Jump to content


Photo

Does Atheism Have A Truly Convincing Argument Yet?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#81 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 12 February 2010 - 12:02 AM

No, that is a misnomer promulgated by atheists so-as not to answer the hard questions. Atheism, by definition, is a belief in the negative. Which is STILL a belief non-the-less. And, where there is a belief, there is faith. And where faith is defended dogmatically, there is religion.

View Post

According to your logic, NOT believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny also requires faith.

#82 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:02 AM

According to your logic, NOT believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny also requires faith.

View Post


Out of everything that is claimed by evolution to have happened. How many fit the actual definition of being empirical?

Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

Would you not say that those things that cannot meet this criteria take faith in order to believe they happened? Or is there a scientific term for having faith in science?

#83 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 04:34 AM

So let me guess this straight...

believing in god is a religion, but NOT believing in god is also a religion?

right....that's like saying

playing basketball is a sport, but NOT playing basketball is also a sport

yup that makes a whole lot of sense.  pretty much sums up creationist logic

View Post


Are you saying you do or don’t believe in basketball flatland? Otherwise your flawed analogy fails at its very first premise.

#84 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 12 February 2010 - 08:54 AM

Out of everything that is claimed by evolution to have happened. How many fit the actual definition of being empirical?

Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

Would you not say that those things that cannot meet this criteria take faith in order to believe they happened? Or is there a scientific term for having faith in science?

View Post



I just tossed the definitions i am using to answer your post. Lets just use the fossil record for this instance. we observe the fossil record as showing less complex organisms giving rise to more complex things. We observe that you do not find say rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

We experience the fact that this is repeated over and over when we look for fossils.

We can experiment that we will find certain types of fossils in certain areas, and then find them in those certain areas.

So yes the Fossil record is empirical according the definition that you have given.

ob⋅ser⋅va⋅tion  [ob-zur-vey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3. the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.
4. notice: to escape a person's observation.
5. an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose: the observation of blood pressure under stress.
6. the information or record secured by such an act.
7. something that is learned in the course of observing things: My observation is that such clouds mean a storm.

ex⋅pe⋅ri⋅ence  [ik-speer-ee-uhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -enced, -enc⋅ing.
–noun
1. a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something: My encounter with the bear in the woods was a frightening experience.
2. the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something: business experience.
3. the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time: to learn from experience; the range of human experience.
4. knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone: a man of experience.
5. Philosophy. the totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered.

ex⋅per⋅i⋅ment  [n. ik-sper-uh-muhnt; v. ek-sper-uh-ment] Show IPA
–noun
1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.: a chemical experiment; a teaching experiment; an experiment in living.
2. the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that is the result of long experiment.
3. Obsolete. experience.
–verb (used without object)
4. to try or test, esp. in order to discover or prove something: to experiment with a new procedure.

#85 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:25 AM

I just tossed the definitions i am using to answer your post.  Lets just use the fossil record for this instance. we observe the fossil record as showing less complex organisms giving rise to more complex things.  We observe that you do not find say rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

We experience the fact that this is repeated over and over when we look for fossils.

We can experiment that we will find certain types of fossils in certain areas, and then find them in those certain areas.

So yes the Fossil record is empirical according the definition that you have given.

View Post

Fossils are empirical Java, but opinions as to how they line up in “said” record is mere speculation and opinion based. And one’s worldview plays a major role in how they may interpret that record.

So, unless someone has “observed” the lineage posited upon the “Fossil record”, that “fossil record” is not empirical. And, according to the evolutionary model, the majority of promulgated “Fossil record” was established millions of years prior to man. Therefore the “Fossil record” is not empirical according the definition.

If man was not around for the millions of years this record was being set down; man has not observed said record.

#86 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 12 February 2010 - 12:38 PM

Are you saying you do or don’t believe in basketball flatland? Otherwise your flawed analogy fails at its very first premise.


That doesn't even make sense. How do you believe in basketball?


Out of everything that is claimed by evolution to have happened. How many fit the actual definition of being empirical?

Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

Would you not say that those things that cannot meet this criteria take faith in order to believe they happened? Or is there a scientific term for having faith in science?

View Post


Answer my question. Does NOT believing in Santa Claus require faith?

Edit: First quote had wrong member's name.

#87 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:48 PM

That doesn't even make sense.  How do you believe in basketball?

View Post

Of course it doesn’t, that’s the point. And yet it makes as much sense as your analogy of equating sports and faith.

Answer my question. 

View Post


Is that a demand (you may indeed want to read the rules)?

Does NOT believing in Santa Claus require faith?

View Post


As much faith as it requires that something can come from nothing I suppose.

#88 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2010 - 06:16 PM

So, unless someone has “observed” the lineage posited upon the “Fossil record”, that “fossil record” is not empirical. And, according to the evolutionary model, the majority of promulgated “Fossil record” was established millions of years prior to man. Therefore the “Fossil record” is not empirical according the definition.

View Post


"Empirical" and "observed" are not perfect synonyms. Empirical evidence is that which has been concluded from experiment or observation or experience. Such evidence can be investigated directly or indirectly through consequences.

