Interesting Talk

[StumpyCulbreath]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

God told me to give you a rep point.

[Rekdiver]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

I frankly don't care about this argument. It's about as important to me as whether Miller Lite "tastes great" or is "less filling". I don't need something proved for me to have faith that there is something bigger than all of us. Additionally what is fact is that Jesus lived, he died and he espoused a whole set of values he wished people to live by. I don't do a stellar job of it but It's enough for me. These same values are basic tenents of other organized religions. Believe what you will but it has no impact on me.

[appdaze]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

I frankly don't care about this argument. It's about as important to me as whether Miller Lite "tastes great" or is "less filling". I don't need something proved for me to have faith that there is something bigger than all of us. Additionally what is fact is that Jesus lived, he died and he espoused a whole set of values he wished people to live by. I don't do a stellar job of it but It's enough for me. These same values are basic tenents of other organized religions. Believe what you will but it has no impact on me.

I'm glad it doesn't have an impact on you, sadly people with religious views impact others by force through laws instead of just letting people believe what they want and not getting a government involved.

[JTApps1]

I'm glad it doesn't have an impact on you, sadly people with religious views impact others by force through laws instead of just letting people believe what they want and not getting a government involved.

So you're saying non-religious people never use the government/ laws to advance their agenda? Or maybe you just agree with them so instead of it being forced on you you accept it? This goes both ways.

[Appsolutely]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

God told me to give you a rep point.

So...are you saying JCline is God? Man...this is not how I wanted to end my work week.

[StumpyCulbreath]

Just check his initials.

[1ASU78]

Just check his initials.

that was good

[DaphneUrquhart]

Somewhere between what can be proven (science?) and what we believe lies a gap. The gap is filled by a thing called "faith". That's where the term "leap of faith" comes from. We all leap from what can be proven to what we believe whether it be Jesus as the Saviour of the world or Santa Claus or evolution.

Personally, I believe that Jesus is exactly who He says He is in the Bible (any translation, any language ... I read in English, French, and Spanish ... they all say the same thing). If I'm wrong and have lived my life trying to emulate Jesus in serving the least, the last, and the lost, I will have lived a good life before I'm returned to dust. If, on the other hand, I'm right in my belief, I end up with eternal life. Either way, it seems to me that I get a good deal!

Believe what you will; I'll do the same. I believe I'll be glad I'm part of the Mountaineer family!

[Maddog1956]

Somewhere between what can be proven (science?) and what we believe lies a gap. The gap is filled by a thing called "faith". That's where the term "leap of faith" comes from. We all leap from what can be proven to what we believe whether it be Jesus as the Saviour of the world or Santa Claus or evolution.

Personally, I believe that Jesus is exactly who He says He is in the Bible (any translation, any language ... I read in English, French, and Spanish ... they all say the same thing). If I'm wrong and have lived my life trying to emulate Jesus in serving the least, the last, and the lost, I will have lived a good life before I'm returned to dust. If, on the other hand, I'm right in my belief, I end up with eternal life. Either way, it seems to me that I get a good deal!

Believe what you will; I'll do the same. I believe I'll be glad I'm part of the Mountaineer family!

Very well stated, there can be a win - win!

[1ASU78]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

Isn't that for the atheist to prove that something does not exist ? Because you cant see something does that mean it doesn't exist? I can't see the Rock right now but I know its there. Thankfully Ive never seen satan but evil does exist and No I haven't seen God either. But in my life this is what I know. The Lord is my Rock, my fortress, and my savior. My God is my Rock in whom I find protection. I think a tremendous amount of time is wasted on trying to prove evolution, creation is how it happened, sprinkle or immersion baptism, how old the earth is and the list goes on. Its not my job to prove one way or the other. My job is totally different. Im not a pastor, not a theologian, not an evangelist. I don't have a testimony of being reborn after finding myself at the bottom of the barrel. But I know what has happened in my life and I know I'm not alone or forgotten and no matter who you are there is room at the Cross. You read what I'm not, what I am is a brother in Christ (not an expert) and will do my very best to help anyone with questions about Christ. Not about religion, not about the church about Christ. So if that sounds like an alter call I guess it is....................so let me know.

[ASUchipman]

Creationism is delusional idiocy, but as myths go, it's had a pretty good shelf life.

I have read your post on this topic as well as the Liberty discussion. I have made some observations. First I wonder how one gets the name Stumpy, but we wont go in to that. You also joined quite recently. You also seem to like to mock faith and those who believe in it. I guess its makes it easy when you hide behind a username.
In keeping with the whole Evolution vs Creationism topic I have a question. Is a total xxxxxxxxx created by God, or does one evolve into being one?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Let's assume he's right: God is a myth, the Bible is fiction. Therefore, one dies and simply turns to dust. There exists no other possibility.

Let's assume he's wrong: God is real, the Bible is His direction for living one's life. Therefore, one dies and either goes to Heaven or hell. There exists no other possibilities.

The decision is yours.

What is God is real but the Bible is a made up story. God is offended that you would accept that so in God's anger you are sent to Hell for believing in the wrong books. Is that a possibility?

Or God is real but as long as you live a life of being good to each other then God is not going to be to specific on creed. Is that a possibility?

[StumpyCulbreath]

Creationism is delusional idiocy, but as myths go, it's had a pretty good shelf life.

I have read your post on this topic as well as the Liberty discussion. I have made some observations. First I wonder how one gets the name Stumpy, but we wont go in to that. You also joined quite recently. You also seem to like to mock faith and those who believe in it. I guess its makes it easy when you hide behind a username.
In keeping with the whole Evolution vs Creationism topic I have a question. Is a total xxxxxxxxx created by God, or does one evolve into being one?

