Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

What!!!! I said nothing in my post about atheist being a worldview. And I was agreeing with you on every point I mentioned.

Are you just conditioned to make an argument when a Christian posts something and fail to read what they write?????

Read...man...read what is written!!!

---

These questions:

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

If you don't want to go there...fine. Are you concerned that your answers may not logically lead to the conclusions you want?

While I agree that you cannot discuss/debate God into existence (He exists or he doesn't regardless of our discussion/debate), it will only be by discussion/debate that we can discuss the reasons why we take one position or the other and it is only by discussion/debate that the reasons can be critiqued.

I DID READ.

You, "I think it is wrong because THE BIBLE tells us to treat others like we want to be treated".

Those were your words not mine.

I am arguing "so what". We don't need your book to figure that out. 

You, "While I agree that you cannot disscuss/debate God into existence"

Me, STOP RIGHT THERE.............. I also agree with that. Your problem is that you cannot see or refuse to see that we are not treating your god claim any differently than any other god claim of different religions. 

Either you have evidence or you do not. But do not think we are singling you out or just your particular religion out. If anyone of any religion had 100% absolute proof, they could get a patent and win a Nobel Prize in "god theory". 

I did read, you are the one refusing to read. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

Maybe we are right and you are wrong. Maybe you need to consider that religions ALL RELIGIONS are merely human inventions. Maybe you need to consider that those things were concocted at a time when humans didn't know any better. Maybe you need to consider your pet belief is merely a reflection of your own desires. 

If someone quoting the Koran wont convince you that Allah is the one true god, then please tell us why we should give your special pleading any special treatment?

1. Argument from tradition is not valid, every religion has a history of making claims.
2. Other people quote other holy writings.
3. Everyone of every religion think they got it right.

Me, "SO WHAT".

You are totally mischaracterizing even your last post.  Let me refresh things:

You:

"Atheist" is not a worldview, please stop trying to peddle that lie.

I said nothing of the sort.  I even think I agreed with this at some point.  So...where were my words saying "atheist" is a worldview?

You:

Dawkins being right about evolution, does not mean I like or agree with everything he says or does. I have actually met him in person, and no, he is not someone I would want to have a beer with, in reality, he came across to me as a bit of a stuffed shirt. Harris is a great critic of most religions but has a Buddhism fetish I don't agree with. Hitchens also was a great critic of religion, but also was a bit of a warhawk, so even with him, NO, I don't agree with everything an atheist may claim.

Even GOP theist voters don't challenge or deny gravity, they accept gravity as a fact, but that doesn't mean I agree with their religious views or economic views. I hate to burst your bubble, but atheists don't, and should not give each other a pass either. 

Now again, you are relatively new here. I really would suggest you read a wider sample rate of threads, if you did that you would know we don't always agree on everything all the time.

"atheist" means "off" on claims of god/s. That is it, outside that we DO NOT agree on all things all the time.

This is the rest of your post. None of it answers or has anything to do with:

"You, "I think it is wrong because THE BIBLE tells us to treat others like we want to be treated".

Those were your words not mine.

I am arguing "so what". We don't need your book to figure that out. "

as you said it did.


I do really like the part where you say: "I hate to burst your bubble, but atheists don't, and should not give each other a pass either. "

I think you do give atheists a pass. If you you still think I am wrong, look at the first post in this thread, look at my first post in this thread, and either criticize Minimalist for posting some news article that provides no proof of anything or criticize me for not understanding the significance of the post. Up to this point, no one has even really commented on what was said in my original post.  So...so far the evidence in this thread seems to contradict this statement.


Lastly, I will repeat my latest questions once more hoping I will get an answer (at this point I am not very hopeful):

You still have not explained your basis for determining good/evil. You say it is "evolutionary empathy". What in the world is that? Do you mean just the chemical reactions going on in my body/brain?

Some other things to consider: In your worldview (I am talking about you personal worldview...and everyone has a worldview), where do the laws of logic come from? Are they just a product of chemical reactions in the brain?

I don't think I have avoided any question that you have asked of me. If so, please ask again and I will do my best at answering.

[popeyespappy]

To Popeyespappy

It's called chemistry.

Assuming you are talking about life arising from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms: Really? It's as simple as that? Then please explain the mechanism for all of us. Don't hold back. I do have a degree in Chemical Engineering and have worked with technology for the past 34 years. I know I would be able to understand where you are coming from. Just lay it out for us.

