Atheists, Deists, Evolution, Creationism - of the same flock?
pico
demonstrate the nonexistence of a God: Previous Causes, or "who created
god?" A deist/theist can claim that there is only one cause, God and He
needs no cause to create Him, but the believer doesn't get away with that in
the view of the materialist atheist. However, the atheist cannot point to a
first cause of Life. "It came from somewhere or arose from the primordial
soup and grew (emergence)" is not a persuasive argument; indeed, such a
non-explanation is annoying to scientists.
(I use the term material atheist because it uses strong conceptual
rationalization.)
Each of the two views is founded upon a belief. The deist/theist believes
there is not need for a first cause and that it simply exists. The
materialist atheist cannot point to the mechanism of beginning life because
it is unknown. A deist/theist would claim that he 'knows' that God exists
and God will show himself eventually, and the atheist would claim that he
believes in the scientific process and it will show how life was created -
eventually.
So a believer has a personal, experiential path to belief while the
materialist atheist has confidence in science. There is a difference! Just
because each argument seems to fail because each 'believe' without perfect
rationalization, each has a way out. The atheist who leans to science can
show that his system is based upon concepts that work fairly well to
describe the natural world. Our theist can point to a non-conceptual (the
experimental) rationalization that fulfils his life.
Experiental and Experimental.
chazwin
Your posting is based upon a misconception: that evolutionist
necessarily "beleive" in something. The rest is nonsense.
Your posting goes from misconception to a simple lie: scientist find
it "annoying" that evolutionists suggest that life came from a
primordial soup. Actaully if something has to come from something esle
then why not a primordial soup. Please offer us evidence od one
scientist who finds this "annoying".
Then you bat on about two views being "beleifs" and use it to justify
this statement "Our theist can point to a non-conceptual (the
> experimental) rationalization that fulfils his life."
What the hell are you talking about?
pico
"chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186689040.7...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 7:42 pm, "pico" <p...@right.there.net> wrote:
>> A rationalization of evolution exposes the a problem that atheists use to
>> demonstrate the nonexistence of a God: Previous Causes, or "who created
>> god?" A deist/theist can claim that there is only one cause, God and He
>> needs no cause to create Him, but the believer doesn't get away with that
>> in
>> the view of the materialist atheist. However, the atheist cannot point
>> to a
>> first cause of Life. "It came from somewhere or arose from the primordial
>> soup and grew (emergence)" is not a persuasive argument; indeed, such a
>> non-explanation is annoying to scientists.
> Your posting is based upon a misconception: that evolutionist
> necessarily "beleive" in something.
Then how do they rationalize evolution? (I wrote 'believe', by the way.)
> The rest is nonsense.
Okay, show me how it is nonsense.
> Your posting goes from misconception ...
Show me the misconception. I'll look back to this point for your response.
> ... to a simple lie: scientist find
> it "annoying" that evolutionists suggest that life came from a
> primordial soup.
The thoughless answer "primordial soup" means nothing whatsoever. Tell us
about this soup and how it works. Or is it a concept? A theory?
> Actaully if something has to come from something esle
> then why not a primordial soup.
Why not from space dust? (See how Why Not is annoying?)
> Please offer us evidence od one scientist who finds this "annoying".
One thing more annoying to them is to be asked for their signatures of proof
of their annoyance. I work with them every day, and have for over thirty
years. Believe me, they would consider your post annoying as hell. I am
being patient.
> Then you bat on about two views being "beleifs" and use it to justify
> this statement "Our theist can point to a non-conceptual (the
>> experimental) rationalization that fulfils his life."
> What the hell are you talking about?
Do you know what a concept is? How about non-conceptuals? Perhaps it is
over your head.
brian fletcher
"pico" <pi...@right.there.net> wrote in message
news:13bmtcv...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1186689040.7...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 9, 7:42 pm, "pico" <p...@right.there.net> wrote:
>>> A rationalization of evolution exposes the a problem that atheists use
>>> to
>>> demonstrate the nonexistence of a God: Previous Causes, or "who created
>>> god?" A deist/theist can claim that there is only one cause, God and
>>> He
>>> needs no cause to create Him, but the believer doesn't get away with
>>> that in
>>> the view of the materialist atheist. However, the atheist cannot point
>>> to a
>>> first cause of Life. "It came from somewhere or arose from the
>>> primordial
>>> soup and grew (emergence)" is not a persuasive argument; indeed, such a
>>> non-explanation is annoying to scientists.
>
>> Your posting is based upon a misconception: that evolutionist
>> necessarily "beleive" in something.
>
> Then how do they rationalize evolution? (I wrote 'believe', by the
Tut tut Piko.....be nice ....:-)
.
>
>> The rest is nonsense.
>
> Okay, show me how it is nonsense.
Not of the senses.
>> Your posting goes from misconception ...
>
> Show me the misconception. I'll look back to this point for your response.
Show me the money !!! ;-)
>
>> ... to a simple lie: scientist find
>> it "annoying" that evolutionists suggest that life came from a
>> primordial soup.
>
> The thoughless answer "primordial soup" means nothing whatsoever. Tell us
> about this soup and how it works. Or is it a concept? A theory?
The Campbells concept....
>> Actaully if something has to come from something esle
>> then why not a primordial soup.
>
> Why not from space dust? (See how Why Not is annoying?)
From whence came the dust, dear`Liza dear Liza...
>
>> Please offer us evidence od one scientist who finds this "annoying".
>
> One thing more annoying to them is to be asked for their signatures of
> proof of their annoyance. I work with them every day, and have for over
> thirty years. Believe me, they would consider your post annoying as hell.
> I am being patient.
grr
>> Then you bat on about two views being "beleifs" and use it to justify
>> this statement "Our theist can point to a non-conceptual (the
>>> experimental) rationalization that fulfils his life."
>> What the hell are you talking about?
>
> Do you know what a concept is? How about non-conceptuals? Perhaps it is
> over your head.
The sky is full of dust held together by liquidised oxtails..... from a
singularity can.
"Wheres me papyrus.This needs archiving" ;-)
I know. Carbon dating disproves everything Ive said...I refuse to go on
carbon dates anymore. Nice being a singularity.
BOfL
pico
"brian fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:pfNui.17709$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The sky is full of dust held together by liquidised oxtails..... from a
> singularity can.
Behind any serious philosophy is a daemon patching it with Hello Kitty
stickers.
brian fletcher
BOfL
Milan
>
> "chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1186689040.7...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 9, 7:42 pm, "pico" <p...@right.there.net> wrote:
>>> A rationalization of evolution exposes the a problem that atheists use
>>> to
>>> demonstrate the nonexistence of a God: Previous Causes, or "who created
>>> god?" A deist/theist can claim that there is only one cause, God and
>>> He
>>> needs no cause to create Him, but the believer doesn't get away with
>>> that in
>>> the view of the materialist atheist. However, the atheist cannot point
>>> to a
>>> first cause of Life. "It came from somewhere or arose from the
>>> primordial
>>> soup and grew (emergence)" is not a persuasive argument; indeed, such a
>>> non-explanation is annoying to scientists.
>
>> Your posting is based upon a misconception: that evolutionist
>> necessarily "beleive" in something.
>
> Then how do they rationalize evolution? (I wrote 'believe', by the way.)
>
>> The rest is nonsense.
>
> Okay, show me how it is nonsense.
If you cannot tell that it is nonsense you are really lost.
regards
Milan