Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#221 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 May 2010 - 06:01 AM

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

This is a tuffy. You know they don't like this subject. Panspermia is as close as they dare to come. Just ask Richard (alien man) Dawkins. I guess really this is only for the atheists, since I can't begin to fathom what virtual reality world any one of them is coming from at any one time. :blink:

View Post


Panspermia? The first question "From where did we come (what are our Origins)?" tends to get pushed back further and further until it means "How did the big bang start?". It's such an ambiguous question it's just there to set up who ever answers it for a fall.

The second question "What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?" is a bit like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". It's a loaded question. It suggests that atheism should have a philosophy of origins.

#222 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 06:18 AM

Panspermia?  The first question "From where did we come (what are our Origins)?" tends to get pushed back further and further until it means "How did the big bang start?".  It's such an ambiguous question it's just there to set up who ever answers it for a fall.


Not exactly. The big bang has nothing to do with this. This Panspermia is nothing more than exclaiming that life started on some other world like Krypton , Klingon, Romulus, etc and some microbes hitched a ride on some comet or asteroid when it brushed against those planet's atmospheres and picked up some of it's dust and brought it to the Earth. Unfortunately it's merely a stall tactic for not answering the original question of origins so that the discussion can only be about the wonderful mechanism of random mutations followed by natural selection, which in reality would have doomed life from the start anyway.

The second question "What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?" is a bit like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?".  It's a loaded question.  It suggests that atheism should have a philosophy of origins.



Well Atheism does have a philosophy of origins. I believe that's why websites like Infidels.org - RichardDawkins.net - TalkOrigins.org - TalkRational.org - Atheistforums.com - etc all evolved in the first place.

#223 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 May 2010 - 09:29 AM

Panspermia?  The first question "From where did we come (what are our Origins)?" tends to get pushed back further and further until it means "How did the big bang start?".

View Post

Actually, that’s what Origins are. For example; the “Origins” of Christianity are the acts of Christ (hence the name “Christians”). Therefore; the “Origins” of Christianity is Christ. Or “How did Christianity start?” … With Christ!

It's such an ambiguous question it's just there to set up who ever answers it for a fall.

View Post

It not a fall at all; everyone, but everyone puts their faith in an “Origins” narrative. Even if that narrative is “nothing”, because that is what they are putting their faith in. Then the discussion is “what is the logical, rational, and scientific answer.

You would only feel like you’re in for a fall if you don’t have an answer, or cannot rationally defend your answer.

The second question "What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?" is a bit like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". 

View Post

It is nothing like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And this is a prime example of the “red herring” fallacy (or even more specifically the ‘arguementum ignoratio elenchi’) and is basically a non sequitur, and irrelevant to the issue.

It's a loaded question.  It suggests that atheism should have a philosophy of origins.

View Post


Everything should have a philosophy of origins, logically, because every caused thing had a causal agent. And atheism is no exception.

Basically, all of you above statements are equivocations.

#224 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 26 May 2010 - 09:59 AM

Actually, that’s what Origins are. For example; the “Origins” of Christianity are the acts of Christ (hence the name “Christians”).  Therefore; the “Origins” of Christianity is Christ. Or “How did Christianity start?” … With Christ!


Well I would ague semantics with you on this. It has to start with God specifically, not just the Christ manifestation of God.

i could also argue that it started with the Jews writing the Old testament. But in reality these arguments wouldn't matter.

It not a fall at all; everyone, but everyone puts their faith in an “Origins” narrative. Even if that narrative is “nothing”, because that is what they are putting their faith in. Then the discussion is “what is the logical, rational, and scientific answer.


Tell me what do you think the Origins narrative is for Atheism?

You would only feel like you’re in for a fall if you don’t have an answer, or cannot rationally defend your answer.


Can you tell me what is rational in believing in the supernatural?


It is nothing like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And this is a prime example of the “red herring” fallacy (or even more specifically the ‘arguementum ignoratio elenchi’) and is basically a non sequitur, and irrelevant to the issue.
Everything should have a philosophy of origins, logically, because every caused thing had a causal agent. And atheism is no exception. 


