continue to wallow in your ignorance.

Why is Scripture not evidence? It certainly is evidence. There are eyewitness accounts to the Resurrected Christ, the tomb was empty, His body could not be found, Christ’s arrival on earth was prophesied centuries beforehand (one prophecy in Daniel even had the exact date of His crucifixion, and that was written 500+ years beforehand.) The Gospels are very reliable, as are the epistles from the Apostle Paul.

How do you explain the change in the disciples’ behavior, from hiding out in fear of the Pharisees after Jesus’ crucifixion to boldly confronting the Pharisees and refusing to stop preaching in the Name of Jesus Christ after His Resurrection.

Nearly all the disciples were executed rather than deny they saw the Resurrected Christ. Who dies for a lie?

I gave you three experts in evaluating evidence (two of whom were atheists) who investigated the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and concluded it was true. But you know more about evidence than them, right?

And what evidence do you have for macroevolution? A couple of questionable transitional fossils when Darwin said the number of transitional fossils should be “truly enormous” if his theory were true.

Darwin’s theory is a pathetic joke and will one day (likely soon) be revealed as the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th- and 21st-centuries.

I could easily provide an article on the attempts at speciation with bacteria. But you could just as easily find it yourself. I don’t work for you and I’m not doing your bidding especially when you’re being obnoxious.

When all is said and done, and your attempts at diversion, misdirection and distraction are over, one fact remains:

You didn’t provide a shred of evidence for macroevolution.

@avalanchethecat

Your petulant whining prompts me to remind you that I have no regard whatsoever for your likes, dislikes, opinions and/or feelings. I will admit to a wry smile following your earlier admission that you are, in fact, an evolutionist at heart, however.

I said that if I were a professional researcher of natural mechanisms HERE is the area I would spend my time on as a job. That is not an admission that the I am an macro evolutionist in spite of any wry smile of yours. That is the mature scientific way to explore (and possibly have to falsify) a theory.

That is the area I would explore to see if there is anything there or NOT.
That's what scientists are supposed to do. Sometimes they explore and realize its a dead end. Then one concept can be eliminated.

But if I am petulant and you are much more mature give me your known information which renders it naïve to believe God is trying to communicate with human beings in the Genesis account - to briefly tell us the most essentials of our existence and that of all life on earth.

I expect you to show me which verse or verses I have to reject as completely disproven.