Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

katydid · 01-05-2015 11:17PM

hinault wrote: »

You're open minded on the whole issue now, but only after the fifth time of asking.

I don't buy your claim that you're open minded on the whole issue.

Have you reached Sydney yet?

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 11:25PM

hinault wrote: »

You're open minded on the whole issue now, but only after the fifth time of asking.

I don't buy your claim that you're open minded on the whole issue.

Ok, its very easy to see you haven't an ounce of evidence.

You never asked me if I was open minded on the issue, you made that up to try and avoid answering the question.

Buy my claim or not, you can't provide any evidence for your claim. It's empty.

katydid · 01-05-2015 11:33PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Ok, its very easy to see you haven't an ounce of evidence.

You never asked me if I was open minded on the issue, you made that up to try and avoid answering the question.

Buy my claim or not, you can't provide any evidence for your claim. It's empty.

His next step will be to flounce out of the discussion...

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 11:35PM

katydid wrote: »

His next step will be to flounce out of the discussion...

The discussion barely got going, if at all.

Its a simple formula. Make a claim, avoid giving evidence, accuse people of not providing their own evidence, leave.

hinault · 01-05-2015 11:35PM

Gintonious wrote: »

You never asked me if I was open minded on the issue,

That's true, I didn't ask you that.

However I did ask you several times - you don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?
And each time you refused to confirm, or deny, that you don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.

Only after the 5th time of asking, did you claim to be "open minded on the whole issue":rolleyes:
I don't buy your claim. Especially after the 5th time of asking, and your 4 earlier evasive replies.

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.
You're entitled to hold that opinion.

I don't intend labouring these same points with you any further.

marienbad · 01-05-2015 11:36PM

katydid wrote: »

His next step will be to flounce out of the discussion...

and put ye both on his ignore list, joining the 500 or so others of us

katydid · 01-05-2015 11:41PM

Gintonious wrote: »

The discussion barely got going, if at all.

Its a simple formula. Make a claim, avoid giving evidence, accuse people of not providing their own evidence, leave.

It's a pattern

Frank Bullitt · 01-05-2015 11:49PM

hinault wrote: »

That's true, I didn't ask you that.

However I did ask you several times - you don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?
And each time you refused to confirm, or deny, that you don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.

Only after the 5th time of asking, did you claim to be "open minded on the whole issue":rolleyes:
I don't buy your claim. Especially after the 5th time of asking, and your 4 earlier evasive replies.

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.
You're entitled to hold that opinion.

I don't intend labouring these same points with you any further.

So I am getting this straight, I haven't provided you an answer to a question that you never asked, and thats your reason as to not provide me or anyone with evidence?

Its big talk from you claiming that I am evading anything, considering that you made the claim, and have still provide an ounce of evidence.

You are very good at putting a spin on things, but you are awful at following up your claims with any evidence. Like I said, I follow the evidence, you made the claim so I would like the evidence. Why would you need for me to tell you that I am open to anything in order for you to provide evidence? Could it be that the claim you made is hollow and untrue?

I will ask again. Provide evidence that modern science has debunked Darwin. Its a simple task.

MaxWig · 02-05-2015 01:02AM

hinault wrote:

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

Of course science hasn't debunked Darwin.
Science hasn't debunked any great thinker..
Science tends to thank them and go about its way.
That is what we love about science.

Its what me miss about history.

indioblack · 02-05-2015 08:06AM

hinault wrote: »

You're aware that you've replied (quoted) to a post not addressed to you, or to any point that you raised?

But setting that aside, you managed to miss some crucial points as well.

Modern science has actually debunked many of the claims made by Darwin.

Darwin's "tree of life" is shown by modern science to be garbage.
Darwin's claim about single cell life has been shown to be a hell of a lot more complex by modern science.
Darwin's claim about the contents of a cell have been shown by modern science to be wholly inaccurate in terms of the volume of data a single cells contains - something which Darwin vastly underestimated.

I could list all of the other things which Darwin was wrong about, but that would be futile.

As I said earlier, more and more information has provided modern science with the ammunition to debunk most of what Darwin claimed 150 years ago or so.
I'm not blaming Darwin for making the assertions that he made. I'm simply pointing out that modern science has pointed toward truth far more accurately than Darwin did.

I posted that Darwin and others are credited with the basic idea of evolution and natural selection.
I'll accept the points you made, because I don't know enough to dispute them.
Darwin's ghost would probably be pleased that so much of his theory has been shown to be inaccurate!

katydid · 02-05-2015 09:53AM

indioblack wrote: »

I posted that Darwin and others are credited with the basic idea of evolution and natural selection.
I'll accept the points you made, because I don't know enough to dispute them.
Darwin's ghost would probably be pleased that so much of his theory has been shown to be inaccurate!

