Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[GnashingOfTeeth]

PIE>

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not actually. Actually the evidence for evolution goes something like.
A..D.....J...N....S...WXYZ. Ignore the missing letters, we will fill that in with best guesses and hypothesis. Don't get all angry over any actual missing evidence of letters, we are very confident that we will find evidence for those letters at some point in the future. In the mean time here is my theory on how A became B and led to D. It's very simple if you forget any actual science.

it doesn't appear that you've worked out your argumentation of a whole where spirituality and materiality aren't separated.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Lron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. Just....no.

That is false analogy and a logical fallacy.

Evolution as an analogy of the alphabet provides evidence for every ascending letter and how A became B, how B became C how C became B so on and so forth all the way up to "X".

If there was no good reason and no evidence to support M turning into N then the scientific theory would be picked apart by other scientists in the field and either scrapped completely or left sitting at that crossroad. It would never become a scientific theory.

No, I got it right, X is variable or in this situation the idea. A + B = C is the answer, therefor it would = X. SUCK IT

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it doesn't appear that you've worked out your argumentation of a whole where spirituality and materiality aren't separated.

Sorry. I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Please expound upon your meaning.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry. I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Please expound upon your meaning.

that's okay. ponder it a while with a dictionary.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that's okay. ponder it a while with a dictionary.

No I understand the words. I'm just not sure what you mean by them. Do you mean I haven't found a point of argument wherein spirituality and materialism are coexistent?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No I understand the words. I'm just not sure what you mean by them. Do you mean I haven't found a point of argument wherein spirituality and materialism are coexistent?

yup. you're starting point is of their connection. the atheists argue by separating them and eliminating the spiritual. how people are viewing the entire debate is inherently shaped from prior notions, and the two separated on one camp and unified on another cannot reach any sort of consensus which pushes the debate to a call of action which brings up a whole new set of questions.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yup. you're starting point is of their connection. the atheists argue by separating them and eliminating the spiritual. how people are viewing the entire debate is inherently shaped from prior notions, and the two separated on one camp and unified on another cannot reach any sort of consensus which pushes the debate to a call of action which brings up a whole new set of questions.

No I recognize that materialism is a form of spirituality. You're just changing out worship of a creator with worship of the creation. Man becomes his own god. That's the whole point of evolution. Its a continuation of Gnostic mysticism.

[Lojik]

I think Daldoma hit the nail on the head earlier. Also, what's the difference between a "creator" and the laws of physics/probability/etc? If you can't provide a substantial differentiation then you might as well argue about whether it should be called soda or pop.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think Daldoma hit the nail on the head earlier. Also, what's the difference between a "creator" and the laws of physics/probability/etc? If you can't provide a substantial differentiation then you might as well argue about whether it should be called soda or pop.

Coke!! The only correct answer is Coke!!!