The godless have a god and his name is ‘Evolution’.
Evolution is Alpha and Omega.
Evolution is intelligent, powerful, and creative.
Evolution possesses everything a proper god needs except…
…a will.
It has performed miracles throughout the ages.
Evolution has no emotions…yet created humans filled with passion.
Evolution has no dreams…yet bestowed mankind with imagination.
Evolution does not think…yet constructed a universe of reason.
Evolution hath wrought all for naught.
What is the meaning of life? Evolution!
Breathe deep the breath of Evolution and know your purpose!
Evolution will not advise you, neither will it criticize.
Evolution frees you to propose your own purpose.
Evolution will not, because it cannot, judge you.
Do not suggest that Evolution requires faith.
This is blasphemy.
Faith is for weak minds.
Strong minds have no faith because they are filled with Trust.
A Trust of Science.
A Science that Trusts Evolution.
The Holy Trinity.
Now, these three remain.
Evolution, Science, and Trust.
But the greatest of these is Trust.
Trust Evolution when life seems unbearable.
Trust Evolution when your life is ending.
Trust in Almighty, Unseeing, Unthinking, Unfeeling, Unproven, Uncaring Evolution!
It is the Alpha and Omega.
—– UPDATE —–
John Zande is no longer an atheist.
Recognizing the intellectual absurdity of atheism, he has become a theist.
He believes that God exists and has a mind that can be changed.
Zande is not an honest person so he will deny this faith.
But there is no denying we are all on a spiritual journey to understand our Creator.
289 Responses
@John
Sorry, the comments appear to have fallen out of order so I couldn’t reply directly.
In what sense is evolution a God?
This is EXACTLY what the original post was about!
You say ‘Evolution’ in the same sense people like Ken Hamm say God.
Evolution is a concept that fundamentalists insist explains everything. No God!
God is a concept that fundamentalists insist explains everything. No Evolution!
In the fundamentalist mind, God and Evolution cannot exist together.
So evolution is a good god for the godless.
Would you like a line by line critique of your post to show how that’s just nonsense?
No thank you.
I would be interested in a short, succinct, well-reasoned response to my answer.
Bear in mind, I expect you to present me with evidence, not faith statements. 🙂
Sorry, you’re saying you’d like a succinct response to your previous comment. Okay — it’s bullshit.
You don’t say anything specific enough to actually grasp. It’s a baseless and meaningless accusation.
I appreciate the brevity.
Did you notice I also asked for evidence?
This doesn’t mean anything.
If this is meant to clarify the earlier point, all it does is obfuscates the facts. Evolution doesn’t explain everything, it is a genre of phenomenon, the particular one we’re discussing is only meant to explain biological complexity and diversity. This is a long long way from ‘everything’.
God actually is meant to explain everything. I hope the distinction here is clear.
I took a shared elective module at universe called ‘Human Evolution’. There was a girl there from the architecture course who accepted evolution, but was an anti-gay, eschatological, Jesus-is-coming Christian. So, false.
The most your entire comment even hopes to achieve (and it does it through dishonest presentation of reality) is to make the two linguistic similarities. It also makes them the antithesis of each other, for they cannot coexist. And yet you claim to have made them the same thing.
So you went line by line anyway. Always gotta have it your way, huh? 🙂
Here’s a summarization of your replies:
“This doesn’t mean anything.”
“If this is meant to clarify the earlier point, all it does is obfuscates the facts.”
“There was a girl there from the architecture course… So, false.”
“The most your entire comment even hopes to achieve (and it does it through dishonest presentation of reality) is to make the two linguistic similarities. ”
It’s wonderful to be in the driver’s seat, isn’t it?
You get to decide which statements are worthy of response and which statements “don’t mean anything”.
You reserve the right to proclaim my comments are a ‘dishonest presentation of reality’! Yowza!!! Can I say that about your comments?
If it’s okay with you, let’s just take this one statement:
“Evolution doesn’t explain everything, it is a genre of phenomenon, the particular one we’re discussing is only meant to explain biological complexity and diversity.”
The topic is the origins of intelligence. Intelligence only exists in biologically complex organisms. Evolution is your explanation for EVERYTHING in regards to biological complexity and thus it is the explanation for EVERYTHING regarding intelligence. Can we agree to that?
Because if you need to send me another 500-word essay about how I’ve twisted reality to conform to my superstitions bias, you can save it.
I reject your faith claims about reality.
You can reject all the faith claims I’ve made and it makes no difference to my thesis: if you want to claim an intelligence started or guided it all, you have to demonstrate that claim. You haven’t, so I don’t accept it.
It’s been enlightening. I’m reminded, now, why I keep deciding not to engage on creationism. Tally ho.
If you want to claim no intelligence started or guided it all, you have to demonstrate that claim.
It has been enlightening. I’m reminded, now, why all the atheists call me names. (BTW: This is the first time the word ‘creationism’ has popped up and it was YOU who popped it.)
Tally ho.
Doesn’t matter if no one used the word. That’s still what we were talking about.
I see.
So it’s still your call what words we can use and what those words mean.
I’ve gotta give you credit. You have set yourself up brilliantly. (Though Tildeb was the first person I encountered with this strategy so maybe you stole the idea from him.)
You, and you alone, are define ‘reality’. Any deviation from your proclaimed truth is not supported by evidence.
I can say with absolute certainty that you will never lose a debate!
Tally ho.
Oh, now I can see why atheists call you names. Not that I have.
No, creationism has a meaning. Your position falls within its purview.
I like your strategy. See, you’re wrong on a lot of stuff here: the fact, the philosophy, my view. But still, you have a position and you feel entitled to preach it even if you can’t defend it (which you haven’t, you may notice — you’ve simply imagined what my view would be and tried to attack that). But, when someone wants to hold you to account, to draw out supporting facts and evidence from you, suddenly anyone who disagrees with you has set themselves up as the arbiter of reality and of language. I suppose there’s a good chance a respect for holding beliefs with rational defences would look a lot like that to someone without.
Congrats! You win!
… As I predicted.
I know you said you didn’t want it, but here it is anyway:
Right off the bat, to talk of evolution is terms of gender and implying it is in some way personable or personal is a mistake.
I had to do a little research to figure out what this is meant to mean. Luckily Got Questions was able to offer a few insights into the idea that it means beginning and end, and what the implications of that are. Given that biological evolution didn’t start on Earth until some 15 billion years after ‘the beginning’, and then current models have the universe ending in a heat death making life (and other forms of evolution, like stellar and galactic evolution) impossible, it certainly shan’t be the end. In fact, even if you narrow your terms to ‘life’, abiogenesis is the beginning and uniformity of heat is the end.
If i’m really really generous, and permit a broad definition of all three terms, you still only get two out of three: evolution can be thought of as creative in the specific sense that it is a description of how complexity comes into being, which if one wants to sloppy in their wording, one could call creative; but it is not creative in the sense of being imaginative; evolution can only be thought of as powerful in that, given the scope of time, it achieves things we see as significant; it is not powerful in any physical or literal sense, in fact it works so imperceptibly slowly precisely because it is not powerful; in no conceivable way is it intelligent, and we have talked about how it is not intelligent in previous posts.
Before you accuse me of sophistry here, the only sophistry so far is in me trying to be charitable to you.
Oh look, a clear way in which it is not a God. The only time you hit the mark, and it’s about how evolution is not a God.
No, it hasn’t. Nothing it has done is beyond specific explanation.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be a little less sloppy in your language. Evolution did not create or bestow or construct anything. It is the description of how known and understood natural mechanism lead to these things.
Given that the word ‘wrought’ means to be made well against a specified criteria, nope.