You'll accept his points just because he made them, although he's provided no evidence???

indioblack · 02-05-2015 10:32AM

katydid wrote: »

You'll accept his points just because he made them, although he's provided no evidence???

Alright, Katy, I'll amend my reply. I won't dispute the points he made.
I am well rebuked!
The thing is, evolution is generally accepted - I don't know of any fundamental change that would make evolution redundant.
I didn't post a good reply because evolution wasn't the main thrust I intended to make.
But, just to pour some petrol on the fire(!), it's interesting that religion, as far as I know, accepted evolution after the theory was put forward.
Up until then, and even afterwards, and even some today, read the bible literally.
That's the way I was raised, and probably most other children too. Darwin? Who was he? The nuns never mentioned him!
Hope this gets me out of the hole I've dug for myself! (Probably not!)

Safehands · 02-05-2015 01:32PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?

This is simple really. No! I don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin, OK?

El_Duderino 09 · 02-05-2015 09:03PM

Is Hinault confusing 'Darwin' with 'evolution'? Darwin is often used as a byword for 'evolution by natural selection' and some specific aspects of Darwin's theory have been advanced. Darwin didn't really know about genes in the way we understand them today.

If your claim is that Darwin's theory of natural selection has been replaced by more modern theories of natural selection, then you're right. If your claim is that the theory of evolution by natural selection has been replaced as a whole, then you're terribly misinformed.

obplayer · 02-05-2015 09:09PM

hinault wrote: »

That's true, I didn't ask you that.

However I did ask you several times - you don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin?
And each time you refused to confirm, or deny, that you don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.

Only after the 5th time of asking, did you claim to be "open minded on the whole issue":rolleyes:
I don't buy your claim. Especially after the 5th time of asking, and your 4 earlier evasive replies.

You don't agree that modern science has debunked Darwin.
You're entitled to hold that opinion.

I don't intend labouring these same points with you any further.

Modern science has not debunked Darwin, it has improved and enhanced his thoughts and theories.

Turtwig · 03-05-2015 01:43PM

Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-05-2015 02:49PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton.

To apply Hinault's logic to newton;

1 newton's laws of motion have been 'debunked'
2 ?
3 Therefore god.

Simples

Safehands · 03-05-2015 04:12PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton.

If Hinault is looking for events which have been debunked I can reliably say that modern science HAS debunked Adam and Eve and the 6 day creation story, Noah and the flood and several other Old Testament tales. That should keep his quest for debunking satisfied for the time being.

indioblack · 04-05-2015 09:25AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To apply Hinault's logic to newton;

1 newton's laws of motion have been 'debunked'
2 ?
3 Therefore god.

Simples

And the odd thing is, what have Christians bought into in accepting evolution?
In fairness I should add that Christianity couldn't accept evolution before the theory appeared. They couldn't accept something they didn't know existed.
Rather like the atheist attitude to god.
There was a poster here recently who claimed that Christianity accepted evolution because it was in scripture. Maybe, I don't know.
But for those who do accept it - what is it they are acknowledging?
The passing on of genetic information through generations - replication of blueprints foe life, usually faithfully, sometimes not - hence diversity.
A lot of unconscious cooperation - and a lot of fierce competition.
A wealth of different organisms - and a casualty list that would cheer up a WW1 general.
My hobby-horse is the reality of existence as we perceive it, in relation to the idea of an omnipotent god.
Evolution would be another part of this.
If evolution, and existence as we experience it, are the workings of an omnipotent god, (and in Christian terms I'd say he could be no other), then this may hold a mirror up to an aspect of this god.
God would have to be the originator of this format - unless it was man's Fall - however that is perceived.
If this journey is attributable to god, then the method of this travel, our existence, this planet, this format - can be attributed to the same originator also.
The positive and the negative.

Peregrinus · 04-05-2015 09:41AM

Yes. But that's not something new, something that Christians only have to face since (or because) they accepted evolution. I don't think accepting evolution changes anything very radically in that regard - the "problem of evil" was there anyway.

indioblack · 04-05-2015 10:36AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But that's not something new, something that Christians only have to face since (or because) they accepted evolution. I don't think accepting evolution changes anything very radically in that regard - the "problem of evil" was there anyway.

OK, I don't think evolution need be regarded in isolation, either.
The problem of evil is an intriguing description.
Could you elaborate?

Peregrinus · 04-05-2015 11:36AM

indioblack wrote: »

OK, I don't think evolution need be regarded in isolation, either.
The problem of evil is an intriguing description.
Could you elaborate?

The "problem of evil" is the question of how the existence of evil (or suffering) can be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

The "argument from evil" is the assertion that, in fact, these things cannot be reconciled, and therefore the observed reality of evil is evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent god.

