"God cannot create a square circle"

[Elixir]

Slow as they are to catch up, there is nothing to catch up to. What research has really rocked the world in terms of supporting universal common descent? The latest hope seems to be Lenski's e-coli research, but that is not panning out.

How do you explain the fact that well over 99% of relevant (earth and life sciences) scientists - many if not most of whom are theists - accept the fact of common ancestry? Do you just deny it, with total disregard for the verifiable facts? Or do you ascribe it to the Vast Worldwide Conspiracy that involves everyone on the planet except a few evangelicals? Or maybe you are (as are so many other creos) orders of magnitude smarter and better informed than any scientist?

 

[Underseer]

Slow as they are to catch up, there is nothing to catch up to. What research has really rocked the world in terms of supporting universal common descent? The latest hope seems to be Lenski's e-coli research, but that is not panning out.

How do you explain the fact that well over 99% of relevant (earth and life sciences) scientists - many if not most of whom are theists - accept the fact of common ancestry? Do you just deny it, with total disregard for the verifiable facts? Or do you ascribe it to the Vast Worldwide Conspiracy that involves everyone on the planet except a few evangelicals? Or maybe you are (as are so many other creos) orders of magnitude smarter and better informed than any scientist?

It's not just evangelicals. In fact, Hindu creationists outnumber Christian creationists, as do Muslim creationists, only in their conspiracy theories, 99% of scientists are part of a vast international Christian conspiracy against the One True Religion of Hinduism (or Islam as the case may be).

Admit it, rhutchin! Evolution is a Christian plot against everything that is true and good! That's why you use evolution to promote your false religion and undermine the one true religion!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You know who else believed in micro-evolution?

Hitler, that's who.

 

[Elixir]

... in their conspiracy theories, 99% of scientists are part of a vast international Christian conspiracy against the One True Religion of Hinduism (or Islam as the case may be).

Sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek Underseer - is that really true?

 

[Underseer]

... in their conspiracy theories, 99% of scientists are part of a vast international Christian conspiracy against the One True Religion of Hinduism (or Islam as the case may be).

Sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek Underseer - is that really true?

OK, I honestly have no idea how prevalent that view actually is among central Asian Hindu creationists and/or Muslim creationists, but I have heard/read individuals expressing such an idea, and given human nature it's not hard to imagine that the view is shared.

 

[atrib]

Second, is a biology textbook exactly the cutting edge of state of the art in biological research? is that truly a snapshot of what we do and do not know?

Slow as they are to catch up, there is nothing to catch up to. What research has really rocked the world in terms of supporting universal common descent? The latest hope seems to be Lenski's e-coli research, but that is not panning out.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps the discovery of how our genetic information is passed from generation to generation, and a study of the the genetic information found in our species and many others? All of which point to common descent? Or the study of the anatomy of various living things which all point to common descent? You know, just the sciency stuff that sciency people have figured out over the last hundred years or so, give or take.

 

[atrib]

Fraid not. Somebody has been lying to you. Or you may be lying to yourself. There are are no "multiple consisitent accounts" to support the supernatural stories of the Bible. There is only the Bible, a collection of mythological stories invented by our ancestors who were curious but knew very little of the universe they lived in. Your Bible has just as much evidence to support it as does the Koran or the Gita or any number of hold books that were penned by our ancient ancestors.

Claims that neither you nor anyone else has, or could, substantiate.

You don't seem to understand how this works. If YOU claim the Bible is true in its description of the seemingly supernatural things it describes, then it is up to YOU to demonstrate the veracity of YOUR claim. That is how science works, but you don't seem too interested in that, so your ignorance is understandable.

That little fact aside, the Bible is demonstrably wrong about many claims that it makes. A simple search on your favorite search engine would turn up many sites that list such errors. Why are you so afraid to actually study the history of the book?

 

[atrib]

What is there to explain?

Why "The Bible is true because the Bible says so and I believe whatever the Bible says" is not a convincing argument.
I'd say it's not even wrong - doesn't rise to the level of an argument. Yet it is routinely used...

Routinely used by whom? By atheists posing strawmen arguments?

Just for fun, is what the bible says about god any better evidence for god than the Qu'uran is for allah?

The Qu'uran was written by one man without validation by others. The Bible was written by many people over thousands of years. We have four accounts of the life of Jesus, two by people who claimed to have been with Jesus during his three year ministry and one written by Luke who says he researched the issue by talking to people who had witnessed Jesus in action.

The Bible is the superior evidence by far.

The Quran and the Gita have exactly the same amount of evidence to support the supernatural claims they makes as does the Bible. The fact that the Bible is YOUR preferred book dealing with the supernatural does not make it any more valid than the other books.

 

[atrib]

The reason to not believe that your preferred god exists is the same reason you do not believe that Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad and the creator of the universe exists. There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for Bantu, which is to say, none.

The reason to believe is based on the claims of those who say such gods exist. There is much to support the claim that God exists - this is found in the Bible: multiple consistent accounts over thousands of years. No other position has such support, including the no God position.

Fraid not. Somebody has been lying to you. Or you may be lying to yourself. There are are no "multiple consisitent accounts" to support the supernatural stories of the Bible. There is only the Bible, a collection of mythological stories invented by our ancestors who were curious but knew very little of the universe they lived in. Your Bible has just as much evidence to support it as does the Koran or the Gita or any number of hold books that were penned by our ancient ancestors.

rhutchin, are you going to tell us what these "multiple consistent accounts" are, who authored these accounts, and why we should treat the opinions of these authors as fact? For example, how would one go about corroborating the Genesis creation myth? Who was witness to the events of these magic 6 days and provided credible testimony of these events? Or the mythology of the great flood? Who wrote this story and how can we test its veracity?