In the decade or so I've been hanging out on forums like this one not a single solitary Christian has come up with a valid explanation of why life can't happen without god.

So somehow it is the Christian's burden to prove that life can't happen without God? Nonsense. Since you would be the one asserting the positive that life can happen without God, the burden would be on you. Can you show that life can't happen with God? Would it be reasonable for me to charge you with the burden of proof there? I think not.

Great! As a chemical engineer with 34 years of experience, you should be uniquely suited to finally explain to all the ignorant atheists which physical laws are violated by naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution. Help us understand why it can't happen without god. Once you have done that you can share with us why you think it had to be your god and not Mbombo.

Since you have brought your qualifications in this field of study why don't you tell us a little more about them? Being a chemist doesn't automatically mean you know anything about biology. What do you know about recent research in areas such as RNA formation or Sulfur Iron world? What makes your opinion more trustworthy than that of someone like Bradley Bucar, author of RNA Oligomerization in Laboratory Analogues of Alkaline Hydrothermal Vent Systems? Because he obviously doesn't believe god was required, and he is actually working in the field of abiogenesis. As such, I'd probably hold his views on this subject in higher regard than those of someone that has spent most of their life developing pesticides or coatings. Unless of course, you can tell us why what he is doing is impossible without your god.

[rjh4 is back]

If you need a old book of mythology to keep you from harming others, it isn't religion you lack, it is empathy you lack. Now while the word "atheist" is also not a magic word that will prevent us from harming others, it also does not automatically mean we will harm others.

Funny how every nation in the world under every religious label all have hospitals and prisons. Just like you can accept there are Jews and Hindus and Buddhists whom also do not commit acts of violence, atheists are also perfectly capable of not harming others.

Maybe you need to consider that it isn't the book telling you to refrain from acts of violence, but your own evolutionary empathy. Our species was around long before any first writing or first nations. 

If you need that old book of mythology to prevent yourself from harming others, by all means keep it. But don't pretend we need it just because you like it. Most humans can figure out that harming others causes more problems than it is worth. You liking that book only means you like it. You are still not doing anything differently as far as apology that we have seen from people from every religion.

There are good people in every religion, but that does not make the religion a requirement for 7 billion diverse humans. It just means for most, they bought the religion of their parents. You found a story you like, well so what. 7 billion humans with thousands of sects under each major label. I say the same to you as I say to anyone of any label. Get in line, take a number.

Saying that you don't harm other people and that others think you shouldn't harm people, while being a good thing, does not explain what your basis is for determining right and wrong. Sure, other religions have their own basis and with them I would probably argue differently. But I am asking you what your basis is. If your answer is: "It is just what I think." or "It is the chemical reactions in my brain." then fine. Say it. If something else, I would be interested in hearing what.

---

To Popeyespappy


Assuming you are talking about life arising from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms: Really? It's as simple as that? Then please explain the mechanism for all of us. Don't hold back. I do have a degree in Chemical Engineering and have worked with technology for the past 34 years. I know I would be able to understand where you are coming from. Just lay it out for us.


So somehow it is the Christian's burden to prove that life can't happen without God? Nonsense. Since you would be the one asserting the positive that life can happen without God, the burden would be on you. Can you show that life can't happen with God? Would it be reasonable for me to charge you with the burden of proof there? I think not.

Great! As a chemical engineer with 34 years of experience, you should be uniquely suited to finally explain to all the ignorant atheists which physical laws are violated by naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution. Help us understand why it can't happen without god. Once you have done that you can share with us why you think it had to be your god and not Mbombo.

Since you have brought your qualifications in this field of study why don't you tell us a little more about them? Being a chemist doesn't automatically mean you know anything about biology. What do you know about recent research in areas such as RNA formation or Sulfur Iron world? What makes your opinion more trustworthy than that of someone like Bradley Bucar, author of RNA Oligomerization in Laboratory Analogues of Alkaline Hydrothermal Vent Systems? Because he obviously doesn't believe god was required, and he is actually working in the field of abiogenesis. As such, I'd probably hold his views on this subject in higher regard than those of someone that has spent most of their life developing pesticides or coatings. Unless of course, you can tell us why what he is doing is impossible without your god.