"Theodicy" is the branch of theology which addresses the question of evil.

Neither the problem of evil, nor the argument from evil, nor the various theodicies are new; they are pretty much as old as western monotheism, and probably older.

Wikipedia has a page on the problem of evil and another on theodicy, which might be handy starting points if you want more elaboration than this. My point is just that I don't think the acceptance of evolution poses any new problem in this regard; regardless of whether you accept the mechanism of natural selection, it's undeniably the case that competition among animals causes suffering.

indioblack · 04-05-2015 12:04PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The "problem of evil" is the question of how the existence of evil (or suffering) can be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

The "argument from evil" is the assertion that, in fact, these things cannot be reconciled, and therefore the observed reality of evil is evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent god.

"Theodicy" is the branch of theology which addresses the question of evil.

Neither the problem of evil, nor the argument from evil, nor the various theodicies are new; they are pretty much as old as western monotheism, and probably older.

Wikipedia has a page on the problem of evil and another on theodicy, which might be handy starting points if you want more elaboration than this. My point is just that I don't think the acceptance of evolution poses any new problem in this regard; regardless of whether you accept the mechanism of natural selection, it's undeniably the case that competition among animals causes suffering.

I will study it more - I need all the learning I can get!
The start of your post is basically my thinking for some time.
What you call evil I term as negative - I suppose it's subjective.
I take your point regarding evolution - as it was raised in the recent posts I used it as a vehicle for my posts.
In debating with another poster a while back I suggested that an omnipotent god would have to "stand back" from his creation and tolerate the negative aspects of life to permit man to grow.
We speak of an omnipotent god - I suppose that has to be the case - I can't imagine at this time some kind of lesser god which would fit this debate.

Peregrinus · 04-05-2015 12:22PM

indioblack wrote: »

What you call evil I term as negative - I suppose it's subjective.

Probably best not to get too hung up on terminology. "Problem of evil" is the commonest 'jargon' phrase used to name this discussion, but of course a word like "evil" comes with moralistic overtones that can sidetrack the discussion. It is meaningful to call natural occurrences, like a predator killing prey, "evil"? Does "evil" mean anything more than "we don't like this, and we hope it never happens to us?" Those are interesting questions but, in the context of this discussion, irrelevant. It might be clearer if, instead of talking about the problem of evil, we talked about the problem of suffering.

indioblack wrote: »

In debating with another poster a while back I suggested that an omnipotent god would have to "stand back" from his creation and tolerate the negative aspects of life to permit man to grow.

Yup, I think that's one of the arguments that theodicy offers - suffering offers opportunities for growth that, if we never suffered, we would never have. A similar argument is that the existence of free will necessarily involves the possibility of suffering - if I'm free, I must be free to harm you.

indioblack wrote: »

We speak of an omnipotent god - I suppose that has to be the case - I can't imagine at this time some kind of lesser god which would fit this debate.

Well, you have plenty of polytheistic systems in which gods are not necessarily omnipotent, and not necessarily benevolent. The existence of suffering isn't a problem for them, obviously, in the same way as it is for monetheism. And you have dualistic systems, in which opposing gods (or principles) of good and evil are contending; they offer an account of evil that monotheism obviously can't offer.

Huntergonzo · 05-05-2015 11:06AM

People should relax, there is no God, you should try and enjoy the only life you'll ever have.

hinault · 06-05-2015 12:45AM

Turtwig wrote: »

Saying modern science has debunked Darwin is like saying it's debunked Newton.

Nope.

No one else mentioned Newton here, before you.

hinault · 06-05-2015 12:47AM

Safehands wrote: »

If Hinault is looking for events which have been debunked I can reliably say that modern science HAS debunked Adam and Eve and the 6 day creation story, Noah and the flood and several other Old Testament tales. That should keep his quest for debunking satisfied for the time being.

Science doesn't make any claims as to the whether or not Adam, Eve, Noah etc existed or not, SH.

hinault · 06-05-2015 12:55AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

People should relax, there is no God, you should try and enjoy the only life you'll ever have.

And what about the next life?

Once you come in to existence, you're created for eternity.

By all means enjoy this life and live it to the full, but always keep in mind that what is ahead of you after this life will last far far longer than this life.:)

Frank Bullitt · 06-05-2015 01:18AM

hinault wrote: »

And what about the next life?

Once you come in to existence, you're created for eternity.

By all means enjoy this life and live it to the full, but always keep in mind that what is ahead of you after this life will last far far longer than this life.:)

Ah yes, the punishment of eternal life.

hinault · 06-05-2015 01:24AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Ah yes, the punishment of eternal life.

It can be punishment or it can be something which satisfies the very core of who we are.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments