Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course.Now I want to see

Of course.

Now I want to see estimates of the probability of God 'just existing' in his supposed form.

It is intellectually dishonest or bankrupt to argue from science that these values are improbable (NOT impossible), and then 'explain' it by proposing something which violates all logical and scientifically established principles so utterly.

But, hey, some blend of intellectual dishonesty and simple ignorance is a prerequisite for Theism, which our opponent amply demonstrates, in ways such as totally ignoring or dismissing all the counter-evidence painstakingly collected by yourself and others.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:None of

BobSpence1 wrote:
None of this addresses the fundamental flaw in any argument for the necessity for a designer to explain our existence, in that it does not explain where the designer came from.

Any logically coherent theory of origins has to either allow that complexity can spontaneously arise from elementary simplicity, or accept that complexity can simply exist, or spontaneously appear. Since we observe complex, organized structures arising from simpler everyday, the first option is clearly the most parsimonious.

God theories contribute nothing to this, simply interposing another entity requiring explanation into the scene without actually addressing the issue of ultimate origins.

Of course I agree here, that flaw is still there. I am just sick of seeing those numbers being thrown around as if they were some sort of spiritual weapons, when they are, at best, based on an arbitrary decision to vary the constants one at the time. On a rational level, it's fundamentally flawed. On an emotional level, that sort of activity is an insult to cosmology, physics and math.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Actually,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Actually, people have started to do that, and, as would be expected, there do appear to be a range of combinations which do allow for a Universe that would have the basic minimum requirements for complex structures to develop, not necessarily anything resembling life-as-we-know-it, of course.

This paper seems to be a good strong, though somewhat technical counter to the FTA. This is also interesting. It is not difficult to find such papers.

The paper you linked to, uses the bayesian argument.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31-30.htm

Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.....

BobSpence1 wrote:

None of this addresses the fundamental flaw in any argument for the necessity for a designer to explain our existence, in that it does not explain where the designer came from.

This is the same argument, Richard Dawkins uses in his God delusion book. What a weak point to discard God.
While science in fact only accepts answers of the physical world, i question people who seek the last truth, do limit themself only on seeking answers from Science. Why not accept philosophy and religion as well ?

Who created God ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

many good questions in this regard answered through William Lane Craig :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/dr-william-lane-craig-t95.htm

BobSpence1 wrote:

Any logically coherent theory of origins has to either allow that complexity can spontaneously arise from elementary simplicity, or accept that complexity can simply exist, or spontaneously appear. Since we observe complex, organized structures arising from simpler everyday, the first option is clearly the most parsimonious.

So so.... and can you give a example what can arise without a cause ? the universe, for example ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
Actually, people have started to do that, and, as would be expected, there do appear to be a range of combinations which do allow for a Universe that would have the basic minimum requirements for complex structures to develop, not necessarily anything resembling life-as-we-know-it, of course. This paper seems to be a good strong, though somewhat technical counter to the FTA. This is also interesting. It is not difficult to find such papers.
The paper you linked to, uses the bayesian argument. http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31-30.htm Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.....
BobSpence1 wrote:
None of this addresses the fundamental flaw in any argument for the necessity for a designer to explain our existence, in that it does not explain where the designer came from.
This is the same argument, Richard Dawkins uses in his God delusion book. What a weak point to discard God. While science in fact only accepts answers of the physical world, i question people who seek the last truth, do limit themself only on seeking answers from Science. Why not accept philosophy and religion as well ? Who created God ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm many good questions in this regard answered through William Lane Craig : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/dr-william-lane-craig-t95.htm
BobSpence1 wrote:
Any logically coherent theory of origins has to either allow that complexity can spontaneously arise from elementary simplicity, or accept that complexity can simply exist, or spontaneously appear. Since we observe complex, organized structures arising from simpler everyday, the first option is clearly the most parsimonious.
So so.... and can you give a example what can arise without a cause ? the universe, for example ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

Just as soon as you can give an example of how your god can arise without a cause (I mean other than "The Bible tells me so&quotEye-wink