My guess is that you got to be one on your own.

[Ashe_App]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

At least one difference in the 'cycle'... If the planet still exists 2000 years from now, they'll still be counting time by Jesus Christ. Pretty big deal.

[97grad]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

What kind of reverse logic is this? I suggest you Google Russells teapot and then come back here and explain how it's the athiests that have something to prove. indeed.

[97grad]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

Isn't that for the atheist to prove that something does not exist ? Because you cant see something does that mean it doesn't exist? I can't see the Rock right now but I know its there. Thankfully Ive never seen satan but evil does exist and No I haven't seen God either. But in my life this is what I know. The Lord is my Rock, my fortress, and my savior. My God is my Rock in whom I find protection. I think a tremendous amount of time is wasted on trying to prove evolution, creation is how it happened, sprinkle or immersion baptism, how old the earth is and the list goes on. Its not my job to prove one way or the other. My job is totally different. Im not a pastor, not a theologian, not an evangelist. I don't have a testimony of being reborn after finding myself at the bottom of the barrel. But I know what has happened in my life and I know I'm not alone or forgotten and no matter who you are there is room at the Cross. You read what I'm not, what I am is a brother in Christ (not an expert) and will do my very best to help anyone with questions about Christ. Not about religion, not about the church about Christ. So if that sounds like an alter call I guess it is....................so let me know.

Believe what you want but to answer your question, no the burden of proof does not lie with atheists. Your example is weak; we know The Rock is there. We've seen it, there are pictures, etc etc. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Kgfish]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Just to play devils advocate for a second - non-atheists can't really prove anything, either. No one knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what lies in the afterlife. You can believe something in your heart and soul, but that doesn't make it fact for everyone. Maybe, instead of mocking one another (this goes down both sides of the aisle), we should all just peacefully accept each others differences. The world would be a better place.

My statement was not intended to mock anyone. It is a fact. The problem with your scenario is Christians do not accept the Bible because of any proof, only by faith. Atheist and agnostics depend on their brains to rationalize things in their mind. They constantly ask for tangible proof for creationism, where there isn't any other than a book thousands of years old. But I do not understand how anyone can look at the majesty of the universe and realize the precise order in how it operates and come to the conclusion it all flew perfectly into place on its own. My issue with this guy, and all evolutionists, is they proclaim their "theory" as fact and use the idea of natural selection and certain fossils as "proof". Problem is there are many places in the fossil record where plenty of intermediate forms should be found, as Darwin had hoped someone would discover, yet they are not there. Even alleged transitional forms in supposed human evolution fall short. In fact, most so-called missing links fall into the categories of extinct ape, living ape, or human. As someone I know is fond of saying if apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes? It also must be pointed out that no one has ever seen or charted one kind of plant or animal changing into another different kind. Ever.

[Kgfish]

Let's assume he's right: God is a myth, the Bible is fiction. Therefore, one dies and simply turns to dust. There exists no other possibility.

Let's assume he's wrong: God is real, the Bible is His direction for living one's life. Therefore, one dies and either goes to Heaven or hell. There exists no other possibilities.

The decision is yours.

What is God is real but the Bible is a made up story. God is offended that you would accept that so in God's anger you are sent to Hell for believing in the wrong books. Is that a possibility?

Or God is real but as long as you live a life of being good to each other then God is not going to be to specific on creed. Is that a possibility?

Had you attended Sunday School when you were little you would have a much clearer understanding of the Christian perspective. The way to heaven - in the eyes of Christians - is very simple. John 3:16 is all you need to read. Peace.

[Kgfish]

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.

Isn't that for the atheist to prove that something does not exist ? Because you cant see something does that mean it doesn't exist? I can't see the Rock right now but I know its there. Thankfully Ive never seen satan but evil does exist and No I haven't seen God either. But in my life this is what I know. The Lord is my Rock, my fortress, and my savior. My God is my Rock in whom I find protection. I think a tremendous amount of time is wasted on trying to prove evolution, creation is how it happened, sprinkle or immersion baptism, how old the earth is and the list goes on. Its not my job to prove one way or the other. My job is totally different. Im not a pastor, not a theologian, not an evangelist. I don't have a testimony of being reborn after finding myself at the bottom of the barrel. But I know what has happened in my life and I know I'm not alone or forgotten and no matter who you are there is room at the Cross. You read what I'm not, what I am is a brother in Christ (not an expert) and will do my very best to help anyone with questions about Christ. Not about religion, not about the church about Christ. So if that sounds like an alter call I guess it is....................so let me know.

Believe what you want but to answer your question, no the burden of proof does not lie with atheists. Your example is weak; we know The Rock is there. We've seen it, there are pictures, etc etc. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Do you love your mom, dad, brothers & sisters, wife, children or certain friends? If so hand me the rock solid proof I can hold in my hand. Don't try the love is an emotion or sensation stuff because science has proven it to be much more. Brother, you've got to have faith.

[PBR1893-BEER-HAT-GUY]

lemme see if i can get my head around this...we're on a asu page talkin about all things app and we're fighting about god...a god, your god, not my god, by god......seriously???? flame me(whatever that means), kick me out of here... censure me...whatever but this site has become nothing but negative bitching and stupid folks arguing for the simple fact that they dont own a mirror to argue with themselves...this site sometimes sucks. look...my political philosophies arent gonna change and i aint changing yours so why argue...why be such pains in the asses simply because you can. im smart ass number 1 and ill never lose that ranking but its pretty sad when even i hate coming here because people want to complain simply to complain. in the words of john candy....lighten up francis!