Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#181 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 14 February 2010 - 04:52 AM

:blink:  I try not to step in too many other peoples shoes.  I wear a 11 Wide, and most peoples shoes hurt too much for me to wear! 
Good, good.  Even though we don't agree on how things are the way they are, I can tell you I respect your methods.

View Post


Just thought of a funny smiley. Have it yelling at a box, then the box opens and the words: So what, comes out.

Illustrating how one sided a person is that stays in their box of beliefs or theories.

#182 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 14 February 2010 - 08:15 AM

Just thought of a funny smiley. Have it yelling at a box, then the box opens and the words: So what, comes out.

Illustrating how one sided a person is that stays in their box of beliefs or theories.

View Post



That would be awesome!

#183 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:22 AM

I have a few questions for the atheists. But before I ask, I will make the following stipulations for the discussion within this thread, to keep the fluff out of this thread:

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!
2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).
3- If you don’t know, simply say “I don’t know”! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) “there is no God”; because you said “I don’t know”. This includes making statements like (for example) “there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God” because; you said “I don’t know”. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.
4- If you are going to make a “Negative” assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.
6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting.
7- If you post links to other people’s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).

SO…. If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

We have existence right now… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to):
1- Interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.
2- Interacting with the world both physically and intellectually.

We’ve had existence in the past… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to):
1- Reading the historical documentation left to us from the authors of said antiquities (i.e. recorded data) interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.
2- Researching the archeological evidences left to us from the lives of those who lived in antiquity.
3- Reconciling the evidences of historical documentation and archeological evidences to test and validate each.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.

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?
<edited by Ron 01/01/2010> any repetitive equivocations, and/or repetitive equivocating statements will be removed to keep the fluff down, and hopefully, meaningful conversation flowing.

View Post


First an observation about your post as I see nothing forbidding it. Any attempt to limit the type of response received can be perceived as an attempt to control a discussion or to at least sway it towards your point of view basically eliminating a discussion all together.

Where did the human race come from? I have no background in the study of the human race so am unable to present information I possess but I believe what science has indicated.

#184 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:24 AM

Just thought of a funny smiley. Have it yelling at a box, then the box opens and the words: So what, comes out.

Illustrating how one sided a person is that stays in their box of beliefs or theories.

View Post



That can be said of either side in a discussion

#185 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 19 February 2010 - 03:16 PM

First an observation about your post as I see nothing forbidding it. Any attempt to limit the type of response received can be perceived as an attempt to control a discussion or to at least sway it towards  your point of view basically eliminating a discussion all together.

View Post


I guess if you mean controlling in that “no equivocating” so-as-to keep all the meandering trails of tap dancing around the questions to keep from honest answers?... Then yes, those controls are built into the OP…

Where did the human race come from?

View Post

What is the foundation of all of this ….


I have no background in the study of the human race so am unable to present information I possess but I believe what science has indicated.

View Post


But materialistic science has indicated absolutely nothing empirical in our origins, and atheism has said even less. Therefore, any beliefs are made on faith; and faith alone.

#186 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:26 PM

But materialistic science has indicated absolutely nothing empirical in our origins

View Post


That's a lie. There is plenty of research into that specific area.

#187 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 19 February 2010 - 08:16 PM

That's a lie.  There is plenty of research into that specific area.

View Post


Jason, you should really refrain from outbursts like that when you know what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.

Q: Am I lying when I say that you can provide absolutely no empirical scientific evidence as to where this universe came from (from the atheistic viewpoint)?

A: NO

Q: Am I lying when I say that you can provide absolutely no empirical evidence where the origins of life are (from the atheistic viewpoint)?

A: NO

To answer either of these questions you have to assume the MAJORITY of your viewpoint. And you know this.

And I don't appreciate your calling me a liar when you know what I'm saying is accurate. Materialistic science has indicated absolutely nothing empirical in our origins

#188 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 February 2010 - 07:54 PM

Jason, you should really refrain from outbursts like that when you know what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.

Q: Am I lying when I say that you can provide absolutely no empirical scientific evidence as to where this universe came from (from the atheistic viewpoint)?

A: NO

Q: Am I lying when I say that you can provide absolutely no empirical evidence where the origins of life are (from the atheistic viewpoint)?

A: NO

To answer either of these questions you have to assume the MAJORITY of your viewpoint. And you know this.

And I don't appreciate your calling me a liar when you know what I'm saying is accurate. Materialistic science has indicated absolutely nothing empirical in our origins

View Post


There's plenty of empirical evidence that points to where this universe came from. Or are things like the observed redshift of stars not empirical enough for you?

I'm sure you also know about the many experiments performed to try and discern the origins of life. Such as the Urey Miller experiment. Or are repeatable experimental results not empirical enough for you?

#189 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 21 February 2010 - 05:38 AM

There's plenty of empirical evidence that points to where this universe came from. 

