Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Famous Atheist Quotes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    pozzolane, thanks for the challenge...

    Originally posted by pozzolane View Post
    Bob,
    Don't you find it curious that your list ends in the mid 1800's? ... Your most recent scientist is an agriculturalist....Need I say more?
    I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:

    * many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
    * my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did )
    * you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).

    But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.

    Thanks!

    p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

    Comment


    • #77
      pqmomba8
      "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

      If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Granite View Post
        I see...so disagreement with your religious values and particular worldview is written off as nothing more than hubris on the part of we wayward heretics.
        Any number of men believe in God without sharing my particular understanding of Him. To qualify my remarks, I think that more than a few generations of men have been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity, not that all of those came to their disbelief with the conscious intent to serve it. As I've said elsewhere and you're doubtless aware, the question always before us cannot be settled objectively. It becomes a matter of intent and declaration at its deepest level. But the choice we make, the declaration we raise like a flag going into battle, must say something about our motivation and what we value most. And while I believe that setting your hope on nothing but yourself is a vain premise, I recognize that one must see that choice before a contrary decision can be contemplated.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
          Wow. That's some contention. It reminds me of the evolutionist claim that the human eye could not have come from a Creator because it is poorly engineered. Wow.
          I wouldn't say that the human eye could NOT have come from a creator but it certainly could have evolved in a relatively simple set of steps.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0

          As for being poorly designed I have to admit having blood vessels on TOP of the light sensitive portion of the eye doesn't make any sense ( I had long assumed it was the reverse before I learned anatomy). However I'm not willing to throw up my hands and say "bad design". Perhaps instead, it comes from the ancestral vertebrates living in low light conditions and utilizing the tapetum (the thing that causes eyeshine in many animals) to reflect light back onto the retina, much like the collector for a satellite dish faces into the dish rather than out.

          Of course for a human eye it's less than optimal since we do not have a tapetum, but that may be more a consequence of evolutionary legacy than obvious "bad design".
          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
            I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:

            * many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
            * my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did )
            * you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).

            But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.

            Thanks!

            p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!
            Bob;
            I realize that looking at the modern world in general and our country in particular it may appear to some that Atheists rule the roost.
            However, survey says we are still a minority and a small one at that.
            I'm of the opinion that alot more people don't believe in God than are willing to admit to it.
            Even in with the current waves of Atheist activism, books, billboards, ect. it still not really cool to be an Atheist.
            Even more so in the past.
            I saw a survey once that listed the entire population of the Soviet Union as Atheist (back when there was a Soviet Union and religion there was illegal). I highly doubt that all those hundreds of millions of people were really Atheist, they had to hide their Theism.
            Likewise in the past church has been a social networking tool and not being a member of some church somewhere could potentially cause one some embarresment.

            My point is we can make all the lists we want but just because I can show you a certificate that says I was baptised and confirmed a United Methodist dosen't mean I am one just as all the people in Russia are suposed to be Atheists but aren't and just because a scientists checked a box marked Christian dosen't really tell us much about what the guy really thought.
            Everyman is a voice in the dark.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
              I saw Ben Stein's movie Expelled 15 times as part of the American RTL movie marathon.
              No indoctrination there. :P

              Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins are both intelligent people but with nearly equally warped perspectives on science and religion. Dawkins unfortunately mixes his militant atheism too readily with evolutionary theory making it unpalatable to theists, while Stein uses an incredibly shallow view of science to paint evolution as "religious dogma". Admittedly Dawkins makes this much easier, but his ideas are not the basis of evolutionary theory, it existed before him and will continue without him.

              In reality both Stein and Dawkins are completely and utterly wrong on different points. Evolution is a well supported scientific fact, it happened, but it isn't incompatible with Christianity. The sooner Christianity as a whole moves past this debate the sooner we can get back to focusing on changing lives for the better and saving souls, rather than wasting time, money and resources on a battle that doesn't need to be fought.
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Any number of men believe in God without sharing my particular understanding of Him. To qualify my remarks, I think that more than a few generations of men have been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity, not that all of those came to their disbelief with the conscious intent to serve it. As I've said elsewhere and you're doubtless aware, the question always before us cannot be settled objectively. It becomes a matter of intent and declaration at its deepest level. But the choice we make, the declaration we raise like a flag going into battle, must say something about our motivation and what we value most. And while I believe that setting your hope on nothing but yourself is a vain premise, I recognize that one must see that choice before a contrary decision can be contemplated.
                That makes more sense. There doubtless are infidels who presumed to continue in their ways based on an inflated sense of self, driven by some kind of ill-advised superiority complex. Skepticism for its own sake or for the sake of a perverse sense of accomplishment is ill-advised, to say the least.

                My motivations are drawn from what I can deduce and see around me. Believe me when I tell you that my vanity only goes so far. If that makes sense.




                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Any number of men believe in God without sharing my particular understanding of Him. To qualify my remarks, I think that more than a few generations of men have been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity, not that all of those came to their disbelief with the conscious intent to serve it. As I've said elsewhere and you're doubtless aware, the question always before us cannot be settled objectively. It becomes a matter of intent and declaration at its deepest level. But the choice we make, the declaration we raise like a flag going into battle, must say something about our motivation and what we value most. And while I believe that setting your hope on nothing but yourself is a vain premise, I recognize that one must see that choice before a contrary decision can be contemplated.
                  Speaking of vanity, what about the proposition that in all this great cosmos, we, of all things are the point and purpose, given special dominion over all creatures, and given special contact and consideration by its creator, to the extent that we even say that we are made in his image?

