RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
March 29, 2014 at 12:41 am
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2014 at 12:42 am by *Deidre*.)
(March 29, 2014 at 12:18 am)snowtracks Wrote: here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.
(March 28, 2014 at 4:05 am)Esquilax Wrote: "Things could have been different, therefore god."hey shithead, we're not backing off because you learned a new 4 letter word.
So what? You're having to presuppose that god exists just to present this as a problem for atheists! Fuck!
I respectfully disagree that atheists here "use" the Christianity section to merely pontificate. The problem is and always will be that you don't need any evidence to support your religious beliefs. That's why the dialogue breaks down, to be honest. What's funny is Christians will tout the Bible, a book of poorly written metaphors (I'm being kind) but fight with non believers about the evidence to "support" science.
It is hard to keep an empathetic dialogue going when one side uses faith and religion to argue against scientific reasoning.