Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

It's Irrational To be An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Since a part of it was brought up at the other topic

 

 

 

 

.......might as well jump into it. 

 

 

“We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us”

― Albert Einstein

 


Here's a very simple explanation why it's simply irrational to be an atheist...... it's unnecessary to be an agnostic.....

........and it's totally reasonable to be a theist. 

 

 

To discuss, you'll have to watch that particular segment of the video.

 

Starts at timer 19:00

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The gentlemen in the video makes the common mistake of conflating belief and knowledge.

1) Atheism/Theism refers to belief. Atheism is not an assertion that there are no gods, it is simply a lack of belief in gods. Due to the lack of evidence for a living megalodon I do not believe the giant prehistoric shark still exits. Similarly, due to the lack of evidence for gods I do not believe gods exist. This is different than positively stating I know that gods do not exist.

2) Agnostic/Gnostic refers to knowledge. It is very hard to prove a negative so there is always a possibility that gods, living megalodons or flying spaghetti monsters exist, thus I am agnostic about the existence of those things.

I am an agnostic atheist. I am an agnostic a-living-megalodonist. I am an agnostic a-flying-spaghetti-monsterist. 

Someone that believes in the existence of gods and claims to know they exist would be a Gnostic Theist.
Someone that believes in the existence of gods but is unsure if they actually exist would be an Agnostic Theist.
Someone that does not believe in the existence of gods and claims to know they do not exist would be a Gnostic Atheist.
Someone that does not believe in the existence of gods but is unsure if they actually exist would be and Agnostic Atheist.

Personally, I think it is irrational to believe in the existence of something without sufficient evidence, hence my position on gods and pasta based monsters. Also, the greater the claim being made, the greater evidence that will be required to substantiate it.

For example, you might claim to have a cat at home. That is a tiny, very reasonable claim; your word would be enough to convince me to believe it. I wouldn't absolutely know for certain that you have a cat at home, but I would still believe that you do. However, if you claimed to have met the flying spaghetti monster or have caught a living megalodon while deep sea fishing I would require significantly more than your word before I would accept this belief. It would be irrational to take such a giant, unreasonable claim on faith so I would not believe it though I would also not be able to claim to know for certain that you did not in fact do either of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Slick said:

The gentlemen in the video makes the common mistake of conflating belief and knowledge.

1) Atheism/Theism refers to belief. Atheism is not an assertion that there are no gods, it is simply a lack of belief in gods. Due to the lack of evidence for a living megalodon I do not believe the giant prehistoric shark still exits. Similarly, due to the lack of evidence for gods I do not believe gods exist. This is different than positively stating I know that gods do not exist.

2) Agnostic/Gnostic refers to knowledge.

 

Atheism is the opposite of theism.   Yes, it's about belief!   They have OPPOSING BELIEFS!

"Lack of belief," describes agnosticism!  You said it yourself!  "Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence!"

Agnostics are not committed to believing in the existence or non-existence of God or gods........

 

FYI,  evidence - as in research/scientific findings -  is knowledge!

 

 

Quote

It is very hard to prove a negative so there is always a possibility that gods, living megalodons or flying spaghetti monsters exist, thus I am agnostic about the existence of those things.

 

Megalodons?   Flying spaghetti monster?  What poppycock are you blabbering about?

What other kind of existence are we discussing here if not about the supernatural?

 

You think mentioning the "flying spaghetti monster" makes your statement profound?  It does  not.  It's juvenile!

I saw  a flying spaghetti monster!  A toddler threw his spaghetti dinner and said, "monster!"  It flew and landed on the wall!  smiley.gif   

Shade of, "does Martin Tracey exists?" doesn't it?  As explained in the video (in case you didn't watch it).

 

See  the irrationality of your statements?

 

 

 

As for the negative - it gets dealt with when you give evidence for the positive!   Like how the National Academy of Sciences had given some evidence into the possibility - which is a positive - the possibility that this could be a God-created universe!  

 

Spaghetti monster is used as a ridicule by the anti- creationism.  

When a flying spaghetti monster is compared with God - the being that's being talked about by REAL scientists, like the NAS  (not some pseudo-scientists)  - their ignorance only shines through.

