As an Atheist, would you say you accept all evidence or just scientific evidence

1. 42

   Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years ago

   As an Atheist, would you say you accept all evidence or just scientific evidence?

   replyreport
2. 61

   Robert the Bruceposted 9 years ago

   It's funny that you should mention this issue of "evidence." I have been discussing this with several Hubbers recently. Most of the problem seems to come down to definitions. Generally, theists (believers in God) have a very different definition of the word "evidence" than non-believers.
   
   For example, many believers claim to "hear God speak to them in prayer." THEY count this as evidence for their religion, while atheists do not consider such an ambiguous claim as evidence. As another example, many believers simply consider nature itself as evidence of their specific God, while non-believers interpret nature in a whole different way. Both groups may be sincere, but their perspectives are very different.
   
   The point of all this is that discussions between theists and atheists are difficult because one group (for various reasons) will probably not accept as "evidence" the claims of the other group. Most every atheist I've ever known has been open to any evidence. Generally they are not closed-minded people.
   
   In direct answer to your question, if solid, objective, verifiable evidence were produced that clearly made the case for the existence of a specific God, then to remain a seeker of the truth I would be obliged to consider that evidence. If that evidence existed, it would by definition BE scientific. You may say that that evidence is already present, but then of course we would disagree on what constitutes "evidence."

   replyreport
   1. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Does this mean you don't consider historical, legal, experiential or Bayesian or rational evidence to actually be evidence?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Like I've explained, I would accept anything as evidence that passed the test of being solid, objective, and verifiable. But the religions of the world haven't produced this kind of evidence. By the way, what is your religion, Joseph?

      replyreport
   3. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for that clarification Robert!
      
      To answer your question, I am a member of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

      replyreport
3. 39

   ChristinSposted 9 years ago

   the only real evidence is objective, solid evidence.  personal experiences are great, they aren't irrefutable evidence.  We cant for example convict someone in a court of law on circumstantial evidence - why? because there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think the same premise applies to God.  If there is a God who is all powerful, then there should be some way to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence of this beings existence.  Otherwise, it's all anecdotal evidence - which is not actual proof.

   replyreport
   1. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing Christin! Does this mean you only accept scientific evidence or do you readily accept all types of evidence?

      replyreport
   2. 39

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I thought I clarified that with my answer - proof = solid evidence which would by default mean you need scientific evidence.

      replyreport
   3. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Does this mean you reject historical, legal, experiential, Bayesian and/or rational evidence?

      replyreport
   4. 39

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      of course not, there is scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed for example. legal evidence I used in my example. experiential is scientific observation. "belief" is not scientific - bayesian is probability - all  tie into science - faith doesn't.

      replyreport
   5. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Sure it is. When you say "science" you're referring to a specific epistemology of truth; the belief that all that which is demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, falsifiable, testable and replicable must necessarily be true.

      replyreport
   6. 39

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not going to get baited into an argument - there is no scientific or any concrete evidence of any type for the existence of a deity period. If there is produce it, otherwise it's merely your faith.

      replyreport
   7. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of a Creator. There's tons more evidence: http://bit.ly/1197U6R

      replyreport
   8. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joseph, whether there exists a supernatural "force" or your God Yahweh are entirely different things. History tells us that Yahweh was a Canaanite god which the Jews adopted as their own. There's no verifiable evidence that Yahweh/Jehovah exists.

      replyreport
   9. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Check your sources. Abel, Enoc, Noah and Abraham weren't Canaanites.

      replyreport
   10. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       There's no evidence other than the Hebrew writings that those men even existed. And still, ancient documents and artifacts show that Yahweh was a tribal diety which the Jews took. Oh and Yahweh was married too. Look it up.

       replyreport
   11. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The worship of Asherah became a part of Israel's worship of Jehovah but this was a later apostatizing by unfaithful Israelites. Israel was originally monotheistic. See Jg 3:7; 1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7;  2 Chr 33:11-13, 15, 21-23; 2 Kings 23:4-7.

       replyreport
   12. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The Old Testament was written by the Jews. They were free to embellish the stories as much as they wanted and to make themselves look good. Other ancient documents tell a different story from the Hebrew account.

       replyreport
   13. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Or they could have just been telling the truth. Moses was, after all, quite self-deprecating.