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
Actually, people have started to do that, and, as would be expected, there do appear to be a range of combinations which do allow for a Universe that would have the basic minimum requirements for complex structures to develop, not necessarily anything resembling life-as-we-know-it, of course. This paper seems to be a good strong, though somewhat technical counter to the FTA. This is also interesting. It is not difficult to find such papers.
The paper you linked to, uses the bayesian argument. http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31-30.htm Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.....
BobSpence1 wrote:
None of this addresses the fundamental flaw in any argument for the necessity for a designer to explain our existence, in that it does not explain where the designer came from.
This is the same argument, Richard Dawkins uses in his God delusion book. What a weak point to discard God. While science in fact only accepts answers of the physical world, i question people who seek the last truth, do limit themself only on seeking answers from Science. Why not accept philosophy and religion as well ? Who created God ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm many good questions in this regard answered through William Lane Craig : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/dr-william-lane-craig-t95.htm
BobSpence1 wrote:
Any logically coherent theory of origins has to either allow that complexity can spontaneously arise from elementary simplicity, or accept that complexity can simply exist, or spontaneously appear. Since we observe complex, organized structures arising from simpler everyday, the first option is clearly the most parsimonious.
So so.... and can you give a example what can arise without a cause ? the universe, for example ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

My preferred model did NOT refer to something arising without a cause, but of course we already know you cannot read clearly.

Nevertheless, every radioactive decay is a virtually a causeless event, and the Universe could indeed be triggered by some equivalent event.

Richard Swinburne is a believer, and merely a philosopher, so that conclusion is entirely unsurprising, and so of no substance.

Scientists only limit themselves to what can actually be tested and verified to at least some degree, any thing else is by definition in the world of speculation.

Craig has no credence whatsoever - I have heard him attempt to justify the belief in something by what amounted  to wishful thinking, in that he could not accept a reality where something like 'absolute morality' did not exist...

To ignore or minimize the fundamental fallacy of attempting to explain complex design and improbability with something even more complex and improbable reveals a deep and determined blindness to reality and logic.

You, angelobrazil, have thoroughly confirmed that you are a deeply deluded, ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, worthless waste of space.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:So so....

angelobrazil wrote:

So so.... and can you give a example what can arise without a cause ? the universe, for example ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

why must the cause be intelligent? why must it be your god or any god for that matter? we have no evidence that supports that concept that the any cause HAS to be intelligent. On the contrary it has been proven that on the quantum scale, causes randomly happen and do not require an intelligent entity to cause them. With that said, why is YOUR god or any god the exception to the rule? It's a contradiction and no matter what you say now, if science says energy has always been, you cannot dismiss that statement. Even more so, the energy that caused the formation of this universe has always been is also a valid statement since you give that attribute to your god. Either that or you are being completely intellectually dishonest. Which at this point proves my earlier statement that you ignore the problems that arise with the description you give to your god and dismiss any other alternative explanation that will nullify your god as the sole creator of the universe. Can you address these problems properly in this forum without having to link to other websites?


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Can you

latincanuck wrote:

Can you address these problems properly in this forum without having to link to other websites?

I asked the same question...good luck getting something other than a link to a web site or a swipe from somewhere else....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Nevertheless, every radioactive decay is a virtually a causeless event, and the Universe could indeed be triggered by some equivalent event.

 

First you would have to explain what caused the radioactive decay.... and the whole model....

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Richard Swinburne is a believer, and merely a philosopher, so that conclusion is entirely unsurprising, and so of no substance.

 

so here we have it again. Only answers from science are substantial... i see.... why is revelation for example, and why are personal experiences, not of important substance ? I mean, before i met my wife the first time, 15 days before that, my wife received a prophecy, where a pastor , friend of her family prophesied that she would met her future husband, that he would be a foreigner, he gave her the exact characteristic of my car, described my character, and how i look, in a way that she felt no doubt when she met me the first time. This is just a example. Along my 25 years as a christian, i have experienced by myself, and heard many other things, that can be called a miracle. Are these experiences not substantial ?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists only limit themselves to what can actually be tested and verified to at least some degree, any thing else is by definition in the world of speculation.