 

The NAS talks about the physical aspect here that support their stance on the possibility that this could be a God-created universe. 
 

Quote

 

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

Atheists don't agree with science.  They've got nothing to support their beliefs.

 

 

 

 

Quote

Someone that believes in the existence of gods and claims to know they exist would be a Gnostic Theist.
Someone that believes in the existence of gods but is unsure if they actually exist would be an Agnostic Theist.
Someone that does not believe in the existence of gods and claims to know they do not exist would be a Gnostic Atheist.
Someone that does not believe in the existence of gods but is unsure if they actually exist would be and Agnostic Atheist.

 

Once you feel unsure about your belief in the existence of a god or God.....you are an agnostic!   Why are people unsure?   Because of what they think is lack of evidence!   Let me repeat this to you:   lack of evidence = lack of knowledge.     That's the bottomline!  

 

You are just an agnostic, period.   You've confused yourself into thinking you're a combination.  You're not. 

 

You're manipulating......and contradicting your own statement!  :lol:

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, betsy said:

Once you feel unsure about your belief in the existence of a god or God.....you are an agnostic!   Why are people unsure?   Because of what they think is lack of evidence!   Let me repeat this to you:   lack of evidence = lack of knowledge.     That's the bottomline!  

 

You are just an agnostic, period.   You've confused yourself into thinking you're a combination.  You're not. 

 

You're manipulating......and contradicting your own statement!  :lol:

 

Are you serious about having a discussion here or are you just going to stick with knocking down your strawman? 

As I mentioned the terms theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic refer to belief and knowledge respectively. One term from each pair is required to label a particular position on the belief that a particular entity exists. If it's the labels themselves that are throwing you off we can create new labels here for this particular discussion; but, if you are intent on just repeating the inaccurate information from the video then there is no point in continuing.

To help remove possible inaccurate, preconceived notions with respect the terms we are discussing, I'm going to replace theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic with the terms Believer/Nonbeliever and Knower/Nonknower. Now I am going to use the two terms to illustrate my position on a few entities to help illustrate why I am accurately described as an agnostic atheist. Maybe if you share where you would stand on the same entities, it will help you understand my position and that it is possible to both believe and disbelieve without knowing.

With respect to the god of the bible, Zeus, Thor or Xenu, I am an Nonbeliever and a Nonknower.
   - There isn't sufficient evidence for their existence but I can not 100%, absolutely rule out or prove their lack of existence.
   - I am willing to say the existence of these entities is extremely unlikely but I can not absolutely prove they do not exist.
   - I'm guessing that you and I share the same position on Zeus, Thor and Xenu but differ on the god of the bible.

If Michael Hardner were to claim that he owns a Chocolate Lab, I would be a Believer and a Nonknower.
   - The claim of owning a dog is small and common, I don't require more than his word to believe that statement.
   - However, since I don't actually have any evidence I would not state that I know for sure that he in fact owns that dog.

With respect to Tiger Woods being a golfer, I am a Believer and Knower.
   - I don't think I have to elaborate on this one.

With respect to the existence of a hippo in my bathtub, I am a Nonbeliever and a Knower.
   - I don't believe the hippo exists in my bathtub and I can adequately prove that.
   - However, if it were to be something like an invisible hippo, then I would likely not be able to prove its nonexistence.
   - The invisible hippo is now an untestable entity, like gods, so I would not be able to absolutely claim they do not exist.
 

I hope that helps you understand why we need a pair of terms to describe our belief and knowledge and why I am accurately labelled an agnostic atheist with respect to the many thousands of gods man has claimed to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Slick said:

With respect to the existence of a hippo in my bathtub, I am a Nonbeliever and a Knower.
   - I don't believe the hippo exists in my bathtub and I can adequately prove that.
   - However, if it were to be something like an invisible hippo, then I would likely not be able to prove its nonexistence.

- The invisible hippo is now an untestable entity, like gods, so I would not be able to absolutely claim they do not exist.

 

The invisible hippo is an untestable entity.  Therefore.......it boils down to  lack of evidence - lack of knowledge.      That makes you an agnostic.

