Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Glenzig]

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

More evidence does not need to be provided, enough evidence is there to have the necessary models fir it to be a "scientific theory". The only reason the debate is even a thing is because of the willful ignorance of people like you who refuse to see the tangible evidence in front of them. There's no implying there's no assumption, stop pretending that there is.

Oh wait you and naez are both famous trolls on this subject.

I wasn't actually asking for more evidence. I was asking for some concrete, factual, and indisputable evidence. That's what you're claiming. I haven't found any such evidence for evolution. Some findings seem pretty air tight on the surface, but fall flat against the scientific method.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean you either believe in spontaneous generation, or God putting it there. It's black or white.

It doesn't matter how it got there when you are discussing how those species change over time.

The pope believes that God started the spark of life a billion years ago and it took off from there. Dawkins believes spontaneous generation is more plausible. Either could be right. Either being right wouldn't effect evolutionary study whatsoever.

[DeruIsLove]

Until aliens of course. But that's an unknown unknown.

[Ahldagor]

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

Hey, the Clockmaker theory! Now that's a blast from the past.

good ol' mr. paley.

a lot of the debate is a teleological argument, so instead of harping on my "look at the episteme of the notions", here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

[Champion_Standing]

I'm not very sold on being a Atheist Crusader, I mean...a fucking Christmas Tree rustles your jimmies so hard that you are still pissed about it in May? Clearly a belief system that is bringing you much contentment.

Fuck, I would rather get baptized in a river by a bunch of lunatics speaking in tongues.

[Glenzig]

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

It doesn't matter how it got there when you are discussing how those species change over time.

The pope believes that God started the spark of life a billion years ago and it took off from there. Dawkins believes spontaneous generation is more plausible. Either could be right. Either being right wouldn't effect evolutionary study whatsoever.

So God is imminently deniable. There is no evidence for God. However, in order for there to be no evidence for God there would have to be no evidence for design or first cause. Design and first cause are insurmountable roadblocks to the atheist belief of the non existence of God. So you can scream from the rooftops that God doesn't exist, that there is no need for God and no evidence for him, but when confronted with the problem of origins, all of a sudden it may be possible for God to exist. The subject is changed, and the focus is shifted to physical processes and theories on control mechanisms.
You can't have evolution without explaining origins. Christopher Hitchens actually explained very well that theistic evolution is not a plausible theory. That leaves you with having to account for the origin of life by purely physical self starting means, which cannot be done.

[paulgiamatti]

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

Christopher Hitchens actually explained very well that theistic evolution is not a plausible theory. That leaves you with having to account for the origin of life by purely physical self starting means, which cannot be done.

I think he called this the "infinite regression" argument, to which there hasn't ever been a solid refutation.

Something to keep in mind though is that even the most staunch, militant atheists or anti-theists aren't actually making any absolutist truth-claims like "god does not exist" or "evolution is true", they're just simply declining to believe in any sort of divine entity or supernatural realm. It's about having a healthy amount of skepticism and doubt rather than proving something is or isn't true.

I didn't actually read this thread but on the first page someone referred to atheism as its own religion or something to that effect, and this is probably more true than most self-proclaimed atheists would like to think. I think Noam Chomsky put it fairly accurately when he said, in a way, people like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are religious fanatics in their own regard. Hitchens a devoted follower of statism, Dawkins of evolutionism, and so forth.

Personally, I wouldn't say unbelief can be equated with religious fanaticism, but I get his point.

[Gaffin 7.0]

yall need jesus

[r00t]

amen

[Rellapse40]

I mean looking at it from a dumb ass point of view, Our minds cannot comprehend the time it is suppose to take with evolution right? If we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today. Every spot on this earth should be filled with fossils and proof? We can piece together a 3 million old T rex but we cannot prove evolution in fossils? Sounds like a lot of rubbish some fgt with 2 much time on his hands made up 2 me.

So i am suppose to take some uptty faggt with 2 much education opinion on how the world "evolved" (dawkins).... over thousands of years old text?

Let's not forget we have been trying to reproduce how the pyramids were constructed with modern equipment. The same people we are spitting on saying they knew nothing. LOL

*****s plz

You say god does not exist cuz there is not proof

well there is no proof we evolved from apes shit would take millions of years to produce and not a single fossil can be uncovered?

lol

yall dumb

n i don't have faith in shit