Atheism is unreasonable

[Whateverist]

What you said:

Here's a list of transitional fossils for you. Educate yourself: these show the gradual progress of evolution from one species to another, as evolution actually describes. Please learn what you're talking about before speaking on this subject again, and leave your ludicrous creationist fantasies about what evolution is out of the conversation.

What HisRoyalPainInTheArse will have heard:

Here are some atheist attempts to smear everything holy. Prepare to defend your beliefs against them.

[Esquilax]

I fully expect to be told that what I posed is just "bio-babble." It's as though His_Majestic_Incompetence is under the illusion that simply asserting he doesn't understand a thing means that the thing is incomprehensible, rather than that he's ill-educated or unwilling to take it on its own terms.

Dismissal is not rebuttal, everyone.

[His_Majesty]

Here's a link to an extremely basic and nonprimary source, if you can be troubled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

All of that information...yet when it comes to actually demonstrating it..no one can do it?

That's the thing. There are as many version of God as people care to make up. Some are incoherent. Some are counterfactual. Some are coherent. The problem with the coherent ones, is they all seem to be immune to falsification. It takes more than coherency to make a claim true. A hypothesis has to be at LEAST coherent to start with, and it must ALSO be falsifiable. You need a coherent concept that's falsifiable. That is, there has to be, at least in theory, evidence that could prove it isn't true. Not to mention, with multiple coherent God but mutually exclusive God concepts, they can't ALL be true...but they CAN all be false.

Well, I am arguing for the Christian God. Explain to me how this God cant exist....now you can either do that or you can just continue with more rhetoric. Your choice.

Now I'm leaning to you really didn't understand it, because whether you grant it is beside the point.

Well my original "point" was the fact that you were WRONG, as I do understand it...the whole "I don't grant it" thing...I just threw that in as an add-on

Well, I can work with that. When you can show an invisible spirit poofed the universe and life into existence by talking and breathing, I'll believe it.

I don't have video evidence no...but I have a long list of arguments that I use to demonstrate why Intelligent Design is more plausible than any other theory used to explain the question of "origins".

Then, you'll still need to show it punished all of humanity for eating a magic fruit because they were tricked by a talking snake but it forgave us because it sacrificed itself to itself, but the forgiveness only applies to the people who swallow that story whole and everyone else is tortured forever, so you better believe it!

I will, once someone can show how inanimate matter, for whatever reason, came to life and begin thinking, eating, talking, and laughing..and how a mindless and blind process gave me eyes to see, ears to hear, a digestive system to break down food and give me energy, a circulatory system for blood traffic, a immune system to fight diseases which invade my body, a reproductive system for me to produce offspring in my likeness, and a nervous system that helps coordinate my actions and movements.

I'd like someone to explain to me how a mindless process can make all of this good stuff happen.

Wow, your story is even more unbelievable than mine, so mine must be true.

I don't see how. We see intelligent minds create things ever day...we never seen life coming from nonliving material.

I don't think they're rational, either. It's kind of you to assume atheists must be rational, but it isn't true. Many atheists don't even aspire to it, but I don't think theists can really throw stones in that regard.

Well, fortunately for my side of things, we actually have reasons to believe our position to be true. Infinity cannot be traversed, therefore a timeless cause is needed....consciousness cannot come from unconsciousness based on the mind/body problem, therefore the cause of human consciousness had to itself be consciousness...life cannot come from nonliving material, therefore the origin of life had to be actually LIVING...intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, therefore the intelligence that we have comes from something that was ITSELF...intelligent. And another one that I like, one that no one uses..is the argument from language...which I will make in another thread.

When it comes to which position is more reasonable, its not even close.

They don't seem to fit the definition YOU gave.

Right, because the concept I gave actually has explanatory value.

And almost all of my experience with theists is with Christians and Muslims. Yet I don't have a problem grasping that not all theists are Christians and Muslims. Your experience with naturalists should have equipped you with foreknowledge that Western atheists who fit your bill are also fussy about accurate definitions.

As I said before, on judgement day, there won't be any distinction between naturalists, atheists, agnostic, and any other label for unbelievers. You all are the same to God.

Why you keep expecting me to expand on details of the beliefs of people I don't agree with is mysterious to me. Do you get a lot of people expecting you to explain Shintoism because you're a theist?

Either God did it, or nature did it. No semantics necessary.

And the vast majority of theists I've come across in my years have never expressed to me that they don't believe Jesus is either the son of God or a prophet of God. But I know there are at least 2 billion theists who don't believe that, even though they're not common where I live.

Yeah, but they aren't foolish enough to believe that "naturedidit" either. We can debate about "which" God all day long, but we share the common belief that some kind of God did it.

I can agree with that. They are unconfirmed hypotheses. Anyone who says otherwise is overreaching.

hock: We agree????

And Jesus showing up would be a great validation of your faith. Until then, your evidential footing is insecure.

I agree with the first part. Not the second part.

You're welcome to think so. That would make it a vast conspiracy, and if that's easier for you to believe than that they're on to something, I'd rather you stay a Christian. We have enough conspiracy nuts as it is.

Dogs produce dogs..

---

The evidence you utterly deny.

With good reason

[abaris]

Dogs produce dogs..

Wow, clever.

Yet they're related to wolves, which I'm sure, you will deny next. Without evidence of course.

The evidence you utterly deny.

With good reason

I take that last smiley as a lunatic's grin - with equally good reason.

[Esquilax]

Dogs produce dogs..

Evolution does not say otherwise. So, are you lying, or ignorant?