 

Science by definition can explain much less things, than it can not explain. So why only seek answers in science ?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Craig has no credence whatsoever - I have heard him attempt to justify the belief in something by what amounted to wishful thinking, in that he could not accept a reality where something like 'absolute morality' did not exist...

 

You mean he could not accept, that something like absolute morality did not exist, right ? Well, the moral argument of God is something quit clear and enlightening. Why do we instinctively know, to kill someone is bad ? John McArthur has a interesting writing on the subject :

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

In Mein Kamph Hitler wrote, "He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.

 

the moral argument :

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/evidence-of-god-the-moral-argument-t186.htm

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
To ignore or minimize the fundamental fallacy of attempting to explain complex design and improbability with something even more complex and improbable reveals a deep and determined blindness to reality and logic.

 

and you reveal that you have actually not read the homepage i linked to, explaining things that should elucidate you a little more on the subject. Fact that you have not read the page, shows quit clearly you are not searching the truth, wherever it leads you, but you want just no God to be there. I can frankly come up with the most rational and logic explanation, but you won't accept it, since it goes against your wish no God to exist...

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You, angelobrazil, have thoroughly confirmed that you are a deeply deluded, ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, worthless waste of space.

 

You , BobSpence, show that your arguments fall short of consistency, logic, rationality , and therefore you appeal to insults, quit a admittance of falling short. If i am all what you say, why did you return, to continue to argue with me ? Didn't you already throw the towel ? How faded your thinking is, shows the fact that you were not even able to recognize how difficult it is for atheists, to reject the fine-tune argument. Prominent Atheists like Dawkins recognize it however, and don't have trouble to admit it.

 

http://www.gracepointforum.org/2009/07/gracepoint-myt-fine-tuning-in-universe.html

This fine-tuning in the universe is something that leading atheists like Richard Dawkins acknowledges as perhaps the “biggest challenge” to atheism.

So far, judging by the attitude and answers of the members of this forum, i would change the name of it to " the irrational response squad " . 

Try harder , guys, who knows, one day you get there.... 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Who else but God could

  Who else but God could have fine-tuned the many incurable diseases like ALS, cancer, ebola....


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Nevertheless, every radioactive decay is a virtually a causeless event, and the Universe could indeed be triggered by some equivalent event.

 

First you would have to explain what caused the radioactive decay.... and the whole model....

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Richard Swinburne is a believer, and merely a philosopher, so that conclusion is entirely unsurprising, and so of no substance.

 

so here we have it again. Only answers from science are substantial... i see.... why is revelation for example, and why are personal experiences, not of important substance ? I mean, before i met my wife the first time, 15 days before that, my wife received a prophecy, where a pastor , friend of her family prophesied that she would met her future husband, that he would be a foreigner, he gave her the exact characteristic of my car, described my character, and how i look, in a way that she felt no doubt when she met me the first time. This is just a example. Along my 25 years as a christian, i have experienced by myself, and heard many other things, that can be called a miracle. Are these experiences not substantial ?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists only limit themselves to what can actually be tested and verified to at least some degree, any thing else is by definition in the world of speculation.

 

Science by definition can explain much less things, than it can not explain. So why only seek answers in science ?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Craig has no credence whatsoever - I have heard him attempt to justify the belief in something by what amounted to wishful thinking, in that he could not accept a reality where something like 'absolute morality' did not exist...

 

You mean he could not accept, that something like absolute morality did not exist, right ? Well, the moral argument of God is something quit clear and enlightening. Why do we instinctively know, to kill someone is bad ? John McArthur has a interesting writing on the subject :

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

In Mein Kamph Hitler wrote, "He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.

 

the moral argument :

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/evidence-of-god-the-moral-argument-t186.htm

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
To ignore or minimize the fundamental fallacy of attempting to explain complex design and improbability with something even more complex and improbable reveals a deep and determined blindness to reality and logic.

