close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Evolution? Impossible!

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by JBnTX, Dec 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. As I pointed out, "have you stopped beating your wife?" has the unproven assertion that you, at some point in time, beat your wife, and is clearly a no-win situation for somebody that has never beat their wife.

    Is there any specific god that has been asserted (Christian God, YHWH, Zeus, Jupiter, Vishnu, Ra, Ahura Mazda, ...) that you currently accept is/was a true/divine/supreme/name-your-term god? This question has no such beating-your-wife "trap". For all non-theists the answer is "no". It's not complicated, and it is not asserting that no god exists (or existed).

    Your considering this a bear trap and refusing to answer is probably the source of frustration for those that may be frustrated. As for me, it doesn't cause me any frustration, because your answer is perfectly clear.

    There is no specific god that has been asserted (Christian God, YHWH, Zeus, Jupiter, Vishnu, Ra, Ahura Mazda, ...) that Cavalry Doc currently accepts is/was a true/divine/supreme/name-your-term god. As said before, you can easily prove this wrong by naming a god that you accept as a true god.

    I'm not spinning, twisting or putting words in your mouth, rather summarizing what you have said time and again in this forum.

    While I do not consider you a theist in disguise, I can understand their confusion. I have never encountered a non-theist that was such a staunch supporter of Intelligent Design, while at the same time cannot provide a single example of a supernatural claim that religion has made that is correct. You also practically parrot the ID mantra of "teach the controversy" when, within the scientific community, no such controversy exists.

    Happy Sabbath to you, just the same. :cool:

    -ArtificialGrape
     
  2. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I'm a staunch supporter of individual rights and balance. I just consider ID about as possible as abiogenesis through natural processes. I'm not for any specific religion (atheism included), but I am for people's right to choose their religion and the free exercise thereof.

    I believe that man, even historians can screw up a story faster than anyone would normally think possible. People actually believed Pres. Bush steered Katrina into N.O. and Dick Cheney blew up the dikes. That was just 8 years ago. I think it's possible that one or more of the deities described by man could have existed, and may still. Of course, there are enough problems with any religious text I've read or studied about to discount mans ability to describe a deity accurately. It doesn't matter very much, if any of them exist they haven't bothered to introduce themselves to me. Until they do, I spend more time working on current profound decisions on what to believe. I believe I'll cook the burgers on the grill tonight, it's in the mid 60's, that's plenty warm enough.
     

    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013

  3. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I can assure you, the longer I hang out here, the more sure I am of it. How could I not be? There are so many repeated examples?

    Before I started posting here, it was a casual opinion, a lot of you have helped firm that up for me over the years.

    Evangelical atheism exists. I didn't create it, it predates me even being a member on GT. I met a few back in high school.
     
  4. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    CD, are there atheists that have no religion?
     
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Depends. Self described, or by definition?

    I think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of belief is a suitable standard. But there are exceptions to just about every rule. Like all religious beliefs, there are casual believers and devout disciples.

    But that's just my opinion. From my perspective, it makes sense.
     
  6. Woofie

    Woofie Disirregardless CLM

    9,991
    20
    Apr 10, 2007
    Here
    Which is true. Too often "atheist" implies "anti-theist." I want no part of that so don't claim to be atheist, while at the same time realizing that when someone talks about atheists, they are including me.
     
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Well, we are all unique individuals, just like everyone else.

    There are most often exceptions to just about every label given to people. I've not met the person that agrees with me on everything, I doubt I ever will. That's cool though.
     
  8. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    What evidence supports the intelligent design assertion?
     
  9. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Since as far as I know all of us atheists in GTRI do self describe as not having a religion, that leaves by definition, in your opinion.

    Could you clarify this a little? Belief that there is no god? Suitable standard for being atheist? religious? both?

    Would you agree that someone who lacks belief in any god is not religious?

    Are there Christians that are not religious, in your opinion, by definition?
     
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Not much, just conjecture. Which is pretty much the same as abiogenesis, since it has not yet been observed, even though some have carefully tried to create conditions that is should be possible in.

