Intellectual Laziness of Atheists

Again I disagree, you argument shows your lack of understanding.

It can be affirmed through both mystical experience of it and scientific knowledge.

Quantum physics shows there is one consciousness, that it is the ground of all being. This is God, not seperate from us. It is all, all is it. No seperation... the numerous experiments and mathematics are fulls of paradoxes that are only explainable by monistic idealism, which we can call "god" though obviously not the one that fundemenatlist christians think of.

Check out "The Self Aware Universe by Amit Goswami"

And "The Physics of the Soul by Amit Goswami"

In books he lays out the evidence in the detail that I cannot do here.

 

My original post, in context

Your argument shows your lack of understanding of my argument. Could you not tell that the God I was talking about in the above quote was the fundamentalist christian God, of which there is very little evidence, nor have I had any mystical experiences of. That God can only be affirmed by faith, however you are right in saying the existence of any god "can be affirmed through both mystical experience of it and scientific knowledge."

For the record too, I am not saying that God doesn't exist because there is no proof. I am simply saying evolution is a better explanation for CREATION (which was really the point of my argument) for me because there is more proof, observable proof.

Would you also not deny that evolution ties in with the idea of quantum physics better than the rigid beliefs of christianity?

Merry Christmas

 

Incorrect.

What is hilarious about Libertine (and now you) is that you are EMPHATIC about how you have a reason for the conclusion.
Errr. yeah.
Thats great. Congrats.
Point being - you certainly are admitting there is no verifiable evidence of a Godless Universe.
Dont bother wasting your fingers on another 'you cant prove what is not verifiable...."
Yes.
I know.
I told YOU that.
Thats why its funny what Simpletine keeps coming back with a 'yeah but.. here is why I cant.."
Exactly.

Yes. That does seem to be the problem alright.

 

You want atheists to prove that there is NOT a god?

You think the burden of proof is on the atheists?


Are you being serious, or are you just fucking with us?

 

You heard it folks. Vestigial structures, fossil records, more than a century's worth of cosmology, Darwin's observations, subsequent biologist's observations, what we may observe, what we may test for, the predictions we've made that have turned out successful, bacteria and antibiotics, and on and on.

It's all wrong. All of it. And not just certain individual facts, but all of them taken together. They've all been brought down by premises which do not lead to the conclusion of the existence and manifestation of an intelligent designer, ad hominem, and an abundance of argumentative hand-waving.

You heard it, fellow-naturalistic propoenents, we're all wrong. The ID proponents can't say why, how, and where we went wrong, can't show any verifable effects of THIS designer, can't cite any successful predictions made by ID, can't show how ID correctly explans more phenomena than the current naturalistic view, but we're wrong nonetheless and they're right.

We all wasted our time showing up to school the day they taught us science in science class.

 

Lol.

By that reasoning, anyone can make absurd claims and claim the burden of proof is on those who don't agree.

Don't you see how retarded that is ? Do you think society would function at all?

Lol.

 

What's next?

Teaching Astrology alongside Astronomy?

Magic Spells alongside Physics?

Phrenology alongside Biology?

Raindances for those interested in Meteorology?

 

Intelligent Falling Theory


Why not?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

Yeah why not indeed


Makes me wish for another flood.

 

'Course we could just stick with the current system: pushing aside subject mastery in favor of ensuring that students feel good about themselves.

 

Say What?

elaborate please.

 

For the past few years I've taught Education courses (i.e. courses taken by students wishing to earn their teaching certification or masters of education). What I've been seeing all through the education literature of the last 40 years or so is a movement toward developing the self-esteem of students. Many of the educational theorists today spend most of their time talking about how we have to develop students emotionally and they argue further that this is a necessary condition of teaching/education (i.e. where a teacher does not incorporate some sort of emotional development into his/her lessons, something has gone wrong in the educative experience). Nel Noddings is an example of such a theorist as is A. S. Neill.

Now, you may be asking, what's wrong with that? We don't want to browbeat kids, after all, and wouldn't it be nice if students felt good about themselves? But the problem with this is (as evidenced by test scores, and academic performance of American students vs. students in other countries) emotional well-being is coming at the EXPENSE OF subject mastery. Moreover, just because a teacher isn't cultivating a student's emotional well-being doesn't necessary (or even usually) mean that that teacher is brow-beating that student. Subject mastery is the main purpose of education. After all, doesn't a diploma indicate that one has attained a certain level of understanding of the subjects one has taken in school? It would seem so. But then these kids get to college and I spend the first several weeks of the term teaching them how to write a coherent sentence.

This is an important reason why "only 13% of adults are able to compare viewpoints in two editorials; interpret a table on blood pressure, age and physical activity, or compare the per-ounce costs of two cans of soup."