 

 

However......

......if something invisible does seems to be in your bath tub - it's leaving those hippo marks on your tub, scratching it -  your tub smells like it, too -  and there are traces on your tub  that are known to come from hippos, like a dna sample.   And, it makes noises like a hippo.

You got those cumulative evidences that point to a hippo........

..........Would you say that IT IS POSSIBLE, an invisible hippo is in your tub? 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

With respect to the god of the bible, Zeus, Thor or Xenu, I am an Nonbeliever and a Nonknower.
   - There isn't sufficient evidence for their existence but I can not 100%, absolutely rule out or prove their lack of existence.
   - I am willing to say the existence of these entities is extremely unlikely but I can not absolutely prove they do not exist.
 

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence.....but it's not sufficient.  

What evidence do you mean exists?

 

 

Quote

 - I'm guessing that you and I share the same position on Zeus, Thor and Xenu but differ on the god of the bible.

Yes.   The Biblical God isn't comparable at all to Zeus, Thor and Xenu. 

 

The God that is referred to in Theistic Evolution is  the  Biblical God.  Why do I say that?  Because  present-day scientist Francis Collins (a Christian) uses the term Theistic Evolution.  He's reconciled it with his Christian faith.  

  There are apparently many variations of Theistic Evolution - but most if not all of their proponents were Christian scientists.

 

 

Quote

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[4] The executive director of the National Center for Science Education in the United States of America, Eugenie Scott, has used the term to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting the concept of continued intervention.

The Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was an influential proponent of God-directed evolution or "orthogenesis", in which man will eventually evolve to the "omega point" of union with the Creator.  

 

Quote

Historians of science (and authors of pre-evolutionary ideas) have pointed out that scientists had considered the concept of biological change well before Darwin.

In the 17th century, the English nonconformist/Anglican priest and botanist John Ray, in his book The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation (1692), had wondered "why such different species should not only mingle together, but also generate an animal, and yet that that hybridous production should not again generate, and so a new race be carried on".[14]

18th-century scientist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) published Systema Naturae (1735- ), a book in which he considered that new varieties of plants could arise through hybridization, but only under certain limits fixed by God. Linnaeus had initially embraced the Aristotelian idea of immutability of species (the idea that species never change), but later in his life he started to challenge it. Yet, as a Christian, he still defended "special creation", the belief that God created "every living creature" at the beginning, as read in Genesis, with the peculiarity a set of original species of which all the present species have descended

Jens Christian Clausen (1967), refers to Linnaeus' theory as a "forgotten evolutionary theory [that] antedates Darwin's by nearly 100 years", and reports that he was a pioneer in doing experiments about hybridization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

 

 

The Day-Age theory is subscribed to by most, if not all, Theistic Evolutionists. 

 

Quote

Consequently, there are now a number of theories relative to the creation account, and one of them is called the Day-Age Theory. Basically, this is a belief that the “days” spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are sequential periods and not literal, 24-hour days. Each day, therefore, is thought to represent a much longer, albeit undefined, period of time, such as a million or more years. Essentially, it is an attempt to harmonize Scripture with theistic evolution, or at least with the concept of an “old” earth.

https://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, betsy said:

The invisible hippo is an untestable entity.  Therefore.......it boils down to  lack of evidence - lack of knowledge.      That makes you an agnostic.

I don't believe the hippo exists but I can't rule out something untestable. So I would be a nonbeliever and an unknower, thus an Agnostic Atheist. Though just like with the god of the bible, Thor or Xenu, even though I admit existence is possible I would say that it is extremely improbable.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, betsy said:

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence.....but it's not sufficient.  

What evidence do you mean exists?

Writings exist about all of those topics, but no actual evidence for aliens or magic beings exists. 
 

Quote

Yes.   The Biblical God isn't comparable at all to Zeus, Thor and Xenu. 

The God that is referred to in Theistic Evolution is  the  Biblical God.  Why do I say that?  Because  present-day scientist Francis Collins (a Christian) uses the term Theistic Evolution.  He's reconciled it with his Christian faith.  