Atheism is a default state. Before you were told of a God, did you believe in one? How would it be possible to believe in something that you have never heard of before?


Basically, all of you above statements are equivocations.

View Post


:rolleyes: I can't say one way or the other about that. But I really doubt that Jason78 was trying to blow smoke up anyones...ahem.

#225 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 26 May 2010 - 03:10 PM

Well I would ague semantics with you on this.  It has to start with God specifically, not just the Christ manifestation of God.

View Post

That would be an argument you’d lose, if you wanted to argue on the theological basis, for two reasons:

One- Knowing who the Christ is.
Two- The context was within the realm of Christianity.

i could also argue that it started with the Jews writing the Old testament. 

View Post

Actually, you would be incorrect once again (remember context).

But in reality these arguments wouldn't matter.

View Post

They matter greatly, but we are speaking within context once again. And I was using the Origins of Christianity as an example. And my analogy is sanguine with the historical and textual argument.

Tell me what do you think the Origins narrative is for Atheism?

View Post

That is the discussion I’ve been trying to have for sometime now.


Can you tell me what is rational in believing in the supernatural?

View Post

Because it is irrational to believe there is no metaphysical. The metaphysical is all around us. And the only way to deny it, is to close one’s eyes to the truth of it. But this thread isn’t about the metaphysical is it? It is about our origins from an empirical atheistic stance.

Atheism is a default state. 

View Post

No such thing in an empirical sense. Why, because it takes just as much faith to be in a default state in regard to origins as it does to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a polytheist etc…

Before you were told of a God, did you believe in one? 

View Post

Nope, but that didn’t negate a God’s existence. And again, we are discussing origins from an empirical atheistic stance.


How would it be possible to believe in something that you have never heard of before?

View Post

You don’t have to know about God to know there is something more than nothing. Nor should that impede your search for our reason for being. And a so-called “default state” is a static/stagnant state. Socrates found this to be true, and, although he claimed he didn’t know God, he continued to search, reason, ask and yearn.

;) I can't say one way or the other about that.  But I really doubt that Jason78 was trying to blow smoke up anyones...ahem.

View Post


Come on Java, you are intelligent enough to see the irrelevance of, and the non-correlation. :rolleyes:

#226 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 28 May 2010 - 10:53 PM

That would be an argument you’d lose, if you wanted to argue on the theological basis, for two reasons:

One- Knowing who the Christ is.
Two- The context was within the realm of Christianity.

Actually, you would be incorrect once again (remember context).
They matter greatly, but we are speaking within context once again. And I was using the Origins of Christianity as an example. And my analogy is sanguine with the historical and textual argument.


I just meant that in the context of the thread it doesn't matter, not that discussions of such things would be un-important.


That is the discussion I’ve been trying to have for sometime now.


I understand that you are not happy with the answer of simply 'Atheists do not have a fundamental philosophy on origins. But that is the long and short of it. The reason is simply that there are too many roads to Atheism, and no set rules for Atheism...well other than the non-belief in the supernatural...specifically God(or gods)


Because it is irrational to believe there is no metaphysical. The metaphysical is all around us. And the only way to deny it, is to close one’s eyes to the truth of it. But this thread isn’t about the metaphysical is it? It is about our origins from an empirical atheistic stance.


When you say metaphysical you are combining the supernatural with the mind/emotions type of stuff. Unfortunately the supernatural is on a level above the mind.

And you are correct this thread is about what do Atheists think is our Origins. Unfortunately Atheists can only look to science to figure that out...and there just isn't enough empirical evidence to show what happened before the Big Bang. Or anyother cosmological event that could have happened billions of years ago.


No such thing in an empirical sense. Why, because it takes just as much faith to be in a default state in regard to origins as it does to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a polytheist etc…


Sorry I should have been more specific here. A newborn without any knowledge cannot know of, or have faith in a deity. Unless of course during that child's time in the womb it was subjected to reading from the Bible.

Nope, but that didn’t negate a God’s existence. And again, we are discussing origins from an empirical atheistic stance. 


I think you have already received the only answer that can be given one this at this time, with our current understanding of the universe.