There are many little quips about the purpose of life, from a scientism point of view. To increase entropy is perhaps my favourite, although to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide is an equally flippant second. But, you see, evolution doesn’t actually offer any answer here. And, better yet, later in this very post, you contradict yourself.
Meaningless
A way in which evolution is not a God.
This presupposes that we were previously bound to a purpose. We weren’t. It also assumes that a description of changes across generations has some authority, which it also doesn’t. Evolution doesn’t free us, because we weren’t previously bound. It describes, along with the rest of science, a universe where no one has the magic authority to bind us to a purpose. And that is different.
Because it is not a God
Maybe here is where we start to see what you really mean. You mean it has a ‘Church’ of some sort around it. I mean, you have to contort and twist and confabulate and misrepresent everything up to this point. So maybe what you mean is it’s a God because it has faithful cheerleaders. Well, perhaps it does. Perhaps there are people who know nothing about evolution and simply accept it for no reason. I accept that possibility. I’ve never met them. But, more to the point, neither need is be supported by faith. As you’ve already conceded, there is a mass of evidence in favour of evolution.
As for science, science is built on the complete antithesis of faith, it is built on criticism. So… wrong again.
A science that has tried and tried again to disprove evolution for 150 years, but instead gets working AI algorithms out of its principles.
Trust is to be eschewed from science. You clearly know nothing about science.
I’ve never known anyone do this. I have known people particularly dislike the sensation that they are animals (or even that their body is machine-like) and so evolution made them a little uncomfortable. Never have I known someone take solace in it.
“Unproven” in what sense? Unproven in the technical sense that nothing is proven because proof is a concept reserved for formal logic? Or, unproven in the more colloquial sense that it hasn’t been demonstrated to reasonable confidence? If your comment is to even be relevant, it must be the latter, and so I shall be charitable and assume that definition.
In this case, each trait you list makes ‘evolution’ at odds with a God, except for the one you got wrong: unproven.
Again, no.
They even say “accept evolution” the way a Fundie says “accept Christ.”
Lol.
(Also, didn’t you say specifically, “No thank you.” to the question of whether you’d like a line-by-line treatise?)
Yep.
I should have begged him not to do it.
Appeal to his God-given sense of mercy.
Has anyone asked Ark to describe the qualities or characteristics of his (one word) Origin?
Maybe first cause, uncreated, transcendent, etc. Creator?
Shhh….If you don’t say his name, he might not notice that we’re here. He will spend the day taking pictures of crickets and we can talk about grown-up stuff.
Dear John,
How are you defining faith? Because I’m pretty sure I listed rather extensive empirical, observation and rational evidence in favour of evolution. I even provided a link explaining why entropy isn’t violated but, in fact, encourages the complexity of biological life.
And yet you typed this up.
Faith is anything you believe to be true even though you cannot prove it.
Empirical, rational evidence does not prove evolution. Just like empirical, rational evidence of ‘mind’ does not prove God.
Faith tells me intelligence created the process of evolution.
Faith tells you that intelligence is an emergent product of evolution.
And what do you mean by “prove”?
I don’t believe in proofs outside of formal logic and mathematics. Everything else is about what is empirically and rationally defensible.
Evolution is. Deities are not.
I disagree.
You can’t consider all supernatural claims as equal and then dismiss the entire concept of ‘deities’.
Virtually every explanation for the origins of the universe is ‘irrational’ because the existence of the universe itself is mysterious. Why is there something instead of nothing?
The mindless, unguided workings of invisible forces is not ‘more rational’ than an eternal, all-powerful mind.
An egg that popped into being is not more reasonable than a chicken that has lived forever.
Ah, but which came first?
You didn’t answer my question about what you mean by “prove”.
And I didn’t make all supernatural claims equal; I said all all claims of a deity fall below a certain benchmark. That does not imply they all equally fall below the mark, and neither is “deity” the same as “all supernatural claims”.
And cosmologists disagree with you about whether having something rather than nothing is a mysterious question. If you don’t agree with me, you can watch the Carroll and Craig debate on YouTube, where Carroll cites many other cosmologists and explains why Craig’s reliance on Borde, Guth and Vilenkin isn’t relevant.
Note, however, that I did not initially say anything about cosmology. You did. I was talking about claims having to be empirically and rationally defensible.
How am I supposed to know which came first? Do you know?
Of course the word ‘prove’ has a specific meaning in mathematics that is not applicable to the origins of the universe or the existence of deities. I used it to mean, “beyond all doubt”. Notice, that I did not say, “beyond all REASONABLE doubt”. Intrepid skeptics can ALWAYS raise doubts about any claim.
I’m certain that cosmologists disagree with me about many things. Do you think I can find some cosmologists who agree with me?
You didn’t say the word ‘cosmology’ but you did say the word ‘evolution’. Is evolution a totally separate concept from cosmology? We’re never going to actually discuss any ideas when we spend all our time fussing around with the definition of words.
Do you agree the idea that faith determines our perspective on evolution?
Your faith says intelligence is an emergent property of evolution.
My faith says intelligence put evolution into motion.
Neither position is ‘beyond all doubt’.
“Beyond all doubt” is an impossible benchmark to reach. Any sufficiently creative person can raise an unreasonable doubt. Do you really expect to have to deal with every unreasonable doubt?
Yes, cosmology (and cosmogony in particular — as that is the actual talking point) is wildly wildly different from biological evolution.
Now, my claim was that evolution is not beyond reasonable doubt and deities are. Cosmology is irrelevant to that discussion and I’m not really interested in moving on until we both concede something on that point.
Instead, you want me to defend different models of cosmogony. Why shift the topic of conversation before any headway has been made on the previous topic?
Believing in evolution does not come down to faith. It comes down to an honest interpretation of fossil, genetic, experimental and biogeography data, as well as being the logical consequence of reproduction with variation, and survival pressures.
I did a philosophy module as a part of my masters degree and one of the quotes that my lectures provided has to do with a hierarchy of influences on one’s beliefs. The most important part, according to this, was cosmology. What your position on cosmology is influences how you think about everything: the environment, interpreting evidence… everything. I disagree. It’s not a claim about cosmology that influences everything, it’s what you’re willing to accept you might be wrong about, and how you think you identify that: it’s not your ontology, it’s your epistemology.
I raise this to point out that I am familiar with this idea that everything is really about cosmology. But I disagree, and my position on that question actually explains the data: that we believe the facts we believe based on what methods of knowing we think are reasonable, not because of a fact about cosmology we accept at random.
Do I expect to have to deal with every unreasonable doubt? Absolutely! I’ve been running this blog for quite awhile. People tell me I have to ‘provide evidence’ for my claim that intelligence rises from intelligence. It gets to be very tedious.
Yes. Your claim was that “evolution is not beyond reasonable doubt and deities are”.
I responded that not ALL deities are beyond reasonable doubt.
Then, we got sidetracked on the definition of words like ‘proof’ and ‘doubt’ and ‘cosmology’.
Are you suggesting that we should have a conversation about evolution that has nothing to do with cosmogony?
If so, how do you propose we do that?
I don’t know that we got side tracked. You used the words “prove” and “faith” in ways that are suspect and I enquired.
Your answer didn’t really clear anything up for me. Now… this is an area where I get accused of being rude in real life, so I’m stepping this one carefully. See, my options appear to be of three: keep enquiring until I get and answer; go on as if I had an answer and thus have a meaningless conversation, or bail out. To me, the better option is to keep asking. But that’s what I get called rude for. Is it rude? I don’t know.
In the areas we are talking about, I do not accept there is any such thing as “proof”, and neither is there any such thing as “beyond all doubt”. There is also no such thing as certainty in this area. So, your claim that evolution hasn’t been proven seems completely irrelevant to anyone having a reasoned conversation: what has “proof” got to do with anything?
==========
If that makes sense to you, this paragraph isn’t useful to you, and you can skip it. If you still think “proof” is a sensible bar to have to pass before one can accept a claim, please consider the following example: You can’t prove you exist: I could be hallucinating; you could be an AI; a scientist could be intentionally altering my brain and therefore perception; I could be in a simulation. Some of these rebuttals to your existence rely on a definition of you. After all, if you are an AI — does that mean you are not you? Is there a discrepancy at all between the ‘you’ you might want to prove and the ‘you’ my speculation conjectures? Is that discrepancy relevant? See — definitions and philosophical questions get really important really quickly.
==========
So, that’s why I don’t think that part of the conversation was a sidetrack. If you insist on your ideas of proof and certainty, the conversation is dead in the water; there’s no point having it. Any attempt you then make to call all ideas that fall short of certainty equally faith based is a nonsense (confidence and intellectual defensibly still vary) built on a farce (certainty and proof are philosophically vapid things to speak of in this context).
As for how we talk of biological evolution without talking about cosmology, that’s really simple. You talk about evolution and not cosmology. There’s no overlap. It’s like asking how one talks about socks without talking about Uzbekistan.
Agreed. There is no way to ‘prove’ anything.
It took you over 500 words to refute something that I never asserted in the first place. 🙂
I acknowledge that evolution is supported by evidence.
In fact, I would suggest that evolution is itself evidence for intelligence…whatever you want to call it.
The question I was trying to address in the blog: “Is evolution a satisfactory replacement for God?”
No, you didn’t assert it. You coyly suggested it. You talked of proof.
They don’t answer the same questions.
You can go back through my structure and my Occam’s razor defence of my structure to see why I really don’t think evolution is evidence of intelligence.
Ok. You don’t think evolution is evidence of intelligence.
I do.
That’s the point of the whole conversation.
So, there is no transcendent intelligence guiding evolution. Intelligence emerged from the unintelligent process of evolution. Correct?
Why do you think it’s evidence of intelligence? Because, short of that reasoning I don’t accept the claim.
Most of the reasoning for thinking God leads evolution relies on a misapprehension of evolution, so the reasoning isn’t valid.
As to your question: there is very good evidence for the claim that evolution does not require an intelligent guidance. Evolution works on gradients. Intelligence is on a gradient from proto-intelligence, which comes from environmental response, which has been demonstrated in chemical mixes without nervous systems… so yes, I think there is very good reason to believe the products of evolution emerged without intelligent interference.
(The reason I’m not giving a straight ‘yes’ is because the reasoning is as important as the answer, as is the fact it’s rational to not accept intelligence guidance until specific evidence actually supports that claim. Not all explanations are equal, for that very reason. This is what Occam’s razor is about.)
Evolution is evidence for intelligence because evolution is ordered. It follows rules. And intelligence arises from intelligence (which is something we already agree about).
“Evolution works on gradients. Intelligence is on a gradient from proto-intelligence, which comes from environmental response, which has been demonstrated in chemical mixes without nervous systems… ”
All this statement demonstrates is that you are willing to accept the existence of intelligence apart from a central nervous system. Which, forgive me, is MY thesis. 🙂
That is something physics and chemistry achieve all by themselves. And if you reply ‘well, they’re evidence for intelligence too’, then you have excluded any point of comparison; there is no ‘natural’ out there against which you can compare ‘designed’ to make an analysis. The fact remains that physics creates order. Take a beach, for example; there is no need to call upon an intelligence guidance in their formation. It’s like you’re done with backwards; started with intelligence, and then looked for where you can shoehorn that ‘conclusion’ in.
We don’t actually agree on this. Your willingness to continually characterise what I said in this way is suggesting to me you’re not trying to have a conversation. The reason we don’t agree is that you are then building premises as if your statement had been ‘intelligence only arises from intelligence.’ And it is that point, which you imply but never state, that I disagree with. And you know it.
Other debaters always warn me not to give ground; they say that if you concede a small point, like a partial agreement, the other side will dishonestly run with it as a full agreement and never let go. I don’t believe in coming at these conversations with an adversarial strategy in mind, but I’m seeing why it’s worth it. Here’s the version of your statement I’m actually getting behind:
Intelligence exists on a gradient and can come from non-intelligence.
No. Your thesis is intelligence without material. My point is environmental response without a nervous system.
Consider this video, for me, would you?
You are splitting hairs. I’ve conceded that there is evidence for evolution. But you’re still unhappy because I’m not interpreting that evidence the way you do!
“Humans arise from humans.”
Do we agree this is true or must I say, “Humans CAN arise from humans”? Do we need to seriously consider another source of human babies?
If you expect me to believe that humans come from another source, you should provide some evidence.
And the evidence needs to be evolved already. Apes are not evidence for human beings.
I had this conversation with another young fella a couple of years ago. He kept insisting that abiogenesis has evidence in nature. I asked him to give me a single example of life arising from non-life. He said, “Abiogenesis.”
Proto-intelligence is STILL part of the evolved universe. You have claimed, by faith, that everything in the universe exists without intelligence so pointing to proto-intelligent life as proof that intelligence isn’t required is BEGGING THE QUESTION. I know this upsets you. But it’s the truth.
Apes are not human beings.
Proto-intelligence is not intelligence.
The initial point I made is that BOTH of us need to make irrational statements of faith about the existence of the universe.
Do you still disagree?
This right here is the issue. I do not claim (and especially not by faith) that the universe arose without intelligence. I claim that there is no evidence it arose with intelligence, and so one should not accept that claim. You say the universe arose by an intelligent cause, and I say you don’t have the evidence to support that claim. You say that’s the same as claiming that the universe arose without intelligence and that we’re both making our claims on equal levels of faith. And I say ‘that’s not my claim’. My claim is that if you want to talk about some transcendent intelligence causing evolution, then you need to present the evidence that supports that proposition. All you’ve done is claim incredulity at naturalistic models of biological evolution, without even raising specific objections, and therefore capital I Intelligence.
Now, I admit that in this comment you do raise specific objections. But they are poor. You complain that proto-intelligence is not intelligence, and that apes are not humans. And I say ‘yeah, that’s the phenomenon evolution explains’. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand what evolutionary theory claims.
Before we can go on, I think I need to figure out what it is you believe about evolution. You’ve been talking as though you accept evidence for evolution, but that you think (for no empirical reason) that evolution is guided by intelligence. But then you go on to doubt evidence for humans arising from non-humans, or developed intelligence arising from a proto-intelligence. Which makes me think you’re actually a traditional ‘God made each kind as it is’ Creationist. Which is it?
As to a human coming from nonhumans, I wrote a post called ‘The Illusion of Species’, and you’re free to come look for it. But, actually, this Dawkins video is clearer and includes pictures.
“I do not claim (and especially not by faith) that the universe arose without intelligence. I claim that there is no evidence it arose with intelligence, and so one should not accept that claim.”
Fine.
I do not claim that the universe arose from an intelligent cause. I claim that there is no evidence it arose without intelligence, and so one should not accept that claim.
Do you see a problem with that statement?
“You complain that proto-intelligence is not intelligence, and that apes are not humans. And I say ‘yeah, that’s the phenomenon evolution explains’.”
Fine.
And I say ‘Yeah, the phenomenon of evolution is explained by God.’
Do you see a problem with that statement?
Occam’s Razor suggests when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. Either the universe is intended or it is not. The question is, which explanation seems to be the simplest?
And did you get around to admitting that your claims are faith based? I missed it if you did. I have a strict policy about not discussing the specifics of my theology with people who refuse to admit that God could exist.
There’s no problem with that claim at all. Well, other than the patent misunderstanding of evolution that it implies. But, from a philosophical stand point the statement is sound.
A problem may arise if you confuse ‘no evidence of A’ as ‘evidence of B’. It doesn’t work that way.
As we are talking in true dichotomous pairs here, you could present evidence against non-intelligent causes as a case for intelligent causes. But that’s not what you’re doing here. And good luck with it.
Yes, I do. God does not explain evolution. See, for there to be evidence of a God in the way evolution works, we would need to see some signs of intelligence in the process. Foresight is one of those, which we could see evidence of if the process ever went through entirely useless stages aiming towards a particularly great goal. The ability to reverse evolution, to go back down a lineage and take up a different course with better outcomes — that might also be evidence of an intelligence. We don’t see any of that. So, yes, I very much see a problem with your statement, there.
The simplest one is the one with the fewest entities. God and intent are entities (and God is a particularly big one, as It’s not a known player in causal relationships). So, the model that contains those two entities is more complex than the one that does not.
No, I did not get around that. In fact, I denied that claim and criticised the position that all things that fall short of certainty are equally faith based.
But perhaps we need to define faith, for this conversation. I think it’s when confidence in a belief outstrips the evidence and rational arguments that support it. I don’t have that in evolution, and I’ve given you a list of the evidence and a logical argument for evolution. You have responded with ‘could be God, though’. To which I say, without evidence I don’t care what you can speculate — anyone can speculate anything, but until they support it they’re not saying anything worthwhile.
Okey Dokey.
I already agreed that evolution has mounds of evidence to support it. Evolution is irrefutable fact.
We agree.
Okay, great. So what’s your point again?
That Evolution is a good god for the godless.
The difference between atheist and anti-theist is an important one .
I’ve just realized we aren’t debating atheists. We’re debating anti-theists. I watched this incredibly interesting and thoughtful interview, and I find I agree with the majority that this atheist has to say. In fact, I believe were I to meet someone like him, we could have an awesome and intelligent conversation. The difference between this video and these comment sections are worlds apart. Understanding I’m not talking to people who are simply atheist, but anti-theist will make debates a lot easier from now on, because I realise now the goal is not to find anything we have in common, but to be as divisive as possible.
https://youtu.be/7hzHSA7pSWc
Irony: the Anti-Theists are the ones most likely to berate you over what the word “Atheist” means. 😉
Peaceful: the silence that follows proving to an anti-theist that he is, in fact, a theist.,,,
Have you watched the interview Jasmine included?
What a great idea for a Church service! Allow an Atheist to come in and deliver their equivalent of the Romans Road. [“Eleven Things You’ll Need to Repeat, to be an Atheist Online.”]
Whilst I probably don’t think it’s the best idea for an atheist to give a sermon in church anymore than an atheist would love a Christian to preach at one of their meetings, the fact that this guy was humble enough to recognise the places atheists and Christians agree and can work together was refreshing. Honestly, a lot of his perspectives on how Christians should treat people I quite agreed with as well. But I guess this goes to prove that just as there are some lousy examples of Christians out there, lousy examples of atheists are out there too.
Too many “Christians” in church every week think they can just remove God from the equation and not change much.
That shows a failing somewhere.
This guy didn’t know what he believed before, and he still doesn’t know what he believes now. But, you’re right. At least he was nice. 🙂
Meanwhile, my least favorite part of the video was the Awkward Pastor, censoring the apologetic questions.
‘Fraidy Cat. 🙂
Yeah, he was a pretty awkward pastor, but I guess he meant well. No one wants their visiting atheist to get mobbed by their church. XD
Exactly. The guy didn’t seem to really understand the heart of Christianity before he deconverted, but he had the decency to say that a reconversion may be possible for him in the future if he continues to follow his line of questioning everything. That was probably the most admirable thing about the conversation, the fact he is still questioning and analytical in a way that does not keep God out of the picture. I think you can still be an atheist and treat God like a possibility, not something to spit on at every opportunity.
Additionally (having watched the interview you included), I can think of another place Christians and Atheists ought to agree: pastors need to stop crossing their legs at the knee. #Nerd
“So, you have no evidence for the character Jesus of Nazareth making the universe? DID IT JUST CREATE ITSELF THEN, without any intelligent help or did Jesus put his hand to the wheel and make it?” – Arkedummy
Good question Arkedummy – did the universe create itself?
Ya big dummy!
~CQW
Yes.
Then we are exactly what we should be.
There are outside influences that can cause the type of mental illness in your family.
Such illness can therefore, be corrected, or treated.
I don’t exactly know what treatment you might be receiving, but you are surely relieved for obvious reasons regarding amanda?
I cannot imagine for a moment you would trivialize such a matter, and would want to ensure every precaution was taken to try to ensure it did not happen again.
One would hope your parental desire to nurture and look after your kids would be always turned on and tuned in this regard.
And we can thank evolution for this.
What influences are outside evolution?
Head trauma, alcohol abuse, drugs, religion.
Those are also part of evolution.
Are they really?
So you family’s history of mental illness is simply a result of evolution, is this correct?
Everything is a result of evolution. Evolution created the universe. There is no outside influence.
Amanda is exactly as evolution created her. Nothing to be ashamed of.
So your family’s history of mental illness/ health problems is a result of evolution is this correct?
Yes. I thought you understood this already. You’re an atheist.
So are you an atheist, now, aren’t you?
Did you not deconvert? There was the tacit implication you were no longer a Christian.
Or was that simply a lie?
If, according to you, everything is as it should be, then your family’s mental illness issues are perfectly normal as per evolution, of course.
Although this might fly in the face of generally accepted norms, and that you would seek professional help and /or medication suggests you are at least , in part, willing to accept this judgment.
How do you think we, as a society, should judge/handle the claims of those who have such mental health issues?
I don’t understand how society can label anything evolution produces as abnormal.
Arks says there are influences outside of evolution which cause mental illness…
And every Atheist still reading along went:
http://s.quickmeme.com/img/20/205e5c00640b822f4389de4f740d15471b8e4f6e1f231040d114fcb4637b7423.jpg
@Brannyong
Upset? Smile. There was a time when I had hopes that your daughter might not be quite a mindless indoctrinated fundamentalist as her old man. But these days, it is plain to all that the apple does not fall far from the tree and the worms are already hard atat work rotten to the core, I’m afraid.
Sad, really.
If ever one of you de-converts you will look at the other with horror and think.
”What have I done?”
It always seems to be one of the least pleasant reactions from those who embrace reality.It really hits them hard.
I did de-convert.
In that case, don’t you feel in the least bit ashamed of yourself for what your daughter still believes, Bunion?
I can’t control what others believe.
You did when you indoctrinated her …
you might least show a little remorse and try to help her.
She’s a product of evolution. Not good or bad.
Agreed.But aren’t you ashamed that you have corrupted her with your former vile beliefs that you must now realise are false?
Why should I be ashamed of evolution? That makes no sense.
I asked why you are not ashamed for corrupting your daughter?
Because evolution.
Would you credit evolution for your illness then?
Are we all evolved?
I’m mindless? I’ll take that as a compliment! I’m mindless–just like our creator-process, evolution.
I mean, where can I get a mind, if almighty evolution doesn’t have one to give?
Does anyone know how that works?
See. you just have to hog all the comment threads.
“Stop hogging the thread on your blog.” –Ark
This is not your blog, amanda, but daddy’s.
I have a memory of sending you to moderation that says otherwise. LOL! (Also, full disclosure: I’m hogging my entire couch right now. And I take food right out of “Daddy’s” fridge when I’m visiting there.)
Can’t help it. That’s how evolution unintentionally made me. 😉
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Ark. Or are you so insecure in your atheism you can’t admit to even the smallest things Christians have got right?