       replyreport
   14. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, there's no evidence for the fantastic stories of the OT, like the Red Sea parting, Sun standing still, etc. Those who wrote about these events were obviously lying. How then could you know what IS true about what they wrote?

       replyreport
   15. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       Prove they were lying.

       replyreport
   16. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I don't need to prove they were lying. Just like we don't need to prove that Hercules and Zeus were gods who did miracles. It's up to the believer to prove that those impossible things actually happened. So far no one can.

       replyreport
   17. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       You made a claim. You claimed that the Bible amanuensis were lying. All I'm asking is for you to substantiate your outlandish claim with some actual evidence. Can you?

       replyreport
   18. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The simple fact that the "miracles" that supposedly occurred throughout the OT cannot be confirmed and HAVE NEVER BEEN REPEATED is a strong indicator that they took some liberty with their writings.

       replyreport
   19. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       "the "miracles" that supposedly occurred [in] the OT [] HAVE NEVER BEEN REPEATED is a strong indicator that they took some liberty []."
       
       The same can be said of the Theory of Evolution but that doesn't stop you from swallowing it as truth ..

       replyreport
   20. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Not the same, Jo. There's no reason for the Big Bang to be repeated now. It goes against science. But miracles of Biblical proportions also go against science. Is your god out of the miracle business?

       replyreport
   21. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       How do the miracles of the Bible violate any scientific laws?

       replyreport
   22. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, now I know you're scientifically ignorant (or just a troll). You don't understand how parting the Red Sea or a donkey talking is scientifically impossible? Maybe you should ask a group of high school students.

       replyreport
   23. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       Actually you're the one suffering from scientific benightedness: http://bit.ly/1wsmmGJ

       replyreport
   24. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       As the end of the article says, "there's many assumptions here." Even if the wind can drive away water, the Bible says the Egyptians drowned in it. That would take more water than the wind could blow away. Facts win again, Joseph.

       replyreport
   25. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       The fact remains that there is, in fact, a scientific explanation for the parting of the Red Sea. You stand refuted ...

       replyreport
   26. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       As usual, you ignore a lot of important details. It would have taken more water to drown the Egyptians. Also, you can't ignore all the other tales of fantasy that the Bible contains. Explain all of those away if you can.

       replyreport
   27. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       Pick any purported fantasy and I'll be more than happy to explain to you how it's anything but.

       replyreport
   28. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       I can't believe I need to say this but can treat others with dignity and ask your question(s) respectfully?

       replyreport
   29. 59

       Bigtelv37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Great response, what if the explanation that Christians provide is evidence beyond reasonable based on the impossibility of the contrary. I believe the explanation that Christians give is amazing, Much better than the atheistic worldview.

       replyreport
4. 59

   Link10103posted 9 years ago

   Whether the evidence is scientific or not has zero impact on anything. If the evidence shows something to be true beyond any and all doubts, there is no logical reason to not accept said evidence as being valid.
   
   But to give an answer to your loaded question, between the 2 options you have presented and considering that there are people who believe that since their boobs are still in good shape or them miraculously finding their car keys is evidence of god, I would say scientific evidence.
   
   Provided of course that you are talking about God in the first place. With atheist and evidence in the question it seems like a no brainer, but I like to cover as many bases as I can.

   replyreport
   1. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing

      replyreport
5. 90

   Kylyssaposted 9 years ago

   The beliefs and opinions of other people really aren't sufficient evidence for much other than the sincerity of those beliefs.
   
   History is the beliefs and opinions of others put down on paper. Being dead really makes no one's opinion matter more than the opinions of live people.
   
   Laws are made by people so if you have legal evidence proving that God is Yahweh, created the universe, and holds you extra dear for thinking he is real, it just means legislators also have opinions and beliefs they genuinely hold. It says nothing as to the reality behind the beliefs.
   
   Bayesian reasoning requires good input to produce useful results. There's nothing but opinions and beliefs to put into it regarding the existence of the divine. You'll just get a possibly more refined set of beliefs and opinions out the other end.
   
   Non-verifiable evidence can easily be, again, the genuine beliefs and opinions of the person giving it rather than unbiased statements of factual observation.
   
