Atheists and gods

[shmogie]

You listed yourself as Christian. How did you get from believing something must have created the universe to believing the Christian god concept? Can you present your line of reasoning that got you to your current beliefs?

Sure. After coming to the conclusion that the universe as revealed by cosmology establishes non natural creation forces, that designed and created life, I reasoned that a creator would in some way reveal himself/herself/itself to the intelligent created, us. If this reasoning is correct, then it seems logical that this revelation was done early on in the development of mankind, and was in fact present in early civilization as religion. Looking at the established religions, the Judeo/Christian God is unlike any of the others. Especially the emphasis on free will, total justice and total mercy. In Christianity, people are neither pawns or robots, and God cares for and loves each equally as his created. He has no desire for the pain and suffering of his created, but the exercise of free will and it's results must be allowed by a just God. A bare, bare bones synopsis of extensive study, self reflection, and reasoning. The major philosophical questions are answered, why is there something instead of nothing ? Why do I exist ? Is there truly good and bad ? Is a microscopic flash of life in infinity and eternity all that exists for humans ? Is all there is, in a universe 20 billion light years across, exist for no reason whatsoever ?

 

[shmogie]

Of course not. It reminds me of a debate I had recently with a theist who claimed that he can prove that his particular god is the right god. Now keep in mind, he never got anywhere close to proving that here were any gods at all, but when he went from talking about generic gods to his specific god, he just kind of waved his hands and said "there you go, I proved it!" Um... no you didn't, you just claimed it. But a lot of people don't know the difference between a claim and proof.

Of course I can produce substantive scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion of a master creator designer. I mean there are many cosmologists, biologists, chemists, astronomers, physicists who are infinitely more qualified than I to evaluate the evidence, who have come to this conclusion, and every year there are more. So, disproving naturalistic explanations for the existence of life, or proving that the universe, our galaxy, the earths position in our galaxy, the way our solar system functions, and even the existence of a single moon cannot be the result of a chain of multiple virtually impossible coincidences, is easy. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. My education, training and work experience is in the law. At law, there are very specific rules for determining the weight, admissibility and quality of evidence. What the jury decides from the evidence is based upon a whole host of issues, you may feel you have proven your case with the evidence, the jury may find against you. Atheists are sometimes like the OJ Simpson jury, the evidence is irrelevant, only the pre desired verdict is important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's abnormal to be deficient in salt or sugar and not crave it! Crave God, brother!

It's normal to both be deficient in salt and sugar and to crave it. These are separate things, and a big part of many health issues we have today.

Many (most?) people don't stop craving salt and sugar even when they've had enough. This is natural and normal. Not particularly healthy, but definitely natural and normal.

But let's get back to what you were saying: I think you were making an argument about how if something is natural and normal, it must be good... right?

 

[arthra]

Why should atheists be receptive to the possibility of gods?

I was thinking that a searching person with reasonable intelligence..i.e., at least average intelligence would proceed through life with periods of doubt and also periods of affirmation and certitude which could be successive over time...

Doubting say some doctrines established in a church or other religious organization does not make one an atheist... discarding outworn creeds is in my view part of a normal searching for truth.

Even as a deeply religious person most of my life I had never entertained the notion of the possibility of a multitude of "gods"... rather my concept of God has been more of a Deity that our language and thought cannot encompass. Our languages and thought structures have a limited utility in this dimension that we use daily and cannot by any stretch encompass God... however the Divine attributes of God can be more readily conceived in our universe such as great power and spiritual states of being as seen in the Messengers and Prophets of God.

 

[Cephus]

Of course I can produce substantive scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion of a master creator designer. I mean there are many cosmologists, biologists, chemists, astronomers, physicists who are infinitely more qualified than I to evaluate the evidence, who have come to this conclusion, and every year there are more. So, disproving naturalistic explanations for the existence of life, or proving that the universe, our galaxy, the earths position in our galaxy, the way our solar system functions, and even the existence of a single moon cannot be the result of a chain of multiple virtually impossible coincidences, is easy. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. My education, training and work experience is in the law. At law, there are very specific rules for determining the weight, admissibility and quality of evidence. What the jury decides from the evidence is based upon a whole host of issues, you may feel you have proven your case with the evidence, the jury may find against you. Atheists are sometimes like the OJ Simpson jury, the evidence is irrelevant, only the pre desired verdict is important.

No, you can't, because in order to do so, you'd have to demonstrate that said "master creator designer" actually exists in the real world. All you can do is present a bunch of arguments that you think are convincing that there ought to be such a creator, then you claim that that means there actually is. "It seems to me" is not a logical argument. If you want to claim that this actual thing exists, you need to present evidence, direct, demonstrable, objective evidence, that this actual thing really exists.

