Atheists in the Okanagan.

[OREZ]

Evolution is simply change over time, evolution explains biology and diversity of life, there is no claim to the origins of life.

The concept of change over time is something that proponents of intelligent design agree with but evolutionists reject the idea of I.D. completely so I don't think many evolutionists would entirely agree with you in fact I know they don't. Your definition doesn't go far enough to assert that the universe and life itself could only have had natural cause and it had to be random chance.

As for the origins of life we don't know, sorry if you don't like that answer but its an honest answer. Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean that it is impossible. Can you prove to me that something cant come from nothing?

Sorry, but if theists are not allowed to ask the question, "can you prove that God doesn't exist?" (and atheists are real sticklers about that) then you are not allowed to ask your question.
"We don't know" is at least an honest answer because nobody really knows how the mechanics of it all worked. In the end, where does that leave us?

I think theists are more interested in the cause behind it, why is that a problem to some people?

[Hmmm]

Thank you for making my point.

[is winter over]

The concept of change over time is something that proponents of intelligent design agree with but evolutionists reject the idea of I.D. completely so I don't think many evolutionists would entirely agree with you in fact I know they don't. Your definition doesn't go far enough to assert that the universe and life itself could only have had natural cause and it had to be random chance.

Sorry, but if theists are not allowed to ask the question, "can you prove that God doesn't exist?" (and atheists are real sticklers about that) then you are not allowed to ask your question.
"We don't know" is at least an honest answer because nobody really knows how the mechanics of it all worked. In the end, where does that leave us?

I think theists are more interested in the cause behind it, why is that a problem to some people?

If I made the assertion that there are no gods, then yes I would have to provide proof for that claim and answer your question. However I am not asserting no gods exist, I simply lack a belief in your claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, would you like to provide evidence to support your claim of a god?
As for something from nothing, you made the assertion that something cannot come from nothing, would you like to provide proof for that claim?

I too am interested in how this all came about, however I see no answers in trying to solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery, the answer god did it provides no answer as you are simply answering one mystery with another mystery.

[OREZ]

The concept of change over time is something that proponents of intelligent design agree with but evolutionists reject the idea of I.D. completely so I don't think many evolutionists would entirely agree with you in fact I know they don't. Your definition doesn't go far enough to assert that the universe and life itself could only have had natural cause and it had to be random chance.

Sorry, but if theists are not allowed to ask the question, "can you prove that God doesn't exist?" (and atheists are real sticklers about that) then you are not allowed to ask your question.
"We don't know" is at least an honest answer because nobody really knows how the mechanics of it all worked. In the end, where does that leave us?

I think theists are more interested in the cause behind it, why is that a problem to some people?

If I made the assertion that there are no gods, then yes I would have to provide proof for that claim and answer your question. However I am not asserting no gods exist, I simply lack a belief in your claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, would you like to provide evidence to support your claim of a god?

If you are not making the assertion that there are no gods then you don't really qualify as an atheist if you would care to look up the definition of atheist. I feel no burden of proof whatsoever, you are free to believe whatever you want. That is such a worn out, lame atheist line I really don't know how much more mileage atheists expect to get out of it.

As for something from nothing, you made the assertion that something cannot come from nothing, would you like to provide proof for that claim?

Where did I make that assertion? Would you like to prove that something can come out of nothing? Didn't think so.

I too am interested in how this all came about, however I see no answers in trying to solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery, the answer god did it provides no answer as you are simply answering one mystery with another mystery.

Cool, we're both interested.

Question:
How is suggesting that it was designed a bigger mystery than suggesting that it all happened by random chance?
Answer:
It isn't

[Hmmm]

^^^^ correct, they both require faith.

[is winter over]

Where did I make that assertion? Would you like to prove that something can come out of nothing? Didn't think so.

Sorry it was Hmmm making the claim that its impossible for something to come from nothing.