   If atheists are close-minded for not accepting beliefs and opinions as evidence, aren't believers close-minded for only accepting as evidence the beliefs and opinions that agree exactly with their own?

   replyreport
   1. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So your answer to my question would beeee?

      replyreport
   2. 90

      Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'd consider any evidence that did not rely on opinions or beliefs. For example, the Bible is not acceptable evidence of God's existence because it requires existing belief in God's reality to think it so.

      replyreport
   3. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't follow. How does reading the Bible demand a prerequisite belief in God?

      replyreport
   4. 90

      Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Believing the Bible was written by God requires belief in God. Otherwise, it's just a book, written by people with sincere beliefs and heavily edited by extremely powerful and dangerous men.

      replyreport
   5. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Actually believing the Bible was written by God is based on evidence that it actually was: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

      replyreport
   6. 90

      Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      In order to believe that as evidence you have to already think God is real and ignore all internal inconsistencies in the Bible, the unfulfilled prophecies, and all the other people who were just people who've made correct guesses about the future.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joseph, I've studied the supposed evidence that the Bible is from "God." But upon closer examination of the argument the "evidence" falls flat. You can't use a verse from one book to prove a verse in another. That's circular reasoning.

      replyreport
   8. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Robert
      
      You're engaging in equivocation, a deceitful rhetorical tactic. You do realize that the Bible is a compilation of 66 distinct works recorded by 40 amanuensis over the span of some one thousand six hundred years, right?

      replyreport
   9. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. I venture to say I know the Bible at least as well as you, seeing I have a degree in it. The difference between us is that you are willing to ignore all the problems with the Bible...I am not.

      replyreport
   10. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       What problem(s) are you referring to?

       replyreport
   11. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Contradictions, inconsistencies, and moral debauchery on the part of the Hebrew god for one thing. There are many instances and other men have listed them quite thoroughly.

       replyreport
   12. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       Have you ever read the Bible in full? I only ask because I have but I've never come across any of the purported "problems" you claim exist.

       replyreport
   13. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, I have. There was a time when I didn't see the problems either---when I falsely believe the Bible was perfect. When I left this intenable, unprovable, and illogical position, I could then see what had ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

       replyreport
   14. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       If you'd like I can provide you with tenable and logical answers to any apparent contradictions you've found in the Bible. Would you like me to?

       replyreport
   15. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I've read many "rebuttals" to Bible problems. Some of them were explained, but many of them were ignored or given a superficial explanation. So no, I've no interest in superficial apologetics from a cult.

       replyreport
   16. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       "A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open." -Frank Zappa

       replyreport
   17. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Precisely why I'm no longer a Christian, Joseph. I decided an open mind was more important than tradition. You should try it.

       replyreport
   18. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'm a Christian, not because of tradition, but because the Bible is proven to be the Inspired Word of our Creator, Jehovah God. You should try reading it in full sometime

       replyreport
   19. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I have read it in full. And what you accept as "proof" cannot be called solid, objective evidence. I've asked you through email to provide facts that prove the existance of your Canaanite god Yahweh. But you never do...

       replyreport
   20. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       I did supply you with the evidence you requested. That you ignored it is on you, not me.

       replyreport
6. 83

   M. T. Dremerposted 9 years ago

   Isn't all evidence scientific? I mean, evidence is proof of something and science makes all its conclusions based on the facts, or proof, of what we have before us. If something has no proof, it isn't evidence, and therefore wouldn't be part of science.
   
   But, maybe you're referring specifically to the science surrounding the creation of the universe? If that's the case, then yes, I do consider all evidence. In fact, the principal influence for labeling myself an atheist was literature, not astrophysics. I studied puritan writings in an American literature class and got a much clearer picture how how religion functioned in early America, which is to say that it served as a policeman and jury to a country without a whole lot of laws. While it wasn't my first atheistic thought, it painted religion as a means to an end, rather than something spiritual.
   
   Further, my study of fantasy taught me that humans are capable of writing creation myths, like the bible, without divine intervention. And my study of mythology, that predates the bible, proved that the Christian god was but one deity in a vast sea of other deities we'd already created.
   
   I'm not going to say that scientific evidence didn't have an impact on me, but this is an example of how I considered literary evidence in addition to scientific evidence. Though, I would still argue that all evidence is scientific because the sciences of this world encompass so much more than the big bang and evolution. It's in our lives every day, regardless of whether or not you're a believer. If you look both ways before crossing the street, you're using science.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Very eloquent. Evidence that isn't scientific isn't really evidence, it's beliefs, conjectures, and opinions which only serve as evidence for the existence of beliefs, conjectures, and opinions and not their subject matter.

      replyreport
   2. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Very well put Dremer. If I may ask, does this mean you reject historical, legal, experiential, Bayesian and/or rational evidence?

      replyreport
   3. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would say all of those, except experiential, qualify as scientific evidence. So I would consider them. I don't reject personal experience, but since it can't be verified, it can't be proven and, therefore, isn't evidence, in the literal sense.

      replyreport
   4. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't follow. How is historical evidence, for instance, scientific in nature?

      replyreport
   5. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      History is our knowledge of the past. It's compiled from our experience, observations and recordings. The same principles science uses. Science is the reason we have history, because advancements led to better recording methods.

      replyreport
   6. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Dremer
      
      But how is history quantifiable, empirical, falsifiable, testable or replicable?

      replyreport
   7. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      History is compiled from what we can find, (various recordings). Others can use the same information to come to similar conclusions of what happened. We then form a conclusion until more information comes to light. That's science in a nutshell.

      replyreport
   8. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Dremer
      
      Thank you for sharing that!
      
      Now, can you explain how historical evidence is quantifiable, empirical, falsifiable, testable and replicable?

      replyreport
   9. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Not adequately with limited characters. History is not static, it changes constantly. Events get verified or falsified based on new, repeatable research. Their data is compiled from multiple sources and compared to draw a logical conclusion.

      replyreport
7. 0

   jfischerstoneposted 9 years ago

   The problem with atheists is they choose not to believe so they can say no one has control over their own destiny but themselves. They rather choose a non belief in any God to get them off of the hook per say.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You seem to have missed the bit about atheists not thinking God is real. You know your belief is based on what you think is real. How is taking the blame and responsibility for everything you do getting off the hook?

      replyreport
   2. 94

      peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Off the hook for what exactly?

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      JF, you've obviously never been an atheist. We don't simply "choose" to not believe in a god. It's a process by which we look for evidence. Belief in a specific god is not based on objective evidence. Some require solid evidence.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, so that must mean your non belief of other gods is you purposely choosing to not believe in said God's to get yourself off the hook.
      
      Thanks for the clarification that you seem to be no different from the atheists you mentioned. Good job

      replyreport
   5. 0

      jfischerstoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @peeples Hell.
      @ Bruce No I have never been an atheist or desired to be
      
      @ Link 10103 You are exactly right!

      replyreport
   6. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      JF, just provide some objective proof that your God (who according to history was originally a Canaanite tribal deity) exists. How about it?

      replyreport
   7. 59

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Considering how I was talking about you JF, you seem to have admitted that there is no difference between you and an atheist. Makes one wonder what the point of your comment was.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      jfischerstoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @ Robert This is impossible. Prove to me God does not exist
      @ Link 10103 Like I said I am no different. We are all human. Some are just lost in their own egos

      replyreport
   9. 59

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So again, what was the point in singling out atheists when you do the same exact thing you think they do?

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Well said, JF

       replyreport
   11. 90

       Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So you are saying you didn't choose to believe in God based on thinking He is real? Please explain how your absence of ego allows you to believe in things you don't think are real. If you want to convert us, we'll need that bit of information.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       jfischerstoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I do not have time for this mess. It is Christmas. Merry Christmas everyone! Celebrate it for the real reason.

       replyreport
   13. 90

       Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       In other words, you believe because you think God is real because if you thought people could believe in things they don't think are real just by choosing to, you'd explain how so we could do it, too, and not go to Hell. Enjoy your holiday.

       replyreport
   14. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       JF, as you probably know, no one can prove something doesn't exist (like Santa and elves). But why should anyone feel compelled to obey a god (Jehovah) that has no evidence of existence? Your reasons are based on feelings, not evidence.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       jfischerstoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So be it!

       replyreport
   16. 59

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You don't have the time to own up to your mistake? Not really surprising, but merry Christmas to all who celebrate it.
       
       I would be Interested to know the real reason to celebrate Xmas though...

       replyreport
   17. 0

       Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Merry Christmas, Link!

       replyreport
   18. 60

       Jbedwellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Atheists don't "choose not to believe", we simply don't for our own reasons. Atheism is inherently a belief in definable, logical proof. There is no "problem with atheists", because as a belief atheism is far more disparate than any other.

       replyreport
8. 77

   cebutouristspotposted 9 years ago

   If it is evidence then it should be accepted but if it is fictitious or hearsay then no.   
   
   If it require blind faith or just believe it something just because it is written in a holy doctrine then no.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Simply stated, ceb. It's sad that more people do not (or will not?) understand what EVIDENCE is. Evidence must be compiled and analyzed in order to come to a conclusion. But most people operate on what they "feel" is true.

      replyreport
   2. 41

      AndrewHil93posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      This is a valid point. What someone "feels" is true can easily be mistaken as fact.

      replyreport
   3. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Andrew
      
      So intuition is always 100% wrong?

      replyreport
   4. 41

      AndrewHil93posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Unless proof is available, then intuition is never 100% correct. @Joseph

      replyreport
   5. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Andrew
      
      Really? Can you give some examples of this?

      replyreport
9. 0

   Stargrrlposted 9 years ago

   I think that even with Scientific evidence, or any evidence, many would still not believe, or reject the faith.

   replyreport
   1. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      But they'll swallow the Theory of Evolution and other such bunk hook, line and sinker

      replyreport
   2. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is said that ignorance has a voice and it is spoken louly here.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joseph is simply demonstrating his lack of scientific knowledge. Some people who have studied evolution may not agree with all conclusions scientists make, but informed people do not call it "bunk." It just doesn't fit his little religious book.

      replyreport
   4. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Robert
      
      Except for the reality that the myth “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" is shorn of any demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable or replicable evidence.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joseph, your ignorance shines brightly again. Evolution has not proven that life came from inorganic matter. The origin of life is not proven. The evolution of lower life forms to higher life forms, however, is well documented.

      replyreport
   6. 42

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Robert
      
      "Evolution has not proven that life came from inorganic matter."
      
      Which necessarily means that the Theory of Evolution is bunk ...

      replyreport
   7. 70

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joseph, the problem is that you are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis. The honest position would be that "we don't  know how life began" - Your position merely parrots the view of ancient men, who knew almost nothing compared to modern science.

      replyreport
   8. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As getitrite said, you are confused. No one knows just how life began, but what happened to that life (evolution) is well documented. Again Joseph, please read a science textbook.

      replyreport
   9. 59

      Bigtelv37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      People have evolved over time. but the evolution theory says that chemical and macro evolution has taken place, which means chemicals formed from nothing to form things, and species has formed into totally different species <<---- Balogna lol =

      replyreport
   10. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @getitrite, @Robert
       
       You are equivocating. The General Theory of Evolution is "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."- Gerald Kerkut - ”Implications of Evolution"

       replyreport
   11. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No equivocating here. No one claims to know absolutely how life began. For you to keep claiming so does not change the fact. Hypothesis have been made as extensions of our reasoning.

       replyreport
   12. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       Can you really not see what is right in front of you? I just quoted a scientist who does!

       replyreport
   13. 70

       getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, if you pursued the veracity of your illogical beliefs with 1/10  the dogged determination that you scrutinize the Theory of Evolution, you'd be an atheist in a few minutes.Give it a try? You can be an atheist...and not believe in evolution

       replyreport
   14. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @getitrite
       
       “Science is agnostic when it comes to God - not atheistic, as some people prefer to read that laden word wrongly - just agnostic.”
       ― Eric Chaisson

       replyreport
   15. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Science should be Agnostic but today's scientific establishment rules out supernatural & scientific "conclusions" are not the same as fact. They are educated guesses, scientific conclusions have been changed over years based on new facts.

       replyreport
   16. 60

       Addison Molrowerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It was proven that life can come from inorganic matter by Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% … experiment
       
       It seems that fighting against ignorance is like fighting against windmills.

       replyreport
   17. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No one claims he Miller Urey experiments prove that abiogenesis happened, what they show is that complex organic molecules can form in natural conditions.no scientist is publishing that the question of abiogenesis is solved nor did Urey Miller.

       replyreport
   18. 60

       Addison Molrowerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It proves that life can rise from inorganic matter, for organic molecules are life in its starting form.

       replyreport
   19. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Organic molecules are in no way life - life requires non organic elements and compounds too - I suppose you think minerals are life? Keep living a lie, educated people know better.

       replyreport
   20. 61

       Cody Atkinsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Jospeh, like many religious believers you've absolutely contorted Gerald Kerkut's words. The quote that you've used is demonstrable of this fact. In "The Implication of Evolution", he is clarifying the differences between evolution and abiogenesis.

       replyreport
10. 59

    Bigtelv37posted 9 years ago

    A lot of evidence is falsified to project the evolution theory or Atheistic worldview. Therefore, Scientific evidence should be the only thing used for empirical evidence. And by Science I mean things we can observe and know for a fact, and not the things we may have theories about. I am a Christian By the way and I have seen true scientific evidence prove theism or Intelligent design more often than not.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Christian scientists are good at falsifying info. You have to ignore mountains of evidence in order to say that evolution is baloney. There's a good reason more than 99% of scientists accept evolution. Also, evolution can be compatible with a god.

       replyreport
    2. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       What purported evidence are you referring to for Molecules-To-Man evolution?

       replyreport
    3. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, it's not so simple as "molecules to man." There are innumerable steps in between. For that info I refer you to any college-level biology book for starters. If you are openminded you just may learn something.

       replyreport
    4. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       I have studied the Theory of Evolution at length and have not found any evidence for the purported evolution of man or animal from the supposed primordial ooze which was the spark of life.

       replyreport
    5. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'm assuming you have mostly studied from a Christian or Creaionist perspective? If so, then of course you found no evidence. Christian "scientists" are notorious for ignoring what is right before their eyes.

       replyreport
    6. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       What's the scientific evidence, then, for Molecules-to-Man evolution?

       replyreport
    7. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If you did know anything about evolution, you would know how extensive the theory is. It can't be explained in these short spaces. Again, I must refer you to credible scientists who have done the work. Try "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr.

       replyreport
    8. 90

       Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @ Mr. Polanco - I'd suggest auditing some college classes on chemistry, biology, & biochemistry & then auditing some evolutionary biology courses. You are asking for a blurb explanation of something that is an entire field of study.

       replyreport
    9. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robert
       
       Then feel free to email me
       
       @Kylyssa
       
       How do you explain, then, all the Chemists, Biologists, Biochemists and other scientists who abjure Molecules-to-Man Evolution?

       replyreport
    10. 42

        Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        @Rob
        
        A troll is a commentator with a stand-point you discover is compelling but nevertheless detest. I've obliged these to tackle important and unnerving truths they’re too overweening to admit to.
        
        IOW, thanks and you’re welcome!   : )

        replyreport
    11. 64

        tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        JOP, I know I don't have to tell YOU this but if you research most claims RthB makes you'll find they are lies or distortions, he trolls the hub pages solely to bash Christians, prove he's wrong he'll delete A-star style giving a false reason.

        replyreport
    12. 42

        Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        @Tsd
        
        Oh so he has a history of this. Thanks for the heads up!

        replyreport
    13. 61

        Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Tsad, you always resort to personal attacks because you can't defend your supposed beliefs. For being a Christian, you sure tell a lot of lies. Why don't you prove wrong my arguments instead of trying to discredit me (ad hominem fallacy)?

        replyreport
    14. 64

        tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The 1st time I did that you deleted my comments later falsely claiming they were nasty that was all I needed to have your number, your arguments are transparently false anyway. You troll up here as usual disparaging Joseph & me, I tell no lies.

        replyreport
    15. 90

        Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        @ Mr. Polanco - Overall, only 5% of American scientists do not accept evolution. The percentage drops below 1% when only scientists with degrees in the biological sciences are surveyed. Why must I explain a fraction of a percent who are creationists?

        replyreport
    16. 42

        Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        @Kylyssa
        
        "Why must I explain a fraction of a percent who are creationists?"
        
        Because they're scientists. Just because most accept anything doesn't make it true ...
        Why? Because they're scientists.

        replyreport
    17. 64

        tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Evaluate theory of evolution itself-not the people who believe it, or the reasonthey believe it. many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists(teachers who don’t know what they are talking about The 5%figure's 23 yrs old

        replyreport
    18. 90

        Kylyssaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Perhaps the scientists who believe in young earth creationism are able to hold two or more opposing beliefs at the same time?

        replyreport
    19. 64

        tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Well u got that right, beliefs which are all they are. Neither have been scientifically proven beyond any doubt. They both require a measure of faith to believe only it takes way more faith to believe macro evolution than believe in a creator

        replyreport
11. 41

    AndrewHil93posted 9 years ago

    I would accept all evidence to support religion, as an atheist I believe there is no scientific evidence to support religion and in my opinion, there is no other kind of evidence but real-evidence (in other words, scientifically proven evidence) but I am open to suggestion.

    replyreport
    1. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Does this mean you reject historical, legal, experiential, Bayesian and/or rational evidence?

       replyreport
    2. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Your evidence is heavily biased, Joseph. Can't you see that Christian writers would do ANYTHING to preserve the religion? For example your cult (JW) disagrees with main Christian doctrines. You can't all be right.

       replyreport
    3. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       Biased towards the truth is no bias at all

       replyreport
    4. 61

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, no amount of facts will convince you because cultists do not operate by facts. So enjoy your fantasy.

       replyreport
    5. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       Give us all the facts, then, that show God does not nor cannot exist.

       replyreport
    6. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Rob
       
       Answer the challenge or don't answer at all.

       replyreport
    7. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, I told you RtheB has lies and distortions to offer, show him wrong or stand up to him with the truth and he deletes you or  if he can't he disappears. Where do Hub trolls got to hide? I wonder.

       replyreport
12. 64

    tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

    
    
    Joseph, you know I am not an atheist so If I am out of line answering your question, please delete my answer. However I can shed some light on your question which you will not likely get from any atheist here on Hub Pages or anywhere for that matter (but I guarantee you this would elicit a lot of foul language if it were permissible).
    
    Atheists are a diverse group with only one thing "uniting" them, they do not believe in any God or gods and even that thought is just something they have in common, it does not really unite them. What does seem to unite them is that in most cases, I submit they have made that decision primarily for what is known as the moral reason and once they have made that decision, solely because they do not want to admit the real reason, "the moral reason", they search for any evidence they can to support their decision. If the evidence is proven wrong they cling to it anyway or make up explanations and ignore (and here delete) anything that contradicts their world view. They understand the Bible just well enough to know that they want to reject its redemptive message. The moral reason is simply that people try to protect some area of their life or some habit they want to keep so they go on a search for intellectual reasons why they want to justify that or they find ways to suppress the truth or cover it up because of a bent to hold onto their sin, to justify their desire not to let Jesus be Lord of their life.
    
    This video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBZIv4CH8o is an interview with two Christian apologists who are experts on atheists, have debated numerous famous atheists and are accomplished people in their own rights who don't put stock in "fiction" as atheists describe the Bible which most obviously have never studied nor have they investigated any credible scholar who has.
    
    A real truth seeker, which atheists are not, will look at all the evidence, take time to meticulously study and continue to evaluate new evidence even after making a decision. A real truth seeker does not make a decision and then look for, cherry pick or makeup evidence to support their world view ignoring all else with frivolous excuses.
    
    The most recent scientific reasoning increasingly makes the case for God, but you won't find an atheist here who will even entertain that FACT.
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heXr3JTaYIU
    
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxa … 1419544568

    replyreport
    1. 83

       Lowdown0posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       This is a very good comment and makes sense, unlike the atheist who don't. Atheism is a religion, which denies there is an absolute. They go against all evidence to have their wild faith in Macro Evolution, blinded to reality that contradicts them.

       replyreport
    2. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Tsa
       
       Excellent response! I welcome your keen insights

       replyreport
    3. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       WelcomeJoseph! Yeah, don't have to look far to see an atheist living up to what I've said.Take austinstar's current hubpage, she's deleted more comments than she's approved providing totally false reasons, she thinks she's a master of deception.

       replyreport
    4. 74

       Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Atheism isn't one religion. It is simply a lack of belief in deities. Many religions are atheistic, like Jainism and Buddhism. You can be a Buddhist or a Jain without believing in a god or gods. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe.

       replyreport
    5. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So what does that have to do with anything said here?  Buddhists accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods, but sure it is considered an "atheist religion"So what,show me any modern atheist who buys into that!

       replyreport
    6. 60

       Jbedwellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       As you pointed out the only thing that atheist have in common with each other is that we collectively do not believe in any form of higher power, god or otherwise. What you have outright ignored is where atheists got that belief from; our own logic.

       replyreport
13. 74

    Besarienposted 9 years ago

    I am not an atheist but needed to get this off my chest. I really don't understand why believers are hung up on "presenting evidence as proof" at all. There is no proof God doesn't exist and never can be. Why can't we just be honest enough to say that we believe because we have faith? People who actively disbelieve in God are also basing that disbelief on their faith that God doesn't exist. People who are just keeping an open mind- what is wrong with that? Maybe they will come in to the faith they need to believe or maybe they won't. Why should we feel like anyone whatever they believe or don't is unworthy of our love and tolerance? 
    
