(March 9, 2010 at 12:15 am)AngelThMan Wrote: First and foremost, I would like to define the word evidence.

Correction, you don't get to have your own definition of the word 'evidence' especially not when the meaning associated with that word is already in common use and interpreted on a daily basis.

Wikipedia Wrote:Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

AngelThMan Wrote:If a meteorologist discovers that rain in one region is evidence of something, and the lack of rain in another region is evidence of something else, and from these observations he forms a theory, then what he has observed is in fact evidence. What I’m about to provide is no different. I have made an observation about something that is real and tangible around us. Therefore, what I am providing is in fact evidence. Basically, I am claiming that there’s evidence all around us that God exits.

You made a direct observation of the demonstrably real environment around you, and then immediately conclude your thinking at the juncture of an unfathomably complex reality is an uncomforting one, so that clearly a god must have magically done it all so you can simply maintain your peace of mind. Your half-arsed attempt at deductive reasoning is a frightening and convoluted one to behold. Now if you only apply yourself, maybe someday you'll finally prove Puff the Magic Dragon actually stops the rain whenever you walk outside without an umbrella.

AngelThMan Wrote:I will always speak to you in a civil manner. Atheists, who pride themselves as being intellectually superior to believers, should be able to provide intelligent arguments without profanity and name-calling. Light bantering and snide comments are okay; sometimes that’s part of the fun. But any disrespectful responses will be immediately ignored, regardless of how intelligent your point is.

Atheists love to use the word ‘refuted’ a lot. Just because you say my argument has been refuted doesn’t mean it has been. I warn you that I am a tough cookie, and I’ll likely have an answer for just about anything you post. So if you’re easily frustrated, perhaps you should not participate in this discussion.

A word of advice: making these assertions you are clearly "civil mannered" and all atheists are douchebags is pointless, arrogant and utterly irrelevant to your argument. In any instance, we'd like to address your argument, not you. If atheists expose the weaknesses in your reasoning, then be intellectually honest and acknowledge those point(s) made! If people are continually refuting your premises for a god then it's wise to pay attention to them and try to understand why your argument is being called out as "invalid" first. It's not your audience that need to ask for less evidence from you, but you that needs to demand more. Don't ignore intelligent and constructive responses people here give you, no matter how 'disrespectful' you may find them to be!

AngelThMan Wrote:Without further ado, here’s the evidence: Humans are the only species, out of millions of species, which have evolved into an intelligent life form. Other species live pretty much to eat and sleep -- survival. If our evolution were only a result of natural selection, shouldn’t other species, or even just one, have evolved into intelligent beings after millions of years? But the fact is that no other species have been able to develop science, literature, art, music and intelligent thought process as humans have. Isn’t this evidence that God exists?

No. Go back and read up on what evolutionary theory actually is first, because you clearly don't understand that Evolution is not a ladder. Also, cognitive faculties and creativity are not regarded as evidence of god(s) existing in reality.

AngelThMan Wrote:Yes it is, and for several reasons. For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible, which is that God created man in his image, and that animals are inferior.

Not so fast. Where does the creationist's beloved story of Adam and Eve fit into God's plan if you regard evolution as one of the best explanations on the diversity of living organisms on this planet? You do realize that you can't have both as valid working theories when they're incompatible?

(March 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Maybe the thought expended on religion is what developed thinking enough to create scientific study.

Perhaps.


Then again, perhaps thinking that religion was horseshit was what did the trick?

(March 10, 2010 at 6:14 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: First and foremost, I would like to define the word evidence.

Welsh cake Wrote:Correction, you don't get to have your own definition of the word 'evidence'...

I don't. I provided the dictionary definition of the word, and what I've provided as evidence fits that definition.

Wikipedia Wrote:Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

This doesn't contradict anything I've provided.

AngelThMan Wrote:I will always speak to you in a civil manner. Atheists, who pride themselves as being intellectually superior to believers, should be able to provide intelligent arguments without profanity and name-calling. Light bantering and snide comments are okay; sometimes that’s part of the fun. But any disrespectful responses will be immediately ignored, regardless of how intelligent your point is.

Atheists love to use the word ‘refuted’ a lot. Just because you say my argument has been refuted doesn’t mean it has been. I warn you that I am a tough cookie, and I’ll likely have an answer for just about anything you post. So if you’re easily frustrated, perhaps you should not participate in this discussion.

Welsh cake Wrote:A word of advice: making these assertions you are clearly "civil mannered" and all atheists are douchebags is pointless, arrogant and utterly irrelevant to your argument.

I never said all atheists are douchebags. That's your invention. But many times I've been answered with profanity and name-calling, and it is my right to choose who I want to or don't want to communicate with.

Welsh cake Wrote:If atheists expose the weaknesses in your reasoning, then be intellectually honest and acknowledge those point(s) made! If people are continually refuting your premises for a god then it's wise to pay attention to them and try to understand why your argument is being called out as "invalid" first.

You're being naive if you think that someone who has strong convictions about their beliefs is going to succumb so easily. I've never expected that of atheists. I haven't heard anything that refutes any of my arguments here. All I've gotten is denial that our species is superior. I've mentioned that our intelligence is unique, and people bring up that dolphins have sex for pleasure, and that ants build lairs underground. It might be your opinion that these points render my arguments invalid, but it isn't mine. You're falling into the trap of thinking that just because you believe something, someone else has to believe it, too, which is what atheists constantly accuse believers of doing. Just because you agree with an atheist's point of view doesn't mean that the argument they provide is strong. I am open to ideas, but only if people stop denying that our intelligence is special and unique, and then 'convincingly' explain how we are the only species that evolved this way.

Welsh cake Wrote:Don't ignore intelligent and constructive responses people here give you, no matter how 'disrespectful' you may find them to be!

Wrong! Any disrespectful replies will not be considered. I have a choice, and that's what I choose.

Welsh cake Wrote:Go back and read up on what evolutionary theory actually is first, because you clearly don't understand that Evolution is not a ladder.

I understand evolution. Trust me. I never said evolution is a ladder. What I alluded to is that other species would have benefit from our brand of intelligence, and yet none developed it.

Welsh cake Wrote:Also, cognitive faculties and creativity are not regarded as evidence of god(s) existing in reality.

I claim that God meant for only humans to bear this kind of intelligence.

AngelThMan Wrote:Yes it is, and for several reasons. For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible, which is that God created man in his image, and that animals are inferior.

Welsh cake Wrote:Not so fast. Where does the creationist's beloved story of Adam and Eve fit into God's plan if you regard evolution as one of the best explanations on the diversity of living organisms on this planet? You do realize that you can't have both as valid working theories when they're incompatible?

Have you ever heard of Theistic Evolution? Read up on it.

AngelThMan Wrote:You're being naive if you think that someone who has strong convictions about their beliefs is going to succumb so easily. I've never expected that of atheists. I haven't heard anything that refutes any of my arguments here. All I've gotten is denial that our species is superior. I've mentioned that our intelligence is unique, and people bring up that dolphins have sex for pleasure, and that ants build lairs underground. It might be your opinion that these points render my arguments invalid, but it isn't mine. You're falling into the trap of thinking that just because you believe something, someone else has to believe it, too, which is what atheists constantly accuse believers of doing. Just because you agree with an atheist's point of view doesn't mean that the argument they provide is strong. I am open to ideas, but only if people stop denying that our intelligence is special and unique, and then 'convincingly' explain how we are the only species that evolved this way.

I see no reason to believe our intelligence more 'special' than a lion's teeth are 'special'. If you can provide sound reasons why, then there is the possibility I might believe you. However... our intelligence is demonstrably not unique. It is a fact that a fair number of other 'advanced' mammals ( ), a few cephalopods (notably octopus), a fair number of avians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot) ), and more that I didn't now list experience what we call "intelligence" to a varying degree.

We are more adept with our intelligence than other animals on Earth... in the way a lion is more adept with its jaws than we are with ours. But that doesn't make us unique nor special.

(March 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm)Saerules Wrote: We are more adept with our intelligence than other animals on Earth...

That's enough to concede the point

(March 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Wikipedia Wrote:Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

This doesn't contradict anything I've provided.

