Is Atheism Dead ?

@pb1022 said
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 ...[text shortened]... istraction are over, one fact remains:

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

A handful of alleged eyewitness accounts of miraculous events written some uncertain time after the events allegedly took place are a very uncertain basis upon which to build your case. The prophecies you keep wittering on about are less than useless, because quite clearly the intent of the writers of the gospels was to present Jesus as the messianic figure so prophesized.

There are vast collections of fossils and genetic data all supporting the theory of evolution, and yes, Darwin's views were undoubtedly not the complete picture. Random mutation and natural selection clearly does take place, but it's also clear that this gradual approach alone falls somewhat short in explanation. You are of course free to take your risible view that the shortcomings of Darwin's work reduces his ideas to a 'pathetic joke' and instead cling to your unsuppportable beliefs in magic and miracles from a prescientific age.

As for evidence, I repeat, I have provided more evidence in support of evolution than you have or can provide in support of the resurrection.

@sonship said
@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?
...[text shortened]... it follows that this sentence/s of Genesis 1 cannot and should not be believed." [/i]

If you wish to view Genesis as a factual account of the creation of the universe and so forth, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths. It's always angels on pinheads with you isn't it?

@sonship said
@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 ...[text shortened]... th.

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

Backpedalling already? Perhaps you can go back and delete the comment where you revealed your inner belief in 'macro' evolution, that's a thing you do isn't it.

@avalanchethecat

If you wish to view Genesis as a factual account of the creation of the universe and so forth, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths. It's always angels on pinheads with you isn't it?

Is there a scientifically known fact that renders verse 1 most obviously incorrect or unreliable?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

@avalanchethecat

If you wish to view Genesis as a factual account of the creation of the universe and so forth, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths.

Could you justify your belief that the process of, let's say, photosynthesis arose over a long period of time quite with absolutely no intelligent planning or goal in mind ?

Could you justify your belief that dirt and soil emerged to have consciousness quite by accidental means ?

I see yet no known science fact that Genesis 1:1 can't be truth.
How about verse 2?

"But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep."

It sounds to me like something being observed from a certain standpoint. I mean like a man viewing a vision perhaps, like a seer being revealed something by someone which he otherwise could not have known.

Is there some pretty much unanimously accepted information that makes this verse impossible to accept as a conveying of truth?

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

If you wish to view Genesis as a factual account of the creation of the universe and so forth, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths. It's always angels on pinheads with you isn't it?

Is there a scientifically known fact that renders verse 1 most obviously incorrect or unreliable?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Not that I'm aware of.

I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths.

Could you plug up the whole in your idea that dirt accidently gave rise to the ability to think and consider what was the meaning of its now conscious existence?

Could you plug up the whole that sexual reproduction in thousands of species of animals arose as a method of the continuance of life with absolutely no forethought, no plan, no intelligent concept of heading off extinction?

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

If you wish to view Genesis as a factual account of the creation of the universe and so forth, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths.

Could you justify your belief that the process of, let's say, photosynthesis arose over a long period of time quite with absolutel ...[text shortened]... unanimously accepted information that makes this verse impossible to accept as a conveying of truth?

Yes I could. One of the options you offer involves an infinite unknown, and the other doesn't.

It sounds to me like a creation myth. Without some very convincing evidence in support of the existence of 'visions' or 'seers' being anything other than clever charlatans, I'd say you'd have to be pretty gullible to accept it as conveying 'truth'.

@sonship said

I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time trying to pick holes in these myths.

Could you plug up the whole in your idea that dirt accidently gave rise to the ability to think and consider what was the meaning of its now conscious existence?

Could you plug up the whole that sexual reproduction in thousands of species of animals arose as a ...[text shortened]... olutely no forethought, no plan, no intelligent concept of heading off future discontinuing of life?

You seem to be asking me to detail to you the entire history of evolution of life on earth, from the very beginning of life to the complete description of the human brain and how it gives rise to the mind. Is this why you prefer the bible? It gives you a nice easy one-two-three to explain everything? I'd suggest caution in swallowing easy answers, but that's just my view.

@sonship
So tell me, are you and Romans1009 or whatever he's called now conferring while you tag-team this stuff? How did he react when you admitted that actually you do believe in 'macro' evolution?

@avalanchethecat

Yes I could. One of the options you offer involves an infinite unknown, and the other doesn't.

I am not sure what you mean by "infinite unknown."
It is evident we seem to know much, or we have a good idea about much.
It is also evident that that knowledge is limited.

If you think the day will come when we will uncover item of unknown causes such that there is nothing else to question, the more we find out the more questions we seem to generate.

I think scientific advancement is evidencing our limited ability to discover.
Quantum physicists are telling us that we cannot know the exact position of an
atom. Trying to measure this seems to move it?

Evolution on a macro level is not something that can be repeated in a lab.
So it remains a theory about the past.
Saying "We don't have enough time to re-observe the effect in a controlled experiment" is admitting to what I said, we are limited in what we can find out.

It sounds to me like a creation myth. Without some very convincing evidence in support of the existence of 'visions' or 'seers' being anything other than clever charlatans, I'd say you'd have to be pretty gullible to accept it as conveying 'truth'.

That doesn't impress me too much. It seems obvious that no human being would have been around to observe the universe being created out of nothing.

If God didn't reveal such truth to us how else could we know?

The existence of other creation accounts is not enough for me to generalize that no revelation of creation has ever existed. And I cannot think of any that do not involve just the rearranging of already existing things. Genesis 1:1 is closer to the accepted scientific speculation that time, matter, energy all had a beginning.

". . . God created the heavens and the earth" means time, matter, energy, particles, laws by which they behave were brought into existence from nonexistence of them.

The short sentence reveals a truth. Someone brought everything in to existence from nothing. This rather than nothing brought everything into existence out of nothing.

So the Someone is in a class all alone - eternal, transcendent over all time and space, yet able to enter into it to work, and of course of infinite power and knowledge.

J. Pye Smith put it well about the first sentence of the Bible:

"That the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to this effect; that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self-continuity or succession, but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of one Being, self existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known."

As far as I can tell atheism has two alternative views -
Either the universe has eternally existed or nothing brought it into existence out
of nothing. I don't have enough faith to believe either of those proposals.

@avalanchethecat

So tell me, are you and Romans1009 or whatever he's called now conferring while you tag-team this stuff? How did he react when you admitted that actually you do believe in 'macro' evolution?

I do not keep up with name changes. I don't snoop overly to see who is here with a new id. When I changed my id from jaywill to sonship I announced it publicly and explained why.

Two human beings can agree that God as a Supreme source of being and all things is trustworthy to believe. They need not conspire together secretly.

Two Christians can have read similar books.
So similar points be raised by them.
When you and poster X of a atheist or skeptical agreement do so I don't count it unusual or indicative of conspiracy. I say "Hmmm, these two are probably influenced by the same published views."

When a couple of you say "Oh, but atheism is just the lack of belief in God" I assume no conspiracy necessarily. You're both probably ingesting the same now popular views out there by leading vocal atheists.

So tell me, are you and Romans1009 or whatever he's called now conferring while you tag-team this stuff? How did he react when you admitted that actually you do believe in 'macro' evolution?

I didn't answer your question, your loaded question.

First I don't know how any other Christian reacted unless they tell me.
Second, I only said if I was doing research as a professional endeavor to see if there was anything to discovering natural causes for the emergence of new species, abrupt appearance is where I think I would look rather than this long improbable gradualism.

That is where I would spend the effort to look.
Maybe it would be a final scientific nail in the coffin of macro evolutionary
gradualism.

I told you that I think Genesis is true yet not an exhaustive explanation.
The priorities of God are not just to satisfy curiosity for no reason.

The plan, the purpose, the meaning of man's existence and of life and the creation is briefly yet masterfully revealed. And that so the most people over time and cultural changes can grasp it.

@sonship said

It sounds to me like a creation myth. Without some very convincing evidence in support of the existence of 'visions' or 'seers' being anything other than clever charlatans, I'd say you'd have to be pretty gullible to accept it as conveying 'truth'.

That doesn't impress me too much. It seems obvious that no human being would have been around to observe ...[text shortened]... to existence out
of nothing. I don't have enough faith to believe either of those proposals.

Your "seer's" vision of the creation of the world doesn't sound very close to how we think stars and their planetary companions coalesce from vortices in gas clouds. It also doesn't include the crucial fact that our solar system was formed from the scattered remains of previous suns mixed with primal gasses. It doesn't, to me anyway, sound remotely like an actual vision of how the earth formed. No mention of the aeons passed with a largely molten surface ceaselessly battered by meteorites of all sizes, no mention of the creation of the moon other than the specious light in the night. It really doesn't reveal any truth that is apparent to me. It sounds a lot more like a 'best guess' by a perceptive and clever but prescientific individual as to how what we see when we look around might have been created by an imagined all-powerful being.

That you find it convincing I don't doubt. I don't share your views. I don't pretend to know how the universe came into being, maybe it was created by some greater power, maybe it's all a happy (or otherwise) accident. I am pretty well convinced that your particular brand of religion doesn't have anything to recommend it over any other however. Of course I may be wrong in that conviction... I doubt it, but I accept the very slim possibility.

The whole concept of faith in scripture seems ridiculous to me. It was written by men. Is it likely that those men were in fact touched by a god and given secret knowlege for some reason, or is it more likely that those men wanted to convince others that they were in possession of such secrets for reasons all too mundane and obvious? I'd say the latter sounds (almost) infinitely more plausible. It never fails to surprise me that ostensibly rational people hold such store in these ancient tales.