Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

thejeff goeth before a fall wrote:

Wtfunny wrote:

It's not coincidence that religious folks claim their God made us in his image. Or, as Voltaire said, we have certainly returned the favor.

I'd suggest the Judeo-Xian religions are very much an example of people over-estimating their importance.

None of you have explained why your claim to God's ID is any stronger than Zeus, Apollo or Raven.

I have always felt that claiming you were created in god's image is the ultimate conceit. In fact, being an atheist is actually accepting that you're nothing special in the grand scheme of things. And have you ever noticed how smug people who think they are "saved" are? Not to mention someone who calls himself thejeff.

Interesting points...

Re: Made in God's Image: this one doesn't bother me too much. The fact that pretty much all humans are born with a similar conscience suggests to me that there is a Universal Right (as opposed to Wrong) and that conscience points us to God's character. (I don't take "image" to mean much physically, although I suppose a truly infinite God COULD be short, tall, thin, fat, black, white, red, and yellow all at the same time...)

Re: Smug: On the contrary (small sample size alert), the people I know with a mature understanding of Reformed Christianity are quite humble and grateful for their salvation. (Regrettably, there are certainly some "holier than thou" attitudes out there, and those people probably do more harm to Christianity than any proclaimed atheist ever could).

Re: thejeff: I always thought my name was rather clever... not as good as yours, tho, lol :-)

If there is no higher power than God, than he himself is an atheist. I'll follow his example in this......

Snooze Alarm wrote:

If there is no higher power than God, than he himself is an atheist. I'll follow his example in this......

LOL, nice. I also like "can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

:-)

FWIW, I think it is ok for God to "believe in himself", which would keep him from being an atheist.

Nice response man. Let's just agree to disagree - if that is allowed on the interwebs.

Atheists are so cool

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

If God made us in his image, why did we look like crude Apes for so long?

Why did the concept of God have to evolve and not get fully developed until several thousand years ago?

Shouldn't He have showed up earlier?

Behind closed doors, more and more scientists will admit that evolution is not a matter of fact and cannot possibly explain the origin of life. When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.

Dr. James Tour

As a well-known chemist and professor at Rice University, Dr. James Tour specializes in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Authoring over 500 research publications over the past 30 years, Dr. Tour has received awards and recognition from the American Chemical Society, Thomas Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others. He has also been recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today”

Even with his many scientific accolades, Dr. Tour readily admits evolution holds no fact-filled answer as to mankind’s origin. Shouldn’t a famous chemist of this caliber be able to understand the science behind the claims of evolution?

In this video from 2012, Tour explains his experience with making molecules.

"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist, if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules."

And yet, Dr. James Tour cannot understand how evolution can explain the origin of life.

About seven or eight years ago I posted on my website that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution. And I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something and then I will ask you to clarify — Nobody has come forth.

Clearly, the world-renowned chemist is not the only one with this conundrum, though few possess the courage to publicly agree.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’ Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’ And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

Nearly 900 scientists, including Tour, have currently signed, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which expresses skepticism in the claims of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Despite this overwhelming testimonial evidence, many will continue to proclaim evolution as dogmatic truth. Yet, those who are honest have no other option than to admit that, “the emperor truly has no clothes!”

Earth to Jeff wrote:

Behind closed doors, more and more scientists will admit that evolution is not a matter of fact and cannot possibly explain the origin of life. When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.

Every bit of evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Those guys don't know everything obviously. No need to make up stuff, now is there?

Earth to Jeff wrote:

When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.

I think this is accurate.

Some people call their ignorance "I don't know"; some others, uncomfortable with not having an answer to an important question, call their ignorance "God."

Which is more intellectually honest? Which is more likely to motivate people to try to find an answer?

Ana Theist wrote:

Earth to Jeff wrote:

When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.

I think this is accurate.

Some people call their ignorance "I don't know"; some others, uncomfortable with not having an answer to an important question, call their ignorance "God."

Which is more intellectually honest? Which is more likely to motivate people to try to find an answer?

Both will eventually lead to God ;-)

I think it is interesting that very few people in EITHER camp will readily say "I don't know", though. (Great book: Think Like a Freak...check it out!) I get more annoyed by atheists who claim that science already holds all of their answers (when it clearly doesn't, yet, anyway), than I do by people refusing to acknowledge the existence of God.

At least theists admit to relying on faith. Atheists, by and large, refuse to call the hope that science will eventually explain everything "faith". I think they think it connotes weakness. It shouldn't.

It's always interesting how much Christians try to refute evolution. Essentially without the Adam and Eve story and Original Sin the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles. Whether Jesus existed or what he did doesn't matter without original sin.

Just saying.... wrote:

It's always interesting how much Christians try to refute evolution. Essentially without the Adam and Eve story and Original Sin the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles. Whether Jesus existed or what he did doesn't matter without original sin.

FWIW, I don't think Christianity and adaptation are mutually exclusive. Small sample size, I know :-)

Evolution, the way that some people try to use it, is no more provable than God is provable. Nothing about the theory of evolution comes close to explaining the addition of genetic material, how life came from non-life, or how complex organ systems came to be. That's just off the top of my head :-)

Fossils prove that God must have been a total noob at creating stuff for several billion years..

Why didn't he just get it right and have everything remain static?

thejeff wrote:

Just saying.... wrote:

It's always interesting how much Christians try to refute evolution. Essentially without the Adam and Eve story and Original Sin the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles. Whether Jesus existed or what he did doesn't matter without original sin.

FWIW, I don't think Christianity and adaptation are mutually exclusive. Small sample size, I know :-)

Evolution, the way that some people try to use it, is no more provable than God is provable. Nothing about the theory of evolution comes close to explaining the addition of genetic material, how life came from non-life, or how complex organ systems came to be. That's just off the top of my head :-)

Do you also believe the earth is 6000 years old? I agree the Theory of Evolution doesn't demonstrate how life started. But it shows that organisms can go through substantial changes over millions of years.

Do not feed the troll

This guy has it right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8

arhy wrote: A simple, silly example: more than 20% of adult Americans believe the Sun moves around Earth, rather than that Earth rotates--"because you can set on yer porch on a clear day and *watch* the Sun move!" They believe it; most of them believe it with certainty; and most of them would say, "I don't just believe it, I KNOW it!"

What point are you trying to make? The sun does move around the Earth. The Earth's rotation has ~nothing to do with it orbiting the Sun; the Earth's rotation affects the length of the Earth day, not the Earth year. I know that the Earth orbits the Sun, I also know that the sun moves around the Earth; these are both true and not in contradiction.

thejeff wrote:

FWIW, I don't think Christianity and adaptation are mutually exclusive. Small sample size, I know :-)

Evolution, the way that some people try to use it, is no more provable than God is provable. Nothing about the theory of evolution comes close to explaining the addition of genetic material, how life came from non-life, or how complex organ systems came to be. That's just off the top of my head :-)

Hoping that something will happen or evening believing that something will happen or even having faith in a person is not that same as faith in a religious context.

TAA wrote:

This guy has it right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8

This is not as difficult as people think because most of the religions don't really contradict each other. Hindus pretty much believe other religions are just other brands of Hinduism and indigenous/"pagan" religions are all just localized versions of the same thing. People act like there are 6000 different gods to choose from but actually you could cover all the bases with 4 or 5.