☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[houseofcantor]

Well, there's me, convinced that the OP doesn't know the meaning of any of the words he just posted. I remember seeing this video one time where there was this happy, trippy music with stars and galaxies floating by when all of a sudden this voice screams "this is not evolution!" I lol'd. In fact, I just lol'd again.

Ok. Lets see what you know about evolution.

What do you mean by evolution?
What do you mean by theory?
What is meant by a fact in science?

I'm not the one talking out the side of my neck. 

(Evolution is the tao between the environment which provides a niche and the organism that mutates to fill it (my own extra special fluffy definition), gradual change over time, modern synthesis of punctuated equilibrium and natural selection, a song of time and death - sing it with me  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOLAGYmUQV0 - theory, last step in the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, repetition, and theory - fact, that which is shown to be true through theory; often stated to such a degree of certainty that to be considered otherwise would be absurd) off the top of the noggin - normally I'd just google shit for maximum coherence... as I go google the song to fill in the blank

[Whateverist]

I see several problems.

First of all, the use of pointing out to theists that " it doesn't mean god did it", is in response to their attempts at disproving evolution. But what it seems like you may not be fully understanding is, that if evolution were to be proven wrong, our existence could be due to some other natural process.

You are the one proposing a false dichotomy. "It's either evolution or a god". But it could be, either evolution, or some other natural process yet discovered.

"Magic" does not become the second best choice, if one natural process is eliminated.

Next up on the list of problems with your OP is this phrase: 'accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose'. This is a strawman. Please take note of the word "selection" in the phrase "natural selection". Evolutionary traits are SELECTED by environmental pressure, not by accident. Just like dog breed traits are not accidental.

If we are products of our environment why are we not all covered in fur still?

Easy.  Fashion has evolved too.

[houseofcantor]

Ah, you stuck another one in there; you cheese doodle. 

Geometry. That's how life originated. 

[Whateverist]

Just gonna bump this in case failing to answer my points was an oversight.

[color=#333333]I appreciate your point, but I am having trouble accepting that common argument from atheists, when getting deep into the cosmological argument "It doesn't mean God did it, so I lack belief in God".

I object to your phrasing.  "It doesn't mean God did it" --so--> "I lack a belief in God".  Are you being deliberately obtuse about this?  The lack of any belief in God is my initial state.  Your cosmological mumbo jumbo, even if it succeeded, would have nothing to do with my disbelief.  The disbelief is where I start and only a successful demonstration of a God's existence -preceded by an adequate definition- will change that.

This is False dilemma, The problem I see.

Indeed it is, why do you bother manufacturing it?

[size=large]If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose,

It has been adequately demonstrated that evolution is precisely how we've come to be as we are to minds much better than your own.  The only 'accidentalness', 'mindlessness', 'dumbness', 'meaninglessness' and 'purposelessness' involved is in the morass of your own twisted mind.  Take those gratuitous adjectives away and you'd have an unambiguously true statement.  With them you have the same incoherence that infects your 'definition' of God.

Just gonna bump this in case answering my points was an oversight.

[The Joker]

Easy there with the insults I'm not offended and besides why get angry, doesn't this prove that you are being passionate to disapprove God's existence?

Again you proved no point, other than say it's flawed. Please demonstrate how?

*****

****

****

That's not anger. Those are just words. Get over it and stop being so salty.

Also, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. This has been explained to you. You are also providing a false dichotomy. It is not "either evolution or god." There could be other possibilities. Both could be wrong or both could be true. Backing up or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

The burden of proof for evolution is also not on atheists. It's only on the person specifically trying to make a claim for evolution.

Those are just words, huh? Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong? If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

[Jesster]

Shit

Fuck

Cunt

That's not anger. Those are just words. Get over it and stop being so salty.

Also, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. This has been explained to you. You are also providing a false dichotomy. It is not "either evolution or god." There could be other possibilities. Both could be wrong or both could be true. Backing up or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

The burden of proof for evolution is also not on atheists. It's only on the person specifically trying to make a claim for evolution.

Those are just words, huh? Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong? If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

Yes, they are just words. You seem a bit offended, despite your denial of that fact. Otherwise you wouldn't keep censoring me. Fuck.

Now this is about morality? Nazi Germany? Way to stay on topic. At least you aren't just repeating stuff, but this isn't getting you to a point any quicker either.

I haven't made any claims about morality, though. Are you claiming that morality comes from your god? Ya got any proof for that?

[The Joker]

Just gonna bump this in case failing to answer my points was an oversight.

I object to your phrasing.  "It doesn't mean God did it" --so--> "I lack a belief in God".  Are you being deliberately obtuse about this?  The lack of any belief in God is my initial state.  Your cosmological mumbo jumbo, even if it succeeded, would have nothing to do with my disbelief.  The disbelief is where I start and only a successful demonstration of a God's existence -preceded by an adequate definition- will change that.



Indeed it is, why do you bother manufacturing it?



It has been adequately demonstrated that evolution is precisely how we've come to be as we are to minds much better than your own.  The only 'accidentalness', 'mindlessness', 'dumbness', 'meaninglessness' and 'purposelessness' involved is in the morass of your own twisted mind.  Take those gratuitous adjectives away and you'd have an unambiguously true statement.  With them you have the same incoherence that infects your 'definition' of God.

Just gonna bump this in case answering my points was an oversight.

I am sorry but there really isn't anything I can do about your ignorance.

[Opoponax]

*****

****

****

That's not anger. Those are just words. Get over it and stop being so salty.

Also, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. This has been explained to you. You are also providing a false dichotomy. It is not "either evolution or god." There could be other possibilities. Both could be wrong or both could be true. Backing up or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

The burden of proof for evolution is also not on atheists. It's only on the person specifically trying to make a claim for evolution.

Those are just words, huh? Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong? If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

1. There is no objective morality. Life isn't that simple and neither are people. What may be "moral" in one situation, society, culture, job, family, marriage, etc. may immoral in another. Please engage your own imagination to understand how this applies to reality. 

2. The way an argument first works is that the person making the claim has the duty to provide the evidence for it. "Evolutionists," so to speak, have been doing this nearly a century and a half now. If you want to do the work to understand it, the information is readily available to you. That is, science has done the work of providing evidence for its claims. 

3. Returning to your question about the right to question certain behaviors as moral or immoral, all that's required is for one to value human life. If one values human life, then one understands why the Nazis were so awful. In the same vein, if one values human life, one can see why Yahweh is so awful for wiping out every man, woman, and child on the planet with the exception of Noah and his immediate family. And it isn't a long trip from there to see that Yaweh doesn't much value human life (I'll eschew the little detail about the masses in Hell burning forever for the sake of brevity), and is in fact scornful of it. Therefore, if one values human life the God of the Bible is probably the very worst example to follow, given that he's prone to wiping out entire planets full of humans. 

I don't need the threat of permanent torture to keep me from doing cruel and unlawful things to other people. Do you?

[The Joker]

Those are just words, huh? Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong? If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

1. There is no objective morality. Life isn't that simple and neither are people. What may be "moral" in one situation, society, culture, job, family, marriage, etc. may immoral in another. Please engage your own imagination to understand how this applies to reality. 

2. The way an argument first works is that the person making the claim has the duty to provide the evidence for it. "Evolutionists," so to speak, have been doing this nearly a century and a half now. If you want to do the work to understand it, the information is readily available to you. That is, science has done the work of providing evidence for its claims. 

3. Returning to your question about the right to question certain behaviors as moral or immoral, all that's required is for one to value human life. If one values human life, then one understands why the Nazis were so awful. In the same vein, if one values human life, one can see why Yahweh is so awful for wiping out every man, woman, and child on the planet with the exception of Noah and his immediate family. And it isn't a long trip from there to see that Yaweh doesn't much value human life (I'll eschew the little detail about the masses in Hell burning forever for the sake of brevity), and is in fact scornful of it. Therefore, if one values human life the God of the Bible is probably the very worst example to follow, given that he's prone to wiping out entire planets full of humans. 

I don't need the threat of permanent torture to keep me from doing cruel and unlawful things to other people. Do you?

You said, "all that's required is for one to value human life".  

If you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because that is what people want, then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want is what makes something morally right? If reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense since by defending itself it would increase overall harm to both nations?If you say that the standard of morality you use is neither good or bad but just something that people agree to, then how can it be a standard of morality since morality deals with what is good and bad?

[Whateverist]

Just gonna bump this in case failing to answer my points was an oversight.




Just gonna bump this in case answering my points was an oversight.

I am sorry but there really isn't anything I can do about your ignorance.

Okey dokey then.  Since I'm not looking to fill in my ignorance with just any old nonsense you're right, you've got nothing for me.  But it was nice hearing you say it.