The chickens have come home to roost:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-15-literacy_x.htm

 

But we digress...

What feature, intrinsic to the view, makes atheism intellectually lazy? Don't point to the lack of God being unverifable. Theism has a similar difficulty (e.g. the existence of God is unverifiable) so that's a wash.

 

'Vestigial Organs/structures' has turned out to be little more than a 'hoax' and at best was a great argument for 'devolution'.
I think you have about what.. 10 left now lol.

Fossil Records are the absolute deathnail for darwinian evolution and if you dont realise that, at least Stephen Gould and any working evolutionist knows that by now.

Darwins Observations are neither here nor there and Darwin himself would not make it through a semester of Science 101 without being expelled from class due to backwards, seemingly retarded thinking (by todays standards).
'Subsequent observations' went nowhere fast and you are blowing smoke to suggest they were 'successful'.

You might fool amateurs by suggesting that bacteria and antibiotics is evidence of 'evolutionism' however it is definately not.
If anything another example of 'devolution' (tm).

So actually yes - it has turned out to be a big bust for your evolutionists.

HAving Said THAt!.....

IF Evolutionism happened, either in your completely discarded 18th century 'Darwin' form or the entirely non-Darwin 'NeoDarwinism' form of today..
No MATTER what..
It remains entirely valid for a scientist to conclude that, at this point, based on 'scientific observation', that Intelligent Design remains the 'best explanation' so far for complex working information.

Sucks to be you if you are in the waning minority still gripping on to your magical unscientific 'naturalism' cause.
Maybe you ARE right but dont blame your guess and 'hunch' on Scientific process either.

 

That was a very good post.
I hope everyone took the few minutes to read through that.
Well Said!

 

How is bacteria an example of "devolution"?

 

He is refering to bacteria becoming 'resistant' to Antibiotics.
Its the only thing anyone can even begin to pass off as an example of 'evolution' occuring but its not.
The fundamental idea here is not really any different than seen in natural selection (or in the case of breeding - 'artificial' natural selection).
The bacteria is becoming 'less complex' but more 'specifically' complex.

Thats not a big in-depth explanation (which wouldnt help with you anyways) but its just me 'calling it out' before anyone tries to get away with any claims that the bacteria (or anything on the planet) is ADDING information to itself and 'evolving' when in fact the exact OPPOSITE is what is observed here and everywhere else.

You do understand (for example) that your poodle is not MORE complex a dog which has 'evolved new traits' but is actually a SELECTED DOWN version of traits found in the original dogs right?
Same goes for the bacteria in that sense.

Now in case someone wants to bring up 'frame shifts' go ahead but fair warning - it will get called out too in the event its pretended to be an example of evolution, when, if anything its just MORE evidence AGAINST evolution.

 

An excellent reply

I was half right.

As for all the anti-evolution talk.

Ok, so if I obsessively picked at every fault in the theory of evolution in an attempt to discredit its accuracy entirely, and finally persuaded myself its just a big joke, I'd probably be sitting there thinking, "ok, so what else is there to believe in, A man in a robe who sits in the sky who made our laws and created the world magically in seven days? Fuck that, give me something else"

Questions:

How does disproving the theory of evolution offer any purpose accept to disprove the theory of evolution?

If we can't prove there is no God, how does that, in any way, increase the value of your argument that God exists?

And lastly,
So evolution is a complete farce. And intelligent design is the new 'in thing'. Ok, why not imagine a giant chocolate donut with seven penises and seven vaginas created the universe?

 

That's what I've been saying and no one seems to "get it". Ah...what do you expect from those who believe in unsubstantial substances?

 

Unbelievable. Now I'm starting to think you ARE just fucking with everyone. So the fact that my back is better suited to a creature that walks around on four legs, that I have bones for a tail but no tail, an appendix, or erector pili muscles suited to a creature with fur is a hoax (i.e. a deliberate attempt to deceive), eh?. Who's behind this hoax, the Republicans?

Another nice argument from authority. What about all the scientists that disagree with Gould then?? If that's all you're going to give us, then what else can I say in reply? You've got to do more than just say 'no it isn't, so-and-so said such-and-such."

Really? So the fact that there are, say, an abundance of white rabbits in artic climates and almost none in more temperate climates is better explained by this mysterious designer rather than natural selection??

That's the difference between you and me. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone. I mean seriously, are you actually saying that strains of bacteria that are more resistant to antibiotics are LESS well off and LESS apt to survive and procreate than those who are more resistant to antibiotics?

"Magical unscientific naturalism"?? Holy shit, have you lost all sense, man? An ID proponent, who has yet to give any of us a single verifiable effect of this designer, is actually associating naturalism with magic. I'm surprised you have the time to post to this forum, I would have thought your experiments in alchemy would be taking up too much of your time.