David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1118241976.495422.259110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in message news:d86ps5$hof$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...

As foolish and stubborn as the god-fearing can
be, atheists are, at times, no better.  Both are resolute in their
beliefs, despite their ignorance.

No way. Atheists have logic on their side. Show us evidence and it'll be
looked into.

"Looked into"...what a twit.  Just what would that accomplish?

I'm an agnostic, btw. As for logic, it isn't relevant when you don't
have an argument. Correct me if I am wrong but has the "scientific
theory" known as "atheism" proven why we are here?  I didn't think so.
That is because it is a belief system based on ignorance -- it offers
nothing by way of explanation.

O, man.. where to start..

Take evolution for instance, it describes how life evolved. It doesn't say
why. But if you think about it, it actually negates the question, since it
says it just happens and is *not* steered.

Evolution (of man) is a theory... a pretty flaky one, at that.

Evolution is a fact.  There are a few theories of evolution that
explain the fact of evolution.

Everything evolves... nothing is the same today as it was yesterday.  Let's
not confuse the dictionary definition of the word with Charles Darwin's
attrocious concepts that we were all once amoeba and then monkies,
before suddenly popping into homosapiens.

Okay, here we go again.

I will leave aside the fact that you don't even know how to spell the
plural of "monkey."

*We* (ie. those of us participating in this ng) are, and always have
been, human beings (in the broadest sense of the word, in some cases).
Our *very* *distant* *ancestors* were also the ancestors of some of the
creatures we now call apes, and more distant ancestors were also the
ancestors of what we now call monkeys.  We didn't "suddenly pop[] into
homosapiens [sic]."  Homo sapiens is a species that evolved from other
species that in turn evolved from other species.  The further back you
go, the less those species look like homo sapiens.  It's really pretty
simple, and nothing makes it "atrocious."

There are also
some inexplicable short-term pattern changes that beg the justification
of external influence, or "steering" as you say.

Please show us this evidence for steering and a steerer.

See the 'gap(s)' implied by my statement above.

The gaps implied by your statement are totally ridiculous and utterly
unsupported by evidence.

As to a "steerer" (?)...  you got me pal.

You're the one suggesting steering.  It's up to you to explain the
steerer.

Same goes for creation of planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies.. This
scientific knowledge has brought me to my position: atheist freethinker.
When new knowledge arrives, I'm totally open to changing my position, since
that's the way I gained it in the first place.

This merely implies that you have a belief system....  Welcome to "faith".

How is an absence of belief faith?  What is faith?

Use a dictionary.  And please, don't claim now that you have a sudden "absence
of belief" in the virtually the same breath you just used to describe your belief in
evolution.  To believe in something is in fact a "faith" in that issue.  Again, see
the Webster's, and do so without being pre-disposed to typical religious terms.

Look at the last sentence of the original quote:  "When new knowledge
arrives, I'm totally open to changing my position, since that's the way
I gained it in the first place."  That is the difference between the
scientific method and the faith-based method.  If you don't understand
that, you're lost to reason forever.

As to a definition of faith, here's the first one from the wiktionary,
which I think is as good as any in this context:  "Mental acceptance of
and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim."
 Note especially the last part:  *without proof supporting the claim.*
Atheists and agnostics generally take the positions they do because
they *refuse* to accept any claim without proof.  So you are wrong to
say that "To believe in something is in fact a "faith" in that issue."
You missed out a very important aspect of the definition.  It is that
aspect that many theists don't understand, and it is that lack of
understanding that leads them to brand atheists as having faith.

Jon.
aa #703