 

and you reveal that you have actually not read the homepage i linked to, explaining things that should elucidate you a little more on the subject. Fact that you have not read the page, shows quit clearly you are not searching the truth, wherever it leads you, but you want just no God to be there. I can frankly come up with the most rational and logic explanation, but you won't accept it, since it goes against your wish no God to exist...

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You, angelobrazil, have thoroughly confirmed that you are a deeply deluded, ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, worthless waste of space.

 

You , BobSpence, show that your arguments fall short of consistency, logic, rationality , and therefore you appeal to insults, quit a admittance of falling short. If i am all what you say, why did you return, to continue to argue with me ? Didn't you already throw the towel ? How faded your thinking is, shows the fact that you were not even able to recognize how difficult it is for atheists, to reject the fine-tune argument. Prominent Atheists like Dawkins recognize it however, and don't have trouble to admit it.

 

http://www.gracepointforum.org/2009/07/gracepoint-myt-fine-tuning-in-universe.html

This fine-tuning in the universe is something that leading atheists like Richard Dawkins acknowledges as perhaps the “biggest challenge” to atheism.

So far, judging by the attitude and answers of the members of this forum, i would change the name of it to " the irrational response squad " . 

Try harder , guys, who knows, one day you get there.... 

Why are you surprised at his reaction? You've given us irrationality and academic dishonesty ->We've responded rationally->You keep giving us the same stuff because you choose to reject (not refute) our responses.

Now you've added ad hominem attacks. By your own standards, you've lost the argument.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Two points. 1) Your miracle

Two points.

 

1) Your miracle story:  the problem is Hucksters have been doing supernatural stuff for years.  When a fortune teller/UFO believer/Muslim/stage magician does it, you know it is garbage.  But when a pastor does it, it is a miracle.  It is like you turn your brain off when religion is involved.  You hold the entire world to a certain standard of evidence, but this one area you accept anything without question.  We reject that, and think if there is a god it should be held to the same standards as everything else.  No special pleading for deities!

 

2) Your line about Dawkins is exactly what I have been complaining about, please stop doing it!  This is what you did, and for brevity I will assume Dawkins really said this, even though you don't link it:  Dawkins said fine tuning is a challenging idea = Dawkins says fine tuning is true= atheists are all wrong = dawkins admits god is real = god is real.

Do you see where you messed up?  Reality goes like this: Dawkins said fine tuning is a challenging idea, but not convincing = ......nothing.  That is it!  The chain of logic stops right there.  You have done this with biologists, physicists, philosophers and atheists.  If I did this you would tear me apart!  Let me try it on for size.

 

In the old testament, god said he is a jealous god = he killed people in Egypt = god kills everyone he doesn't like = Ronald Reagan died = god hates Ronald Reagan = god hates America = god is a Muslim.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:the whole

angelobrazil wrote:
the whole model....

The whole model? What, you want us to write an encyclopedia for you?

If you want to understand every detail, you'll need to put in years of work like everyone else. You can't just rant about it on an Internet forum and expect to understand biology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, cosmology....It's not as simple as Creationism. Judging by what you've written so far, you don't even understand the basics of what you're criticizing. 

angelobrazil wrote:
so here we have it again. Only answers from science are substantial... i see.... why is revelation for example, and why are personal experiences, not of important substance ? I mean, before i met my wife the first time, 15 days before that, my wife received a prophecy, where a pastor , friend of her family prophesied that she would met her future husband, that he would be a foreigner, he gave her the exact characteristic of my car, described my character, and how i look, in a way that she felt no doubt when she met me the first time. This is just a example.

They are convincing to you, but not to us, because they can't be substantiated. How can I know for sure that your wife's pastor did these thing? I wasn't there. 

Quote:
Along my 25 years as a christian, i have experienced by myself, and heard many other things, that can be called a miracle. Are these experiences not substantial ?

To you, yes. 

Did you tape record these miracles? Is there any evidence aside from your personal account? If not, then it's worthless to anyone else.  

Quote:
Science by definition can explain much less things, than it can not explain. So why only seek answers in science ?

I rely on reason and evidence. What other reliable epistemologies are there?