[His_Majesty]

I'm not a physicist - But I am an academic researcher to PhD level. So yeah, google is my friend. But you won't see me acting silly saying that a 5 minute google search has given me all the information I need to debunk something that minds far superior and far more dedicated than me have devloped over (often) generations.

I may not have specialized knowledge on some of these subjects, but I am far from a novice, my friend

Again, arrogance, blind arrogance at that, gets you nothing.

It isn't blind..it is 20/20 arrogance

Maybe, maybe not. But hey, let's recognise the fact that it's you who are dismissing the evidence that is given to you as a rebuttal or indeed the evidence of theories that you are rejecting and giving nothing back but unsupported assertions and claims.

Please enlighten me on what evidence I've dismissed?

You're talking about subjects you don't understand as though you were an expert

Please enlighten me on what subjects I've been shown to not understand.

, and it's painfully obvious that you don't in fact really get anything aside what your apologist websites are quoting to you (and even then it's hit and miss, it seems).

It sounds like you are on the verge of committing the genetic fallacy. Even if I do get my arguments from apologists websites, so what? It doesn't matter where I got them from, what matters is the truth value. So instead of concerning yourself with where I got it from, how about trying to refute the arguments for a change? Second, for the most part, no apologist alive today has "patented" arguments...every argument that apologists use have been revolutionized from past defenders of theism. So if I get my arguments from today's apologists, that is because they got the same argument from yesterdays apologists. It is the gift that keeps on giving. Third, not only do I present the arguments, but I DEFEND the arguments. I actually know how to defend anything that I present, which I think is evident on here.

I've had years and years (in my early apologetic journey) of being stumped by wise atheists..and every time I got knocked on my ass, I learned from it...gotten smarter, wiser, and clever...and became my own "man" when it comes to defending the faith.

Dismissal of evidenced claims/theories (etc) requires evidence that falsifies that claim. I can see the odd quotation from WLC and the odd use of Kalam here and there. And that's it. Great job. We're all convinced.

What odd quotation from WLC? Where?

Are you ill? Your only rebuttal to the factual statement that the bible is a claim is 'nuh uh'? Wow. Ok...

There was a bigger point that I was making, and I can understand why you chose to ignore it.

Too many to name. How about the Exodus that never happened (no evidence)

Above you accused me of making "unsupported assertions and claims", and here you are down here making the assertion that the Exodus never happened. That is an unsupported claim, sir.

, or the Mt Sinai that was never visited (no evidence).

Another unsupported claim.

Or the characters in the bible that never lived to be over 800 years old (no evidence) and so on and so on.

Yet, another one.

Exactly my point. I don't expect you to understand or realise just how badly your arguments have been deconstructed and dismantled on this thread, but I suspect a lot of the members and indeed lurkers have had a good time reading through this train wreck.

Yeah, lets have them continue to lurk..they might learn something

[Whateverist]

Two questions, YourRoyalPainInTheArse: Just how young are you anyway? And, what did you do for fun before discovering AF.org, pull the legs off of spiders?

[abaris]

Two questions, YourRoyalPainInTheArse: Just how young are you anyway? And, what did you do for fun before discovering AF.org, pull the legs off of spiders?

Probably using this for religious reasons.

[His_Majesty]

What other method can we falsify God or is this the only way to falsify God? If I define an internally consistent God, does that make him exist?

If the God that you define is internally consistent, that would make "his" existence POSSIBLE. But whether or not this entity actually exists, that would depend on something else.

For something to exist, internal consistency is necessary but it is not sufficient. If you claim there is no way to falsify an interally consistent definition of God, then your God claim is similiar to the orbiting-tea-pot claim.

Well, we are talking about the distinction between necessary existence, and contingent existence...the "god" could be internally consistent, but its existence could be actually false.

---

well, the fact that all life on earth, and virii. -- which consist of nothing but an RNA strand -- use the same five amino bases is a good sign that they have a common origin; and consider how primitive a virus is, it seems that abiogenetic selection is indicated. Furthermore, we've observed simple RNA evolve into comle, strands, meaning that chemical evolution has been observed. The obvious interpretation is that RNA evolved from precursor molecules ... Perhaps we'll see this in the lab one day.

As far as the "biobabble", it's pretty easy to grasp. You ought to check it out some time.

Finally, it'll be interesting to see the changes in your viewpoint once you apply this apparent thirst for evidence to your own premises.

Cart before the horse fallacy. Where did the amino acids come from?

---

Maj, do you think there could exist anything, any kind of evidence, which might possibly change your views on this subject?

On what subject? We are talking about lots of subjects mannnn

[coldwx]

So then you do deny that the numerous scientist's examining Tut's body in the 19th century lived outside Egyptian antiquity? Is that the argument you are sticking with?

Very unfortunate...

I agree, you're arguments are very unfortunate. If all we had was some writings from an Egyptian source that mentioned Tut and the body had been examined by only ancient Egyptian sources, you could claim no external corroborating evidence exists. However, we have external(meaning outside Egyptian antiquity) that confirms his existence. If we found the tomb of Jesus, and there were writings on the wall stating he was buried there and clothes with DNA that somehow could be traced to the lineage of Mary would you claim there was no external corroborating evidence for the existence of the man Jesus? Of course you would and it demonstrates how stupid this argument you are clinging to is. You made a poor analogy and most honest persons would simply admit it and move on. The fact that you continue to persist ensures that nobody takes you seriously with any other arguments you posit. You have done this several times throughout this thread. People MIGHT take things you say more seriously if you would admit obvious mistakes.

---

I will be anxiously awaiting your evolution thread. Please oh please start one.......