Ryo Tarn
anonymous attributes
Ryo Tarn
anonymous attributes
Ryo Tarn
You're accusing a person based on their belief; thus it's a superficial difference.
It's called a citation. I posted a claim (I.E. The Fact of evolution) and then source that claim as proof. That's precisely how you debate.
No, the Big Bang is not a fact. It's a scientific theory.
You don't understand what science is; and that's your problem. And it still has absolutely nothing to do with Atheism or atheists.
Believing in a scientific theory is not accepting it as fact. You need to take some science courses.
The fact that the idea was proposed by a catholic priest is exactly as relevant as the fact that some people who happen to be atheists believe in what that catholic priest proposed.
Again; you don't understand science. You're trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't say life can come from non-life, that's abiogenesis.
No, the reason you don't understand is because you don't understand basic principles of science. You've got the mentality of someone who's scientific exposure is limited to watching a few anti-science videos on youtube by other random people who don't understand science either.
And the best part about it is that all of that has absolutely nothing to do with atheism or atheists.
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying about atheists, and it feels almost intentional.
You said: "No, the Big Bang is not a fact. It's a scientific theory.
You don't understand what science is; and that's your problem. And it still has absolutely nothing to do with Atheism or atheists."
I agree, its a theory, and I didn't say that it necessarily did have anything to do with atheists. I am not making a connection with atheists to evolution theory or the big bang theory as though they are one and the same. That is a straw man argument because that is NOT what I am saying.
What I AM saying is both the theory of evolution and the big bang are religious, and my argument is for those atheists who claim to not be religious or hold faith. Did you even click the link in the OP?
Your "citation" doesn't do a lot for your argument, since is all you really did was make a simple claim "Evolution is a fact" (Which it is not) and post a links. I can do the same thing with what ever I believe in and post links as well, refuting the info in your links. What then? shall we have a link war? It was a good answer if you were talking to someone who may have no experience, but this kind of thing gets no where and it certainly doesn't fly with me, because it would be equally valid for me to post as many links as I desire to my claims as well. Now "we" are not arguing or debating, we are bringing our gods and wise men into the picture and letting THEM argue and debate and account of who can post the best link and best arguer for our side. Is that where you want to go with this? if so, good LUCK, I wont be participating in your delusion of an argument and debate.
I knew you were going to say "Evolution doesn't deal with life coming from non life, that's something else." That is dishonest of of the scientific community to cut the pie into so many slices and only bring out certain slices so they can get away with saying "Well we know THIS part is true." while not admitting that the slice you are bring forth must be able to fit in the pie.
For example.
"The big bang is a theory and unproven"----(skip in time)---- "Evolution is a fact" How do you prove that evolution is a fact when everything that comes into being must have a cause? You say, "Evolution only deals with what is already here, it does not account for any origin of time, space and matter." But that is being illogical and is only cutting up your argument into thin slices and giving me the slice that you can supposedly prove, but in the meantime, cannot be proven if those slices are put back into the pie.
Here is another example. If evolution only deals with what is already here, and does not account for the origin of time space and matter, at what point in the past does the subject of evolution start with? Something that already has consciousness? where did that come from before it had consciousness? or lets just say "Life" or even just "Energy" you mean, evolution is a fact only as long as you start with the already necessary components? The fact that evolution says that something gets better and better over time proves the point that is had to start somewhere, but where did that somewhere come from? logically speaking you have to ask that question. And that makes your argument illogical, because your scientific wise men are dishonest in that respect.
So I ask you again. If evolution is true, where did energy come from, where did life and consciousnesses come from? Take me back in time, even if you think it is not the subject of what your scientific wise men say "is not evolution." The fact remains, you still have to take me back in time.
No, I understand what you're saying; the problem is you don't understand what atheism is.
False; you said: "If you say atheists don't believe in evolution and the big bang you would be intellectually dishonest. Atheists do believe in these things and they are very religious and believe in magic for it."
As I've demonstrated; you're wrong. They're very different things and atheists have a wide variety of views on them based on a variety of factors that have nothing to do with them being atheists.
They're not religious; you clearly don't know what religion is, but evolution is not a religion. Nor is atheism.
The citations backup what I said; that evolution is a fact. That's what citations do.
Then do it; post scientific links supporting your view that evolution is not a fact at all.
That's not letting links argue for us; that's using proof. I've proven that evolution is in fact a fact.
No, dishonest is you pretending like evolution can't be a fact simply because it doesn't deal with abiogenesis.
No. Your example is a load; you do not have to proven everything preceding an event to prove the event. For instance; I don't expect you to prove how abiogenesis occurred in order to prove to me you were born.
Evolution starts with the first single-celled organism becoming something new. It doesn't deal with the creation of the first single-celled organism.
No, evolution is a fact in that it's a fact. We have proven that life evolves. We don't need to know how abiogenesis works in order to prove it. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty and you know it.
The fact that I have explained more than once that I am referring to certain atheists and you come back with a straw man argument is self explanatory. Either that or your reading skills need to improve, seeing my OP is talking about atheists who make faith claims. Straw man arguments don't even put us on different pages, they put you in a different library altogether, let alone the same book, or page.
There arent religious atheist?? what IS religion? merriam webster dictionary has a lot to say on what religion is, which mostly include belief in a god of some sort, but one of the definitions given is this: ": a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith " Then the dictionary gives examples if its just too complex for you.
Examples of RELIGION
Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religion.
Food is religion in this house
_______________
It is impossible that there are atheists that have faith in something? that is what I mean by you being intellectually dishonest, because it would be wrong to say that there is no such thing as that. You are terrible at argument and debating when you deny these things, especially when you make straw man arguments. Do you know what a straw man argument IS?
You have proven that in fact evolution is in fact a fact? Oh dear.
______________
You challenge me to link you so you can come back and link me so I come back and link you, and have a never ending story. In which case I already said I would not do.
______________
I don't pretend anything here. If you can't prove that what ever has a beginning has a cause, you've lost the argument already. Does your single celled organism have a beginning? if so, where? if not, how is that possible? again, if it does not have a beginning then you have lost the argument AGAIN. If it has a beginning, where did it come from, hm? Answer the question and stop avoiding the answer with mumbo jumbo such as "You just don't understand religion, atheists, atheism, evolution, the big bang, science." or basically anything I talk about.
I did not actually say that you have to prove everything preceding an event to prove the event, what if your event is an interpretation? just like I said it was a theory! I would have to acknowledge evolution in some way in order to make that argument fallacy which you claim I made. That is another straw man argument on your part. You don't do this much do you?
I am basically saying evolution, logically speaking, says this: That since evolution claims that it is the
process of change and basically "improvement" involving into something "better." Now if something is evolving and getting better, then at one point it was lesser, was it not? Lesser as in less evolved. Yeah? If the theory of evolution is true, as you say, then logically speaking, you MUST account for a total beginning. Seeing that evolution claims to be a "growing process." Pay attention to the words I am using. Remember, if it is a growing process, then at one point that thing or object was at a
lesser state. You cannot say that suddenly it stops at your little cell. Here's my question which you are and have been avoiding. If the single celled organism had a
process of evolving, betterment, what ever word you want to use, then what was the cell before it was the cell?
If life evolved from a single celled organism, then you believe that consciousness came from non consciousness, and intelligence from non intelligence. That is a faith claim and its religious in the eyes of some, otherwise engage with me, and prove it. Answer me!
Your op isn't talking about Atheism; that's the point. You don't understand what atheism is.
You're being intellectually dishonest. I didn't say they were religious atheists; I said atheism is not a religion.
No, that's you being dishonest by purposefully misrepresenting what I said. I said, and I quote: "evolution is not a religion. Nor is atheism." That =/= atheists cannot be religious.
I'm not your dear; and yes. Or if you would prefer: I have in fact proven that evolution is a fact. Both sentences mean the same thing; but it seems the phrase: is in fact a fact.
I challenge you to support claims. If you cannot do that then your claims are worthless. But you've obviously never done a proper academic paper if you don't understand citations.
No; I haven't. In fact, that you think me being unable to do so somehow means I lose actually proves the original point of the entire argument; you don't understand what atheism is. You've tried to conflate it with numerous issues that have absolutely nothing to do with it.
You don't understand; you want me to stop saying that then go take some academic courses and learn. I'm not going to pretend to spare your feelings. And the single-celled organism came about through a process called abiogenesis.
Debate trolls much? No; I don't, not anymore. As for what you said: "That is dishonest of of the scientific community to cut the pie into so many slices and only bring out certain slices"
Well that's exactly what you're doing with your birth. Prove to me you were born, which means prove to me the process about by which humanity was created, and life in general, and the universe, etc. Otherwise you're only using one slice, and you're being a hypocrite.
No, evolution does not say that. Evolution says nothing about improvement or better.
No, at no point was it lesser; evolution doesn't say one organism is better or worse than another. That's you not understanding science again.
No, I don't have to account for a total beginning for evolution to be true; because evolution has nothing to do with it. Evolution would be equally true whether the organism came about through abiogenesis or whether a rift in time caused the organism to go back in time from the future thus creating the very future it came from in a paradox where the beginning of life came about of the result of future life that it created. Either way; it doesn't matter because the facts remain.
And no, evolution doesn't claim to be a growing process and it doesn't refer to lesser states. Again, you don't understand science.
As for before the single-celled organism; it was chemicals and molecules. But it doesn't actually matter because it has no impact on evolution.
It's neither a faith claim nor religious. Your intelligence and consciousness came from non-consciousness when you came from a non-conscious sperm and egg. I have nothing to prove nor do I require any faith to believe consciousness can come from non-consciousness because that's precisely what occurs in early development. In fact we don't consider babies to have consciousness until about 5 months. So they naturally develop consciousness from non-consciousness.
And again, that has nothing to do with atheism. Which means you have proven my initial point quite completely with your constant attempts to go off track, conflate issues, and ignore the subject: "Actually I'd say it's just that most of us are tired of explaining atheism to people who don't want to understand it.
Calling it a religion for instance."
You don't understand atheism and you don't want to. You just want to pretend and to make yourself feel smart while holding on to whatever core beliefs you have. Which means demanding the issue follow your line of thought and agree with everything you say even when you don't understand what you're talking about.
When you admit that my OP is not talking about atheism, you are right, and this is not a new consent, this is you finally realizing that I am not actually arguing atheism.. It's weird that you just got that.
__
When you said: "You're being intellectually dishonest. I didn't say they were religious atheists; I said atheism is not a religion."
I never said you said that. I believe we are having a communication failure.
__
You challenge me to support my claims. I did, and you made no argument against it, you simple just said "No, not religious" You didn't present me with anything. Again, a failure to communicate. I still wait for you to show me that the definition I presented from the dictionary does not fit in the parameters given. In which case I have a feeling you don't know what those parameters are even though Ive explained them.
__
You keep saying I have no idea what atheism is, which has no effect on my argument. Whether I know or do not know is not part of my argument. You've missed it, but keep going backwards.
__
I don't have to take academic courses to understand that there is faith in something, or if people see something religiously or not, and that is my entire argument. Why anyone must take any course at all on anything to understand when they see faith claims, or people acting religiously beyond me. If anyone needs that, they probably are going to miss it anyway... : /
__
When you accuse me of hypocrisy when I told you that its dishonest of the scientific community to cut the pie into so many slices and only bring out certain slices, and tell me "Well that's exactly what you're doing with your birth. Prove to me you were born, which means prove to me the process about by which humanity was created, and life in general, and the universe, etc. Otherwise you're only using one slice, and you're being a hypocrite."
Is a bit incorrect. You seem to miss the point that it doesn't matter if that person has faith. let me remind you of my argument which you clearly do not know. My argument is stated as it being illogical for atheists to make faith claims as absolute truths. Now if I make an absolute, who are you to tell me I am being a hypocrite? do you know if I have faith or not? You would not be able to tell otherwise. Of course, there is another part to my presentation.
__
when you say things like this: "No, evolution does not say that. Evolution says nothing about improvement or better.
No, at no point was it lesser; evolution doesn't say one organism is better or worse than another. That's you not understanding science again."
Its kinda difficult to continue since you are picking on words. If you want to educate me on the proper way that process is called, go for it, but its not necessary at all for arguments sake. They are just words, and I was being general with them as well, I did let you know that when I said "Or what ever you call it" something to that effect. You are picking on my word usage instead of my argument and saying. Now if my words are unclear, I can understand that, but let me clarify. I was speaking of a concept, that is why I used many synonyms because I wasn't sure of the word usage, but I was tying to get a crossed a certain concept.
__
You said: "No, I don't have to account for a total beginning for evolution to be true"
I didn't really say you had too. It is a form of argument, asking questions. One question doesn't disprove something, and it doesn't prove something either. I was asking you questions to get answers, to ask more questions for a bigger point. Unfortunately we are having a massive failure to communicate. My questions were meant to elicit one to admit that not everything is certain. But you are very defensive and I was unable to really argue with you since there also was a massive miscommunication.
__
You said: "Your intelligence and consciousness came from non-consciousness when you came from a non-conscious sperm and egg."
But that didn't make itself. My mother and father had to first make a conscious decision to pro create. Similar to the idea of when atheists say "What will religious folk say when scientists can create life in the lab?" Well, that it first took intelligence, an outside source, that it ultimately didn't just come from nothing JUST BECAUSE. But that is another conversation, inst it? if I were arguing for a god of some sort I might go there.
__
My entire point is this. In which case you have not really addressed. That there are faith claims made in evolution and the big bang, and that there are religious atheists. Which has nothing to do with understanding what an atheists is... : / And I am not saying that the definition of atheism is religious..
__
You made up some garble about me wanting to sound smart while holding onto some core beliefs I have.
unfortunately for that silly absurd claim of yours, i am not arguing for a religion, for morals, for a god, or for faith. I am arguing for Logic only. And that logic says, it is illogical for atheists to absolutely deny a god without admitting faith in that claim, and vice versa if anyone wants to say there is a goddess somewhere that exists, it takes faith to make that absolute claim.
as far as the religious people I am referring to, it is people like you actually, who have what the dictionary refers to as religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Examples of RELIGION
Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religion.
Food is religion in this house.
__
You can deny this if you want, but it doesn't somehow remove how you have been reacting in ardor and faith with your theories, which you and no one on this planet can prove that your claims are absolute, especially not about the finer details we were discussing.
100