Quote:
Why do we instinctively know, to kill someone is bad ?

If people in the in-group killed each other, the tribe would die out. 

Quote:
In Mein Kamph Hitler wrote, "He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.

It's just a naturalistic fallacy.

Quote:
How faded your thinking is, shows the fact that you were not even able to recognize how difficult it is for atheists, to reject the fine-tune argument. Prominent Atheists like Dawkins recognize it however, and don't have trouble to admit it.

Dawkins thinks the fine-tuning argument is one of the better arguments for design, but he still rejects it. In the same way, I think irreducible complexity is one of the best arguments against evolution, but it still sucks.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
*sigh* I don't like spending

*sigh* I don't like spending time on this, but....

angelobrazil wrote:
Of course i see significance in the existence of life. Its to glorify the creator.

butterbattle wrote:
Um, yeah, how do you know that?

angelobrzil wrote:
Well , thats a matter of faith and religion, you don't know that ?

In this part of the discussion, we were talking about whether your fine-tuning argument was circular. If you recall, the point was that regardless of how unlikely the constants of this universe were, ultimately, it meant nothing unless you had already shown that something in this universe was of particular significant or had some transcendent meaning or purpose.

Now you're saying it's matter of faith and religion. I don't even know what that means, but regardless, if you can't demonstrate that life has purpose or something similar, then your fine-tuning argument is fallacious.     

angelobrazil wrote:
you might explain, why a gradual , natural process would not be random. It would be directed through what ? And how can non-intelligence create things, that are so complex, that we, intelligent and conscientious beings cannot understand it ? how does this make sense to you ?

What do you know about natural selection?

angelobrazil wrote:
There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life. P. Davies Int. J. of Astrobiology 2(2): 115, (2003).

I still think that the constants can be related and, at this point, we can't say for sure how likely it is for a universe to be suitable for life. But, I don't really know enough about cosmology, so let's just leave it at that. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=54&ap=3 Dawkins is clearly saying that it is the specified complexity of a watch that warrants a design inference (mere complexity is not the issue). Dawkins admits that "Behe and Dembski correctly pose the problem of specified complexity as something that needs explaining,"[37] and he even allows that "Design is the temporarily correct explanation for some particular manifestations of specified complexity such as a car or a washing machine."[38] Here we begin to see Dawkins's philosophical commitment to naturalism affecting his conclusions: "sooner or later, in order to explain the illusion of design, we are going to have to terminate the regress [of explanations] with something more explanatory than design itself,"[39] says Dawkins, for "Design can never be an ultimate explanation."[40] Dawkins is happy to concede that intelligent design is a legitimate and evidentially supported explanation for CSI, but his naturalistic philosophy dictates that explaining anything in terms of intelligent design is only ever a "temporarily correct"[41] placeholder for a nonteleological explanation. This philosophical deduction from naturalism applies just as much to watches and washing machines as to cosmic fine-tuning or bacterial flagella.

Nope, I still don't see where he says he recognizes design in nature. Sorry.

angelobrazil wrote:
do you think, a mindless process is capable to create such a complex and purposeful organ like the ear, far better designed, than we, intelligent humans could invent ? is that rational to you ?

Why not? All you're doing is arguing from incredulity.

angelobrazil wrote:
And what makes it in your opinion so unprobable, that there might be a intelligent cause ? Why is God a bad explanation ?

Intelligence is an abstraction of characteristics of organisms with powerful central nervous systems. It doesn't make any sense for something intelligent to simply be "immaterial." 

Also, no one ever even coherently explains what God is, how he exists, or how he created the world. Virtually all descriptions of his characteristics are figures of speech and analogies. There is widespread disagreement over even the most basic attributes, for God has been everything from axe-wielding giants, to flirtatious fairies, to omnipotent narcissists. Your God is the omnipotent narcissist. So God, in general, to me, is nothing more than an ad hoc, an euphemism for a category of supernatural entities, used to temporarily explain what we don't yet understand. People fear what they don't understand. In ancient times, some people thought that dragon Gods caused thunderstorms. Now, we know more about the weather. In ancient times, some people thought that God made man out of dirt and made a woman from his ribs. Now, we know more about biology. 