 

[atrib]

Our understanding of how biological evolution works is based on an enormous body of empirical evidence that has been gathered over the past century by researchers. There are many, many textbooks and scientific papers that discuss the evidence. Apparently you haven't read any of them. Or perhaps you refuse to acknowledge the evidence because such an acknowledgement would contradict your faith.

Take your ordinary Biology textbook. It deals almost exclusively with speciation. The enormous body of research to which you refer supports this. Studying this allows a biology student to understand how the limited number of animals on Noah's ark could generate the great number observable today.

That Biology textbook might have a couple chapters explaining how some people think some miraculous first life form followed an equally miraculous process to get what we observe today. There is zero body of research to support the claims that are made. The usual explanation is that time frames are too long to allow for empirical validation - so accept it on faith. You have nothing in terms of empirical work to support your faith

Umm, I think you need to read a few biology textbooks to prevent repeating such embarrassing falsehoods in the future. Really, read the fucking book. And then follow up on the citations. Perhaps visit a museum of natural history? Or even watch a few youtube videos?? Hello? Do you even know what a museum or a citation is?

 

[Mageth]

Circular arguments, arguments from ignorance, special pleading, asserting belief as fact, an occasional tu quoque for good measure...is that all you got, rhutchin? That's all you're giving us here. That's all you ever had on the old board. That's all you have now. Your attempts at argument in support of the existence of your preferred god are recycled tripe and, to be frank, boring as hell.

 

[Mageth]

Nothing circular about the argument.

Asserting the Bible as evidence for BibleGod - circular.

No, it's only "testimony" that the universe exists. The rest is your unsupported assertion, your belief and nothing more.

Except that no viable alternative exists to explain the existence of the universe.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Mageth]

Believers confusing their faith with evidence. What else is new?

If you have evidence, you do not have faith - faith becomes active when evidence is lacking.

You haven't presented any evidence. You've simply presented your beliefs - e.g. your belief that the bible is true and that the bible is evidence for biblegod. Again, you're confusing your faith with evidence

 

[Mageth]

Belief in god's existence is unreasonable or irrational. In other words, it's "faith".

Based on the accounts found in the Bible written by a variety of people over a few thousand years, there is nothing unreasonable or irrational about belief in God's existence.

On what rational basis do you justify belief in the bible's accounts? I find many of them prima facie unreasonable or irrational. Talking snakes and donkeys, magical fruit, the flood and ark, dead men walking, water into wine, etc. etc. etc. It seems you'd have to believe in a supernatural god that could work that magic to give the accounts any credence.

There's that circle again.,,

 

[Mageth]

Believers confusing their faith with evidence. What else is new?

If you have evidence, you do not have faith - faith becomes active when evidence is lacking.

Your faith in your preferred god carries just as much weight as does Jamal's faith in Allah, Anil's faith in Vishnu, or BaoTung's faith in the kami.

...and your faith that there is no God.

Tu quoque to you, eh?

In any case, it takes no faith to lack belief in something.

You still got nothing, rhutchin.

 

[rhutchin]

In any case, it takes no faith to lack belief in something.

Lack of belief in the truth results from ignorance. Lack of belief in that which is false requires knowledge.

When something is true, it takes faith to reject it. When something is false, it takes knowledge to reject it.

 

[rhutchin]

Belief in god's existence is unreasonable or irrational. In other words, it's "faith".

Based on the accounts found in the Bible written by a variety of people over a few thousand years, there is nothing unreasonable or irrational about belief in God's existence.

On what rational basis do you justify belief in the bible's accounts? I find many of them prima facie unreasonable or irrational. Talking snakes and donkeys, magical fruit, the flood and ark, dead men walking, water into wine, etc. etc. etc. It seems you'd have to believe in a supernatural god that could work that magic to give the accounts any credence.

You can rationally conclude that the god who produced these events would be unusual and that the events are supernatural. You do not have to believe it to draw that conclusion.

There is no basis for to find them prima facie unreasonable or irrational - these are obviously supernatural events that would naturally go counter to naturally occurring events.

 

[rhutchin]

Believers confusing their faith with evidence. What else is new?

If you have evidence, you do not have faith - faith becomes active when evidence is lacking.

You haven't presented any evidence. You've simply presented your beliefs - e.g. your belief that the bible is true and that the bible is evidence for biblegod. Again, you're confusing your faith with evidence

The evidence is that the Bible is composed of ancient writings. The issue is whether one will believe that which is written. It takes no faith to believe that the Bible contains written accounts by different people over many years. It takes faith to believe that which the authors claimed.

There is no confusion between faith and evidence among believers generally.

 

[rhutchin]

Asserting the Bible as evidence for BibleGod - circular.

The Bible is evidence of people who believed in God. The issue is whether to believe what these people wrote. Nothing circular there.

No, it's only "testimony" that the universe exists. The rest is your unsupported assertion, your belief and nothing more.

Except that no viable alternative exists to explain the existence of the universe.

Argument from ignorance.

At least we agree that ignorance rules in considering whether viable alternative exist to explain the existence of the universe. The conclusion from this ignorance - there are no viable explanations for the existence of the universe from non-Biblical sources.

 

[rhutchin]

Circular arguments, arguments from ignorance, special pleading, asserting belief as fact, an occasional tu quoque for good measure...is that all you got, rhutchin? That's all you're giving us here. That's all you ever had on the old board. That's all you have now. Your attempts at argument in support of the existence of your preferred god are recycled tripe and, to be frank, boring as hell.

So, why are you here? Is it because you cannot substantiate your claims of circular arguments, arguments from ignorance, special pleading, asserting belief as fact, etc. and you fear having to stand before God and give account of your life as the Bible says but which you don't want to be true.