You don’t have to know about God to know there is something more than nothing. Nor should that impede your search for our reason for being. And a so-called “default state” is a static/stagnant state. Socrates found this to be true, and, although he claimed he didn’t know God, he continued to search, reason, ask and yearn.


If someone finds comfort in the belief of a God then so be it. I will not stand in their way to find this. But i think you are remiss in assuming that Atheists are not searching out answers, asking questions, and yearning for truth.


Come on Java, you are intelligent enough to see the irrelevance of, and the non-correlation.  :o

View Post


Yes I can see that the post was not on topic. What I saw from the post was a genera frustration that spreads across everyone when each answer provided is said to not be sufficient, and then not told why its lacking, or how it is wrong.

ps and thank you for assuming i'm at least somewhat intelligent :huh: ;) :) seriously though I actually didn't take it as a jab lol

#227 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:54 AM

I just meant that in the context of the thread it doesn't matter, not that discussions of such things would be un-important.

View Post

Actually it was a very good analogy within the context of the conversation. An example that explained well the dilemma atheists have with their belief system.

I understand that you are not happy with the answer of simply 'Atheists do not have a fundamental philosophy on origins.

View Post

Actually, I have no problem with atheisms lack of foundation Java. I do find it odd though, that atheists cannot see their everyday faith statements and commitments. Is it out-and-out denial, or a blindness caused by the atheistic stigma built within the word “faith”. Again, this is an observation, and not a back-handed comment.

But that is the long and short of it.  The reason is simply that there are too many roads to Atheism, and no set rules for Atheism...well other than the non-belief in the supernatural...specifically God(or gods)

View Post

Rules have absolutely nothing to do with faith. And is only part of the equation when it comes to faith commitments and actions. But atheists do have one overriding rule (no matter what road is taken), and that rule is “Don’t believe in God”. Now, I’m sure I can adduce many other rules atheists adhere to, but the bottom line is that they all lead back to rule number one.

When you say metaphysical you are combining the supernatural with the mind/emotions type of stuff.  Unfortunately the supernatural is on a level above the mind.

View Post

Nope, when I say metaphysical I mean: without material form or substance. Which encompasses a great many things such as; thoughts, love, gravity, laws of logic, laws of mathematic (etcetera… etcetera…) and God as well. I use this word because it is usually descriptive of the context of the conversation. The definition of “supernatural” fits within the definition of metaphysical as well.

#228 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:54 AM

And you are correct this thread is about what do Atheists think is our Origins.  Unfortunately Atheists can only look to science to figure that out...and there just isn't enough empirical evidence to show what happened before the Big Bang. 

View Post

Exactly! And that is why, on the atheistic plane, you must believe with a great deal of faith, to live within that worldview.


Or anyother cosmological event that could have happened billions of years ago.

View Post

Again, an unempirical faith-based statement.

Sorry I should have been more specific here. 

View Post



A newborn without any knowledge cannot know of, or have faith in a deity. 

View Post

That’s because they have to have complete faith that their parent/parents will take care of them. They are totally dependant on their parent. Much the same as the atheist is totally dependant upon believing in “no God”.

Unless of course during that child's time in the womb it was subjected to reading from the Bible.

View Post

Not a bad idea at all ;)

#229 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:56 AM

I think you have already received the only answer that can be given one this at this time, with our current understanding of the universe.

View Post

So the answer is… “No answer?” That requires a great deal of faith as well.


If someone finds comfort in the belief of a God then so be it.  I will not stand in their way to find this.  But i think you are remiss in assuming that Atheists are not searching out answers, asking questions, and yearning for truth.

View Post

No more so then the comfort the atheists derive from their belief in “no God”. And I at no time said “Atheists are not searching out answers, asking questions, and yearning for truth” Java.

Yes I can see that the post was not on topic.  What I saw from the post was a genera frustration that spreads across everyone when each answer provided is said to not be sufficient, and then not told why its lacking, or how it is wrong.

View Post

Actually, our current conversation is the only one that has come close to the examination of the OP questions. The only frustration comes in when those who wish to equivocate,
are not allowed to do so.


ps and thank you for assuming i'm at least somewhat intelligent  :)  ;)  :o  seriously though I actually didn't take it as a jab lol

View Post

I’ve never assumed you weren’t intelligent Java.