You cannot do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's normal to both be deficient in salt and sugar and to crave it. These are separate things, and a big part of many health issues we have today.

Many (most?) people don't stop craving salt and sugar even when they've had enough. This is natural and normal. Not particularly healthy, but definitely natural and normal.

But let's get back to what you were saying: I think you were making an argument about how if something is natural and normal, it must be good... right?

I said no such thing nor did I say "good" nor would I use "good" amongst agnostics and atheists without defining terms, first. Give up God totally and there is no good or evil except in some bizarre, contrived socioeconomic context, how Hitler would have done more economic good not killing Jews while he was killing the French and English and blah-blah-blah and how Hitler wasn't evil and all that claptrap.

Rant aside, let's be clear. The atheists who believe devoutly, religiously, in evolution and genetics say religiosity is genetic.

So you can be abnormal whether or not you think normal is "good".

 

[shmogie]

No, you can't, because in order to do so, you'd have to demonstrate that said "master creator designer" actually exists in the real world. All you can do is present a bunch of arguments that you think are convincing that there ought to be such a creator, then you claim that that means there actually is. "It seems to me" is not a logical argument. If you want to claim that this actual thing exists, you need to present evidence, direct, demonstrable, objective evidence, that this actual thing really exists.

You cannot do so.

You sir, are unhinged. You repeat ad nauseum the same nonsense over and over again. Evidence has a cumulative effect, cumulative evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion. I don't have to demonstrate anything other than the fact that the cumulative evidence supports intelligent design/ a creator. It seems to me IS NOT a logical argument. A logical argument would be that the first organisms would have to have DNA information that programs their metabolism, survival in their environment, and reproduction. A natural explanation for the presence of these instructions, in the right order, in the right time frame cannot be explained. So, where did the required information come from ? Or, a bacterium with a flagella (whiptail) has a mechanism made up of forty independent parts working together to power the flagella. According to the theory of evolution, changes in an organism come about very slowly, and if they do not benefit the organism, they disappear. So, as the parts whose sole purpose is to power the flagellum slowly develop, they have no benefit to the organism till all 40 are present, thus the parts would disappear before others came about. So, the 40 parts were all designed to work together for the sole purpose of powering the flagellum, an attribute that could not be the result of evolution, but looks very much like intelligent design and creation. How many pieces of evidence do you need ? I have hundreds. You want to play the game on your personally tilted playing field, using words like proof. I don't supply proof, I provide evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

According to the theory of evolution, changes in an organism come about very slowly, and if they do not benefit the organism, they disappear. So, as the parts whose sole purpose is to power the flagellum slowly develop, they have no benefit to the organism till all 40 are present, thus the parts would disappear before others came about. So, the 40 parts were all designed to work together for the sole purpose of powering the flagellum, an attribute that could not be the result of evolution, but looks very much like intelligent design and creation. How many pieces of evidence do you need ? I have hundreds. You want to play the game on your personally tilted playing field, using words like proof. I don't supply proof, I provide evidence.

It would appear that shmogie is trying to resurrect the long dead "irreducible complexity" argument and the flagellum example which was debunked just after it was proposed. For those who are interested in more details here is a good article. The Flagellum Unspun

 

[shmogie]

It would appear that shmogie is trying to resurrect the long dead "irreducible complexity" argument and the flagellum example which was debunked just after it was proposed. For those who are interested in more details here is a good article. The Flagellum Unspun

Well, actually, debunked is a bogus word to use, I have read your article. "irreducible complexity" is an extremely valid concept, and a different opinion that supports your views isn't "debunking", it is a different opinion. I note you didn't address the DNA information point, I would love to hear a believer in abiogenesis voice an opinion on that, so I could consider it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why should atheists be receptive to the possibility of gods?

If they feel it benefits them, then that's a good reason why they should be receptive to the possibility to gods.

If it's not important or doesn't make sense because god does not exist, I don't see a logical reason why they should unless entertaining the idea in a hypothetical situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, actually, debunked is a bogus word to use, I have read your article. "irreducible complexity" is an extremely valid concept, and a different opinion that supports your views isn't "debunking", it is a different opinion. I note you didn't address the DNA information point, I would love to hear a believer in abiogenesis voice an opinion on that, so I could consider it.

Irreducible complexity is not a valid concept. It's a form of the argument from ignorance ("*I* can't see how this could have happened without God, so it couldn't have happened without God") and irrational.

Edit: even so-called intelligent design isn't based on reason or science; it's based on politics: it's a failed attempt to strip enough obvious religion out of "creation science" for it to be allowed in American public schools (and "creation science" was a failed attempt to strip enough obvious religion out of Biblical creationism for it to be allowed in American public schools).