Except that you have not met my standards of evidence nor have you fulfilled your burden of proof. As you already know God is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

AngelThMan Wrote:

Welsh cake Wrote:A word of advice: making these assertions you are clearly "civil mannered" and all atheists are douchebags is pointless, arrogant and utterly irrelevant to your argument.

I never said all atheists are douchebags. That's your invention. But many times I've been answered with profanity and name-calling, and it is my right to choose who I want to or don't want to communicate with.

You practically insinuated it rant-style, but again, its irrelevant to the topic at hand, what I'm actually frowning upon is how you respond to critical thinking by trying to control what responses will be acknowledged and what will be dismissed regardless of relevancy to the thread, which is audacious to the extreme.

AngelThMan Wrote:You're being naive if you think that someone who has strong convictions about their beliefs is going to succumb so easily.

Many people and myself included honestly couldn't care less what beliefs you profess. At the end of the day it's negligible and inconsequential. You're making claims in public and now the burden of proof is upon you, not anyone else.

AngelThMan Wrote:Wrong! Any disrespectful replies will not be considered. I have a choice, and that's what I choose.

Inadvertently, if you wilfully ignore those who criticise your presuppositions because you made unjustifiable claims and invalid causal connections then you aren't debating with us anyway, you're preaching. We also have a choice to respectfully ignore you, what do you say to that? As an atheist, as a free-thinker I welcome everyone to the table. I welcome new ideas and new methods of thinking and problem solving; but a word of caution - say something credulous and you'll be picked up on it. If you seriously can't handle that, if you cannot accept your beliefs subjected to scrutiny, then you're probably not ready for a serious debate just yet friend.

AngelThMan Wrote:I understand evolution. Trust me. I never said evolution is a ladder. What I alluded to is that other species would have benefit from our brand of intelligence, and yet none developed it.

So far you've demonstrated to me you haven't understood it at all, otherwise you'd cease making these absurd assertions about intelligence as a qualifier and/or milestone in evolution. Our apparent intelligence is not a sign we're somehow "superior" or "higher" to other life-forms.

AngelThMan Wrote:Have you ever heard of Theistic Evolution? Read up on it.

Don't you think as a former-Christian I already have? This does nothing for your argument since Theistic Evolution is not scientific fact as it focuses on the belief in a supernatural creator. You have to logically prove god actually exists first before Theistic Evolution can ever be regarded by scientific consensus as fact.

But if yours is simply an argument from intelligence in relation to a supernatural creator then, why didn't your god concept make everything living on Earth have the same level of sentience to start with? Why have animals if humans were only capable of loving him?

(March 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm)Saerules Wrote: We are more adept with our intelligence than other animals on Earth...

That's enough to concede the point

Not at all. If his point is that we are more capable of being intelligent... then none of us would be disagreeing at all. But he specifically noted our intelligence as special and unique, and I disagree with both of those propositions.

(March 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Saerules Wrote:

(March 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm)Saerules Wrote: We are more adept with our intelligence than other animals on Earth...

That's enough to concede the point

Not at all. If his point is that we are more capable of being intelligent... then none of us would be disagreeing at all. But he specifically noted our intelligence as special and unique, and I disagree with both of those propositions.

I just skimmed through his posts and didn't find such a claim. I did see him say that what you've essentially said. I think you're trying to sidetrack this to dodge the point. Why so hung up on 'special' or 'unique'? You're special. You're unique. Can you accept that?

You're presuming dominance because of your specialness. Your finger is special, your toenail is special, you'r brain tissue is special... none of them are special in isolation. In a way they are unique, and go to make up a whole.

(March 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm)Saerules Wrote: We are more adept with our intelligence than other animals on Earth...

That's enough to concede the point

Not at all. He's trying to say that "intelligence" by itself is a superior evolutionary mechanism than flying or big nasty teeth and claws. It is simply a self-centered way of looking at things because he thinks mankind is intelligent (and, I concede, a minority of the total population probably is.) But "evolution" does not give a rats ass for his definition. Bears have evolved the way they have because big teeth and claws work for them in their environment. Evolutionary success is merely defined as surviving long enough to pass on your genes to the next generation.

There is no hierarchy of evolutionary traits. What works survives and what doesn't dies out. There is no silly-ass god directing everything.

So you'd disagree then Min that the human species is dominant?