  There are apparently many variations of Theistic Evolution - but most if not all of their proponents were Christian scientists.

From my point of view your god, Zeus and Xenu are all equivalent. I don't believe any of them exist yet I can't absolutely prove it so I am an Agnostic Atheist with respect to each. 

I fail to see how trying to reconcile a natural process with beliefs about gods, aliens or invisible hippos would make a case for the existence of such things. If I told you that the souls of ancient dead aliens killed by Xenu attach themselves to humans and create bad emotional and psychological behaviour and that is consistent with bipolar disorder, ADHD, ODD, etc. would that count as evidence for the existence of Xenu?  Or like in my murder investigation example, did I simply conclude Xenu exists and then try to relate that to actual natural phenomenon?  Of course it is the later.  There is no need for Xenu in that explanation, just like there is no need to introduce gods into evolution.

Adding an untestable notion to a natural process does not add any credence to the untestable piece...even if the director of the NAS would have to admit that Xenu is technically possible.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Slick said:

 

From my point of view your god, Zeus and Xenu are all equivalent.

 

You insist to have the Biblical God "equivalent" with Zeus and Thor even though the stark EVIDENCE OF THEIR DIFFERENCE exists -  which proves your mind isn't open at all - not even a crack.  That simply makes you irrational! 

 

Lol.  Since when did scholars, and scientists debate on the existence of Zeus and Thor, and Xenu (whoever that is).   Do you know the Norse gods creation story?  

Did anyone even discuss the possibility of their  existence?   :lol: 

 

Whereas Theistic Evolution interpret Genesis 1 through the Day-Age theory!  You know what that means?  Here, to give you an idea how they interpret Genesis 1 through Day-Age theory!


 

Quote

 

Genesis 1

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

 

Interpretation

 

Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is "the surface of the waters" of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.

What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1, ~14 x 109 years ago). Science tells us that the entire planet was covered in a global sea soon after its creation (3). In other verses, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens, refuting geocentrism (4).

In Genesis 1:2, God was "hovering or brooding" over the seas of the newly formed earth (4.4-3.8 x 109 years ago, 5). We know from science this is where the first unicellular life forms first appeared (6). The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as "hovering or brooding" is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

 

 

Here is Biologos - founded by Francis Collins.  Watch the short video on What About The Bible?

https://biologos.org/resources/biologos-basics/

 

 

Lol.  Do you see it anywhere for any real and sane scientist bringing up Zeus? Or, Thor?  :D 

 

 

You can't see that difference between Zeus and company,  and the Biblical God???  I've put aside my own belief and am meeting you on your supposed ground - SCIENCE!   But you also reject science!  :lol:  So, you're merely arguing with your own opinion!  

Heck!  Your opinion isn't even sound!

 

Well....believe what you want.  There is no rational discussion with someone who simply ignores rational argument.

Have a nice day.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a background on Biologos:

 

Quote

So what is BioLogos? Well it all began with a scientist and a book. Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, wrote the book, The Language of God. In it he describes his own journey from atheism to Christian faith, and the harmony between Christianity and science (and especially evolution). Collins began receiving letters from people asking further questions about science and faith so he formed the BioLogos Foundation in 2007. The idea was to develop a website to house resources for this conversation. It launched in 2009, and now receives thousands of visits each day.

https://biologos.org/resources/audio-visual/what-is-biologos

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It may not be possible to explain to you why finding ways to reconcile a belief system with scientific fact is not evidence of the belief system itself, but I will try again. 

You are starting with the conclusion that your god of choice exists and that your scriptures are not just old, man made, works of fiction. There is no evidence to suggest that either the god or scriptures are real you have just asserted that they are. Then you cite this unproven text as evidence for the existence of the god. You then find passages in the text that can be made to line up with proven scientific facts and claim that as evidence for your scriptures. Yet the scientific concepts you cite do not provide any evidence for or even hint at the involvement of anything supernatural.

Here is an example of what you are doing:
Let's say I have faith that the Harry Potter stories are in fact real. I would claim the books are real and use them as evidence for the word of Dumbledore. I could point out that descriptions of England from the book match those of actual London and cite that as evidence the books are true. I could cite the idea that matter can be created from energy is consistent with wizards and witches creating objects with their wands. I could state that the overlapping wizarding and muggle worlds are consistent with the idea of the multiverse. I could even state that our particular universe was actually created by wizards to work exactly as it does. Then I could answer any question we do not yet have a scientific understanding of with wizards. How did the first self replicating amino acids form? Wizards! What initiated the rapid expansion we now call the Big Bang? Wizards!

None of the cumulative parallels between Harry Potter and actual natural phenomenon create any evidence for the idea that wizards and witches are real. The books do not create any evidence that wizards and witches are actually real. This all started with my wanting to believe that wizards and witches are real and my faith that the stories accurately describe the real world of wizards and witches. However, it is illogical to accept a story as real on faith and then use the story itself as evidence of its veracity.

I think we can likely both agree that Ron Hubbard did this with his alien story and turned it into the religion of Scientology. I think we probably agree the same process of tying real world events to created stories was behind the ancient Norse, Greek and Roman religions. I just do not see a difference between those religions and yours. They all rely on faith that god or alien stories are in fact true. I don't see any reason why the faith you have in your god, which is holding up the entire house of cards, is any more true or real than the faith others have or had in their gods. Which is why I consider your religion equivalent to any other imagined concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To summarize the position I've been arguing in this thread more succinctly:

There is no evidence to suggest religious scriptures are anything but the writings of men.
There is no evidence to suggest anything supernatural exists.
Claiming texts are divine because a god inspired them and then claiming the god exists because the text said so is a fallacy, not evidence.  

That being said, I do accept that I cannot know for sure that the supernatural does not exist.

Hence, my lack of belief in gods plus the fact that I cannot absolutely state that I know gods do not exist make me an Agnostic Atheist.
Just like the vast majority of nonbelievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Slick said:

It may not be possible to explain to you why finding ways to reconcile a belief system with scientific fact is not evidence of the belief system itself, but I will try again. 

You are starting with the conclusion that your god of choice exists and that your scriptures are not just old, man made, works of fiction. There is no evidence to suggest that either the god or scriptures are real you have just asserted that they are. Then you cite this unproven text as evidence for the existence of the god. You then find passages in the text that can be made to line up with proven scientific facts and claim that as evidence for your scriptures. Yet the scientific concepts you cite do not provide any evidence for or even hint at the involvement of anything supernatural.

Here is an example of what you are doing:
Let's say I have faith that the Harry Potter stories are in fact real. I would claim the books are real and use them as evidence for the word of Dumbledore. I could point out that descriptions of England from the book match those of actual London and cite that as evidence the books are true. I could cite the idea that matter can be created from energy is consistent with wizards and witches creating objects with their wands. I could state that the overlapping wizarding and muggle worlds are consistent with the idea of the multiverse. I could even state that our particular universe was actually created by wizards to work exactly as it does. Then I could answer any question we do not yet have a scientific understanding of with wizards. How did the first self replicating amino acids form? Wizards! What initiated the rapid expansion we now call the Big Bang? Wizards!

None of the cumulative parallels between Harry Potter and actual natural phenomenon create any evidence for the idea that wizards and witches are real. The books do not create any evidence that wizards and witches are actually real. This all started with my wanting to believe that wizards and witches are real and my faith that the stories accurately describe the real world of wizards and witches. However, it is illogical to accept a story as real on faith and then use the story itself as evidence of its veracity.

I think we can likely both agree that Ron Hubbard did this with his alien story and turned it into the religion of Scientology. I think we probably agree the same process of tying real world events to created stories was behind the ancient Norse, Greek and Roman religions. I just do not see a difference between those religions and yours. They all rely on faith that god or alien stories are in fact true. I don't see any reason why the faith you have in your god, which is holding up the entire house of cards, is any more true or real than the faith others have or had in their gods. Which is why I consider your religion equivalent to any other imagined concept.

 

I don't care about Harry Potter!  You're not getting it!  

You think all scientists from the National Academy of Sciences are all religious people??  No, they're not. 

Boy, now you're asking for it!  Large fonts!  :lol:

 

Here's what counts - the NAS speaking as a body, for all its members - religious or not!