You were the one who said going from non-life to life was just a matter of organic chemistry. I challenged you on that and...you failed. You said nothing but merely tried to turn things around and improperly place the burden on me. In context, I brought up my experience not to say that my word has more validity than others. I clearly brought it up to let you know that I would be able to follow your explanation. Still waiting for it, though. Note, my experience does include about 10 years in the biotech area working with many PhDs (biochemistry, immunology, etc. many who were atheists) so I should be able to follow any biological mechanisms you might provide when you decide to put forth the simple organic chemistry mechanisms for going from non-life to life. And...if I don't understand, I should be able to ask pointed questions to the point that I do (which is how I was able to work with the above noted PhDs).

So...stop stalling and provide us those mechanisms.

[Brian37]

To Popeyespappy


Assuming you are talking about life arising from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms: Really? It's as simple as that? Then please explain the mechanism for all of us. Don't hold back. I do have a degree in Chemical Engineering and have worked with technology for the past 34 years. I know I would be able to understand where you are coming from. Just lay it out for us.


So somehow it is the Christian's burden to prove that life can't happen without God? Nonsense. Since you would be the one asserting the positive that life can happen without God, the burden would be on you. Can you show that life can't happen with God? Would it be reasonable for me to charge you with the burden of proof there? I think not.

Great! As a chemical engineer with 34 years of experience, you should be uniquely suited to finally explain to all the ignorant atheists which physical laws are violated by naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution. Help us understand why it can't happen without god. Once you have done that you can share with us why you think it had to be your god and not Mbombo.

Since you have brought your qualifications in this field of study why don't you tell us a little more about them? Being a chemist doesn't automatically mean you know anything about biology. What do you know about recent research in areas such as RNA formation or Sulfur Iron world? What makes your opinion more trustworthy than that of someone like Bradley Bucar, author of RNA Oligomerization in Laboratory Analogues of Alkaline Hydrothermal Vent Systems? Because he obviously doesn't believe god was required, and he is actually working in the field of abiogenesis. As such, I'd probably hold his views on this subject in higher regard than those of someone that has spent most of their life developing pesticides or coatings. Unless of course, you can tell us why what he is doing is impossible without your god.

Bu bu bu he has already said the bible isn't a science textbook..........

SHUSH! Don't disturb his delusion and correctly point out he ignores he is trying to have it both ways. 

The bible agrees with science when it does, and disagrees where it doesn't, but don't you dare call that cherry picking.

You evil skeptic. It's like you also don't accept Poseidon as a gap answer to explain the cause of hurricanes. YOU YOU YOU STICK IN THE MUD!

He's got "POOF" isn't that enough for you? You heartless bastard.

He's got the drop on us man. The atoms were magically arranged by a sky puppeteer and we simply have to accept it.

---

QUOTE rji4 Saying that you don't harm other people and that others think you shouldn't harm people, while being a good thing, does not explain what your basis is for determining right and wrong. Sure, other religions have their own basis and with them I would probably argue differently. But I am asking you what your basis is. If your answer is: "It is just what I think." or "It is the chemical reactions in my brain." then fine. Say it. If something else, I would be interested in hearing what.

EVOLUTION IS MY BASIS....for why species, not just humans, but other species as well seek cooperation.

No that does not prevent species from harming other species or humans harming other humans. IT IS STILL PART OF EVOLUTION.

Evolution is why humans do both. It is still up to humans how we choose to interact with each other. But there is no sky wizard vs a guy with a pitchfork battling over the neurons in our brains.

Just like you rightfully reject Allah or the Hindu creator God Brhama as being the cause of everything. I simply reject one more god than you do.

EVOLUTION is not merely what I personally think, it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. DNA proves evolution.

Evolution is fact just like gravity is fact. Now if you are going to argue that your pet deity started evolution you'd be stupid to think your religion is the only to claim they own a patent on science. 

We have seen the same "science is not true unless it agrees with my club" tactic from every religion, not just yours.

You still have two very important things to prove before we get to the first word in your book.

1. That even a god is necessary.
2. That it was your particular god who did it.

But please do not stupidly think Christians are the only ones who try to debunk science then when they cant get away with that, try to claim science points to their club. EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD has followers who do this, bar none.

So ultimately, again, you are stuck in the same boat as everyone else of other religions. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

[rjh4 is back]

Great! As a chemical engineer with 34 years of experience, you should be uniquely suited to finally explain to all the ignorant atheists which physical laws are violated by naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution. Help us understand why it can't happen without god. Once you have done that you can share with us why you think it had to be your god and not Mbombo.

