The Problem with Christians

[Pat Mustard]

I wonder if there is a single atheist (proper) scientist out there who rejects evolution? I'd be interested to know that.

It seems like a redundant question, I know.

To avoid the No True Scientist, clearly a proper scientist is one who follows the scientific method and is suitably qualified in their area of expertise. If they produce bullshit that isn't properly peer reviewed, then they are not a proper scientist.

I actually googled the book and found a picture of the author:



Fine 'tache that.

[LadyForCamus]

I actually googled the book and found a picture of the author:



Fine 'tache that.

Hahaha! oh man, awkward family photos!

[Pat Mustard]

Wernher von Braun was a "creationist", does that mean hes not a real scientist?

Not to get too far off topic here

Scoob, even on threads you've created yourself you cannot keep on topic. Your constant paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense posting will never amount to being on topic.

[Pat Mustard]

The problem roadrunner, is that while you and Wallace know sweet Fanny Adams about evolution, most of us here on the forum are well versed in christianity and know it all too well. We refute the tenets of christianity based on our knowledge and can back it up with relevant citations. You fail to refute evolution because of your lack of knowledge and relevant citations.

So then when straw men and ddistortions are argued against, what should I make of that?  

And I think you may be making assumptions about my knowledge of evolution which may not hold up.

From your postings you are a creatard. Ipso facto you either know nothing about evolution or biology in general, or you willfully choose to disregard your knowledge, i.e. you are either thick as shit or you're an inverterate liar. I've spent enough time here and elsewhere arguing about both sets that I'm not going to start with you.

[RoadRunner79]

So then when straw men and ddistortions are argued against, what should I make of that?  

And I think you may be making assumptions about my knowledge of evolution which may not hold up.

From your postings you are a creatard. Ipso facto you either know nothing about evolution or biology in general, or you willfully choose to disregard your knowledge, i.e. you are either thick as shit or you're an inverterate liar. I've spent enough time here and elsewhere arguing about both sets that I'm not going to start with you.

Well, I'm happy to discuss/defend  my position and I'm open to changing my mind, if your mood changes.  Often I have found that a good number of people defend evolution, but don't know why?  Usually I just get referred to the talk origins website at best.  However; from your posts, I think that I would likely just get mostly insults, so then again maybe not.

[AJW333]

Another false dichotomy.

It could have happened by magic time pixies.

It could have appeared out of nowhere.

It could have jumped in from a parallel dimension.

It could be projected from a glitch in the self-assembling computer code which governs reality.

Atheists don't have to be sceptics. And atheists don't necessarily believe there is no God, either. They just lack belief that there is, by default.

There is no "atheist worldview". Weak atheists are simply undecided about what is the case.

If you accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is finite (13.5 Billion years old) then at some point there was no life at all. Since we now have life, and you take the position that God is not responsible for it, then abiogenesis is the only other option available to you. The mechanism of how that occurred is debatable but I don't see how it could be avoided as the default position in a God-less scenario.

[Silver]

Here's the thing.

There was a universe.

From this point, things differ.

Theists: god created life.
Atheists: the universe created life.

[AJW333]

If there is no God then life must have begun via abiogenesis.

A lack of nuance, false dichotomies, and Dunning-Kruger...

You're either a Poe or really, really clueless.

Hint: "atheism" isn't necessarily an assertion that there is (are) no god(s).

Another hint: if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default.

I think that modern atheists have attempted to morph the meaning of atheism into something new. In the strictest sense, "atheism" means "without God."

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'. Oxford Dictionary.

[abaris]

Since we now have life, and you take the position that God is not responsible for it, then abiogenesis is the only other option available to you. The mechanism of how that occurred is debatable but I don't see how it could be avoided as the default position in a God-less scenario.

You still don't accept we don't know, as of yet. Not knowing makes you uncomfortable, as opposed to us. Which makes you a caveman, as I already said, filling every gap with god.

[rexbeccarox]

A lack of nuance, false dichotomies, and Dunning-Kruger...

You're either a Poe or really, really clueless.

Hint: "atheism" isn't necessarily an assertion that there is (are) no god(s).

Another hint: if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default.

I think that modern atheists have attempted to morph the meaning of atheism into something new. In the strictest sense, "atheism" means "without God."

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'. Oxford Dictionary.

Meanings morph, dude. Atheism, right now, means a lack of belief or disbelief in deities. "Without god" is fine by me, anyway, because due to my lack of belief, I am without one.

What does that have to do with my point, anyway? If you missed it: "if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default."