Lines of enquiry often begin with an observed phenomenon (processed sensory info) upon which a hypothesis, its consequences, testing and conclusion can be built. Said conclusion can then generate further hypotheses and lines of enquiry.

The combination of experiment and indirect investigation through consequences has proved useful for studying the tiny, the remote and the long-term. The closest anyone has come to observing an atom would be recording the interference of their waveforms but Rutherford and others were able to probe the structure of the atom by measuring consequences of manipulated interactions. Similarly, no one has seen the start-to-end formation of a coastal headland arch but we can infer their origins by measuring the small amount of erosion caused by the sea on rock within a human lifespan. And so it is with the history of life on Earth based on phylogeny and observed speciation (yes, a fly remains a fly, a coastal rock remains a coastal rock within our time on the mortal coil).

Insisting upon observable evidence can sometimes be counterproductive as was the case during the hegemony of behaviorism in psychology.

#89 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 09:16 PM

So let me guess this straight...

believing in god is a religion, but NOT believing in god is also a religion?

right....that's like saying

playing basketball is a sport, but NOT playing basketball is also a sport

yup that makes a whole lot of sense.  pretty much sums up creationist logic

View Post

Sorry Flatland, believing in God is not necessarily A religion. But religion (not A religion) is a result of believing. If I'm on a remote island and believe in God and seek to fellowship with Him, I am worshiping. But am I part of A religion? NO. If I read the Bible by myself, and feel the power of God's Spirit through it, am I being "religious" because I observe a reading ritual? NO. I am thirsty for living water so I drink living water.

But now I may meet a few other believers and we get together to study God's word together. Are we A religion? NO. We are people who share a common trust and love for God. SO we seek Him to together.

Now as far as atheism being a religion--my point of view personally is that "philosophy" would be a better word. But it still has beliefs. You believe in no god. You hope in no god. You love no God. Therefore your philosophy of life is the antithesis of belief in God. Technically now, your reasoning and goals are geared only for this life. So, as long as you don't hurt anyone, you're okay--anything goes.

The problem is that if God DID give the law, and law of God is real--then you are living a sinful life before God probably unintentionally, because of your belief that there is no one to answer to after this life.

#90 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:26 PM

I just tossed the definitions i am using to answer your post.  Lets just use the fossil record for this instance.   we observe the fossil record as showing less complex organisms giving rise to more complex things.  We observe that you do not find say rabbits in the pre-cambrian.


This is called interpretation, not observation. No one observed those fossils rising to be more complex. Also the rabbit instance is kinda ironic because claims like this have been made before. Like one evolutionist claiming that if we found a human foot print, with a dino print, that would prove evolution wrong. That was found and the best that could be done to discredit it was make accusations on how it got there. And attack the person who found it, who was a evolutionist until that find. People seem to forget that, or are unwilling to mention it.

We experience the fact that this is repeated over and over when we look for fossils.


Again, the evidence has to be interpreted. It's not observed doing what is claimed.

Example: If I come upon a scene where someone is on the ground dead and your holding a knife. Do I say as fact that you killed them? Or do I "assume" you did because of what I curretly see?

What you, and every evolutionist out there is doing is assuming fact because of what they think they see. Even though the process of what they think they see is not really observable because of the time factor involved. And because this can never be observed, are we supposed to assume that it happened?

We can experiment that we will find certain types of fossils in certain areas, and then find them in those certain areas.

So yes the Fossil record is empirical according the definition that you have given.


There is a process of sorting called hydrologic sorting where the water sorts due to many factors involved. And because God said He aged the earth by His word. This Also means that any fossil is subject to cross contaimination of age markers from the layer to the fossil that the fossil gets buried in.

ob⋅ser⋅va⋅tion  [ob-zur-vey-shuhn]  Show IPA
–noun
1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3. the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.
4. notice: to escape a person's observation.
5. an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose: the observation of blood pressure under stress.
6. the information or record secured by such an act.
7. something that is learned in the course of observing things: My observation is that such clouds mean a storm.


All the examples above are actual "processes" being observed. There is no mention of a aftermath observation. You see when you dig up a fossil, you are looking at an after the act evidence. Not a real time observation. So because you, or anyone else on this planet did not observe the process of how that fossil got there. Or became that way. An "interpretation" has to be thought up. The interpretation is not gathered from "any" observable process. It's done by what is already accepted as a conclusion.

Number 5 is probably your best example of this. The test is viewing that a person's blood pressure goes up under stress. This is a real time observation that can be repeated. Digging up fossils in the same layer only proves they were buried at the same time.

ex⋅pe⋅ri⋅ence  [ik-speer-ee-uhns]  Show IPA noun, verb, -enced, -enc⋅ing.
–noun
1. a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something: My encounter with the bear in the woods was a frightening experience.
2. the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something: business experience.
3. the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time: to learn from experience; the range of human experience.
4. knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone: a man of experience.
5. Philosophy. the totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered.


All instances here again are real time experiences. Not something that happened millions of years ago.