Since you have brought your qualifications in this field of study why don't you tell us a little more about them? Being a chemist doesn't automatically mean you know anything about biology. What do you know about recent research in areas such as RNA formation or Sulfur Iron world? What makes your opinion more trustworthy than that of someone like Bradley Bucar, author of RNA Oligomerization in Laboratory Analogues of Alkaline Hydrothermal Vent Systems? Because he obviously doesn't believe god was required, and he is actually working in the field of abiogenesis. As such, I'd probably hold his views on this subject in higher regard than those of someone that has spent most of their life developing pesticides or coatings. Unless of course, you can tell us why what he is doing is impossible without your god.

Bu bu bu he has already said the bible isn't a science textbook..........

SHUSH! Don't disturb his delusion and correctly point out he ignores he is trying to have it both ways. 

The bible agrees with science when it does, and disagrees where it doesn't, but don't you dare call that cherry picking.

You evil skeptic. It's like you also don't accept Poseidon as a gap answer to explain the cause of hurricanes. YOU YOU YOU STICK IN THE MUD!

He's got "POOF" isn't that enough for you? You heartless bastard.

He's got the drop on us man. The atoms were magically arranged by a sky puppeteer and we simply have to accept it.

You are ranting about things not said again.

Clearly you are not capable of even articulating your own position and yet to try to critique someone else's. Sad.

[Brian37]

Bu bu bu he has already said the bible isn't a science textbook..........

SHUSH! Don't disturb his delusion and correctly point out he ignores he is trying to have it both ways. 

The bible agrees with science when it does, and disagrees where it doesn't, but don't you dare call that cherry picking.

You evil skeptic. It's like you also don't accept Poseidon as a gap answer to explain the cause of hurricanes. YOU YOU YOU STICK IN THE MUD!

He's got "POOF" isn't that enough for you? You heartless bastard.

He's got the drop on us man. The atoms were magically arranged by a sky puppeteer and we simply have to accept it.

You are ranting about things not said again.

Clearly you are not capable of even articulating your own position and yet to try to critique someone else's. Sad.

Said the guy who defends a book with claims of a 6 day earth, men magically popping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking bushes, magic babies with super powers and claims of humans surviving rigor mortis. 

I cannot dumb down my position any further than this. I hope this is as articulate enough for you.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. The writers back then had no fucking modern science. No way of knowing. To be fair, nobody of any religion worldwide had any clue back then.
3. We have much better tools than old myths.

If you cannot understand what I just typed, then the problem is you, not me. I cannot dumb it down any further for you.

[rjh4 is back]

---

QUOTE rji4 Saying that you don't harm other people and that others think you shouldn't harm people, while being a good thing, does not explain what your basis is for determining right and wrong. Sure, other religions have their own basis and with them I would probably argue differently. But I am asking you what your basis is. If your answer is: "It is just what I think." or "It is the chemical reactions in my brain." then fine. Say it. If something else, I would be interested in hearing what.

EVOLUTION IS MY BASIS....for why species, not just humans, but other species as well seek cooperation.

No that does not prevent species from harming other species or humans harming other humans. IT IS STILL PART OF EVOLUTION.

Evolution is why humans do both. It is still up to humans how we choose to interact with each other. But there is no sky wizard vs a guy with a pitchfork battling over the neurons in our brains.

Just like you rightfully reject Allah or the Hindu creator God Brhama as being the cause of everything. I simply reject one more god than you do.

EVOLUTION is not merely what I personally think, it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. DNA proves evolution.

Evolution is fact just like gravity is fact. Now if you are going to argue that your pet deity started evolution you'd be stupid to think your religion is the only to claim they own a patent on science. 

We have seen the same "science is not true unless it agrees with my club" tactic from every religion, not just yours.

You still have two very important things to prove before we get to the first word in your book.

1. That even a god is necessary.
2. That it was your particular god who did it.

But please do not stupidly think Christians are the only ones who try to debunk science then when they cant get away with that, try to claim science points to their club. EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD has followers who do this, bar none.

So ultimately, again, you are stuck in the same boat as everyone else of other religions. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

So Evolution is the basis for everything? DNA proves evolution? I would love to see you try to articulate that position.

C'mon all you atheists here...the ones who are willing to critique an atheist here...Does DNA "prove" evolution (common descent)?

If evolution (and I assume you are talking "common descent" here as opposed to change...as I agree with the latter but not the former) is the basis for right and wrong, how do you explain it when people disagree as to what things are right and what things are wrong? One evolved to think one thing and one evolved to think another? If so, how is it reasonable to make value judgements at all? After all, if someone does something you think is "wrong"...it was their evolution that made them do it. For them it is "right" even if it is "wrong" for you. For that matter...why do you even bother to argue with me? After all, according to you, my position is just a result of my evolution and yours is the result of your evolution. If my evolution brings me to the position that God exists, how could I possibly be wrong? If your evolution brings you to the conclusion that God does not exists, how could you be wrong (at least following your logic)? But then that leads to us both being right about contradictory things. That violates the laws of logic (that I assume that we both agree should apply). Your position is not rational. If I made some mistake in my chain of logic...please let me know as clearly I made some assumptions about your position that only you can clarify if wrong..

You position...at least as articulated...is total nonsense.

---

Said the guy who defends a book with claims of a 6 day earth, men magically popping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking bushes, magic babies with super powers and claims of humans surviving rigor mortis. 

I cannot dumb down my position any further than this. I hope this is as articulate enough for you.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. The writers back then had no fucking modern science. No way of knowing. To be fair, nobody of any religion worldwide had any clue back then.
3. We have much better tools than old myths.

If you cannot understand what I just typed, then the problem is you, not me. I cannot dumb it down any further for you.

All totally irrelevant to the question of value judgements (right and wrong) from an evolutionary point of view.

Try again.

[Brian37]

---

EVOLUTION IS MY BASIS....for why species, not just humans, but other species as well seek cooperation.

No that does not prevent species from harming other species or humans harming other humans. IT IS STILL PART OF EVOLUTION.

Evolution is why humans do both. It is still up to humans how we choose to interact with each other. But there is no sky wizard vs a guy with a pitchfork battling over the neurons in our brains.

Just like you rightfully reject Allah or the Hindu creator God Brhama as being the cause of everything. I simply reject one more god than you do.

EVOLUTION is not merely what I personally think, it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. DNA proves evolution.

Evolution is fact just like gravity is fact. Now if you are going to argue that your pet deity started evolution you'd be stupid to think your religion is the only to claim they own a patent on science. 

We have seen the same "science is not true unless it agrees with my club" tactic from every religion, not just yours.

You still have two very important things to prove before we get to the first word in your book.

1. That even a god is necessary.
2. That it was your particular god who did it.

But please do not stupidly think Christians are the only ones who try to debunk science then when they cant get away with that, try to claim science points to their club. EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD has followers who do this, bar none.

So ultimately, again, you are stuck in the same boat as everyone else of other religions. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

So Evolution is the basis for everything? DNA proves evolution? I would love to see you try to articulate that position.

C'mon all you atheists here...the ones who are willing to critique an atheist here...Does DNA "prove" evolution (common descent)?

If evolution (and I assume you are talking "common descent" here as opposed to change...as I agree with the latter but not the former) is the basis for right and wrong, how do you explain it when people disagree as to what things are right and what things are wrong? One evolved to think one thing and one evolved to think another? If so, how is it reasonable to make value judgements at all? After all, if someone does something you think is "wrong"...it was their evolution that made them do it. For them it is "right" even if it is "wrong" for you. For that matter...why do you even bother to argue with me? After all, according to you, my position is just a result of my evolution and yours is the result of your evolution. If my evolution brings me to the position that God exists, how could I possibly be wrong? If your evolution brings you to the conclusion that God does not exists, how could you be wrong (at least following your logic)? But then that leads to us both being right about contradictory things. That violates the laws of logic (that I assume that we both agree should apply). Your position is not rational. If I made some mistake in my chain of logic...please let me know as clearly I made some assumptions about your position that only you can clarify if wrong..

You position...at least as articulated...is total nonsense.

KNOCK IT OFF.

Evolution is the scientific explanation as to how life changes over long periods. DNA proves it.

Now sorry, but you do not get to shit on that just because you don't like it not needing your pet deity.

Don't talk to us about laws of logic while defending a book with bullshit fantastic claims that have no basis in science and especially after agreeing that the book is not a science textbook.

