|
tnai -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/25/2010 4:46:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Plasticine
I apologize if this seems insulting that isn't my intent; just an honest answer. You are making the weakest possible argument right now. You make no reference to reality and are supporting your argument with your gut feelings. Do some reading that isn't the bible or other christian commentary, your argument is worse than the middle-of-the-road christian one. But at least you are being honest that your claim is completely unsupportable, and yes you are falling victim to several fallacies if you have expressed yourself clearly.
Good sir, you seemed to have missed the point on a level that is difficult to deal with.
First off I would suggest that we refrain from personal remarks such as what I have and have not read, since they are in the end irrelevant. The idea of a God will not be any more or less true based on my reading habits, nor will any logical (or for that matter faith) based line of thought be seriously affected by my habits.
Secondly after a careful reexamination of my first remarks I don't find at any point that I admit that my ideas are unsupportable, merely that the original poster may have a point in that those who disagree with him sometimes fall victim to the Straw Man. I then went on to explain why I believe this occurs. If you wish to address those points then please do so. Anything beyond that and the fact that I do believe in a God should be addressed in the form of a question since these are ideas I haven’t stated, unless of course you are of the belief that you have some other method for knowing my belief system. In short the point I was making on my first post was that the idea the current Big Bang followed by Darwinism type evolution with no involvement of a God (or Gods) seems so silly the idea that I could have been using what to you would seem a Straw Man never occurred to me. Those who hold that idea had already taken the weakest possible position. If trying to be polite and admitting that the original poster may have a point (that there is a flaw in the way some people argue against his ideas) is the worst middle of the road type position then sure, you got me. I made no statements about what I do or don't hold to be true and correct, I was addressing the argument method that I others who hold similar ideas do.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Yeah that is a pretty terrible position. Can you imagine reading that in say Scientific America: theory for the origin of life, it just happened.
That is in summary what the atheist position reads like to many, me included. As I understand it the current view of the creation of the universe and then life is that (with no outside intervention) it just happened that multiple universes interacted in a way that created the/a Big Bang which began the universe we live in; it then (through a long and complicated process) settled into suns and planets which have (at least) one world with the circumstances for live too appear then evolve into us; all without any events that would have prevented or destroyed human existence. In short it just happened by (for us) fortunate accident. To me this seems at best far fetched.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Here's my question, can you tnai, name an actual scientific theory for how life began on this planet?
As I understand it the theories that try to deal with only supportable scientific fact are Bioprocess (although I will admit I had never heard the term Abiogenesis before, which is apparently another term for the same set of closely related theories) the ideas that the main stream science for the most part hold, the what I feel is deservedly less popular idea that extra-terrestrials created life on Earth, and the Scientific Creation (which really just hurt my claims but they claim to be scientific so I'll list them in interests of honesty).
Just for the record my idea set would be best classified as theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism, which is not a scientific theory but a theological view.
|
|
|
|