1) Did the bear encounter happen millions of years ago?
2) Is this example a "personal experience that happened in real time?
etc...

You see each example you are relaying has the actual process of what ever happened being observed. The processed that is claimed to have happened to fossils found is not observable in real time. So no one on this planet can expereince it.

ex⋅per⋅i⋅ment  [n. ik-sper-uh-muhnt; v. ek-sper-uh-ment]  Show IPA
–noun
1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.: a chemical experiment; a teaching experiment; an experiment in living.
2. the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that is the result of long experiment.
3. Obsolete. experience.
–verb (used without object)
4. to try or test, esp. in order to discover or prove something: to experiment with a new procedure.

View Post


A test is something you can do in real time. Evolution to the degree claimed is not a test that can be done in real time or evolution would be an absolute instead of an implied fact.

Example: An experiment: You can turn on a light switch and observe the light coming on, right? And you can repeat this right? Now when you dig up a fossil, can you observe or repeat an interpreatation? No becase that would make the interpretation observable which would make it to where the interpretation would not be needed, Why would one need to interpet what they could clearly see?

Example: If you see a pitcher throw a ball and hit someone in the head. Do you turn to someone else and say: This is what I think happened (interpret it). Or do you say: Did you see that, I saw it.

Observable processes don't need interpretation. Evolution has to have almost everything interpreted.

#91 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:36 PM

Answer my question.  Does NOT believing in Santa Claus require faith?

View Post


Depends. Can it be proven that Santa Claus does not exist?
Can it be proven that God does not exist?

Faith is having the evidence of things that cannot be seen.

#92 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 05:11 AM

Flatland said...
Answer my question.  Does NOT believing in Santa Claus require faith?


Depends. Can it be proven that Santa Claus does not exist?
Can it be proven that God does not exist?

Faith is having the evidence of things that cannot be seen. [Hebrews 11:1]

View Post


Hey Ikester,
Flatland's question reveals the root of the atheistic problem. They deny God's power and PRESENT supernatural intervention in the natural universe. Santa Claus does not act in the present, because he does not exist. God does.

They can explain away spiritual contact and fellowship with the Holy Spirit as a figment of the imagination. Since they reject testimony and the fact that faith comes by HEARING. Yet they do not listen so they can not believe. Their minds and hearts are closed. And a man who does not believe will receive nothing from God.

It's like telling someone about a beautiful world on the other side of the door. Faith being the door, atheists look at the door, but never open it. The problem is not so much their minds as it a hardened heart.

#93 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 13 February 2010 - 02:38 PM

Depends. Can it be proven that Santa Claus does not exist?
Can it be proven that God does not exist?

Faith is having the evidence of things that cannot be seen.

View Post



I always thought faith didn't require evidence. Or were you saying that faith is the evidence of things unseen?

Obviously my first statement wouldn't include the Bible seeing as without the Bible then there would be nothing to base a religion on.

#94 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:13 PM

Of course it doesn’t, that’s the point. And yet it makes as much sense as your analogy of equating sports and faith.


I never equated basketball to faith. All I said was - claiming that not believing god is a religion makes about as much sense as claiming that not playing basketball is a sport.

#95 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:15 PM

I always thought faith didn't require evidence.  Or were you saying that faith is the evidence of things unseen? 

View Post

Nope… Faith can be with little evidence to quite a bit of evidence. We rely on faith everyday. Every time we cross over a bridge that spans a large expanse, we do so in faith that the bridge will hold. In fact, we are betting our lives that the bridge will hold.

But there is a blind faith, and that’s a whole different matter.


Obviously my first statement wouldn't include the Bible seeing as without the Bible then there would be nothing to base a religion on.

View Post


Actually there are lots of religions that don’t base their theology on the Bible. And there are some that base there theology in varying degrees on the Bible.

#96 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:17 PM

Depends. Can it be proven that Santa Claus does not exist?
Can it be proven that God does not exist?

Faith is having the evidence of things that cannot be seen.

View Post


I don't know about proven but it can certainly be falsified. ex: I can go to the North Pole and see that no one named Santa Claus lives there.

#97 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:21 PM

I never equated basketball to faith.  All I said was - claiming that not believing god is a religion makes about as much sense as claiming that not playing basketball is a sport.

View Post


Which, by your analogy, is equating basketball with faith in God. But, either way, you analogy didn’t work.

#98 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 13 February 2010 - 06:48 PM

Which, by your analogy, is equating basketball with faith in God. But, either way, you analogy didn’t work.

View Post


Okay then if believing in god and not believing in god is both religion, what would make someone non-religious? Is agnosticism religion as well?

#99 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 09:10 PM

Okay then if believing in god and not believing in god is both religion, what would make someone non-religious?  Is agnosticism religion as well?

View Post


If an agnostic dogmatically defends their faith the way you are defending yours? Absolutely!

#100 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:08 PM

If an agnostic dogmatically defends their faith the way you are defending yours? Absolutely!

View Post

What would be the faith of an agnostic? And what would non-religion be?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users