He has never admitted to a SINGLE SHRED of common ground. Not once.
Almost a year ago now, I started conversing with him on the basis that “all of us are religious.” I told him I was less interested in arguing over differences than in finding where we’re all the same…
But, no, he will have none of that. If he agrees with anything a Theist says–even the most insignificant point–he considers it a loss.
Poor thing.
The stuff of legends. What a time to be alive, and what a cause to live for!
Except, there’s always a fine line between demonstrating the futility of godlessness–and fueling a person’s severe attention-seeking narcissism. :/
I think I’m about done for the day. lol.
Yeah. I was talking to friends about these ridiculous arguments the other day, and one said they keep coming back because we bother to entertain them. Then again, I still can’t get past the irony that if they truly believed what they claim, they wouldn’t waste their time here.
It’s my bug-zapper analogy. They’re drawn to our light… But, boy, does it sting. 🙂
So say something intelligent and I might agree with it …. there’s always a first time?
They built some very nice churches in the old days.
In my home country there are some marvelous examples. Lincoln is one such.
My home town Chester also has a wonderful example of a medieval Cathedral.
Wrong. Atheists state there is no compelling evidence for gods…. any gods.
If you believe you have any then feel free to present it.
Please stop trying to start new threads with your circular babbling. Thanks.
http://worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2000/09/07/merrygoround_t640.jpg?a6ea3ebd4438a44b86d2e9c39ecf7613005fe067
You are such an incredible coward. Truly.
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/08/c2/32/broken-merry-go-round.jpg
So, you have no evidence for the character Jesus of Nazareth making the universe?
Did it just create itself then, without any intelligent help or did Jesus put his hand to the wheel and make it?
Be like JZ. Admit that God must have a mind.
Have some integrity and tell us how Jesus created the universe.
With his mind.
Hilarious!
Oh, well, at least you has a go, I’ll give you that!
I hope you won’t mind if I cut -and -keep that? It is a real gem.
Absolutely!
So, next time someone asks you a question along the lines of “Do you think we got our minds from something mindless?” you don’t have to sound so stupid. (And yes–not knowing whether an unintelligent “process” can cause intelligence is very, very stupid.)
As the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is a narrative construct you really have you work cut out for you explaining how Jesus made us with his mind.
Precious beyond words. lol!
Trying to save face.
Cute.
Really?
The biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is wholly a narrative construct.
Your belief in him is based solely on faith .
And yet you have just stated that Jesus made the universe and everything in it with his mind!!
You have to wipe all the egg from yours before you even start to save your face,amanda.
I haven’t even heard Ken Ham say something like this and he is wholly off his rocker.
Somebody whack Ark. He’s stuck again.
Oh, dear amanda, you spend ALL this time running down evolution and then you undo all that effort by making yourself sound like a complete and utter twit.
Please, amanda, I implore you, won’t you seriously consider a career in Christian Apologetics. You will be one of the best things for Apologetics ever.
I would pay serious money to come listen to you.
And I guarantee you will be the first Branyan that I will absolutely hose myself laughing at.
You couldn’t help but cause an huge sensation in Apologetic circles.
I know John and Mike and Tildeb would all come out and we would get front row seats, too.
Will you at least consider it… for me?
Great idea! I could be the first apologist ever to say, “burn the Bible” and “Please choose godlessness.”
But, you’re the only one who shows up day after day after day to leave 200+ comments. I don’t think I can make a living, just taking YOUR money. John, Mike, and Tildeb left. Why are you still here?
If you burned the bible how would you be able to justify the narrative construct Jesus of Nazareth?
Or Yahweh.
And you show up day after day after day to answer.And half the time the comments aren’t even directed at you, for your god’s sake. Shit talk about a frakking huge ego!
”Lemmeatimlemmeatim”
And then there is all the time you harangue people on Facebook as well.
I thought you were all sorted out after your episode ? That now you are a reborn it had made you whole again?
Doesn’t frigging look like it , now does it?
You sound more fanaticzl than ever.
Doesn’t your hubby ever wonder who you are blogging with?
Don’t you have kids to look after or are they in day care or does granddad keep them?
So…
Does this mean you won’t pay to come to my “apologetics” seminar, where I tell you to believe whatever you want?…
Come on. I’ll even let you throw insults at me for showing up at my own speech. For a price.
Ark is upset you are “running down evolution”. You might hurt evolutions feelings? You might anger evolution with your disrespect?
Mrsmcmommy,
Well said. I am not doing monkey tricks for folks who refuse to deal with the essential issue of their sinfulness and need of a Savior.
They have the evidence God has put all around. As Scripture says, it is enough to condemn them. I still pray for the Lord to change their hearts. The more they attack, the more hope I have that there is something going on in their spirits. Else they would be apathetic, and not post on John’s blog so much. But their faith requires them to proselytize.
Dave
Romans 1:18-21 (ESV) – For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
In the meantime, Dave, you can dance to Ark’s creepy music!
Every time he hops aboard the (broken) Merry-God-Round, this is what I hear:
Mrsmcmommy,
They was creepy.
Especially since I am working on a side job for my church. I am in an apartment of a guy who died and was a severe hoarder. A cleaning company in environmental suits and masks brings stuff to me to determine if it is to keep or toss. So I am currently a treasure hunter. I have gone through the guy’s life papers and photos since the 1950s. The music fits the spooky old unit.
The guy and his wife were well-off and traveled the world. So well off that I have found over$1600 in cash laying around in random places. Not hidden, just in drawers, the occasional envelope, and even in a small trash bin in the bathroom.
Thanks for the soundtrack to my day today.
Dave
Hebrews 11:26 (ESV) – He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.
You certainly end up in strange places! lol.
I’ve seen the show. (No dead cats, I hope?) Stay safe!
Mrsmcmommy,
I sure do. Thanks for the well wishes.
I have to do something to pay the bills. The restaurant I work at cut hours back, so I only work they twice a week now. Treasure hunting is supplementing my income as I do job searching. No more cooking for me. I am either going back into the tech field, or finding a job using my writing skills.
Dave
Colossians 3:23 (ESV) -Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men,
John,
I have heard sermons before, where preachers come up with what they want to say for the week, and then search for Scriptures to back up their point. Sometimes their point is wrong, and they twist and torture the Word because their intent is to say what they want to say.
They go into their study with their minds made up, not wanting to be confused by the facts. They have made a presupposition, and then have gone on from there.
Now there is nothing wrong with presuppositions in general, but to not allow oneself to even entertain in his mind anything that contradicts his presupposition is a bad idea.
Our presupposition is “since there is a God…”
God is fine with our questions. He is unsurprised by our doubts. Using our minds helps us grow in faith.
Unbelievers also work according to a presupposition. One that declares “since there is no God…”
But unlike our God, theirs won’t be subject to doubt and deeper thought from their faithful. Expressing doubt would cause them to brand their congregants as heretics. There is nothing worse to them than one of their number losing the faith and becoming Christians, I would imagine.
For truly, science must be based on faith. Faith that the ones who have come before are correct in their writings and experiments. Unless they redo and re-prove everything that had come before, they are taking it on faith.
And we all know that even the priests of science have at times falsified data to “prove” what they wanted to. There have even been those “peer-reviewed” and published gibberish papers I brought up some time ago.
I no more believe in scientist infallibility than I do pastor infallibility.
Dave
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV) – Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.
Long time reader and lurker, first time commenter here…
John Zande,
Of course, we all know the God of the Bible has a personal name, here is what the Bible says it is.
“Then Moses said to God, ‘Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?’ 14 And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you,” (Exodus 3:13-14).
