greymare
Well-Known Member
nice story friend.
atheists refuted
- Thread starter Friend
- Start date
Actually,There is no scientist had been able to create a cell alive from any organic materials . Even cloning and playing in chromosome depends on the living cells. After all this progress of science is still human incapable of the creation of a cell by the use of non-alive materials.
Scientists could interpret and analyse information that answer their queries on living organisms.. But in practice they did not reach to create materials alive.
Simply, knowing how the machine is working ... does not necessarily mean you could manufacture it.. But you will know that there is one who manufacture it .
Thinking of our body's composition in physically or spiritually level...presents many questions.
How this complex composition of our bodies to be a form of development and genetical mutation and natural selection???
How can we explain the feeling and senses and psychological aspects of the human person according to the laws of scientific ?
How this balance in our bodies and our cells to be interpreted according to the laws of evolution and natural change ?What caused this equilibrium which associated with our life???
Over 2,000 years ago we did not see any sign of change or kind of evolution linked to the human body to prove that the human is form of the bio development or the natural selection.
for more informations
Evolution and Islam
The thinking of atheists could be linked to the idea that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of tangible matters according to scientific interpretations,while science containing a lot of information, which opposes atheism.
Scientists could interpret and analyse information that answer their queries on living organisms.. But in practice they did not reach to create materials alive.
Simply, knowing how the machine is working ... does not necessarily mean you could manufacture it.. But you will know that there is one who manufacture it .
Thinking of our body's composition in physically or spiritually level...presents many questions.
How this complex composition of our bodies to be a form of development and genetical mutation and natural selection???
How can we explain the feeling and senses and psychological aspects of the human person according to the laws of scientific ?
How this balance in our bodies and our cells to be interpreted according to the laws of evolution and natural change ?What caused this equilibrium which associated with our life???
Over 2,000 years ago we did not see any sign of change or kind of evolution linked to the human body to prove that the human is form of the bio development or the natural selection.
for more informations
Evolution and Islam
The thinking of atheists could be linked to the idea that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of tangible matters according to scientific interpretations,while science containing a lot of information, which opposes atheism.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
I'm no Joseph Campbell but I've read many of these stories from many cultures and religions. In each story there is a hero who can defeat the opponent easily with a quck, sharp turn of phrase. My favorites have always been the stories of the Buddha and how he could deflect the arguments against things like dependent co-arising, and emptiness.
The point is, that using these stories actually proves nothing but that there is an incompleteness in the opposing argument. In the case of Friends story we can surmise that because the atheists view does not explain the wonder of all that is, the theists religion must be true.
All nice and tidy, but it doesn't follow.
I do not identify myself as a theist or atheist because neither approach makes much sense to me anymore. Obviously the wonder of this world goes beyond any simple explanation and to casually toss it off to a simplistic fable only allows one to fall asleep, to turn off the function of awed awareness.
All I can understand is that everything is, and that there is a certain "aliveness" inherent in the universe that expresses itself in a vast array of forms.
The point is, that using these stories actually proves nothing but that there is an incompleteness in the opposing argument. In the case of Friends story we can surmise that because the atheists view does not explain the wonder of all that is, the theists religion must be true.
All nice and tidy, but it doesn't follow.
I do not identify myself as a theist or atheist because neither approach makes much sense to me anymore. Obviously the wonder of this world goes beyond any simple explanation and to casually toss it off to a simplistic fable only allows one to fall asleep, to turn off the function of awed awareness.
All I can understand is that everything is, and that there is a certain "aliveness" inherent in the universe that expresses itself in a vast array of forms.
greymare
Well-Known Member
i just liked the story.....
it was a good story but it fell to pieces.
Now my favorite one was the scientist that told G!d he could now with all our technology make life. And G!d said, go ahead. To which the scientist started to scoop up a shovel full of dirt and G!ds said "Now hold on there, get your own dirt!"Friend said:
But that is the thing, its a story. Trying to refute others beliefs...where is the wall I'd like to beat my head on now? Before you take a stab at atheists have a run at mee and see how far ya get.
Buit back to the ship, nails nailing themselves and sealent oozing by itself all in minutes in front of you. So Friend, you truly believe that could happen?? That is your evidence you wish to hold your hat on?
Now I am a believer in G!d, but I don't have any issues that the right circumstances could create life, and surely don't believe that Adam and Eve were made out of dirt or your boat story has any validity.
But then again, I believe everyone is where they need to be including Atheists...and I think G!d is in cahoots on the whole deal.
greymare
Well-Known Member
im not so ignorant that I take the story literally, lol. Its just a way to prove his point. It showed he was smart enough to think deep about how his opposition would be thinking. thats what i liked.
In a battle of wits he was fighting an unarmed man.
In a battle of wits he was fighting an unarmed man.
R
Resigned
Guest
Sorry, your analogy fails on many levels. . Biological evolution is a science fact with reams of data to support it. Biological organisms evolve, mechanical equipment does not.Your analogy is basically the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that -- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object. Substitute the noun “house” with “watch” described in your analogy and you’ll see my point. Basically, you’re mixing apples and oranges or maybe apples and chimeras.
Further, the assertion that creation in any form is evidence of god(s) ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value.
Of course nature and natural forces may have always existed. Natural law is (by all evidence) eternal and uncreated. Now, in anticipation of your objection that this cannot possibly be, I need only point out that your own beliefs already presume the existence of something that is "eternal and uncreated." You call that thing "god(s)." So it appears that you cannot have any consistent argument against something being "eternal and uncreated" since you already accept that possibility explicitly.
The "supernatural" argument is not a valid one. What people expect and what they regard as common sense means little, if anything, in science. If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science. I, for one, find nothing about naturalistic evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. Scientists don't have to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation. Intelligent Design advocates must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature must have been designed. To date, they have not done so and in fact, appeal instead to a wide array of nonsensical and unprovable supernatural assertions. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to emotion and fear.
If your mind accept the idea that the accumulation of some wood became boat then travel on the water alone .... Your mind will accept easily the idea that cell can develop to be man walking on two legs and think, feel and have many intelligent senses.
It is very simple
Scientists of evolution assume that the first cell originated from non-organic materials...they believe elements existence in nature Under certain circumstances developed to be the first cell Which formed all forms of life .
But even now they couldn't made like this primary cell which form from simple elements that they discovered.
Resigned said:
the idea here may have fallen to those who believe that religion and science do not ever meet.
Religion is not the enemy of science but complement it ...this human intelligence which guide us created by the power of super unique creator.
I invite you to see this video link
YouTube - Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th7wr9KMu-I&NR=1
And this means they never will? I think about open heart surgery or even CPR, folks that would have died 50 years ago get decades added to their lives.But even now they couldn't made like this primary cell which form from simple elements that they discovered.
Or go back 100 years when many folks would say, "If G!d meant us to fly he would have given us wings"
Give'em time.
And don't you believe the boat could happen in front of your eyes if G!d willed it so?
R
Resigned
Guest
I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof are so different.
Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena. This is the hidden philosophical bias of science. Trapped by its own objectivity. Religion is amenable only to investigations of personal spiritual phenomena. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature. Whatever aspect of god created the book has not seen fit to write any further chapters.
There’s no reason not to conclude that existence could simply be an ongoing proces infinite in both directions. BTW, this is a naturalistic explanation for something religionists are quite content to accept supernaturally, i.e., that their gods exist as an infinity. So there's nothing about the naturalistic paradigm that the religionist doesn't already embrace. There is no evidence though that requires one to add sentience and other anthropomorphic attributes to the infinite nature of nature. Therefore, the theistic worldview unnecessarily complicates a simple concept in order to assign the infinite nature with a quasi-comforting personality.
It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it’s possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause but that still wouldn’t prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn’t prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and demand they be accountable at some level?
In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men ascend golden staircases to heaven?
R
Resigned
Guest
That’s a rather sweepingly inclusive statement: “none of the great scientific minds were atheists.”. It’s also untrue.
This is why none of the great scientific minds were atheists.
(Not even Charles Darwin himself)
While great Hindu philosophers have done more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist) philosophers more with chemistry …. every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.
The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.
More importantly, you should understand that among scientists, “creation science” is debunked as a “science”.
EYUP, that means +/-99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.
R
Resigned
Guest
Religion absolutely served a purpose in the development of humankind, but we are in a transition away from the superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever exploding, impossible-to-refute success of science and technology. The idea that science and reason are "sterile" or less “moral” is bigotry and self-imposed blindness. The problem is not science and technology which is actually sweepingly majestic, but in the perception of people being trained to think feelings are more reliable than reason.
Reason and science sterile? No, Look at the grandeur of the universe through the Hubble. Watch footage of man first landing on the moon. Watch the images from the Voyagers as they swept past the great gas planets in absolute silence, giving us vastly more sight than any so-called revelation from a superstitious doom-sayer.
Yes, theists see "god's handiwork" when they look at these things, but the truth is, they would be blind to it if they relied on their gods -- it is technology and reason which brought that majesty to you.
See how many millions are fed and clothed and given medical care by that cold "sterile" science you use to communicate your theism, but denigrate as you do so.
It took religions how long to "unite" the world with a doctrine that splintered into hundreds of subgroups? 1500-5000 years (still not there yet)? How long has it taken the internet to make communication between people fast and cheap and easy? 12 years? And what happens when people communicate and learn about one another and their fears and tribalism’s are diminished? They treat one another with respect. They live peacefully together, like the experiment of pluralism the USA has proven.
Does it happen in an instant? Is it perfect? No, but it does happen and it happens fastest with technology and science.
Atheists use the heinous cruelties of the bible to point out the amoral nature of a god that is then asserted as a moral guide for human behavior. If one actually followed god's example, there would be no end to the justification of execution that person would deserve. God in the bible is capricious, cruel, and as the author of all reality, as evil as can be (after all, he created Lucifer, we didn't, right?). And you're that the god of the Bible is a foundation for morality?
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Technology is not a replacement for faith. As it only
deals with the problems of the material. The fact is that
man's tools have evolved faster then him. We have been
given the keys to solve all our material problems, but since
we have rejected spiritual development, those tools have
become weapons, our wealth has fueled greed, and the power
has incited envy. Technology does not solve such problems,
religion does.
The institutionalized religious sects have always been the problem,
I admit. But this is no argument against religion itself. Because this
was always God's plan. If He wanted to turn this world into heaven,
He could have. But this world was never meant to be a paradise...
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
From my childish parable that you mentioned ..you still can't put your answer to a very simple question..
You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves?
In this story mentioned below
lol, You have been answered absolutely emphatically by me and others. Now will you answer my challenge or continue to dodge? Will you continue to seek refuge in a theistic mindset or are you really capable of thinking outside that box?
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
lol, not meant to be a paradise!! It IS a paradise. And what an abdication of responsibility for your present role in its stewardship you proclaim! The big monotheisms really get off on this selling of some future paradise so we will tolerate the barbarity, cruelty and inequality of our political and religious leaderships. Like it is meant to be that way as "gods" plan!! What an utter load of sh1te.