    I don't believe in Big Foot. I can't help that I don't. If someone shoots one and drags it to my doorstep tomorrow I'd say "See, Big Foot doesn't exist. It was just this newly discovered now possibly extinct species of North American bipedal ape that people have been mistaking for a Big Foot all along." A believer would look at the corpse and say, "I always knew Big Foot was real!"
    
    I do believe in God, though. I can't help that I do. My friend who lives next door is an atheist. He can't help not believing. Perhaps one day he will find faith. Perhaps one day I will lose mine. Who else besides the individual should care or be burdened with owned beliefs one way or another? Who else but that individual should be bound by them?
    
    What does it matter if I believe or don't or if my neighbor believes or doesn't? Who are either of us hurting by believing whatever we believe? Neither of us forces the other to believe as we do. I don't point a shot gun at him to make him attend my church. He doesn't burn down my house if I string up some Christmas lights. We lend and borrow sugar and milk and feed each others dogs when vacations happen.
    
    The Bible tells me that my Lord Jesus Christ wants me to love my neighbor. He didn't specify just the one who believes in him like I do. He also wants me to be tolerant. I don't need to tolerate people who are like me. I need to tolerate the people who are the most annoyingly different from me. That is most everyone in one way or another- so it is a good thing I take the tolerance thing seriously
    
    Last but not least please stop denying science. It just makes all Christians sound crazy. Evolution happens. The earth rotates around the sun. People  wrote and rewrote the Bible, translated it, codified it, left out parts they didn't like. People are fallible no matter how inspired.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Besarian there are good answers to every question you pose. I suggest you get a little less focused on yourself & a little more on the facts.Hear of the great commission? Science indicates evolution doesn't happen.Presenting truth isn't intoleran

       replyreport
    2. 42

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       "If [] the good news we declare is veiled, it is [] among those who are perishing, among whom [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ [] might not shine []." - 2 Cor. 4:4

       replyreport
    3. 74

       Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Good science indicates in every way possible that evolution happens. If your "science" doesn't. it is based on conclusions that can not be supported by both logic and a thorough understanding of the existing evidence.

       replyreport
14. 60

    Addison Molrowerposted 9 years ago

    Taking the bait...
    
    I would accept any scientific evidence and any evidence that stands on strong enough arguments, even if those that stand on purely philosophical ground.
    
    However, as an atheist I don't believe that god doesn't exist, but I also don't believe that he exists. I simply don't see how he could affect my life in any way that common man couldn't and so wouldn't gave him any relevance if he was proven to exists. I may burn in hell, or simply fall into oblivion, any way I don't see how praying would change any of that. Morals were different in various eras and places and moral codex of omniscient being would be vastly different from ours and so every judging from his part would be unjust, for he wouldn't judge us from our standpoint of view, he wouldn't judge us on ground of our morals, but on ground of his, which are incomprehensible by our means and so we are unable to live by them.
    
    But anyway, if humans are to gods like ants are to humans, why would he listen to our prayers? Do we listen to prayers of ants?
    
    But even if he listened, he would be either mad from trying to fulfill all of them, for nobody can stay sane in face of milliards requests, pleas; or evil, for what can he be if not evil for turning away from injustices we suffer, from our suffering?
    
    And then there is third option that there simply is no god and in truth this one is for me the most comforting.
    
    TL:DR: I can't know if god exist, nor can I know if he doesn't, but why should I care?

    replyreport
15. 60

    SarahFriedmanposted 9 years ago

    all evidence is scientific, otherwise it is just an opinion

    replyreport
16. 60

    Jbedwellposted 7 years ago

    That, as a question, does not make sense. Evidence, actual evidence with credible sources and plentiful citations, is scientific evidence and vice-versa. If something can't be classed as "scientific evidence" then it isn't evidence of any form as it cannot be used to prove an argument "beyond reasonable doubt". If pushed I would have to say that I only believe in scientific evidence, but only because nothing else actually counts.

    replyreport