PeterS

In 2008 GOP p**********l candidates were asked if they believed in Darwinian Evolution two-thirds said they did. By 2016 only one Republican candidate, Jeb Bush, admitted to believing in evolution and he added the qualifier that if taught in public schools it should be taught alongside of creationism.

Now the question is: how many actually stopped believing in evolution and how many were simply trying to cover their ass amongst v**ers!

https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkScience/videos/1434061180039335/

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Why do you believe it is necessary that they must be competing philosophies? Rene Descartes said,"I think, therefore I am." I tell you "God is, therefore I am" and He gave me the ability to think so that I can know Him.

Kevyn

They are just pandering to snake handlers, thinking Americans need to hold them accountable. Biblical creationism is thoroughly disproven nonsense.

woodguru

He took away your ability to reason so that you would believe anything, and that trait unfortunately is what rolls with political beliefs as well. If FOX and Trump say it the right blindly believes it.

There have been studies being done with what happens in the brain in people subject to beliefs (some people simply are not, it needs to be proved to them) There is a part of the brain that is used and involved in reasoning that is atrophied in a believer. The correlating studies as to why come up with several possible reasons, one being early developmental training as they are growing up. I saw a great example being used by the author of the study results. If one kid is subjected to answers about why the sun comes up in the morning, that it's because god wants us to have light so he gave us the sun. It's an answer designed to stop further curiosity and explorative thinking. Another kid who's parent answers with the technical facts such as...the earth revolves around the sun, and that's why there is dark when the side that's in the shade is on the opposite side.

The one answer is the result of a lazy brain that creates an unimaginative kid, the brain is not going to work as well as far as reasoning.

The other parent, depending on how far they are willing to go might be drawing their kid pictures, and explaining a long list of answers to questions a bright and interested kid is going to have. A kid who is encouraged to think about technical science based things is going to be using that reasoning part of their brain far more than the kid who's question was shut down with a faith based answer, where further questions are shut down with a statement that we don't question god and his power and goodness.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

I'm sorry, but you're misinformed; badly and perhaps indelibly misinformed. I'm not certain where you get your information but if it's off the walls of a stall in a public restroom it's time to change stalls.

Familiarize yourself with studies about aged men and women in religious orders who spend hours every day in meditative prayer yet have all the physical attributes of extreme Alzheimer's but no loss of cognitive ability. Perhaps it's because of Who they talk with?

Pray tell me who is the "He" that you refer to when you say - "He took away your ability to reason so that you would believe anything."

Woodguru, you never miss one of those golden opportunities to keep your mouth closed. Do yourself a huge favor and consider asking "Him" to put a guard over your lips. Every time you speak or write we get a look into your mind and that mind might need to go in a new direction. It's just a suggestion because I am a huge advocate for free will. We Live and die by it.

Finally, the human brain is capable of thinking in the abstract, it can comprehend both the natural and supernatural. Prayer is supernatural. God instilled in mankind the ability to know He exist. Use it or lose it. It's a choice; each and every unique and wonderful human beings individual choice.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Why does it matter?? All of them on both sides of the fence.. How about that as an answer?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Really?? Please enlighten us and tell us how it is disproven and by whom..

Finally, kevvy has the universal question answered..

Kevyn

you know, the rubbish about the world being 6000 years old created in a week and man and dinosaurs walking the planet at the same time.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Oh yeah, who disproved it and by what method and means did they do it?? Darwin failed miserably to disprove it, so who was it?? When you consider that 84% of the people on earth are religious, have faith in a higher power, a third of whom are Christians, you'd better come up with something absolutely irrefutable. If Biblical creationism was in fact thoroughly disproven nonsense, it would have been the biggest news event in human history and mental midgets like you and Pete would no longer be compelled to argue against it. The subject would be off the table.

Y'all might take a brutally honest look atheistic beliefs, you will find they are self-contradictory and based in irrational thought. Throughout history religious philosophers and theologians have made convincing arguments on this point. In his book, Miracles, C.S. Lewis presents a striking argument about the irrationality of atheism.

Here is a contemporary philosopher's argument.

The Irrationality of Atheist Belief

by Jefferson White
[Utopia]

I. That the Atheist Conception of Evolution Is Illogical

In this argument, we are not interested in whether macro-evolution occurs. For the sake of argument, we will assume that it does. Thus the argument is that it is the atheist's conception of macro-evolution that is illogical.

According to Western atheists, there is a Big Bang and energy emerges. Energy evolves into matter and matter eventually evolves into life.