Do men pop out of dirt? NO!
Do women pop out of men's ribs? NO!
Do snakes talk? NO!
Do donkeys talk? NO!
Do bushes talk? NO!

And no, there is no such thing as invisible god sperm that magically without a second set of DNA knocks a girl up to give birth to himself in human form. There is no such thing as holy ghost sperm, or invisible god sperm. 

AND NO, if you were to in real life, murder someone like the death myth claims, the person dies and stays dead. 

So unless you have scientific proof that those claims are even remotely plausible and all your going to respond with is "poof" and "God did it", no I cannot take you seriously.

I also would not take you seriously if you claimed Apollo was real. FOR THE SAME FUCKING REASON.

That was then, this is now.

It was understandable humans worldwide in antiquity made those things up, because the didn't know any better. You are getting pissed because I refuse to give your pet claim any special treatment.

You lecturing us on logic is laughable.

---

---

EVOLUTION IS MY BASIS....for why species, not just humans, but other species as well seek cooperation.

No that does not prevent species from harming other species or humans harming other humans. IT IS STILL PART OF EVOLUTION.

Evolution is why humans do both. It is still up to humans how we choose to interact with each other. But there is no sky wizard vs a guy with a pitchfork battling over the neurons in our brains.

Just like you rightfully reject Allah or the Hindu creator God Brhama as being the cause of everything. I simply reject one more god than you do.

EVOLUTION is not merely what I personally think, it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. DNA proves evolution.

Evolution is fact just like gravity is fact. Now if you are going to argue that your pet deity started evolution you'd be stupid to think your religion is the only to claim they own a patent on science. 

We have seen the same "science is not true unless it agrees with my club" tactic from every religion, not just yours.

You still have two very important things to prove before we get to the first word in your book.

1. That even a god is necessary.
2. That it was your particular god who did it.

But please do not stupidly think Christians are the only ones who try to debunk science then when they cant get away with that, try to claim science points to their club. EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD has followers who do this, bar none.

So ultimately, again, you are stuck in the same boat as everyone else of other religions. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

So Evolution is the basis for everything? DNA proves evolution? I would love to see you try to articulate that position.

C'mon all you atheists here...the ones who are willing to critique an atheist here...Does DNA "prove" evolution (common descent)?

If evolution (and I assume you are talking "common descent" here as opposed to change...as I agree with the latter but not the former) is the basis for right and wrong, how do you explain it when people disagree as to what things are right and what things are wrong? One evolved to think one thing and one evolved to think another? If so, how is it reasonable to make value judgements at all? After all, if someone does something you think is "wrong"...it was their evolution that made them do it. For them it is "right" even if it is "wrong" for you. For that matter...why do you even bother to argue with me? After all, according to you, my position is just a result of my evolution and yours is the result of your evolution. If my evolution brings me to the position that God exists, how could I possibly be wrong? If your evolution brings you to the conclusion that God does not exists, how could you be wrong (at least following your logic)? But then that leads to us both being right about contradictory things. That violates the laws of logic (that I assume that we both agree should apply). Your position is not rational. If I made some mistake in my chain of logic...please let me know as clearly I made some assumptions about your position that only you can clarify if wrong..

You position...at least as articulated...is total nonsense.

---

Said the guy who defends a book with claims of a 6 day earth, men magically popping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking bushes, magic babies with super powers and claims of humans surviving rigor mortis. 

I cannot dumb down my position any further than this. I hope this is as articulate enough for you.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. The writers back then had no fucking modern science. No way of knowing. To be fair, nobody of any religion worldwide had any clue back then.
3. We have much better tools than old myths.

If you cannot understand what I just typed, then the problem is you, not me. I cannot dumb it down any further for you.

All totally irrelevant to the question of value judgements (right and wrong) from an evolutionary point of view.

Try again.

No it is not you idiot!

Value claims are human constructs and highly subjective from point of view. Evolution addresses survival from adaptation which includes BOTH cooperation and cruelty. 

EVOLUTION YOU TWIT, explains both the good and bad that happen in nature. It explains why a lion will kill it's prey, and even the offspring of rivals. Evolution explains how cockroaches breed far more efficiently than humans and have been around far longer. EVOLUTION explains how we even share DNA with bacteria and grass and whales and jellyfish.

You keep missing the fucking point that when it comes to our species evolution, it is still up to us what we do in interaction with each other.

Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine EXPLAIN HOW life evolved over billions of years.

Your comic book was written in an age when nobody had any damned fucking clue what DNA was.

You do not get to blame us for what we were not around to write. merely because we point out the absurdity of that book.

[rjh4 is back]

KNOCK IT OFF.

Evolution is the scientific explanation as to how life changes over long periods. DNA proves it.

Now sorry, but you do not get to shit on that just because you don't like it not needing your pet deity.

Don't talk to us about laws of logic while defending a book with bullshit fantastic claims that have no basis in science and especially after agreeing that the book is not a science textbook.

Do men pop out of dirt? NO!
Do women pop out of men's ribs? NO!
Do snakes talk? NO!
Do donkeys talk? NO!
Do bushes talk? NO!

And no, there is no such thing as invisible god sperm that magically without a second set of DNA knocks a girl up to give birth to himself in human form. There is no such thing as holy ghost sperm, or invisible god sperm. 

AND NO, if you were to in real life, murder someone like the death myth claims, the person dies and stays dead. 

So unless you have scientific proof that those claims are even remotely plausible and all your going to respond with is "poof" and "God did it", no I cannot take you seriously.

I also would not take you seriously if you claimed Apollo was real. FOR THE SAME FUCKING REASON.

That was then, this is now.

It was understandable humans worldwide in antiquity made those things up, because the didn't know any better. You are getting pissed because I refuse to give your pet claim any special treatment.

You lecturing us on logic is laughable.

Yet again: All totally irrelevant to the question of value judgements (right and wrong) from an evolutionary point of view.

Try again.

Hint: try talking about your own position as that is what I am asking about.

I get that starting with the presupposition that God doesn't exists, your arguments against the Bible make logical sense. Those things do, however, follow logically when you start with my presuppositions (God exists and the Bible is the Word of God) (at least I think they follow logically and nobody here has said otherwise).

I am trying to find out if your worldview is logically consistent internally. If not, it seems to me that it would be irrational to hold to that position.

So I am trying to use your presuppositions to argue that they lead to illogical conclusions. If you want to discredit my point of view, start with my presuppositions and show that they result in illogical conclusions.

So...beginning with your presuppositions, explain how value judgements (right and wrong) come into being and have any sort of objective meaning. Beginning with your presuppositions, explain how the laws of logic (intangible concepts) come into being. Let's see how it falls out.

And please don't go into other religions and their beliefs as it is irrelevant to our discussion. However, should you, after our discussion, give up your position and go to one of the other religion positions, I would be happy then to discuss those.

---

So Evolution is the basis for everything? DNA proves evolution? I would love to see you try to articulate that position.

C'mon all you atheists here...the ones who are willing to critique an atheist here...Does DNA "prove" evolution (common descent)?

If evolution (and I assume you are talking "common descent" here as opposed to change...as I agree with the latter but not the former) is the basis for right and wrong, how do you explain it when people disagree as to what things are right and what things are wrong? One evolved to think one thing and one evolved to think another? If so, how is it reasonable to make value judgements at all? After all, if someone does something you think is "wrong"...it was their evolution that made them do it. For them it is "right" even if it is "wrong" for you. For that matter...why do you even bother to argue with me? After all, according to you, my position is just a result of my evolution and yours is the result of your evolution. If my evolution brings me to the position that God exists, how could I possibly be wrong? If your evolution brings you to the conclusion that God does not exists, how could you be wrong (at least following your logic)? But then that leads to us both being right about contradictory things. That violates the laws of logic (that I assume that we both agree should apply). Your position is not rational. If I made some mistake in my chain of logic...please let me know as clearly I made some assumptions about your position that only you can clarify if wrong..

You position...at least as articulated...is total nonsense.

KNOCK IT OFF.

Evolution is the scientific explanation as to how life changes over long periods. DNA proves it.

Now sorry, but you do not get to shit on that just because you don't like it not needing your pet deity.

Don't talk to us about laws of logic while defending a book with bullshit fantastic claims that have no basis in science and especially after agreeing that the book is not a science textbook.

Do men pop out of dirt? NO!
Do women pop out of men's ribs? NO!
Do snakes talk? NO!
Do donkeys talk? NO!
Do bushes talk? NO!

And no, there is no such thing as invisible god sperm that magically without a second set of DNA knocks a girl up to give birth to himself in human form. There is no such thing as holy ghost sperm, or invisible god sperm. 