View Post

Jason, you are really stretching the bounds of empiricism (far beyond the definition of the scientific method) in an attempt to make you position look correct. But you have still failed to answer the questions I asked above, let alone the OP questions.

You have provided absolutely NO evidence as to where this universe came from or the origins of life (from the atheistic viewpoint) in this posting. Therefore you have called me a liar, and have not backed it up in any way.

Or are things like the observed redshift of stars not empirical enough for you?

View Post

The “red shift” only supports a beginning to the universe, Christian theists believe that Jason. That in no way provides evidence as to where this universe came from or the origins of life from the atheistic viewpoint.

I'm sure you also know about the many experiments performed to try and discern the origins of life. 

View Post


Absolutely Jason, but none of these experiments have provided empirical evidence as to where this universe came from or the origins of life from the atheistic viewpoint.

Such as the Urey Miller experiment. 

View Post

The Urey Miller experiment fail to provide evidences showing where this universe came from or the origins of life from the atheistic viewpoint for many reasons.

Firstly- where did the chemicals come from?
Secondly- until you answer the first question, ANY additional questions are moot because you first have to have the chemicals in order for the experiment to be conducted. Therefore, without the foundational substances to build the universe, you cannot even begin to build life within said universe. And we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.


Which brings us right back to the OP questions that you have utterly failed to answer so far: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

Or are repeatable experimental results not empirical enough for you?

View Post


Absolutely Jason; but you have provided no such empirical, observable, repeatable experimental evidences showing where this universe came from or the origins of life from the atheistic viewpoint.

You have equivocated quite well though.

#190 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:59 AM

sure you also know about the many experiments performed to try and discern the origins of life.  Such as the Urey Miller experiment.  Or are repeatable experimental results not empirical enough for you?

View Post


Miller's experiment produced amino acids from a presumed hydrogen-rich atmosphere. Joan Oro subsequently produced adenine (a DNA base) from similar conditions and others have produced biochemicals from a less contentious CO2-rich prebiotic environment. However, amino acids have been found in space so such investigation may prove unnecessary (Evidence for extraterrestrial amino-acids and hydrocarbons in the Murchison meteorite. Nature (London) (1970), 228(5275), 923-6. ).

#191 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 21 February 2010 - 01:02 PM

Miller's experiment produced amino acids from a presumed hydrogen-rich atmosphere.  Joan Oro subsequently produced adenine (a DNA base) from similar conditions and others have produced biochemicals from a less contentious CO2-rich prebiotic environment.  However, amino acids have been found in space so such investigation may prove unnecessary (Evidence for extraterrestrial amino-acids and hydrocarbons in the Murchison meteorite. Nature (London) (1970), 228(5275), 923-6. ).

View Post



Which, as I said in my above post, is a moot point as the first question need an answer prior to the second.

#192 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2010 - 08:21 PM

Which, as I said in my above post, is a moot point as the first question need an answer prior to the second.

View Post


This I must disagree with. Even if we had no idea where the "chemicals" came from, it doesn't negate what we can discern from them on how they can arrange themselves to form life.

You are almost saying that because we don't know where the energy came from to create the universe, we can't understand anything about the universe in which we live in. This, without reservation, is blatantly false.

I am aware this thread is on the 'atheist foundations', or whatever you want to call it, and while you may say this is a hole in the ability for atheism to account for origins, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything, or can't know anything. I don't know exactly how the EM force came to be, but that in no way voids experimentation to understand the intrinsic properties of the EM force and how it can be applied to a myriad of sciences and engineering disciplines. Similarly, just because you aren't satisfied that atheism or science can determine where these "chemicals" came from, can not undermine what we can learn about how these "chemicals" interact with each other in an environment.

Miller was one of the first to work on abiogenesis, and while he did some stuff that turned a few heads, his experiment was flawed, and if I remember correctly it was also contaminated. Again, if I'm correct, more contemporary experiments conducted that are thought to be more accurate in terms of the environments and chemicals used, have yielded even better results than Miller's. And as others have pointed out, we've found these same building blocks for life in space! This indicates that the building blocks for life as we know it is not a rare thing limited to Earth, at least in our own solar system.

#193 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 22 February 2010 - 09:38 AM

This I must disagree with. Even if we had no idea where the "chemicals" came from, it doesn't negate what we can discern from them on how they can arrange themselves to form life.

View Post


When keeping this conversation within the context of the OP, you would be making an in correct assessment. But, when speaking from a general viewpoint, you would have some truth in your statement; from a backward engineering viewpoint. Although, if you attempt to make any factual-type statements in that arena, you would be making most of them from a “Faith-Based” stance, because you have absolutely NO idea of the origins of that thing you are attempting to backward engineer.

#194 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 22 February 2010 - 10:07 AM

I am aware this thread is on the 'atheist foundations', or whatever you want to call it, and while you may say this is a hole in the ability for atheism to account for origins, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything, or can't know anything.

View Post


You say that as if you were an atheist and not an agnostic… Anyway, if you think that is what the premise is about, you’re not even close.

I don't know exactly how the EM force came to be, but that in no way voids experimentation to understand the intrinsic properties of the EM force and how it can be applied to a myriad of sciences and engineering disciplines. Similarly, just because you aren't satisfied that atheism or science can determine where these "chemicals" came from, can not undermine what we can learn about how these "chemicals" interact with each other in an environment.

View Post

It is true that you don’t know exactly how the EM force came to be, but that isn’t the point is it? (i.e. the point of the OP line of questioning). The point is; you cannot make factual statements about said EM force, if you don’t know exactly how the EM force came to be. Therefore; any statements you make about the EM force origins are speculation based. And any factual statements you attempt to make about the EM force origins are faith based. And any statements you make about the EM force origins not being relevant are ignorance based. You cannot say “Atheists make no claims about EM force origins” because that is an attempt at a factual statement, and is therefore self refuting.

Miller was one of the first to work on abiogenesis, and while he did some stuff that turned a few heads, his experiment was flawed, and if I remember correctly it was also contaminated.

View Post


His experiment was flawed from its premise. You cannot have a creation without a creator. He was attempting to prove abiogenesis by creating all the right conditions for abiogenesis. It is self refuting!

Again, if I'm correct, more contemporary experiments conducted that are thought to be more accurate in terms of the environments and chemicals used, have yielded even better results than Miller's. And as others have pointed out, we've found these same building blocks for life in space! This indicates that the building blocks for life as we know it is not a rare thing limited to Earth, at least in our own solar system.

View Post


Again, those experiments miss the point as well. It doesn’t matter if the experiments are successful, because, at best, they will only prove design. The bigger question to answer is; where did these building blocks come from that they are using to prove their hypothesis?

#195 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:41 PM

The point is; you cannot make factual statements about said EM force, if you don’t know exactly how the EM force came to be.

View Post


James Clerk Maxwell would have disagreed with you :D

#196 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 February 2010 - 05:44 AM

James Clerk Maxwell would have disagreed with you :mellow:

View Post


And James Clerk Maxwell knows the origin of EM force how? :)

#197 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2010 - 06:29 AM

You say that as if you were an atheist and not an agnostic… Anyway, if you think that is what the premise is about, you’re not even close.


I'm saying this apart from my personal beliefs regarding God and religion... Anyway, please enlighten me as to the premise.

It is true that you don’t know exactly how the EM force came to be, but that isn’t the point is it? (i.e. the point of the OP line of questioning). The point is; you cannot make factual statements about said EM force, if you don’t know exactly how the EM force came to be.


I'm not sure what you are trying to get across. The basic meaning of your words suggest that if we don't know the origins of X, we can't know anything about X, but you just said that that wasn't your point. Are you saying that if we don't know the origin of X, we can't say anything about the origin of X?

Therefore; any statements you make about the EM force origins are speculation based. And any factual statements you attempt to make about the EM force origins are faith based. And any statements you make about the EM force origins not being relevant are ignorance based. You cannot say “Atheists make no claims about EM force origins” because that is an attempt at a factual statement, and is therefore self refuting.


:mellow: Can you explain this more clearly?

His experiment was flawed from its premise. You cannot have a creation without a creator. He was attempting to prove abiogenesis by creating all the right conditions for abiogenesis. It is self refuting!


It isn't self refuting. Abiogenesis isn't about disproving a creator, it is only concerned with how life arose through natural processes in an environment which mimics that of early Earth.

Again, those experiments miss the point as well. It doesn’t matter if the experiments are successful, because, at best, they will only prove design. The bigger question to answer is; where did these building blocks come from that they are using to prove their hypothesis?

View Post


So you are saying that even if we show that life can arise via natural means in conditions parallel with early Earth it proves design!?! If this is really how you view this then what can show non-design? And the even bigger question is where did the designer come from to design this?

#198 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 February 2010 - 06:56 AM

And James Clerk Maxwell knows the origin of EM force how?  :mellow:

View Post


My point is that he didn't. But he was able to make a lot of factual statements about it.

#199 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 February 2010 - 08:37 AM

My point is that he didn't.  But he was able to make a lot of factual statements about it.

View Post


I see you're still having a hard time with reconciling this hypothsis with reality, so let's try this; What "factual" statements did he (James Clerk Maxwell) make about the origin of EM force that he can empirically prove are "factual"? :mellow:

#200 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:30 PM

What "factual" statements did he (James Clerk Maxwell) make about the origin of EM force that he can empirically prove are  "factual"?  :mellow:

View Post


None, but that didn't stop his publishing testable equations showing how EM waves like light are a propagation of alternating electric and magnetic fields.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users