[is winter over]

If you are not making the assertion that there are no gods then you don't really qualify as an atheist if you would care to look up the definition of atheist. I feel no burden of proof whatsoever, you are free to believe whatever you want. That is such a worn out, lame atheist line I really don't know how much more mileage atheists expect to get out of it.
It isn't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Ok I looked up the definition.
I don't know why you consider it to be lame. If someone is claiming absolute knowledge on something they need to back up that claim, they have the burden of proof. If an atheist makes the claim that absolutely no gods exists, I would be right there with you saying they need to provide proof for that claim.
I personally have heard many god claims and have not yet found any claim that compels me to believe, if I don't believe the claim I would assume that makes me an atheist?

[is winter over]

Question:
How is suggesting that it was designed a bigger mystery than suggesting that it all happened by random chance?
Answer:
It isn't

Why are these the only options?

[Farmmaa]

This is seriously the most ridiculous argument, and one that almost every bloody thread turns in to.

No one knows how the universe came to be...no one.
No one knows if it began with 'nothing'.

I've never actually heard an atheist claim to know exactly how life began.

But, to use the argument that the earth, life, can not begin from nothing as a reason to explain that it must have been created by some sort of intelligent design is absurd.
The whole creation and intelligent design theory has exactly the same problem...exactly.
Where did that creator come from ???
It's impossible that it developed from nothing....right ?
Someone, something, somehow would have had to create your god.

So then we are right back at the exact same place....neither theory has an explanation yet as to how, when, where the very beginning occurred.

It is completely hypocritical to suggest that a creator has always existed, that it/he/she is infinite...and then turn around and criticise others for believing that energy and matter could well be the same.

[OREZ]

If you are not making the assertion that there are no gods then you don't really qualify as an atheist if you would care to look up the definition of atheist. I feel no burden of proof whatsoever, you are free to believe whatever you want. That is such a worn out, lame atheist line I really don't know how much more mileage atheists expect to get out of it.
It isn't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Ok I looked up the definition.
I don't know why you consider it to be lame. If someone is claiming absolute knowledge on something they need to back up that claim, they have the burden of proof. If an atheist makes the claim that absolutely no gods exists, I would be right there with you saying they need to provide proof for that claim.
I personally have heard many god claims and have not yet found any claim that compels me to believe, if I don't believe the claim I would assume that makes me an atheist?

Well, I certainly do not claim to have absolute knowledge of anything.

I think most people would consider you to be agnostic and not atheist from what you've said so far.

[Hmmm]

This is seriously the most ridiculous argument, and one that almost every bloody thread turns in to.

No one knows how the universe came to be...no one.
No one knows if it began with 'nothing'.


It is completely hypocritical to suggest that a creator has always existed, that it/he/she is infinite...and then turn around and criticise others for believing that energy and matter could well be the same.

But evolutionists, do like to insist what they believe is based on science. Thats of course why they skip the first step. Both require faith. How many atheists do you know who would admit that their beliefs require faith? lets start with you. Anyone else can follow and add their names to the very short list.

[Glacier]

I've never actually heard an atheist claim to know exactly how life began.

No one knows how life began, but when the most plausible explanation is God, atheists dismiss that one out of hand, and try to shift the conversation to evolution or something else.

[Gixxer]

No one knows how life began, but when the most plausible explanation is God, atheists dismiss that one out of hand, and try to shift the conversation to evolution or something else.

Who's says its the most plausible explanation, a believer trying to push their beliefs onto others?

[is winter over]

No one knows how life began, but when the most plausible explanation is God, atheists dismiss that one out of hand, and try to shift the conversation to evolution or something else.

How did you determine that god is the most plausible explanation?

[is winter over]

I think most people would consider you to be agnostic and not atheist from what you've said so far.

Why do you feel the need to place a label on me?

I have not found any of the god claims believable, much in the same way I don't believe the stories of UFO abductions , I not saying that it didn't happen I just don't believe the stories.