AND NO, if you were to in real life, murder someone like the death myth claims, the person dies and stays dead. 

So unless you have scientific proof that those claims are even remotely plausible and all your going to respond with is "poof" and "God did it", no I cannot take you seriously.

I also would not take you seriously if you claimed Apollo was real. FOR THE SAME FUCKING REASON.

That was then, this is now.

It was understandable humans worldwide in antiquity made those things up, because the didn't know any better. You are getting pissed because I refuse to give your pet claim any special treatment.

You lecturing us on logic is laughable.

---

So Evolution is the basis for everything? DNA proves evolution? I would love to see you try to articulate that position.

C'mon all you atheists here...the ones who are willing to critique an atheist here...Does DNA "prove" evolution (common descent)?

If evolution (and I assume you are talking "common descent" here as opposed to change...as I agree with the latter but not the former) is the basis for right and wrong, how do you explain it when people disagree as to what things are right and what things are wrong? One evolved to think one thing and one evolved to think another? If so, how is it reasonable to make value judgements at all? After all, if someone does something you think is "wrong"...it was their evolution that made them do it. For them it is "right" even if it is "wrong" for you. For that matter...why do you even bother to argue with me? After all, according to you, my position is just a result of my evolution and yours is the result of your evolution. If my evolution brings me to the position that God exists, how could I possibly be wrong? If your evolution brings you to the conclusion that God does not exists, how could you be wrong (at least following your logic)? But then that leads to us both being right about contradictory things. That violates the laws of logic (that I assume that we both agree should apply). Your position is not rational. If I made some mistake in my chain of logic...please let me know as clearly I made some assumptions about your position that only you can clarify if wrong..

You position...at least as articulated...is total nonsense.

---

All totally irrelevant to the question of value judgements (right and wrong) from an evolutionary point of view.

Try again.

No it is not you idiot!

Value claims are human constructs and highly subjective from point of view. Evolution addresses survival from adaptation which includes BOTH cooperation and cruelty. 

EVOLUTION YOU TWIT, explains both the good and bad that happen in nature. It explains why a lion will kill it's prey, and even the offspring of rivals. Evolution explains how cockroaches breed far more efficiently than humans and have been around far longer. EVOLUTION explains how we even share DNA with bacteria and grass and whales and jellyfish.

You keep missing the fucking point that when it comes to our species evolution, it is still up to us what we do in interaction with each other.

Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine EXPLAIN HOW life evolved over billions of years.

Your comic book was written in an age when nobody had any damned fucking clue what DNA was.

You do not get to blame us for what we were not around to write. merely because we point out the absurdity of that book.

Wrong again. Word like "good" and "bad" imply value. That is how those words are used and are understood.

To the extent that they are highly subjective they tend to be meaningless. If killing another human being extends the survival of the killer, how can it be viewed as "bad" from an evolutionary point of view. Isn't it "good" from the evolutionary point of view of the killer and "bad" from the evolutionary point of view of the victim? If so, you would be arguing that there is then no real meaning to "good" and "bad", i.e., they are merely relativistic terms that only have meaning from a particular point of view. Seems like an irrational position to me and contrary to the accepted meaning and use of the words.

[brewer]

---

Nope, I don't want to go there. Which post, there have been several. You can address my statements. 

Prove god exists or have god prove itself to exist. Until then god remains a unnecessary fantasy delusion.

Edit: You can't discuss/debate god into existence.

These questions:

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

If you don't want to go there...fine. Are you concerned that your answers may not logically lead to the conclusions you want?

While I agree that you cannot discuss/debate God into existence (He exists or he doesn't regardless of our discussion/debate), it will only be by discussion/debate that we can discuss the reasons why we take one position or the other and it is only by discussion/debate that the reasons can be critiqued.

I don't need a god fantasy, being, entity to give me, society or humanity morals. Those have developed as a consequence of humans living and existing in successful groups. People who never heard of the bible or the abrahamic god had/have morals. Your point is lacking any significance.

Not concerned, anything you have to say will have little to no relevance. It's just you spouting more unfounded fantasy beliefs. 

I know why you take your position, you need the fantasy delusion to be comfortable and content with your existence. What I don't understand is your need to justify it here or your need for me to consider your belief as valid. Could it be that it's not working as well as you'd like it to, not providing all of the comfort that you seem to need?