Quote: Why don't you tell me what the label of "atheist" means?
It's from the Greek meaning without gods.
Period.
Anything else you choose to ascribe to it reflects your own biases.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 14, 2024, 4:54 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Darwin Proven Wrong?
|
 It's from the Greek meaning without gods. Period. Anything else you choose to ascribe to it reflects your own biases. 
How would a "design of reality" require an outside intelligence which is itself undesigned? If an intelligence capable of producing a "design of reality" requires no designer, why does matter operating by natural laws? If your "'god' intelligence" is designed, you've proposed a reductio ad absurdum.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
 (September 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Hmmm... Why do people put labels on themselves and then claim that there's no common perspective amongst those who have that label? Why don't you tell me what the label of "atheist" means? My notiion is that you believe there is no evidence that suggests that there is a possibility of an intelligence to design of reality or possibility of intelligent influence in reality. If that is not true, please explain how I'm mistaken. Not our fault you have no idea what atheist means. Though, judging by how you entered the forum telling us what we believed, I can't say I'm surprised. Atheist literally means one thing, and that is "I lack a belief in god or gods". That's it.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson  (September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: How would a "design of reality" require an outside intelligence which is itself undesigned? If an intelligence capable of producing a "design of reality" requires no designer, why does matter operating by natural laws? If your "'god' intelligence" is designed, you've proposed a reductio ad absurdum. I guess I don't have any context in which I have ever observed "laws" or "rules" to exist without them being written, created, or imposed by some being with some intelligence. (September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: How would a "design of reality" require an outside intelligence which is itself undesigned? If an intelligence capable of producing a "design of reality" requires no designer, why does matter operating by natural laws? If your "'god' intelligence" is designed, you've proposed a reductio ad absurdum. Ding ding ding! Argument from ignorance crystallized, good job!
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson RE: Darwin Proven Wrong?
September 11, 2014 at 4:03 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2014 at 4:05 pm by Mudhammam.)
(September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I guess I don't have any context in which I have ever observed "laws" or "rules" to exist without them being written, created, or imposed by some being with some intelligence. On the contrary, you have no context to offer in which you have observed any natural laws being written, created, or imposed by an intelligence.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Poe. Poe. Poe.
 (September 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Umm... yeah, I know it's getting confusing. I think "darks" were added to this conversation because of epigenetic expression being influenced by environmental factors and "the darks" (as claimed) making up a majority (96%) of our reality. The question I was putting out there was if others think this mysterious stuff (we don't know anything about) could possibly influence how species have evolved? If your answer is no, why not? If the answer is yes, why?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
RE: Darwin Proven Wrong?
September 11, 2014 at 4:16 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm by Mudhammam.)
I'm pretty sure sswhateverlove is on reasonablefaith.org right now shuffling as fast as he can to find something that will re-stabilize his unreasonable faith.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
(September 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Hmmm... Why do people put labels on themselves and then claim that there's no common perspective amongst those who have that label? The common perspective is that none of us believe in any supernatural deities. Why are you trying to make it more complicated than that? What do theists all have in common besides believing in some sort of supernatural deity? (September 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Why don't you tell me what the label of "atheist" means? You've BEEN told before what it means. Why can't you absorb that information? (September 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: My notiion is that you believe there is no evidence that suggests that there is a possibility of an intelligence to design of reality or possibility of intelligent influence in reality. If that is not true, please explain how I'm mistaken. We don't know of any such evidence. That's not the same thing as believing there isn't any. Some atheists may think that, but thinking there's no evidence of intelligent design isn't the common denominator of atheism. There's a whole group of atheists who believe in intelligent design (Raellians). They're nutjobs, but they're atheist nutjobs.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)