    Neither is proven. Pretty sure, for the first living cell in the universe, it had to be one way or the other.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  11. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas


    I wasn't too clear with my first question. Atheists: self described or by definition. That may change some of your answers. The atheists by definition, are religious, IMHO.

    Maybe not some of the ones that really don't have a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that no deity has existed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Looks like we are heading back off course. Here, let me help.


    Hell yeah evolution is possible!! Prove it's not if you can, I dare ya.
     
  13. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    I thought I might be able to show you an inconsistency in your thought process if you thought there are atheists that are not religious, but no Christians (or any actual religion) who are not religious.
     
  14. G26S239

    G26S239 NRA Patron

    11,417
    232
    Mar 17, 2008
    PRK
    Are you postulating intelligent design engineered by a being devoid of living cells? Because any creator that possessed any living cells would only be making MORE living cells as opposed to making the FIRST living cell.

    Unless you are postulating the existence of an intelligent designer that is devoid of living cells you are not discussing ORIGINAL life.

    If you have thought it through to the point of concluding that the intelligent designer was devoid of living cells than I submit that at the point that you have reached such a conclusion about the nature of the intelligent designer that you will have ceased being agnostic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  15. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Please name them. I'd like to see who you're going to claim is all religious about it. I'd also be interested to see how many of them have flat out told you they don't hold it as a matter of faith.

    Anyone can go and read the thread I linked to and see otherwise. You were *vehement* even then - you did not argue it as a casual position (and you were also misrepresenting other people's positions, even then).

    Nobody buys it, Doc. You can claim you're "more" now than then, and maybe that's true - but if it is, it's something like the difference between 99.9999998% and 99.9999999% - in other words, functionally a difference in which 'more sure' is basically meaningless, you were *never not sure in the first place* - which is why it's B.S. You have not and never have exhibited anything but surety, to the point where you sometimes appear to exhibit cognitive dissonance on the matter. Acting as though you were near the edge and now you're all certain is a load of hooey.

    Seriously, go back, read that thread, look at what you wrote, and be honest with yourself. I don't even care if you don't come back and admit it - but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit, at least to yourself, that you were not arguing as though it were a casual position - you were arguing with certainty.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  16. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    There are inconsistencies in all of our thought processes. We are human, and will favor certain things.

    That's pretty consistent with me, I'd guess just about everyone that asserts that they are a Christian (honestly), is religious.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  17. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    That probably would not be helpful, and would be way off topic for the thread. Do you really want to go over that whole discussion again.

    First, I honestly never thought that thread would last near that long, and I had only posted in GTRI a few times in several years. IIRC, the question was asked after some fellow brought his evangelical atheist views up in GTPI in a less than polite way.

    Prior to that, it wasn't something I'd given much thought. I've had time and opportunity to discuss the matter at great length now, and I am easily more convinced atheism is a religion now than I was prior to that thread. I do understand that might be discomforting to some, although why is still a little cloudy.

    But you also think evolution is possible? Right? So we are in agreement .

    /thread
     
  18. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    I asked what evidence there was for intelligent design, not "what conjecture." You said "I just consider ID about as possible as abiogenesis through natural processes." There is evidence suggesting possible ways abiogenesis might have happened. What evidence suggests possible ways intelligent design might have been the cause of abiogenesis?

    No, it isn't "pretty much the same as abiogenesis." There is evidence supporting the possibility of abiogenesis, although there is nothing conclusive yet. What evidence is there supporting intelligent design? There must be SOME, since you "just consider ID about as possible as abiogenesis through natural processes." What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?

    As I pointed out on a different subject, that there are two possibilities doesn't make the possibilities equivalent, particularly when there is some small amount of evidence for one, and none at all for the other.
     
  19. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    Why quibble? Evolution is more than possible; it is a well-supported fact.
     
  20. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    Given that your premise is "atheism is a religion because it's a belief system held to with ardor and faith," and that your belief system of "I don't know what I believe" is held to with ardor and faith, do you concede that makes agnosticism a religion?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.