As you can see, God declares his own name to be ‘I AM’. However, some people say that the name of God is Jehovah or Yahweh. The reason this is said is because in Hebrew (the book of Exodus was written in Hebrew), the word for ‘I AM’ is אֶהְיֶה which is YHWH. These four letters are known as the Tetragrammaton. This is why a lot of English translations will say that the name of God is Jehovah or Yahweh. It is an English styled version of those four letters.
Nevertheless, God’s name, according to Him, is ‘I AM’.
Now, why does it seem so critically important for you to make people say “Yhwh” as doing so were a bad thing? What, if anything, is the larger point of this exercise in futility?
I know you are the author of a book that has sold a whopping 13 copies on Amazon but that doesn’t give you an excuse to be a pretentious prick, does it?
Please don’t feel obligated to reply to this, I truly do not care what you will say, not even a little.
In fact, you should stop soiling yourself in public forums altogether sir, you are an embarrassment to atheism.
…I didn’t realize JZ had sold that many books!!!
Last time I checked, the sales were abysmal but I suppose his stellar work bugging the crap out of bloggers might have caused his sales to skyrocket. Who knows, he could have sold tens of copies by now.
Er ….Robert, you do know that Moses is simply a narrative construct don’t you?
That assertion was relevant to my comment how, exactly? I simply want to know why Zande insists people say “Yhwh” that is all.
By the by, saying “narrative construct” repeatedly makes you come off as a little toolish, just sayin’.
I suppose it’s all part of the bad cop, dumb cop schtick you and Zande have going on, eh?
Serious question for you pal. In all the years you have been doing this, do you think you’ve changed anyone’s mind about faith?
I mean your comments, for the most part anyway, are little more than rehashed nonsense that has been debunked more times than anyone can count.
“Absolutely not one fracking iota of evidence for your god or any other, bla bla bla bla….”
Really mate, do you pat yourself on the back before you go to bed at night because you believe you’ve done some right good work for the cause of atheism on the iterwebz?
Guess that’s better than owning the fact that you are a puss filled boil on the ass of humanity, I reckon.
Seriously? How do draw conclusion from a collection of ”books”, the Pentateuch, which is historical fiction that the character Yahweh ‘s name is ”I AM” especially if the dialogue was written to another fictional character, Moses?
Just a heads up. I am not your ”pal”.
And just how do you know how many years I have been ”doing this”?
If we kick evolution into touch what evidence is here for any alternative?
You don’t have to kick evolution. You just have to admit that it resembles a piece of software, coded into the Universe.
Okay … so what evidence is there for an alternative?
You want to try JZ’s tactic, too? None of you have figured out by now that we’re not going to start talking about Theism, just because mindless Naturalism is ridiculous?
Well, let me spell it out: Atheism can ONLY survive when it asks all the questions and never has to answer any. Therefore, you can offer an alternative to your (ridiculous) belief in Evolution-as-God OR you can admit that it’s ridiculous and end the conversation without offering an alternative at all.
But, either way, it’s not MY job to provide an alternative for YOUR stupid theory that Evolution replaces a mindful God with a mindless process.
But the inventors of you religion, the Catholics, beleive in evolution, so why don’t you?
What evidence is there for this?
Except you are talking about theism.
Evolution is established fact.
If you wish to talk about the origins of life that is another topic.
Do you?
So, in fact all you are doing is stating that faith replaces fact, based on a religious conviction.
Okay … why didn’t you simply state this up front?
Indoctrination is a wonderful thing isn’t it, amanda?
Just because you don’t want to talk about your favorite scruffy little Galilean slut in a old white night shirt doesn’t mean we haven’t worked it out.
Of course, being mindless naturalists we have been emailing each other endlessly until we arrived at a consensus and I was nominated to speak for the
mobrabblegroup.It is Jesus you are talking about, right?
Aaah, so , by your avoidance we can say, Yep! Nailed it.
The make beleive character, your friend and mine, the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian, Jesus of Nowhere.
Thanks.
*Laughs and Shakes Head*
Aaaaah, so by failing to offer an alternative, we can say, “Yep! Both JZ and Ark are ditching their belief that Evolution can possibly replace God.” Work alongside God, yes. But replace him? No.
Thanks.
*laughs and shakes head*
Who said Evolution is replacing a god?
Oh, Evolution doesn’t replace God?
Let’s establish some ground rules, shall we?
1. Evolution is fact.
2. There is no evidence that any god was responsible for any sort of creation.
3. There is no evidence for any god … your or any other faiths.
4. The Big Bang is currently considered as far back as we can ”look” as far as I am aware.
What went/happened before this we cannot say … at the moment.
At what point in this sequence are you wanting to insert a god?
What’s the name of your God, Ark?
I don’t ”have” any gods, amanda.
So, how did we get here?
Aah … now we are gently nudging the discussion away from theist dogma.
Are you referring to the origin of life?
Are YOU referring to the origin of life?
How did we get here?
Please don’t get all huffy now.
I merely want to clarify what you meant by your question.
Are you referring to the origin of life?
How did we get here?
Re: Origin of life. I don’t know … do you?
Excellent. I appreciate the honesty.
Do you admit that it’s ridiculous to assume that (mindless) Evolution explains it all?
Evolution explains life as we know it.
This is a fact.
The origin of life … well … I don’t know.
Do you?
Do you admit that it’s ridiculous to assume mindless evolution does away with the need for God?
Yes, of course.
Evolution is fact.
You have no evidence for your god …. or anyone else’s.
So you don’t REJECT the need for God (as you’ve admitted before).
What makes you think there’s still a chance that mindlessness could explain everything, including origins?
Need? I have never suggested such a thing at all.
What makes you think it couldn’t?
I cannot even speculate on such things. What gives the assumption that you can?
Okay, then what makes you think that we DON’T “need” God, as part of the process that got us here?
You are referring to a creator as in Deism yes?
What makes you think we DON’T “need” God/Mind, as part of the process that got us here?
Are you referring to a creator as in Deism?
Sure. What makes you think there’s a chance we DON’T need even a Deistic agent, as part of the process that got us here?
As far as I am aware there is no evidence to suggest a deity is involved so one can only speculate.
If you believe a deity is necessary what evidence do you have to make such a statement?
So you believe there’s a chance that there is no God/mind necessary to get us to where we are today?
Are you talking origins or evolution?
At ANY PART of the process that has gotten us to where we are today: do you believe there’s even a chance that God/mind is not necessary?
Which part are you referring to , please be specific.
Do you believe there’s even a chance that God/Mind is not necessary at ANY point, in bringing us to where we are today?
Yes.
Excellent.
What makes you think there’s even a chance that God/Mind isn’t necessary at ANY point, in bringing us to where we are today?
There is no evidence to suggest a deity.
Do you believe you have evidence for a deity?
Lol:
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/MrsMcMommy/2.24.17%20Dad%20predicts%20Ark_zps2p5oswih.png
Okay, so how do you explain the fact that we have minds?
Evolution.
How does evolution explain the existence of our minds?
I don’t follow your line of questioning.
We are products of evolution, we didn’t send out for extra parts, they were all part of the package.
You understand just fine. I asked, “How do you explain the fact that we have minds?” and you said, “Evolution.”
So, HOW does evolution explain the existence of our minds?
I explained. We come as a single package.
Maybe you understand something different to the word/term mind than I do. Explain Yourself.
From the O.P.
Do you agree with that?
What is the OP?
From the Original Post.
Do you agree with that?
Sorry … is this a scientific analysis?
LOL!
Do you agree with those statements?
Depends … are they scientific or simply the ramblings of an indoctrinated fundamentalist? … or if you prefer …. opinion
Do you agree with those statements or not?
If they are scentific I might consider them… especially if you can provide a citation, there is likely to be a more in depth explanation.
If they are simply prose form your father….
Well … what do you think?
Do those statements agree with your understanding of evolution?
Humans have dreams. We are products of evolution.
”Evolution does not think” is a nonsensical statement, although very much in keeping with your father’s thinking and his general state of mind.
That wasn’t a yes or no.
Do the statements agree with your understanding of evolution? It doesn’t have emotions, but it resulted in humans filled with emotions. IT has no dreams, yet bestowed mankind with the ability to dream. It doesn’t think, but constructed a universe of reason.
Is that what you think (most likely) happened?
Evolution is a process.
Do you understand this?
Yes or no?
Still wasn’t an answer to the question.
Do the statements agree with your understanding of evolution? “It doesn’t have emotions, but it resulted in humans filled with emotions. It has no dreams, yet bestowed mankind with the ability to dream. It doesn’t think, but constructed a universe of reason.”
Is that what you think (most likely) happened?
Evolution is a process. Do you understand the term process?
Yes or no?
If yes, please can you explain how a process has dreams?
So, the statements about evolution not having dreams and not having emotions and not having thoughts agree with your understanding of evolution, correct?
And therefore, you believe something without thoughts/dreams/emotions was able to bring about things which have thoughts/dreams/emotions, correct?
No intelligence required.
So why do you think that intelligence can come from “no intelligence”?
Evolution.
LOL!
Alright. Blind faith in evolution. Got it.
If you like … this is what the evidence tell us.
What evidence?
Evolution.
Behold, everyone, the loop of insanity. Luckily, circles never end. So Ark will have plenty to do in Hell for all of eternity.
(Indeed, this internet “conversation” is the perfect example of the mind-jail commonly called “Hell.”)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Circle_-_black_simple.svg/2000px-Circle_-_black_simple.svg.png
You see, amanda, even if we credit something behind the big bang this is where all your problems begin. You are a Theist. You beleive the character Jesus of Nazareth is the First Cause.
Explain it….
If you can’t at least make an effort then you can go whistle as you are nothing but a hypocrite.
If you don’t credit “something” behind the big bang, you end up the Stupid Loop–like Ark.
Well you spend an inordinate amount of time trying so hard to make evolution and its proponents look stupid, how about you stop behaving like a petulant little child and demonstrate how you arrive at the conclusion Jesus of Nazareth is the creator of the universe and all thing s in it?
https://youtu.be/_4RbAE6IOvc?t=6s
https://keithmaggio.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2a3f10-theme-digital-453×300.jpg
Evolution cannot think…yet created a universe of reason.
Evolution has no mind…but endowed mankind with intelligence.
Is that from the op-ed?
Prediction:
Ark will say, “There is no evidence for any gods.”
He’s very comfortable in the “convince me” position.
But, I refuse to prove to the peanut gallery that sugar can’t write “sugar” in a sugar spill.
Lol! You called it!
The evidence we have is the that ‘mind’ exists.
Obviously. But I’m going to phrase it as a question.
Robert justed penned note to JZ.
It’s good to know the ‘lurkers’ are out there and they’re paying attention.
I saw it… and laughed and laughed and laughed.
“How does evolution explain the existence of our minds?”
Ark: Evolution is God!
…probably not…
“I don’t understand the question.”
…yeah! That’s the Ark we know and love!
I’ve just about had enough of interrogating the chimp-descendant… (*eye twitch*)
I’m off to my show.
Successful evangelical comedian you know…
Break a leg!
Well, it depends on which part, specifically.
Also, what is God’s eternal command?
And how do you make chocolate cake?
Answer these two questions and I will happily give you my answer.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
“Evolution explains life as we know it.
This is a fact.
The origin of life … well … I don’t know.”
The origin of life is part of ‘life as we know it’.
So no matter how you phrase the question, he will never answer it.
He just said “yes.”
So–apparently I phrased it in such a way that he believes he can still backtrack or “clarify” later.
Didn’t he already admit that mindlessness doesn’t explain the universe?
Yes. Please be specific (again) are we talking origins or evolution?
Because evolution is a FACT.
Origins I don’t know about.
So, I’ll be happy to answer your question if you’ll just tell me what you mean by ‘sin’.
Also, Exodus.
https://img.clipartfest.com/6aa3d7dd7066eb7b4fa2881aa143cb31_leave-a-reply-cancel-reply-banging-head-on-desk-clipart_800-455.jpeg
Hopefully, JZ will email Ark and explain to him that God necessarily exists since ‘mind’ can’t come from mindlessness.
We know this because ‘mind’ gave us ‘mind’ to contemplate these things.
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/72514655.jpg
Amen!
It’s important for you to know that Dig-Dig had not answered the morality question. Instead, he has now asked me for MY definition of sin!
Thought you might like knowing this.
I saw it.
One very long comment, beginning with “here we go…” Then words words words words words words words…
And wrapping up by repeating the same question he spent all yesterday asking YOU.
Can’t make this stuff up.
It’s hilarious!
By constantly bringing up God, he is doing what JZ did yesterday: admitting that Evolution fails as an explanation for everything, and that God is the ONLY alternative.
They’re both Theists!
Everyone needs to welcome John Zande to our happy group of Theists.
JZ rejected atheism in favor of a more robust theology. JZ believes in God.
Moving forward, we can expect John’s comments to be much more coherent and rational. Keep in mind, he’s a baby in the faith. He will probably make odd statements as his faith matures. Be patient with him!
*Straw man.
This is one of the best-constructed draw man arguments I’ve ever read. Well done.
However well written, it still does what all straw men do. In the absence of a strongly defensible position of its own, it attempts to paint the opposition’s argument in a more easily deconstructed shade.
Good word play. But play is the operative word.
“In the absence of a strongly defensible position of its own, it attempts to paint the opposition’s argument in a more easily deconstructed shade.”
Totally agree! Thanks for calling him out about that.
(You’re talking about JZ, right?)
Atheist Professor Richard Lewontin:
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/86/8684f0d7db827767085fdb57fddb73ed903ab1fdc94e8ec2e7ccbeb0ad27d332.jpg
Almost as if evolution were a religion taken mostly on faith.
Shhhhh…. Don’t speak such heresy! 🙂
Also, don’t let this section of the original Humanist Manifesto go too far, either:
Yikes.
Sadly, that about sums it up. Schools today are little more than progressive humanist indoctrination camps ran by unthinking unquestioning functionaries.
I have no problem with students being exposed to ALL view points. Actually, as I said yesterday, I ENCOURAGE it, because when secular humanism is pitted against literally any Theistic religion, it looks ridiculous.
My problem is that they want to control the dialog by promoting their faith while censoring mine. They want to keep science all to themselves, as if it belongs to the godless…and then regulate the opinions of religious scientists by refusing to let them speak in schools at all.
Anyway, that’s one of my soapboxes. But, my point is, I will be teaching my children all about evolution. (And I will be teaching them that many people treat it like a god.) Any Evolutionary Biologist who wants to offer his viewpoint is welcome. But I will teach my kids to be EQUALLY skeptical of ALL scientists as they are of Theologians.
I have no problem with students being exposed to all viewpoints either Amanda.
If I am certain of anything it is there following.
1. Christianity absolutely stands up to scrutiny
2. People are either going to believe or they are not regardless of what is taught in schools, they Holy Spirit will make sure of that.
They problem I have with this whole debate is that evangelical atheists and God haters are fascists at their very core and they cannot stand opposing thoughts or ideals.
James
The following, I meant.
“I have no problem with students being exposed to all viewpoints, Amanda”…. Except everyone who holds a different viewpoint to mine is a FASCIST.
Oh James, that level of cognitive dissonance is truly priceless.
Congratulations.
As you always do, you’ve grossly misunderstood or wifully misrepresented what I said John.
Of course James, of course…
You’re still hanging around???
What’s the name of your God, JZ?
It’s the anti-religious who tell me I can believe whatever I want as long as it stays in the church so no those who disagree with me don’t have to hear it.
I have no fear or dislike at all of opposing ideals.
Is there any part of that you don’t understand?
I also specifically said that evangelical atheists are the fascists, not everyone who disagrees with me John.
A great many people who disagree with me don’t care enough about my beliefs to worry about them at all. You know? People who don’t spend 16 hours a day frustrating and annoying Christian bloggers.
Here’s how (Atheist) Sam Harris put it:
For a group of people who supposedly only have a lack of belief in God in common, they do tend to be rather cultish, don’t they? And let’s not forget the tribalism and group-think.
I’ve been told what I should and shouldn’t tell my own children by Atheists FAR MORE than by any Christian. (And that’s not an exaggeration.)
So, yes, for people who identify with “a void” instead of doctrine, they sure are opinionated about…like, everything.
I have been told the same, also told to shut my blog down because my views are objectionable, been told 8 abuse my kids because I teach them
Wow, that wasn’t even close to being ready to post, sorry. Let’s try that again.
I have been told the same. Also been told to shut my blog down because my views are objectionable, been told I abuse my kids because I teach them what I believe in and, get this, been told I would be doing the world a favor if I shot myself in the head.
Sure, not all atheists are like that but there are more than a few who hate dissent as much as the Soviets did.
Follow the godlessness life atheists claim they desire to its logical end you would find a progressive utopia like North Korea.
Did you hear the one about the monkey who thought he got cheated?
Maybe that’s nature’s way of evolving a conscience.
Science is a method, not a thing. Evolution is a description of a process, also not a thing.
Getting that wrong (deliberately, obviously) simply demonstrates just how desperate you are to create/maintain a pantomime version of reality.
Here’s some pretty coloured words for you.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Evol_zpsrgo7me7p.png
A process must have an outcome. What is evolution’s?
True, a process produces and outcome, but that is not written into the processes. Single compounds bind to become double compounds not because of natural affinities of how matter arranges itself, not an urge to become a double compound. The process of evolution is towards fitness and the better management of the forces that flow in and out and through everything.
Apologies, typos everywhere.
*Single compounds bind to become double compounds because of natural affinities as to how matter arranges itself, not because of an internal (written) urge to become a double compound.
The outcome of evolution is the survival of genes. Something which happens very successfully.
“True, a process produces and outcome, but that is not written into the processes. Single compounds bind to become double compounds not because of natural affinities of how matter arranges itself, not an urge to become a double compound. The process of evolution is towards fitness and the better management of the forces that flow in and out and through everything.” zande
someones been watching star wars. yoda is that you?
Explain how Matter “arranges itself.” And what about Entropy?
The outcome is whatever exists, Jasmine.
Almighty Evolution is responsible for whatever we can experience or imagine.
Almighty Evolution is the reason you have asked your question AND the answer to the question itself.
Nobody is denying the text has gone from red to blue, JZ.
We laugh when you suggest the process wasn’t done on purpose.
We laugh because you’re gullible enough to think no one built the computer software (code) which produces color gradient.
Show me where your Middle Eastern god, Yhwh, interferred in the evolutionary process…
Nope.
I don’t have to name the Coder to laugh at you for thinking it was some “mindless” process.
LOL!
Ah, thanks for falsifying your statement.
Ah, yes, thanks for saying “thanks for falsifying your statement” early, so we don’t have to waste 300 comments of you saying nothing today.
(whoooosh)
OK, was the GKpid mutation evidence of your god’s interference in the evolutionary process?
I said nothing about “my God” and nothing about “interference in the evolutionary process.”
Show me that you’re capable of reasoning through this.
Go ahead, show me.
Ah… Okay, you’re happy with just making unfounded statements, then running away from them with a handwave.
Got it.
Thanks.
-Certain things (like color-gradient memes) have to be made by people.
-But the process which “made” the people themselves doesn’t have to be made.
I didn’t make an unfounded statement. I said I’m laughing at you. That’s a fact.
Yep, got it.
According to you, at 10-34 seconds after inflation the quark-gluon plasma that was once the entirety of this particular universe (one of perhaps millions, billions, or even trillions of unique, artificial cosmoses existing like quarantined cells, or perhaps more accurately, petri dishes) cooled from 100 nonillion Kelvin to 1 billion Kelvin, snap-freezing in-place the fundamental laws of interaction.
That, according to you, was the work of your Middle Eastern god, Yhwh.
It, Yhwh, cooled the protean universe at precisely the right time so as to establish the thoroughly impersonal laws on interaction.
Conservation and symmetry, continuity and transfer, classical mechanics and motion, gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, photonics, and a myriad of smaller but no less unmoveable pieces of legislation were imposed on Creation, by Yhwh, and once spilled, this modest but thoroughly persuasive basket of rules set the stage for affinities that would regulate all things without sentiment or bias; forever concealing the Creator behind a curtain of impenetrable ‘naturalism.’
Got it.
Thanks.
Why do you keep say “according to YOU?”
This is about YOUR faith in YOUR (mindless) god.
Specifically the “mindless” part. HILARIOUS!
No, no, I got it. I understand your position.
It’s brilliant, and i’m thoroughly impressed with Yhwh’s patience.
Good! Welcome to Theism. (I’m not sure I told you that yesterday, when you kept saying “god changed its mind.”)
You should start capitalizing God, though, JZ. That’s what we do to show respect for intelligent, intentional beings, even if we don’t approve of all their actions.
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/lets-enslave-the-heathen/comment-page-1/#comment-14627
God is simple noun. Your particular Middle Eastern god has a name, which is capitalised: Yhwh.
I do so LOVE when you have to tell me what I believe in order to shoot it down. 🙂
But you’re wrong. “God” is the name all Theists give to the original Creator-mind. He has many names besides. But God is the proper one.
Consider how sad it is, that you have to pigeonhole billions of current and historic Theists, just to hang on to your own, laughable faith.
No, god is a simple noun, like tree. Your particular Middle Eastern god has a name, Yhwh.
Please use it… Or are you embarrassed to do so?
“Please, assign a specific list of traits to the Creator-God, so it’s easier for me to attack Him! Please…let’s talk about where Theists might disagree, because it’s the only way I can cut-and-paste replies from my book.” –JZ
Okay, so you’re embarrassed by the god of Christianity, Yhwh.
Got it.
Thanks.
“Embarrassed….blah blah blah….embarrassed…..blah blah….thanks, embarrassed, got it.” –JZ
You should be patient with him, Peach. He’s a baby in the faith. It’s gonna take some time before he starts asking grown-up questions.
I don’t have a lot of patience, I’ll admit.
If you’re not embarrassed then use your god’s name.
It has a name.
Yhwh.
The god of Christianity is Yhwh.
Use it, proudly.
What’s the name of YOUR God, JZ? Since you ditched Naturalism yesterday.
JZ believes in God. God changed his mind about slavery.
Make sure you remind the Windbag that he doesn’t need to defend Evolution anymore.
Oh, I actually forgot about that! 🙂
Welcome to Theism, JZ!
Make sure remind him personally in a direct comment because he’s already blowing up a mighty gale all over this post. I’m sick of having him ask the the same asinine questions over and over and over.
I thought you were going to jump in.
Do you have a screenshot?
I’ll make an announcement in the comment section.
Scientists have never observed red ink turn into purple ink. And even if given trillions of years, words would never write themselves.
Atheist response:
“Well, apparently words DO write themselves! Because look! Nature is writing them RIGHT NOW! We observe this all. the. time. Quit denying reality.”