#230 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 31 May 2010 - 07:48 PM

To a certain extent, we are all religious,

--------------
As long as the following question is without an answer, religions will continue to exist. The only thing actually changes is that people start to lose their self-awareness to recognise what kind of faith they possess. And the question is,

Does afterlife exist, does soul exist?

If your answer is Yes, that represents your religion as your answer is religious. If on the other hand your answer is No, that also represents your religion as your answer is also a religious one.

The more scientific answer is "I don't know". Yet unfortunately, it's not an answer you can keep till you die. If you don't make a consent choice, your sub-consciousness will pick a "no" for you.

As for those whose answer is a 'yes', they have the self-awareness about what their own faith and religion is. As for those whose answer is a 'no', they don't even have that awareness to realise that they are religious.

Religions only change forms. People jump from one side of the fence to join another bandwagon of faith. That's it.

There will be less and less people believe in God as predicted. Only those who endure shall be saved.
--------------------------------

The Book of Revelation says that everyone is marked with a 666, that mark is probably from our education system. Our education system gives a stamp to everyone to pick a 'NO' to the above question. Only the saved Christians are with the mark from the Holy Spirit, they will pick a 'yes' to the same question.

Moreover, truth is evidence independent. Black holes are never evident to the stone age humans. It by no means says that black holes didn't exist in stone age. So base your conclusion on the absence of evidence is a fallacy adapted by the atheists. They should use more 'I don't know' instead of 'no'. :rolleyes: Christians use more 'yes' because, unlike the atheists, we fully realise that we are religious. :lol:

#231 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 June 2010 - 03:35 AM

To a certain extent, we are all religious,

--------------
As long as the following question is without an answer, religions will continue to exist. The only thing actually changes is that people start to lose their self-awareness to recognise what kind of faith they possess. And the question is,

Does afterlife exist, does soul exist?

If your answer is Yes, that represents your religion as your answer is religious. If on the other hand your answer is No, that also represents your religion as your answer is also a religious one.

The more scientific answer is "I don't know". Yet unfortunately, it's not an answer you can keep till you die. If you don't make a consent choice, your sub-consciousness will pick a "no" for you.

As for those whose answer is a 'yes', they have the self-awareness about what their own faith and religion is. As for those whose answer is a 'no', they don't even have that awareness to realise that they are religious.

Religions only change forms. People jump from one side of the fence to join another bandwagon of faith. That's it.

There will be less and less people believe in God as predicted. Only those who endure shall be saved.
--------------------------------

The Book of Revelation says that everyone is marked with a 666, that mark is probably from our education system. Our education system gives a stamp to everyone to pick a 'NO' to the above question. Only the saved Christians are with the mark from the Holy Spirit, they will pick a 'yes' to the same question.

Moreover, truth is evidence independent. Black holes are never evident to the stone age humans. It by no means says that black holes didn't exist in stone age. So base your conclusion on the absence of evidence is a fallacy adapted by the atheists. They should use more 'I don't know' instead of 'no'.  :lol: Christians use more 'yes' because, unlike the atheists, we fully realise that we are religious.  :lol:

View Post


Well said, but what does that say (more specifically) about the foundations of our origins, and the origins of atheism?

Can we logically, rationally and scientifically (notice, its a combination):

Originate from nothing?

Originate from mathematical points?

Non-life and non-intelligence?

#232 Advent

Advent

    Troll from a troll forum.

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Somewhere in the cosmos

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:31 AM

The above in an equivocation as per OP #’s 2 & 5 PLUS, you provide absolutely no substantiation for your assertion, which makes it nothing more than speculation and opinion. Which , of course is an equivocation as per OP #1

The above in an equivocation as per OP #’s 2 & 5 PLUS, you provide absolutely no substantiation for your assertion, which makes it nothing more than speculation and opinion. Which , of course is an equivocation as per OP #1

Although this is the most cogent statement you’ve made thus far, it really says nothing, and it just shows your faith in atheism because; from all the science (be it the historical inductive and deductive empiricism) that we have, we know it takes someone or something to start/make/create anything. So, since we know “from nothing, nothing comes” it logically follows that someone or something to started/made/created all of this.
Having said that, none of it answers the OP questions.

