| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2004 06:08:12 AM |
| Object: |
17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
{Check the first item in this series for the URL}
.
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 11:29:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis,
Don't be partial. A lot of us discredit the whole thing.
since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
If you ever come out with good *science*, we'll listen. In the meantime,
leave old books out of the scientific curricula.
{Check the first item in this series for the URL}
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 06:55:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
{Check the first item in this series for the URL}
We can invalidate the idea that the bible is the "inerrant word of God" by
discrediting Genesis. Once we've done that, we're justified in treating it
as just another book.
Nobody's claiming that the theories of evolution or abiogenesis are
inerrant, so the analogy doesn't apply.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 07:19:44 AM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
rcman777@excite.com wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries
to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
{Check the first item in this series for the URL}
We can invalidate the idea that the bible is the "inerrant word of
God" by
discrediting Genesis. Once we've done that, we're justified in
treating it
as just another book.
But you don't NEED to be "justified", do you? After all, if you
disbelieve in God then where is your need to expend the energy to
discredit the bible?
Nobody's claiming that the theories of evolution or abiogenesis are
inerrant, so the analogy doesn't apply.
There is no proof for evolution nor for the silly idea of life coming
from life. It's a fantasy.
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 11:35:44 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 05:19:44 -0800, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
There is no proof for evolution nor for the silly idea of life coming
from life. It's a fantasy.
1. There are mountains of evidence for evolution.
2. My preganant sister would disagree with your second claim.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 10:51:18 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 05:19:44 -0800, wrote:
There is no proof for evolution
The Pope respectfully disagrees with you.
nor for the silly idea of life coming
from life.
We observe life coming from life every day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 02:48:41 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 05:19:44 -0800, wrote:
There is no proof for evolution
The Pope respectfully disagrees with you.
This *is sweet! You use the ipse dixit fallacy to buttress your believe
in evolution - and you use the Pope, of all people!
Yet if a Christian used the Pope as an authority, you'd be screaming
like a stuck pig.
I guess this seals it: you really *are a shallow, hypocritical pinhead.
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 04:58:56 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 12:48:41 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 05:19:44 -0800, wrote:
There is no proof for evolution
The Pope respectfully disagrees with you.
This *is sweet! You use the ipse dixit fallacy to buttress your believe
in evolution -
Nope. My belief in evolution is based on the evidence, not what the
Pope believes.
But has it occurred to you that the head of your church may have a
reason for accepting what science has to say over what the scriptures
say?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
27 Dec 2004 06:16:36 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 12:48:41 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 05:19:44 -0800, wrote:
There is no proof for evolution
The Pope respectfully disagrees with you.
This *is sweet! You use the ipse dixit fallacy to buttress your
believe
in evolution -
Nope. My belief in evolution is based on the evidence, not what the
Pope believes.
And yet you're compelled to quote him in support of your "belief".
Remarkable.
But has it occurred to you that the head of your church may have a
reason for accepting what science has to say over what the scriptures
Yawn. Yet another "logical" atheist who also claims to be a mindreader.
Claims to know what my "church" is.
What a loon!
=====
RC
say?
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
27 Dec 2004 08:50:56 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2004 04:16:36 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 12:48:41 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 05:19:44 -0800, wrote:
There is no proof for evolution
The Pope respectfully disagrees with you.
This *is sweet! You use the ipse dixit fallacy to buttress your
believe
in evolution -
Nope. My belief in evolution is based on the evidence, not what the
Pope believes.
And yet you're compelled to quote him in support of your "belief".
Remarkable.
Quoting the pope serves two purposes.
First, he carries considerable influence with a large number of
Christians. While an argument from authority shouldn't carry any
weight (and it certainly doesn't when quoting the pope to atheists),
Catholics are naively influenced by such.
Second, it shows that rejection of God/the Bible is not a prerequisite
for acceptance of the overwhelming evidence that evolution explains
the diversity of life on Earth.
As to your comments regarding the particular flavor of your religious
fantasy, we couldn't give a rat's ***** except that knowing same would
allow us to make our attack on your lunacy more meaningful and
personal to you. So please do enlighten us. Apostolic? Charismatic?
Fascist Baptist? Muslim? Hindu? Zoroastrian?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 11:38:04 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Well, first of all evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis;
something we've told you a dozen times or more.
Secondly, we can easily attack all the books of the Bible. No need to
stop at Genesis! Every single book is filled with errors,
contradictions, and stuff that made sense to Bronze Age cultures but
is howlingly bad now.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 11:50:57 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:uhtts091ptrlcmr9o6kn13acu1ijkamjrq@4ax.com:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Well, first of all evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis;
something we've told you a dozen times or more.
Secondly, we can easily attack all the books of the Bible. No need to
stop at Genesis! Every single book is filled with errors,
contradictions, and stuff that made sense to Bronze Age cultures but
is howlingly bad now.
You know, RCMan should get in sinc with his church. Even the Pope
believes in evolution.
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 02:54:46 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:uhtts091ptrlcmr9o6kn13acu1ijkamjrq@4ax.com:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, drained his
beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries
to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Well, first of all evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis;
something we've told you a dozen times or more.
Secondly, we can easily attack all the books of the Bible. No need
to
stop at Genesis! Every single book is filled with errors,
contradictions, and stuff that made sense to Bronze Age cultures
but
is howlingly bad now.
You know, RCMan should get in sinc with his church. Even the > Pope
believes in evolution.
You should get in "sinc"(sic) with reality. You're so vapid and shallow
you think because I have "RC" in my handle that I "must" be catholic.
Did you just come in from the turnip patch?
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 01:42:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:50:57 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:uhtts091ptrlcmr9o6kn13acu1ijkamjrq@4ax.com:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Well, first of all evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis;
something we've told you a dozen times or more.
Secondly, we can easily attack all the books of the Bible. No need to
stop at Genesis! Every single book is filled with errors,
contradictions, and stuff that made sense to Bronze Age cultures but
is howlingly bad now.
You know, RCMan should get in sinc with his church. Even the Pope
believes in evolution.
My Catholic High School had no problems teaching about evolution in
Biology class, either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 10:49:57 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 11:09:55 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
What would you consider to be proof?
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
| User: "bloodyvikings" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 11:26:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
What would you consider to be proof?
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
=====
RC
Which, given the death rate from MRSA, just goes to prove that life did
originate naturally.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 01:41:04 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 09:09:55 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
What would you consider to be proof?
What have you got?
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
Non sequitur. The origin of life is irrelevant to how it's diversified
since.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 02:44:06 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 09:09:55 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can
invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible
either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to
discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
What would you consider to be proof?
What have you got?
What do you want?
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by
exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
Non sequitur. The origin of life is irrelevant to how it's
diversified
since.
Baloney.
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
27 Dec 2004 08:29:33 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 12:44:06 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 09:09:55 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can
invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible
either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to
discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
What would you consider to be proof?
What have you got?
What do you want?
How about no fossils more than 5 days older than the oldest human
fossils? Oops, off by a few billion years.
How about insects with only four legs? Oops, only the ones you pulled
two legs off.
How about the Earth being flat and being orbited by the sun? Oops,
that would have really screwed up our space program - or don't you
believe in that.
How about evidence for a global flood. Oops, none of that. Not even
theoretically possible.
Most of the Bible is pretty hard to disprove because it describes
"historical" events which are difficult to disprove or which, in some
cases, may even be true. (Of course, lots of history books describe
true events but aren't credited with divine origin.)
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by
exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
Non sequitur. The origin of life is irrelevant to how it's
diversified
since.
Baloney.
Not at all. We can study and apply physics with great precision
without ever knowing *why* F=MA or the origins of the laws of physics.
We do have a lot of information on mechanisms which likely played a
role in abiogenesis, but the exact details and mechanisms are likely
lost to time. That doesn't alter the fact that, for instance, humans
and modern apes evolved from common primate ancestors.
I don't need to know the exact circumstances that lead to human
inhabitation of Europe to speak intelligently about the role of
Germany in World War II.
Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that we know
nothing.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 05:00:08 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 12:44:06 -0800, wrote:
Non sequitur. The origin of life is irrelevant to how it's
diversified
since.
Baloney.
Nice logical response, *****
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
27 Dec 2004 08:36:45 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004 09:09:55 -0800, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
Not at all. The first living cell might have been created by the
Invisible Pink Unicorn. Then it evolved into the diverse forms we
know today through natural selection. This is not inconsistent with
anything we know about evolution.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 03:22:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 09:09:55 +0000, rcman77 wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 -0800, wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate
the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We don't have to discredit
the Bible; you have to validate it.
What would you consider to be proof?
However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing
the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note
this
point as 'irrelevant'.
Because it is. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it
describes how it diversified once it was here.
Kick out a natural origin to life and the natural scheme of
diversification falls like a line of dominoes.
It is obvious that you don't understand much about science. Or logic.
=====
RC
--
MarkA
-- This space accidentally left blank --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
26 Dec 2004 03:28:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 04:08:12 +0000, rcman77 wrote:
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the
whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either
stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to
invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the
sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this
point as 'irrelevant'.
{Check the first item in this series for the URL}
Actually, the bible is full of contradictions, atrocities, fabrications,
etc. Genesis just happens to have a particularly high concentration of
them.
Another responder in this thread has already pointed out that the theory
of evolution does not address the question of how life got started in the
first place, a minor technicality that you seem to find irrelevant. You
find abiogenesis to be "improbable and lacking evidence," whereas
probability and evidence don't even factor into belief in gods.
--
MarkA
-- This space accidentally left blank --
.
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: 17. You could be a fundamentalist atheist if.... |
27 Dec 2004 12:21:54 PM |
|
|
first place, a minor technicality that you seem to find irrelevant. You
find abiogenesis to be "improbable and lacking evidence," whereas
probability and evidence don't even factor into belief in gods.
If by abiogenesis you do not mean how life got started in the first place
then what do you mean by abiogenesis? That abiogenesis simply activated a
part of us which we call life, but which was living all along before that?
--
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
