# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/521 "2010-09-06T23:50:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> There is a common event in these discussions where atheists claim they have answered various questions which they have not. The only explanation offered by atheists has been the tribal/evolutionary argument. I have refuted this, and asked for empirical evidence. I await it with interest. > > You haven’t refuted it. You’ve claimed victory without actually offering anything but impotent strutting. Animals possess morality. Humans are animals. Morality is seated in the brain. This is evidence. What intelligent people do when they seek answers for things is look at the evidence and see what it suggests. In this case, your silly dream is that God did it. But you possess no evidence at all. It’s pathetic who evidence-less you are. And you still claim that you, possessing no evidence have the correct answer. > > You = 0 Evidence > Science = A metric shitload of evidence > > Sorry, but you lose. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> Why is the notion of an uncaused cause so hard for you to grasp? Is it so hard to contemplate the possibility that the natural universe cannot explain everything about itself? > > Again, your argument is that the universe is too complex to simply exist. Yet to answer that you posit a God, who is also too complex to simply exist. > > Who made your God? Why won’t you answer that simple question? 1\> Re your evidence score card; you imply science and theism are in conflict. How so? 2\> “Animals have morality. Humans are animals”. So what? 3\> I’ve answered your question. There is an intelligent agent behind the existence of the universe. The universe exists. The universe did not always exist, therefore it had a cause. The ultimate cause of the universe must be uncaused, or it would not be the ultimate cause. The intelligent agent behind the existnece of the universe is uncaused. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/522 "2010-09-06T23:54:32Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Correct. But given the simple fact that science is silent on the matter, when you go from non-belief to "I believe he/she/it **does not exist** , you have taken a position with a subjective belief. When you say “There isn’t a Starbucks next to the library, I was just there yesterday.” you don’t \*know \*that elves didn’t build it overnight. But unless there is a good reason to think that, what you said isn’t a belief any more than asking you how many dots are on an index card I’m holding. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/523 "2010-09-06T23:54:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Your claims about evolution are laughable. > > > > 1\> There is not a shred of evidence that all of the life on earth is evolved from one common ancestor. Micro evolution, yes. The greater theory of evolution? No. It is neither testable, obersabl, nor repeatable. > > This is not a dig, but you’re uneducated. You don’t understand the issue you’re talking about. Evolution is a fact. It is observed in among other things fruit fly experiments and virus mutation. You might as well argue against orbital mechanics. Up until this point I had assumed you were at least moderately educated. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> Evolution does not explain morality or benevolence. Indeed it contradicts it. > > See? You’re just stating that without thinking. It’s a reflex that doesn’t even engage your brain. This has already been tied together. You need to stop raging against the night and light a damn candle already. Your use of fruit fly experiments is laughable. The fruit fly experiments were conducted by an intelligence (get it!). They replicated literally dozens of mutations, yet achieved not one single new species. With each new mutation, the fruit flies became weaker. “Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried It is you who need educating my friend. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/524 "2010-09-06T23:56:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@raindog](#): > > > > Correct. But given the simple fact that science is silent on the matter, when you go from non-belief to "I believe he/she/it **does not exist** , you have taken a position with a subjective belief. > > When you say “There isn’t a Starbucks next to the library, I was just there yesterday.” you don’t \*know \*that elves didn’t build it overnight. But unless there is a good reason to think that, what you said isn’t a belief any more than asking you how many dots are on an index card I’m holding. I agree. But when there is a good reason, when the evidence shows that the exitence of an intelligent agent behind the universe is more plausible than the impossible odds of random chance, then belief is reaosnable. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/525 "2010-09-06T23:56:39Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I have no reason to believe that God (or any other god) exists, therefore I presume it does not exist unless and until it can be proven otherwise. I have the exact same postition regarding smurfs. > > Ahhhh, you _presume_. > > While a softer and gentler word than the ones I’ve seen used in these parts, it too is a _subjective belief._ > > The Missouri “show me” position is a non-belief. Once you cross the line and say “He/she/it doesn’t exist”------in the absence of proof either way------ you’re sharing with us _your subjective beliefs._ What you see out of your eyes is a subjective belief. It’s not the same thing as thinking the TV is a box full of fairies. Or that a Bronze-Age Storm God built the universe. Your \*gotcha \*is weak and thready, please build up steam and try again. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/526 "2010-09-06T23:57:41Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I have no reason to believe that God (or any other god) exists, therefore I presume it does not exist unless and until it can be proven otherwise. I have the exact same postition regarding smurfs. > > Ahhhh, you _presume_. > > While a softer and gentler word than the ones I’ve seen used in these parts, it too is a _subjective belief._ > > The Missouri “show me” position is a non-belief. Once you cross the line and say “He/she/it doesn’t exist”------in the absence of proof either way------ you’re sharing with us _your subjective beliefs._ No, it’s not a belief because it’s conditional. I have not said “it does not exist,” I merely presume it conditionally the way I make the same presumption about smurfs. I’m perfectly open to seeing proof that smurfs exist. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/527 "2010-09-06T23:59:13Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > This is not a dig, but you’re uneducated. You don’t understand the issue you’re talking about. Evolution is a fact. It is observed in among other things fruit fly experiments and virus mutation. You might as well argue against orbital mechanics. Up until this point I had assumed you were at least moderately educated. > > > > See? You’re just stating that without thinking. It’s a reflex that doesn’t even engage your brain. This has already been tied together. You need to stop raging against the night and light a damn candle already. > > Your use of fruit fly experiments is laughable. The fruit fly experiments were conducted by an intelligence (get it!). They replicated literally dozens of mutations, yet achieved not one single new species. With each new mutation, the fruit flies became weaker. > > “Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried > > It is you who need educating my friend. I don’t take drawing advice from the blind or education advice from people who think evolution is a liberal hoax. Any credibility you may have had has sailed. Everyone, that is everyone who has a good high school education knows you couldn’t care less about facts and reality now. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/528 "2010-09-07T00:00:40Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I agree. But when there is a good reason, when the evidence shows that the exitence of an intelligent agent behind the universe is more plausible than the impossible odds of random chance, then belief is reaosnable. Who is the intelligent agent behind your God? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/529 "2010-09-07T00:01:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Atheism is not merely a ‘lack of belief’, as you suggest. > > This is factually incorrect. The word simply means an absence of theistic belief. It does not necessarily imply a positive assertion that gods don’t exist. That is a subset of atheism called “strong atheism,” but not all theists are strong atheists. I think most probably are not. It might shock you to know that Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist. You are not going to win arguments by accusing your opponents of holding positions they do not hold. Atheism is not an ideology or a belief. Saying it is so does not make it so. The word atheism comes from the Greek word atheos which means “without gods”. The reason most ‘atheists’ have softended their position is because ‘hard atheism’ was demonstarted to be philosophically untenable by the ‘all places at all times’ argument. If you don’t hold to athiesm, pronounce yourself an agnostic. The rest is intellectual dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/530 "2010-09-07T00:03:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Atheism is not merely a ‘lack of belief’, as you suggest. > > This is factually incorrect. The word simply means an absence of theistic belief. It does not necessarily imply a positive assertion that gods don’t exist. That is a subset of atheism called “strong atheism,” but not all theists are strong atheists. I think most probably are not. It might shock you to know that Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist. You are not going to win arguments by accusing your opponents of holding positions they do not hold. Atheism is not an ideology or a belief. Saying it is so does not make it so. These distinctions seem both arbitrary and disingenuous to me. Words have no inherent meaning anyway, and redefining them in these ways seem more than fishy to me. The fact is there are varying levels of conviction in any belief system. In this context we might plot this out with pure agnosticism in the dead center and hard atheism and hard theism on the polar extremes. As we move in either direction from dead center we encounter _subjective_ observations. We’ve seen more than a few theists who show doubts, or ambivalence towards their belief in a God of some sort. We’ve also seen more than a few strident, fully invested theists with deep convictions. The other side of this continuum is nothing more than the mirror opposite of the theist. Yet for some reason (although I suspect i know why…) there is this board penchant to blur the line between where agnosticism ends and [soft] atheism begins. The fact is, once you take a position for the existence or non-existence of God you’ve left agnosticism and you’ve embraced----no matter how strong or weak----_a subjective belief system._ ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/531 "2010-09-07T00:03:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Your use of fruit fly experiments is laughable. The fruit fly experiments were conducted by an intelligence (get it!). They replicated literally dozens of mutations, yet achieved not one single new species. With each new mutation, the fruit flies became weaker. > > > > “Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried > > > > It is you who need educating my friend. > > I don’t take drawing advice from the blind or education advice from people who think evolution is a liberal hoax. > > Any credibility you may have had has sailed. Everyone, that is everyone who has a good high school education knows you couldn’t care less about facts and reality now. Well I prefer to engage on the facts. You raised the issue of the fruit flies. After 90 sum years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, where are the new species? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/532 "2010-09-07T00:04:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@raindog](#): > > > > Ahhhh, you _presume_. > > > > While a softer and gentler word than the ones I’ve seen used in these parts, it too is a _subjective belief._ > > > > The Missouri “show me” position is a non-belief. Once you cross the line and say “He/she/it doesn’t exist”------in the absence of proof either way------ you’re sharing with us _your subjective beliefs._ > > No, it’s not a belief because it’s conditional. I have not said “it does not exist,” I merely presume it conditionally the way I make the same presumption about smurfs. I’m perfectly open to seeing proof that smurfs exist. Fair enough, although that looks a heck of a lot more like agnosticism to me than even soft atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/533 "2010-09-07T00:05:56Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > This is not a dig, but you’re uneducated. You don’t understand the issue you’re talking about. Evolution is a fact. It is observed