Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So just more of the same from you. Claims without supporting verifiable evidence. Why am I not surprised!
Neither am I surprised that it has turned from a question about whether there are deconverted atheists here to debating evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Slime is a living thing. It's called blue-green algae, which is a very primitive form of bacteria. Because inanimate matter DOES produce life. Individual atoms are not living things. But exactly the same atoms that make rocks and slime, also can make trees and people. Atoms interact with each other in a process known as chemistry. It's all in the chemistry. Chemistry is driven by quantum mechanics. Which is the little motor that drives nature and is responsible for all change. Your ignorance of the process has no effect on the ongoing nature of the process one way or the other.
You might not like that answer. You might find that answer to be emotionally unsatisfying. Instead, you find the concept that humans are special, endowed by God with souls, to be satisfying. But you might ask yourself, who endowed God with a soul? Who made God? And if the answer is, no one made God, then you recognize that it's possible for things to exist without the need of a creator.
It's just that you have created a step in your imagination that is not necessary.
Very good. Yes. The evidence supports the idea that consciousness - evolving along with lie - could and did come from 'slime' or the very basic living matter that is pretty much verified by fossil evidence.
The believers do seem to confuse the evolutionary argument (which shows what produced consciousness - at least in atheist apologetics) with the abiogenesis arguments, which is about whether life could come from nn -living biochemicals without the intervention of a god.
I think that you may just have close one of the three remaining gaps for God. The one about the origins of Life and the origins of matter remain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2
"Some call it Evolution, others call it God", Charles Darwin.
Yes. Too many believers think that that one either believes in evolution or a god, but can't do both. In fact it is perfectly possible to suppose that a god produced life -forms through an evolutionary process rather than al in one go.
In fact Genesis - literalist Creationism even argues (in some versions) for an evolutionary process from postulated basic animal types (baryma, as they call them) to the present diversity, but during a lightning process over about 1,000 years from the (clamed) time of the Flood to the time of the pyramids. There is even a very nice model of Pakicetus on Ham's Ark in order to fit the Cetan sequence into YE Creationism:- the 'Macro' - evolution of a land animal into whales.
Yes, Folks, Ken Ham believes in macro - evolution. You read it here, first.
Any former Creationists here?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-04-2020 at 03:04 AM..
At this point I'm not sure if I'm a closet atheist or not. I live life like there's no God. I don't believe in moralism anymore. To me there is no right or wrong. There are choice that feel good and we should make those choices for ourselves as long as we don't hurt anyone and as long as we stay on this side of the law. Anything goes with those two caveats. You want to do drugs, fine. Just don't do illegal ones, and if you do just don't get caught. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Want to have sex, fine. Have all you want. Just don't forget protection. And if you intend to pay for it just don't get caught.
At the risk of sounding repetitive. atheism - as aligned with humanism - (and atheists) would be on the same page as you in all of this (I might debate you on some of the moral issues, though). We may disagree on the case for believing in a god, but that is merely something to argue about amicably over a beer in the bar of the Chicken Ranch (if it's till there..Ah, no. Closed in '73).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Please, all you do is make assertions to beg the question. You are in no position to talk about specious reasoning.
All the evidence says your assertions are false, especially as we can model aspects of consciousness using computers using AI. The philosophical zombies argument is a failed thought experiment as it raises many questions such as why a philosophical zombie would require taste organs but answers none.
An assertion that explains absolutely nothing.
Dammit Harry Did you pick that up from me, or did you work that out yourself? I think that you must have done, as I argued 'how can Chalmer's mind -experiment postulate zombies that are exact replicas of humans, having everything that produces feelings and experiences, and even evolved instincts, but yet, just to make the mind -experiment work - lacks all of these?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-04-2020 at 02:59 AM..
At the risk of sounding repetitive. atheism - as aligned with humanism - (and atheists) would be on the same page as you in all of this (I might debate you on some of the moral issues, though). We may disagree on the case for believing in a god, but that is merely something to argue about amicably over a beer in the bar of the Chicken Ranch (if it's till there..Ah, no. Closed in '73).
So you think, apart from religious convictions, engaging in things like sex outside of marriage and drugs are repellent morally even though you believe when we die we're dead? Please explain.
In fact Genesis - literalist Creationism even argues (in some versions) for an evolutionary process from postulated basic animal types (baryma, as they call them) to the present diversity, but during a lightning process over about 1,000 years from the (clamed) time of the Flood to the time of the pyramids. There is even a very nice model of Pakicetus on Ham's Ark in order to fit the Cetan sequence into YE Creationism:- the 'Macro' - evolution of a land animal into whales.
Yes, Folks, Ken Ham believes in macro - evolution. You read it here, first.
Ken Ham also acknowledges there were dinosaurs... and they went on the Ark with everything else. Of course, his explanation is complete gibberish, but at least they went along for the ride!
It's just a shame they went extinct after that boat ride, especially when God personally selected the young adult dinosaurs best able to adapt in the New World.
So you think, apart from religious convictions, engaging in things like sex outside of marriage and drugs are repellent morally even though you believe when we die we're dead? Please explain.
As an atheist, I of course think that This life matters and any postulated next one can worry about itself. I think in terms of a better life for us and for those who come afterwards. I don't think in terms of repellent morally (people's (1) morals are their own affair) but of Problems, for the individual, family, group, community, society and species. I think in terms of recognition of something that won't go away and practical ways to handle it. I have learned the lesson of history in the failure and repeal of prohibition and I believe that the Abstinence solution will fail, if indeed it hasn't already.
I have a lot of ideas, proposals and possible solutions, but they are not germane to the Forum and moreover, just observing that women's instincts have evolved to do a different job from men's was met with a very flat slapdown, and I got enough opponents already
(1) personal possessive, individual.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-04-2020 at 02:21 PM..
Ken Ham also acknowledges there were dinosaurs... and they went on the Ark with everything else. Of course, his explanation is complete gibberish, but at least they went along for the ride!
It's just a shame they went extinct after that boat ride, especially when God personally selected the young adult dinosaurs best able to adapt in the New World.
Thank you. I believe that the Triceratops was required to work a treadmill that operated some kind of pulley system. For what purpose i forget. Yes it is a bit of a shame that such a lot of effort went into putting the dinosaurs on the Ark for the sole purpose of super -evolving to a herd large enough to make those dino tracks in 'Flood' strata, put in a couple of guest appearances on the OT show and then go extinct, other than in Cambodia where even the Chariot survived to the Medieval period..
Yes, I was an atheist since I was a teenager, but then God got me out of that and called me to faith in Jesus Christ when I was 28 years old (I'm 30 now).
That's similar to how my path was. I was raised nominally catholic, became atheist/agnostic during college and was converted by the Holy Spirit when I was 32. (I'm almost 40 now, in November).
I was converted by studying a historical figure from the American civil war. The faith God gave to me aligns with the Presbyterian Church; I'm a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church right now. I found the Westminster Confessions of Faith (what I figured best expressed the beliefs of a Presbyterian, as my historical subject was--a devout one so I figured the best way to understand him was to understand what he believed) very fascinating.
You won't be able to argue God with logic here. God has to convince you that your logic is flawed and it will only ever be able to point to the impossibility, or a very unlikely chance, of the truth of the God of the Bible. The Holy Spirit has to convince people of the existence of sin first. I come from a scientific background and understand many of the things that people think can only be God acting can be explained by science. But my finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite. When God revealed his holiness to me, I became acutely aware of my sinful nature. God is not on trial here, we are; but many people want to have it in reverse.
Life is truly purposeless without knowing Jesus Christ. The end of a person's life comes much too quickly. It may seem like a long time, but when you get there I vow to you it will seem but just a moment has passed. You will wonder where all the years went to. There can be many pleasant things in this life, but one thing is true is that only those who are "lucky" to use the secular term will be able to avoid any hardships.
If we have all our needs met here and have in a sense a "paradise" on earth, why do we really need God? Jesus would seem like some extra thing to have "just in case" maybe there is something that happens after death. There really is no concrete proof of there being anything. That is why we live by faith and not by sight. If we have some sort of sensory knowledge of Jesus then our faith would be worthless.
The span of one's life is so very short though and there is no guarantee that your life will be free of troubles. I have found that when your world falls apart around you and you really have nothing, that is when you can actually experience the worth of knowing that Jesus is God. For why is it that there is so much faith amongst the impoverished and those who have nothing? Prosperity makes the spirit dull. Satisfaction is so much more easily obtained; and when that new thing wears out then you can go on to something else and have that be fulfilling. In the end though, we will all have nothing; that much at least can be seen with the eyes.
So you think, apart from religious convictions, engaging in things like sex outside of marriage and drugs are repellent morally even though you believe when we die we're dead? Please explain.
engaging in things like sex outside of marriage and drugs repellent morally ...
gods has nothing to do with it. Its what happens when we do these things. Who and how many get hurt.
when they don't affect anybody else they are morally fine. its when you have kids out side of marriage, do drugs and adversely affect your life to the point that other people feel its ok it take from people to pay for the choices.
god doesn't decide the sin, we do. I can see people people saying thousands of years ago "you don't know everything." so the smart ones just say ... "because god said so."
Dammit Harry Did you pick that up from me, or did you work that out yourself? I think that you must have done, as I argued 'how can Chalmer's mind -experiment postulate zombies that are exact replicas of humans, having everything that produces feelings and experiences, and even evolved instincts, but yet, just to make the mind -experiment work - lacks all of these?
Sorry, it was independent. I was thinking about how much we depend on our exes that the argument about Qualia was overlooking an important point, why we have eyes. So I rethought the argument using taste as Qualia, and then realized a philosophical zombie would not require taste organs if it could not experience taste.
Mind experiments are OK, but only if you actually do them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you pick that up from me, or did you work that out yourself? I think that you must have done, as I argued 'how can Chalmer's mind -experiment postulate zombies that are exact replicas of humans, having everything that produces feelings and experiences, and even evolved instincts, but yet, just to make the mind -experiment work - lacks all of these?
Please explain.