But this scenario is impossible as a matter of logic. It is illogical because the conclusion of every logical argument is found in the premise of that argument. For example, the argument that "one plus one equals two" is a logical argument because "one plus one" is simply another way of saying "two."

Therefore, as a matter of logic, energy cannot evolve into matter unless matter is presupposed in energy. Nor can matter evolve into life unless life is presupposed in matter - and in energy - from the beginning. Logically speaking, therefore, life is presupposed from the instant that the cosmos begins. Although life as a structure may not appear until billions of years later, this appearance is possible only if life is presupposed.

If only energy that exists at the beginning of the cosmos, there will only ever be energy. According to the law of identity (A=A) it is impossible for energy to evolve into something other than itself. If energy does evolve into matter and matter then evolves into life, this can only be because matter and life are implicit within energy.

This is why the atheist conception of evolution is logically incoherent. It is logical nonsense to believe that life can evolve out of non-life.

II. That the Atheist Conception of Reality is Illogical

All Western atheists hold three beliefs about the nature of reality, with each belief contradicting the others.

First, the atheist is convinced that nature has no intent, no purpose, and no design. Nature simply is and evolves without purpose.

Second, the atheist is convinced that some intellectual system - usually modern science or progressivism or both - can somehow create intent, purpose, and design. This logically contradicts the first belief. Because modern science and progressivism are a part of nature, the atheist's claim that they can somehow create intent, purpose, and design must be an illusion, since nature has no intent, purpose, or design. But the atheist is distinguished by his refusal to recognize this logical contradiction.

Third, the atheist is convinced that the reason that he is an atheist, while the rest of the world remains mired in superstition, is because he is uniquely capable of using reason to discover that the cosmos has no intent, no purpose, and no design. But again: if nature has no intent, no purpose, and no design, how is it possible for the atheist, who is himself a part of nature, to rationally discover this? How is he able to invent purpose in order to discover that there is no purpose? And again, the atheist has no real answer to this question

So why is the atheist rationally incapable of recognizing the contradiction between his belief that the cosmos has no meaning and his belief that he can somehow create meaning?

One possible answer is that the atheist does not actually believe in one or more of his three claims. Perhaps he does not really believe that nature is without purpose. Or perhaps he does not really believe that modern science or progressivism can actually create purpose. Or perhaps he does not really believe that he is a rational human being. But as anyone who has actually dealt with an atheist knows, the atheist will vehemently assert the t***h of all three of these claims. And one is forced to conclude that, if a lie detector test was given, it would reveal that the atheist does really believe all three propositions.

What this tells us is that the atheist is someone who is uniquely irrational.

III. That Theophanic Events Are Real

A theophany is an appearance of God in the world. By definition, therefore, no atheist can believe in a theophanic event. But there is a logical problem with this atheist disbelief.

From a scholarly paper written in 2012:

In the spring of 1976 at the University of Washington (the philosopher) Eric Voegelin presented a series of lectures. During one such session, Voegelin was expounding upon the crucial notion of a "theophanic event" to the utter astonishment of a world-renowned Weberian scholar in the audience. After all, as the professor remarked, how could Voegelin talk of such things in an age that Weber described as one of "disenchantment." What could Voegelin possibly mean? Voegelin's response to the professor must have seemed even more bizarre. Voegelin asked whether the professor was indeed serious about his question and really wanted to know what Voegelin meant. Or was he an "intellectual crook"? The professor, of course, vehemently denied the latter possibility and affirmed that he truly wanted to know. "Well," responded Voegelin, "that is a theophanic event!"

The rational absurdity of atheism is revealed in this exchange. It is revealed in the puzzlement of the "Weberian scholar" who both "knows" and "does not know" that it is impossible to understand at all unless that understanding transcends that is being understood. And transcendence is an attribute of God, a gift that is given to man by God. Human understanding is a theophanic event. But because the "Weberian scholar" considers himself to be a "modern man,"he is utterly opposed to Voegelin's reference to theophanic events, because "modern man" can no longer believe in such things. This is why Voegelin asks him whether he really wants to know why Voegelin believes what he believes or whether the professor is an "intellectual crook." When the professor states that he really wants to know, Voegelin points to that desire to know as an example of a theophanic event.

The atheist asserts that there is no such thing as a transcendent understanding of reality, while at the same time claiming that his own understanding is transcendent. The atheist is, as Voegelin says, "an intellectual crook."

IV. That There Is No Rational Atheist Argument

The difficulty in arguing with an atheist is that the atheist has no rational argument.

But to make this the argument is to "disrespect" the atheist and his claim to be a rational human being. And if there is one thing in which the Western atheist believes, in addition to atheism, it is in his own personal rationality. Indeed, the atheist views himself to be more rational than other people because he is an atheist.

