A Case for Theism

[Lost Sultan]

God.....ThiudareiksGunthigg...I missed you man.

[sephodwyrm]

Rabidly chants TG's impossible-to-pronounce-name.

which can be observed in the lab but is precisely the same in nature. It can and has also been observed in nature. Speciation is a fact. Therefore evolution is a fact.

Wonder if we can classify viruses as "species". We see new viruses every year. But in fact, there's probably new ones every minute.

[IrishHitman]

Now of course you will argue that there has been credible evidence since then. I'm not using this quote to suggest that evolution has no evidence, I'm placing emphasis on the reality that evolutionism is essentially the atheist's method to rationalize God out of the picture.

Why? Because the concept that I will have to give account of my actions to a supreme Being one day might make me uncomfortable, so I'd rather not believe in Him.

Once again, you creationist amadáns fall at the first hurdle...

Evolution is not the only thing we use put God's existence in serious doubt.
In fact, it only presents one extra argument against God as a single concept.

Evolution is so powerful against theism because it explains how we came into existence, not because it puts doubt on God's existence (it does, but that's not the important bit). There's no magic or fairytales that leave you with more questions than answers (and boring questions too), but actual evidence.

You have to add evolution to the totality of scientific knowledge to get the full scientific picture on why God doesn't exist.

Thus, a favorite way that atheists will rebuff Creationism is to suggest that the Creationist opposes all science. He makes the comparison that evolution is a theory on the same tier as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity.

No, Creationists don't oppose Science, they twist it and lie about it, intentionally or otherwise.
So basically, they oppose good science.

The atheist requires that the intangible be made tangible, in order to prove that it was intangible in the first place.

No, sane people require that the intangible be made tangible.
I absolutely utterly refuse to be oppressed, utterly refuse to pay for your schools, and utterly refuse to respect your beliefs, if you cannot produce tangible evidence.

Faith cannot be the basis of our society without logic or reason, and that's what religion is.
Faith without logic or reason.

"Evolution and Abiogenesis"

Well, this is exciting.

To begin with, I assure you guys (so that you don't feel obligated to tell me 10 more times) that abiogenesis is how life began and evolution is completely unrelated.

OK, let's do this step-by-step, employing indirect logic.

Abiogenesis --> Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

OK, so if abiogenesis is false (which I will explain shortly),

Abiogenesis --> Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So obviously, if abiogenesis never occurred, then there would be no life for evolution to work with.

Therefore:

Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

Well, this leads to a contradiction, because in this equation there is no life. And obviously, there is life.

So the evolutionist will tell me, "Well, duh you're stupid because we know that there is life here today, therefore evolution is still true."

Well, obviously since evolution eliminates God (even if there was a god in this case, there would be no reason to worship him b/c he's never done anything for us or with us), the evolutionist who makes this statement is saying that evolution is the only possible explanation. He will not even consider that God could have created everything, because that contradicts his theory.

So, essentially, we replace abiogenesis with:

(Well, we know evolution is true so we don't need to understand how life began) -->
Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So evolution is proof of itself? Circular reasoning.

Eh, try this.

Big Bang -> Development of chemicals -> Abiogenesis -> Evolution
Just because you can't understand the universe doesn't mean a man in the sky made it, just for you.

Well, essentially you have to accept the idea of spontaneous generation, which real science HAS to reject.

Missed the Big Bang theory altogether, did you?

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old. Obviously, I will never live long enough to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

Eh, we have pretty solid proof it did happen.
Even if you did wait a few hundred thousand years, you'd be severely disappointed.

Anybody can see that genetic mutations occur! Creationists aren't anti-science; they're against the anti-science parts of evolution!!!

There's no such thing as the anti-science parts of evolution.
Believe it or not, scientists are scientists because they want to discover things about the world, not piss off a bunch of amaideach religious fundamentalist loons.

Let's look at Germany. The Germans in 1930-45 really took "survival of the fittest" to heart. How?

No, they took racism to heart and tried to use evolution as a tool to explain their own racism to themselves. Evolution didn't cause the Holocaust, anti-semitic feeling that other theists created came to a head.

[Ummon]

Here we see how misguided theists are wrong in attacking science, they give misguided atheists a chance to attack religion under the guise of defending science from the other side's blundering challenges.

Obviously, the latter attack is not much better than the former.

[IrishHitman]

Here we see how misguided theists are wrong in attacking science, they give misguided atheists a chance to attack religion under the guise of defending science from the other side's blundering challenges.

Obviously, the latter attack is not much better than the former.

The difference is that religion is actually open for attack and deserves it..

That's the thing.
Science is neutral until it is applied, religion is naturally malevolent, even when it is doing something under the guise of good. It's never helping people because they're suffering, it's always to convert them, push your own views, or to save your own skin from eternal damnation...

[Ummon]

Deserves it according to you. Any human endeavour is imperfect. Any human being is as well.

We should remember what a galilean preacher said once, allegedly.

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

[IrishHitman]

Deserves it according to you. Any human endeavour is imperfect. Any human being is as well.

We should remember what a galilean preacher said once, allegedly.

In this case, science is the speck and religion is a sword that has straight pierced the eye, passed through the brain and exited at the other side of the skull.

[Ummon]

Well, given you are so sure...

[IrishHitman]

Well, given you are so sure...

Until the facts say otherwise, I'll be as sure as logically possible.

[Ummon]

There is no logic in assertion based on absence of evidence, whether in one sense or the other. You are, as Chaigidel often puts it, a faithful person.

[IrishHitman]

There is no logic in assertion based on absence of evidence, whether in one sense or the other. You are, as Chaigidel often puts it, a faithful person.

There is quite a bit of evidence that religion is harmful, especially if taken seriously by its believers.

On the other hand, science is a tool, it is neutral.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

What if the evidence is a pattern - that a suspension of belief in something is in fact the belief in its opposite, its nonexistence.

[Ummon]

There is quite a bit of evidence that religion is harmful, especially if taken seriously by its believers.

On the other hand, science is a tool, it is neutral.

I suspect that your evidence would prove thin and one-sided, if you chose to provide it. It is infact a widely known fact, reported in accepted and official psychiatric literature, that religion (like other normative social constructs) can be protective against mental disorders.

A fact you may find discussed here: http://www.flipkart.com/social-facto...660-fzw3f9h3ew

As with any tool, science is fallible. A human product.

[IrishHitman]

I suspect that your evidence would prove thin and one-sided, if you chose to provide it. It is infact a widely known fact, reported in accepted and official psychiatric literature, that religion can be protective against mental disorders.

A fact you may find discussed here: http://www.flipkart.com/social-facto...660-fzw3f9h3ew

As with any tool, science is fallible. A human product.

I wasn't referring to anything as mundane as psychological disorders, and the evidence for that is still dodgy at best. It cannot have a large effect, there are more than enough insane religious people after all.

I was referring to the centuries of physical and mental harm inflicted because of religion.
Then there's the social stagnation to add to the pile. History records many instances of all three.

Whether Science is fallible or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is neutral until it is applied.
For instance, a man firing a gun into a crowd is using a product of science for bad purposes.
The surgeons that saves the shot people is using it for good.

[Ummon]

You fail to perceive that religion causes harm just like any other human activity. Humans themselves are great harm causes.

What if the evidence is a pattern - that a suspension of belief in something is in fact the belief in its opposite, its nonexistence.

I didn't get what you mean here: could you specify?

[Playfishpaste]

You fail to perceive that religion causes harm just like any other human activity. Humans themselves are great harm causes.



I didn't get what you mean here: could you specify?

He means that to not believe in something is to consider it doesn't exist.

This is not really the case, semantically anyway. I don't believe in collective consciousness, but I don't think it doesn't exist.

[Ummon]

Not believing (and not believing in the opposite) is agnosticism, not atheism.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Evolution is not the only thing we use put God's existence in serious doubt.
In fact, it only presents one extra argument against God as a single concept.

----> DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD <-------

Now that I've made that clear, I'd like to point out one thing:

Agnosticism (and "weak atheism") is the most we can actually defent with arguments, from a philosophical standpoint. In fact, both strong atheism ("I assert that God does not exist") and theism ("God exists") are undefendable as the arguments of both sides rely upon probability, and therefore, a good measure of faith.

The fact is, that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens do not realize this philosophical, essential limitation (the good thing about philosophy is that you don't need to beat about the bush) of their arguments which are only based upon probability: Their arguments, at best, make it improbable for a god to exist. To claim otherwise is bad faith (pun intended).

Therefore: Agnosticism owns thy arses

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Agnosticism (and "weak atheism") is the most we can actually defent with arguments, from a philosophical standpoint. In fact, both strong atheism ("I assert that God does not exist") and theism ("God exists") are undefendable as the arguments of both sides rely upon probability, and therefore, a good measure of faith.

Okay ...

The fact is, that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens do not realize this philosophical, essential limitation (the good thing about philosophy is that you don't need to beat about the bush) of their arguments which are only based upon probability: Their arguments, at best, make it improbable for a god to exist. To claim otherwise is bad faith (pun intended).

I haven't read any Hitchens, but how does Dawkins "do not realize this philosophical, essential limitation", given that he is not a "strong" atheist?

Therefore: Agnosticism owns thy arses

Or "weak" atheism.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

I haven't read any Hitchens, but how does Dawkins "do not realize this philosophical, essential limitation", given that he is not a "strong" atheist?

Dawkins enters the club by being an arrogant prick. Furthermore, despite not being a "strong" atheist, he is consistently used by "strong" atheists in discussion forums such as this.

Hitchens is even more of an arrogant prick than Dawkins. If you liked Dawkins, you'll love Hitchens!

Or "weak" atheism.

Of course.