View Post

What are you talking about he's not equivocating ! Do you even know what equivocation means ?
My time being here i realized that equivocation to RON means he does not agree with you
is that true ron

#233 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:50 AM

What are you talking about he's not equivocating ! Do you even know what equivocation means ?


Yes Fred, in fact I do:

lets team up i on or in a particular thread PM or post here


I joined but i need some guys to come over with me lets start some trouble


Ron is one off those people who "sounds intelligent" but dont know s***  he is talking about

Ron is stupid
ron is a theist
therefore all theists are stupid

Equivocation ftw



But let's concentrate on this OP

e•quiv•o•ca•tion [ih-kwiv-uh-key-shuh n] –noun
1.
the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
2.
an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations.
3.
Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.
Use equivocation in a Sentence
See images of equivocation
Search equivocation on the Web

Origin:
1350–1400; ME equivocacion < LL aequivocātiōn- (s. of aequivocātiō).

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

equivocation

noun
1. The use or an instance of equivocal language: ambiguity, equivoque, euphemism, hedge, prevarication, shuffle, tergiversation, weasel word. Informal: waffle. See clear
2. An expression or term liable to more than one interpretation: ambiguity, double-entendre, equivocality, equivoque, tergiversation.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

e•quiv•o•ca•tion (ĭ-kwĭv'ə-kā'shən)

n.
1. The use of equivocal language.
2. An equivocal statement or expression.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

e•quiv•o•ca•tion ( -kw v -k sh n) KEY

NOUN:
1. The use of equivocal language.
2. An equivocal statement or expression.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Main Entry: equiv•o•cate
Pronunciation: \i-ˈkwi-və-ˌkāt\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): equiv•o•cat•ed; equiv•o•cat•ing
Date: 1590
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Amphibology or amphiboly (from the Greek ampibolia) is, in logic, a verbal fallacy arising from ambiguity in the grammatical structure of a sentence.
For example:
Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to drive, it's getting too dangerous on the streets.
From the above could be interpreted that teenagers shouldn't drive because they will be in danger, or that they shouldn't drive as they are causing all the danger.
It occurs frequently in poetry, owing to the alteration for metrical reasons of the natural order of words; for example, Shakespeare, Henry VI:
The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose

My time being here i realized that equivocation to RON means he does not agree with you

View Post


That I don't agree with equivocation? You'd be correct sir.


is that true ron

View Post

That you are equivocating, and breaking the OP rules Yes, in fact that is true.

If you wish to continue, you won't be doing it here.

#234 Advent

Advent

    Troll from a troll forum.

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Somewhere in the cosmos

Posted 02 June 2010 - 12:22 PM

You do know that i posted that in the open because i wanted you guys to see right ? Thats why i named the thread evolutionfairytales so it would come up when you searched this forum
Back ontopic what do you think about genetic evidence for vestigial traits ?

#235 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 02 June 2010 - 07:24 PM

You do know that i posted that in the open because i wanted you guys to see right ? Thats why i named the thread evolutionfairytales so it would come up when you searched this forum
Back ontopic what do you think about genetic evidence for vestigial traits ?

View Post


Well then you should know when people come here to just start trouble we can them. So what's it going to be?

What's ironic is that you get caught then to save face you say you planned to do it? That's lame. To what point would you reveal your deception so it does not work?

#236 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:31 PM

To a certain extent, we are all religious,

View Post


Not quite. Some of us are religious and some of us are not.


As long as the following question is without an answer, religions will continue to exist. The only thing actually changes is that people start to lose their self-awareness to recognise what kind of faith they possess. And the question is,

Does afterlife exist, does soul exist?

View Post


No, and No. After a person is dead, it can be said with 100% certainty that they have stopped living, any life after that is purely wishful thinking.

There's currently no box on my organ donor card for a soul. As soon as surgeons perfect the soul transplant I'd be quite happy to change my mind on the existence of a soul.

If your answer is Yes, that represents your religion as your answer is religious.


If on the other hand your answer is No, that also represents your religion as your answer is also a religious one.