Therefore one can only engage in a rational argument with an atheist on one of two grounds. Either one participates in the atheist lie that he has a rational argument or one "insults" the atheist by demonstrating that he does not have a rational argument. Unfortunately, most people who argue with atheists participate in the atheist lie out of a misguided sense of civility.

Now why do we say that the atheist has no rational argument?

We say this because the atheist denial of God always involves the re-appearance of God at some other level of his argument and that atheist never acknowledges this.

For example, if one argues that intent, purpose, and design are possible only if human beings are a reflection of the divine, the atheist will answer in one of two ways. Either he will insist that these human attributes can exist as the products of an entirely evolutionary process or he will agree that these human attributes do not really exist, but that we do not need these attributes to exist to be fully human.

Let us begin with the first argument, which is that these attributes can be the products of an evolutionary process. According to the atheist, evolution as a process contains intent, no purpose, and no design. And yet somehow this process produces human beings who possess these attributes. As a matter of logic, however, if the evolutionary process does not contain these attributes, then the attributes can never "evolve" out of that process.

Now the atheist will go on to argue that, because of modern science, we are now able to "understand" evolution and that this "understanding" empowers us to control evolution. However, this argument is nothing more than hand-waving. It is magical thinking. The logical t***h is that if we are the products of an entirely evolutionary process, which contains no intent, no purpose, and no design, then those attributes can never emerge as part of that process. The atheist has just re-invented God by claiming that human beings have become God by transcending the evolutionary process.

This brings us to the second atheist argument. In this case, the atheist agrees that there is no such thing as intent, purpose, or design. But he then goes on to argue that we can be fully human anyway in that we illogically believe that we possess these attributes. The problem with this argument is that the atheist himself lives as if he actually believes that he has intent, purpose, and design. In other words, the atheist who agrees that these attributes do not exist constitutes the living refutation of his own argument.

Logically speaking, if we are completely the products of an evolutionary process then we can never transcend that process. The puppet called Pinocchio can never become anything other than a puppet. Pinocchio can never become a real human being. However, the atheist believes either that the wooden puppet Pinocchio can become a human being, and thus believes in what amounts to an atheist miracle, or the atheist believes that he is really is nothing more than a puppet, while putting the lie to that belief by actually living as if he were a human being.

This is why the atheist has no rational argument.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

So you brand all Christians with the beliefs of a minority? Using your own skewed logic, Conservatives should be able to confidently brand all Progressive as homosexuals since many of you believe it a admirable and legitimate lifestyle?

woodguru

He, god, jesus. I was responding to a "he gave us the ability to think"

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

I'm thinking that if you analyze your particular audience you'll find you're discharging predominately into non-conductors - certainly not all of them because some are still seeking the meaning and purpose of life. For an atheist to know there is no God he/she would have to know everything and if one knew everything he would have to be God. That's the KISS analogy. It will be interesting to see if they respond to your posting. Good job.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Then why would you claim He took it away from us?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Moses authored the Book of Genesis nearly 4000 years ago. At that time, it wasn't necessary for him to go into great detail about why, how and where in which time, space, matter and energy were created. The English t***slation of the original Hebrew is accurate as far as it goes, but a close study of the first 10 verses of Genesis, in both languages, reveals a striking sequence that has long been a point of contention among Christians, between theologians and scientists, and provides atheists with a ready weapon with which to express their contempt for all things Biblical.

Briefly,

In the 1st verse of Genesis, we see that the earth was without form, and void. (In the English t***slations, "earth" is in lower case, a subtle yet very important point. In Hebrew the word refers to matter or physical particles.) The "earth" remains "without form, and void" until we come to the 9th and 10th verses where "dry land" appeared and God called it "Earth" (Capitalized).

Since one rotation of the Earth established the 24 hour day, and the Earth did not appear as "dry land" until we get to the 9th and 10th verses of Genesis, it is impossible to determine the elapsed time between the "beginning" and the formation of the Earth, planets, and stars. Neither Biblical scholars, theologians or scientists have been able to account for that period of time. No one can say how or what time may be to an Intelligent Creator. The Bible does, on occasion, suggest that time in the eyes of God and in the lives of men are two very different things.

In Psalm 90, the only Psalm attributed to Moses, he concludes that man and God look at time from entirely different perspectives. And, in 2 Peter we see that With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

So, no doubt this debate will go on until the end of time. There is no need to get your panties in a twist over what you ignorantly perceive as "rubbish."

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia