Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[DeruIsLove]

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

evolutionists

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist' there are those who practice science and there those who don't. The term evolutionist was coined by naive naysayers in a desperate attempt to appeal to the masses when creationist dogma and non-science began to work in tandem with one another.

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

Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation.

No it is not. This is the fiftieth time you've tried to shove abiogenesis into the evolutionary debate.

They are two separate issues. Stop.

[Rellapse40]

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

There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.

[r00t]

Evolutions envisages spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that develop greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency

[r00t]

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

[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.

[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.

[Ikonoclastia]

The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.

Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.

I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.

We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.

Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.

[Shamalam]

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

The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.

Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.

I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.

We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.

Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.

Thank you for this. I wish more people could see it from your perspective.