in among other things fruit fly experiments and virus mutation. You might as well argue against orbital mechanics. Up until this point I had assumed you were at least moderately educated. > > > > See? You’re just stating that without thinking. It’s a reflex that doesn’t even engage your brain. This has already been tied together. You need to stop raging against the night and light a damn candle already. > > Your use of fruit fly experiments is laughable. The fruit fly experiments were conducted by an intelligence (get it!). They replicated literally dozens of mutations, yet achieved not one single new species. With each new mutation, the fruit flies became weaker. > > “Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried > > It is you who need educating my friend. You don’t know anything about evolution. You think you do, but you’ve don’t. Here’s a clue for you, the distincy=tion between “micro” and “macro” evolution is a phoney one. All evelution is “micro.” “Macro” is just a whole bunch of “macro.” Would you like to see a list of observed speciation events? Are you familiar with something called endogenous retroviral genes? Those little things prove evolution all by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/534 "2010-09-07T00:06:37Z")
And please read my post abut evolution again. My objection is not to ‘evolution’ at a micro level. However there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis of common descent. Of course you are wecome to provide some. You could use the whales, the horses, or various other previously discredited claims. Or do you have something new? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/535 "2010-09-07T00:07:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Your use of fruit fly experiments is laughable. The fruit fly experiments were conducted by an intelligence (get it!). They replicated literally dozens of mutations, yet achieved not one single new species. With each new mutation, the fruit flies became weaker. > > > > “Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried > > > > It is you who need educating my friend. > > You don’t know anything about evolution. You think you do, but you’ve don’t. Here’s a clue for you, the distincy=tion between “micro” and “macro” evolution is a phoney one. All evelution is “micro.” “Macro” is just a whole bunch of “macro.” > > Would you like to see a list of observed speciation events? > > Are you familiar with something called endogenous retroviral genes? Those little things prove evolution all by themselves. What I would like to see is the new species that developed from the fruit fly experiments. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/536 "2010-09-07T00:10:41Z")
"The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to “catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution.” "Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948. “In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, “but then the line became sterile and died out.” In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment.”—\*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny p. 134. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/537 "2010-09-07T00:14:24Z")
Diogenes Let me ask you… Would you then say that “a non-belief” in God (FSM/PU etc etc) is reserved more for agnosticism and for soft atheism, or would you say it is a valid description throughout the atheistic viewpoint/continuum, all the way through hard atheism? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/538 "2010-09-07T00:14:53Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > This is factually incorrect. The word simply means an absence of theistic belief. It does not necessarily imply a positive assertion that gods don’t exist. That is a subset of atheism called “strong atheism,” but not all theists are strong atheists. I think most probably are not. It might shock you to know that Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist. You are not going to win arguments by accusing your opponents of holding positions they do not hold. Atheism is not an ideology or a belief. Saying it is so does not make it so. > > The word atheism comes from the Greek word atheos which means “without gods”. I know the etymology. I actually know Greek. I’m guessing you don’t. The etymology is not the definition. > [@](#): > > The reason most ‘atheists’ have softended their position is because ‘hard atheism’ was demonstarted to be philosophically untenable by the ‘all places at all times’ argument. > > If you don’t hold to athiesm, pronounce yourself an agnostic. The rest is intellectual dishonesty. You don’t know what you’re talking about on any level, do you? Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence. The way the word atheism is used academically, by people who are trying to actually be precise with their language and terminology, is to refer to the entire set ofr people who lack theistic beliefs. This larger set has subsets, including “strong” and “weak” atheism. Weak atheism is what often gets erroneously called “agnosticism.” It’s a lack of belief in the existence of gods, but not a positive assertion of the existence of non-gods. The definitions were not “softened” because of any theistic counter-argument. That’s complete fantasy on your part. I don’t know where you get some of this crap. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/539 "2010-09-07T00:19:51Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > And please read my post abut evolution again. My objection is not to ‘evolution’ at a micro level. However there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis of common descent. Of course you are wecome to provide some. You could use the whales, the horses, or various other previously discredited claims. Or do you have something new? I once more have to reiterate that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. The evidence for common descent is voluminous and dispositive. Those retrogenes I was talking about are the absolute smoking gun. There is no difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution by the way. They are the same thing. Macro is just a whole bunch of micro. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/540 "2010-09-07T00:55:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > There is also no evidence for Cthuhulu. Not a bad post, but I need to complain: your misspelling of Cthulhu gave me the mental image of a gigantic cephalopodic Elder God wearing a grass skirt low on its hips and dancing – a horrific vision I felt it necessary to share with you. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=28)