(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

Your question is both loaded and unusually vague. Are you asking how did the universe begin, or just the earth? The origin of the earth itself is a lot better understood than the origin of the universe. But the real point of your question is the loaded nature of the question. The way you phrase it implies that if we aren't able to give a well evidenced answer for the origin of the earth, the alternative is that God created it. That's an argument from ignorance and is also a false dichotomy. Instead of these condescending 'zingers', why don't you ask an honest question. Your condescension in asking such a loaded question just makes me want to tell you to shove it.

Wryetui Wrote:

Quote:I understand what you have said, but I do not think it is wrong that I have said "atheistic cosmology", since every person has a cosmology, and an atheist has one of his own, right? When I said "atheistic worldview" I referred to a worldview where any divinity is out of the case. I do understand that atheism is not like the Orthodox Church where every believer professes the same beliefs and that atheists disagree with themselves. I should have said naturalistic or matherialistic claims.

Thanks for the courteous response, though I am unclear on why you felt I deserved courtesy when others equally polite didn't.

We don't have an atheist cosmology. Atheists don't agree on cosmology, especially the atheists that follow religions. Rational skeptics accept the findings of science provisionally, understanding that new evidence may require them to be revised; and are willing to accept that wanting answers doesn't mean we get them. When something isn't known, the most honest and valid thing you can say regarding your knowledge of it is 'I don't know'.

I don't rule out divinity, if the divine exists, there is always the chance that it will actually do something, and if it does, that can be studied.

Naturalistic claims would have been the best choice to use. Rational skeptics are usually methodological naturalists, not metaphysical naturalists. A supernatural plane is not ruled out beforehand, but unless there is a good reason to believe it exists and it's existence is relevant to how the subject under investigation is understood; it remains beyond the bounds of science and observation. Unless a claim can be backed up, it is just a claim.

But I see you're getting it, and I hope that you're going to turn out to be one of our better contributors once you get your forum 'sea legs'. You're always as good as your last post with me.

Little Rik Wrote:Hmmm, hmmmm, whoooo, whooooooo, whooooooo.    

Here a short list of atheists unsupported blanket assertions.
1) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
2) We got this consciousness thanks to previous generation (evolution of the specie)
3) When we die is all over even the consciousness die.
4) The universe does not need any God.
And so on and on.

Sorry mate but it doesn't seem that you know what you are talking about.  

Sorry mate, but you're pulling shit out of your ass and you think it's clever.

An atheist can believe the material world is an illusion, that ghosts are real, that everyone gets reincarnated, etc. Not all atheists (and possibly not a majority of atheists globally) are skeptical or a-supernaturalist or interested in science.

That the universe appears to not need any God is an observation that supports being skeptical about the existence of God; not a claim. If there is no God, it follows that the universe doesn't need one, but I've never claimed there is no God. Though if Little Rik showing up on a previously interesting thread doesn't make me cry to God, nothing will.

(May 3, 2016 at 11:12 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: IMO he's a poe. He seems very TrueChristiany to me.

With Randy undertones.

Upon reflection, I should not have commented on the post to which I was replying, I had no real contribution to make, My apologies.

(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything, so whether or not you approve of, understand, are satisfied with or otherwise accept my lack of belief, is of no consequence. If you have a specific question, I will answer, because unlike Christians I can answer.

The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.

Scepticism level for science: Infinite. Will invent problems with any amount of presented evidence.

Scepticism level for Christianity: Zero. Believes it because it's written down.

(May 3, 2016 at 12:09 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything, so whether or not you approve of, understand, are satisfied with or otherwise accept my lack of belief, is of no consequence.  If you have a specific question, I will answer, because unlike Christians I can answer.

The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.

"The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you." you are talking about my field of work and I am interested. First of all I need to know on what do you rely for saying that "The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in" since I haven't heard it from anyone in the Church, really, where did you get this from?

"If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.", this kind of problems appear when a person reads the Sacred Scriptures without any theological support and are no interested in knowing what they actually say. Look at what explanation gives St. Basil the Great in his famous "Hexaemeron" (Homily 5.1) to exactly the question you asked: "Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man."

Yeep. Poe.

Wryetui Wrote:Look at what explanation gives St. Basil the Great in his famous "Hexaemeron" (Homily 5.1) to exactly the question you asked: "Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man."

Do you know what an 'ad hoc explanation' is?