View Post


So it doesn't matter which way you answer the question? You're religious if you do and you're religious if you don't. It seems that any way that you answer the question "Does afterlife exist, does soul exist?" you assert that religions continue to exist, in flat contradiction to your statement "As long as the following question is without an answer, religions will continue to exist.".

The more scientific answer is "I don't know". Yet unfortunately, it's not an answer you can keep till you die. If you don't make a consent choice, your sub-consciousness will pick a "no" for you.

As for those whose answer is a 'yes', they have the self-awareness about what their own faith and religion is. As for those whose answer is a 'no', they don't even have that awareness to realise that they are religious.

View Post


I think that the more scientific answer is that as soon as the cells in your brain start to degrade to the point where you can no longer be resuscitated then that's it, you're gone buddy.

Human beings are able to be aware of their own mortality. Not all human beings are willing to accept it though.

Religions only change forms. People jump from one side of the fence to join another bandwagon of faith. That's it.

View Post


Religions do change forms, you've only got to look at history to figure that out. You're probably best off the wagon altogether and not believing in any of them.

#237 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:49 AM

Not quite.  Some of us are religious and some of us are not.
No, and No.  After a person is dead, it can be said with 100% certainty that they have stopped living, any life after that is purely wishful thinking.



Actually you are just as equally religious as he is. Otherwise you wouldn't be here. Now that's not to say that there are no true atheists, there are. But generally they keep to themselves. They are indifferent and feel no need to read religious philosophical worldview dogma by unholy men like Darwin, Dawkins and Dennet, etc, and then immediately join serveral forums, clubs or groups and spread the word of truth to those deemed needing to be saved from falsehoods.


Here's an excellent article by Cornelius Hunter today discussing the religiosity of today's Evolutionists movement.


Arguing with Evolutionists or How I Could be Rich



"From laboratories to sanctuaries, and dorm rooms to chat rooms, the constant refrain of evolutionists is that the raw data make their idea a fact, but then the supporting arguments are religious. Evolutionists are the proverbial fish that doesn’t know it’s in water, the lampshade partier who doesn’t know he is drunk."





There's currently no box on my organ donor card for a soul. As soon as surgeons perfect the soul transplant I'd be quite happy to change my mind on the existence of a soul.



At the very least you could do the evolutionist responsible thing and get this card and donate for the cause of evolutionary studies. Who knows, they just may find out it does have purpose after all. :)

Posted Image




So it doesn't matter which way you answer the question?  You're religious if you do and you're religious if you don't.  It seems that any way that you answer the question "Does afterlife exist, does soul exist?" you assert that religions continue to exist, in flat contradiction to your statement "As long as the following question is without an answer, religions will continue to exist.".
I think that the more scientific answer is that as soon as the cells in your brain start to degrade to the point where you can no longer be resuscitated then that's it, you're gone buddy.

View Post


Unfortunately I'm not allowed to respond to this topic here, so you'll have to wait for another to respond. :rolleyes:

#238 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 June 2010 - 03:27 AM

You do know that i posted that in the open because i wanted you guys to see right ? Thats why i named the thread evolutionfairytales so it would come up when you searched this forum
Back ontopic what do you think about genetic evidence for vestigial traits ?

View Post



I do know that you had less than honorable and less than honest intent in your post here, as evidenced by your posts there. I know that you obviously:

Didn't read the OP

or

Disregarded the OP

and

Don't understand the full definition of equivocation (i.e. only want to recognize the part you like, and throw the rest out). And neither do your compadres elsewhere.

In fact, by definition, your entire post is an equivocation.

#239 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:05 PM

Here's an excellent article by Cornelius Hunter today discussing the religiosity of today's Evolutionists movement.
Arguing with Evolutionists or How I Could be Rich

View Post


Another excellent resource Eocene. Thank you, I have it book marked for further reading :lol:

#240 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2010 - 03:00 AM

Another excellent resource Eocene. Thank you, I have it book marked for further reading  :lol:

View Post



Well then here is yet another you may enjoy that he wrote back in the first week of May. It's also fun to take note of the comments below those articles. :lol:


Evolution is a Scientific Fact: A Proposition




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users