                  The assertion of moral autonomy may seem hubristic, but it pales in comparison to the counterpoint.
                  Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    since it is impossible for him to meet the requirements necessary to usurp that level of authority.
                    What authority is that?
                    Everyman is a voice in the dark.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      My nomination of a quote is:

                      "I patiently explained to him [Ben Stein] that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet. The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved ..."

                      -- Richard Dawkins, commenting on his "bombshell" revelation at the end of the movie "Expelled"


                      As for this one:
                      Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway. - Anonymous
                      A sad straw man. What a misunderstanding of the gospel!

                      Jesus did not make a sacrifice. He was the sacrifice. God the Father made the sacrifice. And that sacrifice wasn't simply that His Son would die and be quickly resurrected. Rather, Jesus Christ "became sin" on the cross. The word "sin" doesn't mean "evil" or "wicked." Rather, in simplistic terms, it means "separation from God" in a very intense and painful way. Christ became sin for us, and that sin was crucified on the cross, and our sin was thus taken away. At that moment, there the Son was separated from the Father, and the Father forsook (and effectively rejected) the Son. And was the deeply painful sacrifice.

                      For a "greatest conceivable being" that is capable of limitless and perfect love to reject His own beloved Son as sin, that is the greatest sacrifice of all.

                      And I say all that simply to point out what a lousy quote that quote really is.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                        Since Lamarck thought that a giraffe stretching his neck would produce offspring with longer necks through mutations, to hopeful monsters, to today... Darwinism does have to do with chance, because natural selection has NOTHING to select until random mutations bring about something that confers greater survivability.
                        Bob,

                        With each comment you make on evolution, it becomes clearer that you are either completely unimaginative, completely stupid, or completely ignorant. For your benefit, I will assume ignorance and attempt to correct your gross errors regarding such comments as the one above. Your argumentation against evolution with strawmen regarding what we "evolutionists" now know to be absurd but once hypothesized, is incredibly incredulous. Not a single evolution proponent believes Lamarcks hypothesis regarding giraffe's to be accurate. This should be common knowledge since the theory by which evolution occurs is widely accepted to be Natural Selection. A giraffe stretching his neck to reach his food is not anything close to resembling this theory, other than perhaps a spark of imagination to the mind of Darwin (but this is just me pondering). The less a giraffe has to stretch out in order to eat his food on the top branches, the more food he/she can digest, and hence the more suitable for life and reproducing it becomes. That is, if it is advantageous to have a longer neck than the giraffes with which you compete for breeding, than you will most likely reproduce more readily and more often than the competition. After a few century's you would find that the average neck length of the giraffe's would have increased due to this process. This is a textbook example of natural selection, and as you can see it's not at all by "chance".


                        evolution for two centuries has been unable to come up with a workable mechanism.

                        And I just gave an example above that it has.


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                          Speaking of vanity, what about the proposition that in all this great cosmos, we, of all things are the point and purpose, given special dominion over all creatures, and given special contact and consideration by its creator, to the extent that we even say that we are made in his image?
                          All things are made to the glory of God and to suit His purpose. Inside creation there is an order (you witness this in nature) and, relative to other animals, man has preeminence. And next to God he is nothing. That recognition of God and His nature, that understanding of His glory and our own failure to do more than dimly reflect some portion of it should preclude a rational vanity on that account...should.
                          The assertion of moral autonomy may seem hubristic, but it pales in comparison to the counterpoint.
                          Is it hubris for a child to proclaim the love of his parent? And if that child is given authority over some of his parent's holdings is it hubris to recognize the fact? No, so long as we understand the source of our authority and are mindful of its implications and obligations, we remain safe from an exaggerated opinion of our role or worth, all of it owed to and flowing from the God who loves us.

                          Originally posted by fool
                          What authority is that?
                          As I implied, you have to know a door is there to open it.
                          You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                          Pro-Life






                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                            I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:

                            * many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
                            * my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did )
                            * you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).

                            But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.

                            Thanks!

                            p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!

                            Hey Bob,

                            What you're engaged in is a matter of appealing to authority (a common logical fallacy). The only problem is that you're appealing to those who have none regarding the topic at hand. A mathematician, although smart in his own field of mathematics, is no more credited to speak technically on evolution, than the girl who pumps my gas, or the kid who delivers my pizza. The tag "scientist" isn't a special pass to have technical authority regarding any old topic.

                            Not to mention that what you define as "creation" is not the same as what some scientists you may list would define it as. Some would define creation as the spark to life where after natural selection was allowed to take place by the seemingly passive hand of their god. Others like you, disregard everything that doesn't jive with that of the literal interpretations of their holy books.

                            I could give you a large list indeed of modern Christian scientists whom have authority on the topic of evolution (There is one for sure on this very web site - member Alate_One). But not one that I know of with any reputation to their name believes in a literal interpretation of genesis as favored over evolution. And neither does Micheal Behe. But he is a quack because of the way he does science (he theorizes without regard to all available evidence) and he was exposed for it on the trial stands during the Dover trials.

                            As for the movie Exposed, I take it about as serious as I take Zeitgeist. It's propaganda at best.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post

                              As I implied, you have to know a door is there to open it.
                              What are the ramifications of not?
                              Everyman is a voice in the dark.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by fool View Post
                                What are the ramifications of not?
                                You want the serious answer or are we still smiling and dancing?

                                You live in a world filled with the presence of God and that presence impacts everything about you and around you, even if you are unaware of it. You flirt with an existence at some point utterly removed from that presence, completely separated from the source of all good and the horror of what that would entail with regard to both you (in the sense of how you are intellectually and emotionally constituted) and your circumstance is part of what drives me to attempt to move you from that course, in my own clumsy and frequently inadequate fashion.
                                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                                Pro-Life






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X