Get your atheism fuel here......

[Crunchy Cat]

'Conviction' in reference to religion is defined as 'Strong Belief'.
To 'Believe' is to 'Accept Without Proof'. Having 'Conviction'
is the same thing as having 'Strong Acceptance Without Proof'.
It might toughen your stance with 'God' but it weakens your
stance in thinking. The less you think the more easily influenced
you are by those who would take advantage of your 'Conviction'.
I don't think that Atheists would take advantage of you in this
manner which is why (for the most part) we try to bring reason
into the mix.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
I think Evolution might be directed at invalidating 'Adam
and Eve' for the Christian religion specifically. In theory,
that could lead to some Christians turning Athiest.

You would have to expound a bit on that before I can accept it. How on earth does evolution invalidate the existence of a man and a woman?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Genesis. 'God' took a rib from Adam and made the first known
human female. In Evolution (just looking at mammals) you always
need make/female pairs to reproduce. Because of this, human
females would have had to exist before 'Adam' (from an
evolutionary perspective); however, Genesis says Adam's rib
was made into the first female when 'God' felt sorry about Adam's
lonlinesss.

 

[atheroy]

well those people who's conviction in christ it's weak may change but for me, when i hear those arguemnts it just toughens my stance with god.

how? that stance is one an old person would take in reference to trying to teach them something new that contradicts what they previously thought- you, like old people, are too stubborn and set in your ways to even contemplate a new idea, whereas people should constantly be re-evalutating their thoughts and beliefs if they are able to do so. old people have a reason- they're old, you are not, what is your reason?

How on earth does evolution invalidate the existence of a man and a woman?

it invalidates the idea of adam and eve- who can't of existed soley by themselves- anyone heard of inbreeding and the problems that stem from it?

Genesis says Adam's rib was made into the first female

lol, awesome. i didn't know this is what religious people thought. that is ridiculous, it takes the idea of inbreedig to further extremes.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Genesis. 'God' took a rib from Adam and made the first known
human female. In Evolution (just looking at mammals) you always
need make/female pairs to reproduce. Because of this, human
females would have had to exist before 'Adam' (from an
evolutionary perspective); however, Genesis says Adam's rib
was made into the first female when 'God' felt sorry about Adam's
lonlinesss.

Actually, none could have existed before the other. How would the females get pregnant? Through the Spirit of God right? Cause they surely need somethin' to jump-start the whole process. Intrestingly, this is not taken literally by many, including me. The removal of the rib to form a woman is taken to symbolise the closeness that men and women should share. A woman is from the man's side, she makes him complete. In the language of that time 'rib' also meant 'side'. Arabs will use the term 'He is my rib' to say 'He is my close friend'. An interesting point - a species of fish exist where the males will spontaneously change into females if there is not a certain balance in the numbers. A good thing for you to do now would be to go and research how male and female are hypothesised to have evolved in the first place. You might realise why evolution is a far from complete theory.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Actually, none could have existed before the other

Yep, I was just picking on one tiny detail.

The removal of the rib to form a woman is taken to symbolise the closeness that men and women should share

No, it's very clear that a technical procedure was being
referenced. Whether it was a bone or a chunk of Adam's side,
it still spawned a woman. One of the problems I see with religions
is that when something literal is contradicted, people come to
it's rescue with alternate interpreations (symbolism in this case).

A good thing for you to do now would be to go and research how male and female are hypothesised to have evolved in the first place. You might realise why evolution is a far from complete theory.

I don't research other people's hypothesis'. That's just laziness
for the hypothesizer... 'hey I have an idea... now you go research
it'. I find peoples ideas interesting; however, they are just ideas
until there is evidence to back them up. I do use peoples
theories as a source of research (amongst many others).

 

[Mystech]

Re: Confused

Originally posted by mountainhare
Hey fellow freethinkers.
I was arguing with a theist on another message board, and he hit me with this


:bugeye:

Ummm, whaaaa? He's asking me to prove that the burden of proof is on the theist!

What do I say? This is extremely confusing? Any ideas or arguments? grrr, that little rat.

Haha the person that you quoted in this post (hate that that doesn't show up) doesn't realize that he's just made an argument against God, and admited that the burden of proof lies with him.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
To 'Believe' is to 'Accept Without Proof'.

To believe is simply to consider to be true or to accept the evidence of. Faith, on the other hand, is to believe or accept without proof. I believe that the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are true because there is evidence to support those theories. Anyone who believes in God does so without proof; therefore they have faith.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: Where Do Virtual Particles Come From?

Originally posted by MarcAC
I could almost swear these are hypothesised to orignate from parallel universes/dimensions. But hey, what do I know?

Yes, I think string theory addresses that, as well as the origin of the mass from the Big Bang.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Jade Squirrel

To believe is simply to consider to be true or to accept the evidence of. Faith, on the other hand, is to believe or accept without proof. I believe that the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are true because there is evidence to support those theories. Anyone who believes in God does so without proof; therefore they have faith.

Interesting point. I checked a dictionary on 'belief' and it simply
said to 'accept as true'. Faith seems to be more on the lines
of unconditional trust in 'God'. Do you really 'believe' that
Evolution and the Big Bang are fact or do you simply give them
the highest probability of being true based on supporting data?
After all, a theory can be incorrect.

 

[EvilPoet]

"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never
knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions."
-Albert Einstein

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: Jade Squirrel

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Do you really 'believe' that
Evolution and the Big Bang are fact or do you simply give them
the highest probability of being true based on supporting data?
After all, a theory can be incorrect.

I believe they are true because the evidence is most consistent with those theories. True, evolution and Big Bang could be incorrect theories, and if evidence comes along to demonstrate this, then I will no longer believe that they are true.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by EvilPoet
"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never
knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions."
-Albert Einstein

Precisely! Gotta love that Albert!

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: Re: Confused

Originally posted by Mystech
Haha the person that you quoted in this post (hate that that doesn't show up) doesn't realize...

But can you imagine all the clutter in the forum if that were allowed to happen? It would be a nightmare to read anything. Plus I'm sure the server space would fill up quickly.

 

[MarcAC]

Re: Re: Where Do Virtual Particles Come From?

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Yes, I think string theory addresses that, as well as the origin of the mass from the Big Bang.

So some of us might want to review our arguments about "something from nothing" eh? Virtual particles was used as an example of "something from nothing". So it goes back to God alone being able to produce something from nothing. Any better examples?

Edit

No, it's very clear that a technical procedure was being referenced.

It is also clear that a 'technical procedure' was being referenced in Genesis 1. But it is stated that with God a day can be a nanosecond or an eon. That tells you that the 'day' you see in Genesis 1 according to what God was doing... could be any amount of time. It is open to interpretation. What you believe about that doesn't change anything where you stand with God. You only need to accept Jesus as you Lord and Saviour.

Whether it was a bone or a chunk of Adam's side, it still spawned a woman.

Well I was more thinking in a spiritual sense when I said side.

One of the problems I see with religions is that when something literal is contradicted, people come to it's rescue with alternate interpreations (symbolism in this case).

As long as it does not affect the fundamental truths of the religion - in this case however woman was made doesn't really affect the Christian conviction - it is open to interpretation.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: Re: Re: Where Do Virtual Particles Come From?

Originally posted by MarcAC
So some of us might want to review our arguments about "something from nothing" eh? Virtual particles was used as an example of "something from nothing". So it goes back to God alone being able to produce something from nothing.

Hehe. Nice touch. But first of all, string theory doesn't have anywhere near as much evidence as other generally accepted theories have (such as relativity and quantum physics).

Second, even if the evidence for string theory were overwhelming, that doesn't give any credence to the notion that God must have produced the something from nothing. Also, the question still remains about where God came from. And if the answer is that God doesn't need a cause, then the question arises as to why the universe needs one.

Third, the whole argument of "something from nothing" is very likely moot because this implies causation. When we combine general relativity with the Big Bang theory, we find that the universe could not have been "created" because time didn't begin until the instant of the Big Bang.

 

[Mystech]

I don't know what all of this "something from nothing" business is about. Virtual particles aside, where in the universe do we see anything sprouting from nothing? What exactly are we arguing here, if God can create something from nothing, then he sure as hell isn't keeping himself very busy with that task, as I certainly don't see anything like that happening, and I have been keeping my eyes open.