 

[shmogie]

It would appear that shmogie is trying to resurrect the long dead "irreducible complexity" argument and the flagellum example which was debunked just after it was proposed. For those who are interested in more details here is a good article. The Flagellum Unspun

Your article, though interesting, fails in two area's. First, most people who adhere to intelligent design that I know, including a very prominent retired professor of bio-chemistry from a most prestigious University, ARE NOT anti evolutionists. We affirm that organisms can and do change as a result of environmental factors. We of course don't believe that these changes can occur on the massive scale proposed by macro evolutionists. Second, the author of your article makes a most interesting statement. He says that because science can't explain something, that doesn't mean it won't be able to in the future. Profound, profound in that it exemplifies the FAITH WITHOUT FACT that people apply to science. Exactly the accusation leveled at micro evolutionists. So the boogeyman of abiogenesis and macro evolution becomes the god of some, to be worshiped in blind faith, at the altar of "this is how it has to have happened "

 

[shmogie]

If they feel it benefits them, then that's a good reason why they should be receptive to the possibility to gods.

If it's not important or doesn't make sense because god does not exist, I don't see a logical reason why they should unless entertaining the idea in a hypothetical situation.

Atheists can believe whatever they choose ! They may be totally limiting themselves by not considering other possibilities, but that is their right as well.

Irreducible complexity is not a valid concept. It's a form of the argument from ignorance ("*I* can't see how this could have happened without God, so it couldn't have happened without God") and irrational.

Edit: even so-called intelligent design isn't based on reason or science; it's based on politics: it's a failed attempt to strip enough obvious religion out of "creation science" for it to be allowed in American public schools (and "creation science" was a failed attempt to strip enough obvious religion out of Biblical creationism for it to be allowed in American public schools).

You sir, with all respect, are simply ignorant. You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I note you never address the science, or lack thereof, you just spout nonsense and hyped up gibberish.,

 

[ArtieE]

Well, actually, debunked is a bogus word to use, I have read your article. "irreducible complexity" is an extremely valid concept, and a different opinion that supports your views isn't "debunking", it is a different opinion. I note you didn't address the DNA information point, I would love to hear a believer in abiogenesis voice an opinion on that, so I could consider it.

Are there any "believers in abiogenesis" here with an opinion on that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You sir, with all respect, are simply ignorant. You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I note you never address the science, or lack thereof, you just spout nonsense and hyped up gibberish.,

What science?

Have you read the Discovery Institute's "wedge document"?

 

[ArtieE]

So the boogeyman of abiogenesis and macro evolution becomes the god of some, to be worshiped in blind faith, at the altar of "this is how it has to have happened "

Actually, it's more like "abiogenesis and macroevolution are the most likely explanations we have until theists have shown beyond reasonable doubt that gods exist and were personally responsible for life and the different "kinds" or species or whatever."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Atheists can believe whatever they choose ! They may be totally limiting themselves by not considering other possibilities, but that is their right as well.

Hmm. I didn't know I was going to get that type of reaction. Just saying that unless an atheist feel they will benefit from entertaining the possibility of god(s), I don't see how it is helpful given they don't exist. If an atheist feels pulled to believe in god, that puzzles me but I wouldn't put it down. (My words).

Why would they be limiting themselves? God(s) don't exist. How can you limit yourself from of god(s) when our thoughts don't make something automatically appear out of thin air.

 

[shmogie]

Hmm. I didn't know I was going to get that type of reaction. Just saying that unless an atheist feel they will benefit from entertaining the possibility of god(s), I don't see how it is helpful given they don't exist. If an atheist feels pulled to believe in god, that puzzles me but I wouldn't put it down. (My words).

Why would they be limiting themselves? God(s) don't exist. How can you limit yourself from of god(s) when our thoughts don't make something automatically appear out of thin air.

You BELIEVE God doesn't exist. Your belief isn't fact. No one can prove that God does, or doesn't exist. If you are wrong, you may very well wish you had the benefit of that belief. To not at least consider a possibility isn't the mark of maturity.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, it's more like "abiogenesis and macroevolution are the most likely explanations we have until theists have shown beyond reasonable doubt that gods exist and were personally responsible for life and the different "kinds" or species or whatever."

You are asking for two different standards of proof. Can you prove abiogenesis happened, beyond a reasonable doubt ? If so, then you have knowledge and abilities far beyond those of scientists since science began. How can a process never observed, never recreated, not at all understood be the most likely explanation ? It has huge problems that can't be explained and can't be mitigated. There is only one way to make it "likely", to discount anything else

 

[shmogie]

What science?

Have you read the Discovery Institute's "wedge document"?

No, I haven't read that document. Science ? Well, just tell me how unknown chemicals combined in an unknown environment, to create an unknown organism that had to come into life programmed with genetic information from an unknown source to make it function. Of course, you can't. It is all based upon faith in a story that no scientist using the scientific method can remotely explain. Sounds like the classic fairy tale formula to me.