 

Quote

 

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

 

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

Lol.  You better  understand arguments being given!

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
46 minutes ago, betsy said:

I don't care about Harry Potter!  You're not getting it!  

You think all scientists from the National Academy of Sciences are all religious people??  No, they're not. 

Boy, now you're asking for it!  Large fonts!  :lol:

I understand that the NAS once said that some of the passages in genesis can be considered consistent with some of what we understand about cosmology and biology. However, you are ignoring the part about that not being evidence of a god or that the bible is anything but a man made text. The NAS isn't saying a god exists, nor are they saying the bible is inspired by a god or anything supernatural exists. It is just a correlation.

The idea that wizards can create matter with their wand is consistent with the scientific fact that energy can be converted into matter. 
Is this correlation between science and the Harry Potter story evidence for the existence of wizards?  Of course not.
Is this correlation evidence that the texts were inspired by wizards? Of course not.
Is it just a correlation? Yes.

There is no evidence for wizards in that correlation. It doesn't even make sense to make the correlation, unless I first took the irrational step of accepting the existence of wizards on faith and then tried to tie them to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Slick said:

I understand that the NAS once said that some of the passages in genesis can be considered consistent with some of what we understand about cosmology and biology. However, you are ignoring the part about that not being evidence of a god or that the bible is anything but a man made text. The NAS isn't saying a god exists, nor are they saying the bible is inspired by a god or anything supernatural exists. It is just a correlation.

The idea that wizards can create matter with their wand is consistent with the scientific fact that energy can be converted into matter. 
Is this correlation between science and the Harry Potter story evidence for the existence of wizards?  Of course not.
Is this correlation evidence that the texts were inspired by wizards? Of course not.
Is it just a correlation? Yes.

There is no evidence for wizards in that correlation. It doesn't even make sense to make the correlation, unless I first took the irrational step of accepting the existence of wizards on faith and then tried to tie them to reality.

Your comparison with wizards is another juvenile argument along the vein of comparing the Biblical God with Zeus.    It shows that the argument is flying over your head.  Read my post again about your Zeus comparison. 

 

There are evidences that support the POSSIBILITY of a God-created universe.   The NAS just said so!

Evidence and proof are not exactly the same.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The comparison is not juvenile, it is meant to illustrate your own argument with an entity other than gods in an attempt to help you see your own logical fallacy. 

It is possible that a god created this universe, but the NAS didn't say there is evidence for that. In the same way, it is also possible that a wizard or spaghetti monster created this universe, though there is no evidence for that either.

The NAS agreeing that there is a correlation between some passages in Genesis and some aspects of biology and cosmology is not evidence for a god created universe and does not add any veracity to the bible whatsoever. Just like correlations between Harry Potter and physics is not evidence for the existence of wizards and does not make the books any less fictional.  There is no evidence supporting wizards or gods. The is no evidence that the bible is any more divinely inspired than the Harry Potter books.

Edited by Guest
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Slick said:

The comparison is not juvenile, it is meant to illustrate your own argument with an entity other than gods in an attempt to help you see your own logical fallacy. 

 

Yes, your comparison is juvenile. Harry Potter is fiction!   How do I know that?  The author said so!

Furthermore, look in the library and see what section Harry Potter is placed! 

 

Stop parroting juvenile sources.  I repeat - you didn't understand why it is so. 

Re-read my posts carefully.  It's right there - explained fully why your comparison is.......juvenile. To say the least.

 

 

 

Quote

It is possible that a god created this universe, but the NAS didn't say there is evidence for that.

 

Because, your mind is closed!  That's why you're not getting this part of the statement:

 

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Adding red and bold doesn't change the meaning of the words you keep quoting.  

That statement simply shows that the NAS acknowledges that some text in the bible correlates to some aspects of biology and cosmology. Some text in Genesis reflects what scientific research has revealed over the years. The NAS is not stating that there is any evidence for anything supernatural. The NAS is not stating that this correlation provides credence to genesis or idea of 'theistic evolution', it just acknowledges a correlation. That's it, nothing more.  

Dianetics - Book 1 of Scientology shows a correlation between the souls of ancient dead aliens and current documented mental health issues. Our current understanding of psychology and mental illness is consistent with the religious views of Scientologists. Do you think this correlation creates evidence for the beliefs of Scientologists or the text in Dianetics?

The Hindu Dashavatara or the 10 incarnations of Vishnu has correlations to our modern understanding of evolution along with their belief of a common ancestor for all of life. Do you think this correlation creates evidence that the Rigveda is anything more than a man made text? 

There is a correlation between human birthrate and the population of storks in countries. Do you think this correlation creates evidence for the idea that storks deliver babies?

These correlations are equivalent to the one you keep quoting. I'm hoping that by providing examples that you are not predisposed to latch on to you will be able to see your error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 2:25 PM, betsy said:

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence

This reminds me of that movie Dumb & Dumber:

 

Lloyd Christmas: I want to ask you a question, straight out, flat out, and I want you to give me the honest answer. What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas:  You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.

Lloyd Christmas:  (Smiling)   So you're telling me there's a chance..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goddess said:

This reminds me of that movie Dumb & Dumber:

 

Lloyd Christmas: I want to ask you a question, straight out, flat out, and I want you to give me the honest answer. What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas:  You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.

Lloyd Christmas:  (Smiling)   So you're telling me there's a chance..........

 

He didn't say there are no evidence, did he?  He's saying the evidence are not sufficient.  If he meant there are no evidence - why not say so? 

 

Anyway, my question wasn't like that script.  You should read it again.

He's saying the evidence are not adequate (sufficient).  So I ask, what are those he claims to be  evidence, but which he find not sufficient? 

Lol.

 

Good thing you reminded me of that.   I'm waiting to see what evidence he claims he has  - insufficient evidence that they are -  about Zeus and Xenu.  :lol:

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goddess said:

This reminds me of that movie Dumb & Dumber:

 

Lloyd Christmas: I want to ask you a question, straight out, flat out, and I want you to give me the honest answer. What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas:  You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.

Lloyd Christmas:  (Smiling)   So you're telling me there's a chance..........

You quoted me with this:

 

 
Quote

 

On 7/24/2018 at 4:25 PM, betsy said:

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence 

 

 

Why did you edit my sentence?

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

Quote

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence.....but it's not sufficient.  

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
42 minutes ago, betsy said:

Good thing you reminded me of that.   I'm waiting to see what evidence he claims he has  - insufficient evidence that they are -  about Zeus and Xenu.  :lol:

Using your standards for evidence I provided some for Vishnu, the Xenu story and baby delivering storks right here.

As we know Zeus is fond of hurling lightning bolts; which, is consistent with the scientific fact that lighting strikes the Earth 100 times per second. Lightning is the focus of thousands of scientific journal articles, written by hundreds of scientists; in fact, lightning has it's own journal. There you go, scientific evidence for theistic lightning and the existence of Zeus. 

Can you see how correlation does not equal causation or evidence yet?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, betsy said:

You quoted me with this:

Quote

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence 

 

Why did you edit my sentence?

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

Quote

You say the evidence aren't sufficient.  That means, you're saying there is evidence.....but it's not sufficient.  

 

Because you already said there wasn't sufficient evidence in the first sentence.  The second "....but it's not sufficient"  was superfluous.  That means redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Because you already said there wasn't sufficient evidence in the first sentence.  The second "....but it's not sufficient"  was superfluous.  That means redundant.

No it's not redundant.

Large font time!

  It is an explanation of his statement - that he's saying, there is evidence

but it's not sufficient.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Slick said:

Using your standards for evidence I provided some for Vishnu, the Xenu story and baby delivering storks right here.

As we know Zeus is fond of hurling lightning bolts; which, is consistent with the scientific fact that lighting strikes the Earth 100 times per second.

Lightning is the focus of thousands of scientific journal articles, written by hundreds of scientists; in fact, lightning has it's own journal.

bwaahaha   crying-laughter-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emo

 

roflmao.gif

 

OMIGOSH!   crying.gif

  crying-with-laughter.gif

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...