Thus, as the evidence builds up for abiogenesis, I see the origin of the universe as the last great God of the gaps.  

butterbattle wrote:
You didn't explain how it's not an argument from ignorance. Creationists claim that these systems are "not evolvable" because they can't fathom how a system in which each part is absolutely necessary could gradually arise. That's an argument from ignorance..

angelobrazil wrote:
you might show where they make such a claim.

Huh? Everywhere. That's irreducible complexity. Do you disagree? What does irreducible complexity say if not that?

butterbattle wrote:
Nature does have plenty of gliding animals though.

angelobrazil wrote:
In fact it does. It remains however to evolutionists to explain, how these animals got their wings.... since these only get fully functional, after fully evolved.

Hahaha, don't you get it? It doesn't have to be all or nothing; that would be a false dichotomy. A wing or flap of skin that's not powerful enough for full flight (or "half a wing," as Creationists like to call it) can still be an advantage. In the right environment, it might be beneficial to have a little wing at first, just to slow down in case you fall out of a tree or something. Then, if a bigger wing is better, we already have an evolutionary pathway and incentive to develop flight.

angelobrazil wrote:
Instinct and reason do exclude each other. While instinct is a feature of the animal world, reason is one exclusive to us, humans. ( well , not to all humans, just to some.... )

I caught the insult. Thanks.

Anyways, reason is not necessarily exclusive to humans. Depending on how you define "reason," there are several other animals that can reason. Some parrots have developed vocabularies of hundreds of words and shown that they understand what they're saying. For example, they can tell you if it's raining outside or identity colors. Similar feats have been accomplished by dolphins, chimpanzee, pigs, etc. 

angelobrazil wrote:
how do you know our consciousness and rationality arose through a evolutionary process ?

I don't know the subject well enough to go into detail. But, I do know that there is currently no competing theory (no, the scientific community doesn't take Creationism seriously), and I know that we evolved and that consciousness comes from our brains. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
"Intelligence is an

"Intelligence is an abstraction of characteristics of organisms with powerful central nervous systems. It doesn't make any sense for something intelligent to simply be "immaterial." 

 

Huh....I had never heard it said that way before.  In a way then, the very idea of an intelligent god is anthropomorphizing an idea isn't it?  I guess that is my new thought for the day!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Nevertheless, every radioactive decay is a virtually a causeless event, and the Universe could indeed be triggered by some equivalent event.

 

First you would have to explain what caused the radioactive decay.... and the whole model....

The point is there appears to be NO clear cause for the decay, yet it occurs, at a purely random but statistically precise rate - the probability of decay of any particular atom of a specific type in a given period of time can be stated to a high degree of accuracy. This means that the more atoms in a group, the more precisely we can predict what proportion will decay in a given period of time, even though we cannot predict at all when a particular atom will decay. This is observed fact.

It either means that there IS a purely random 'energy' or some other 'force' pervading reality which triggers such events when it imparts the tiny 'nudge' needed to tip such unstable atoms over the small energy threshold stopping from decaying immediately, OR the fundamental limit on the precision with which the energy of a particle can be defined (according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) means that there is simply a finite probability that at any instant it may temporarily possess sufficient energy to trigger the decay.

So the takeaway message from this solidly established science is that any simplistic idea of necessary 'cause' is simply obsolete.

Since even the decay of a single atom can, in the right circumstances, trigger something as significant on our scale of reality as the nuclear chain reaction leading to a city-destroying atomic explosion, it is in principle not a logical stretch to consider similar primordial essentially uncaused events as capable of triggering the Big Bang event.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Richard Swinburne is a believer, and merely a philosopher, so that conclusion is entirely unsurprising, and so of no substance.

so here we have it again. Only answers from science are substantial... i see.... why is revelation for example, and why are personal experiences, not of important substance ? I mean, before i met my wife the first time, 15 days before that, my wife received a prophecy, where a pastor , friend of her family prophesied that she would met her future husband, that he would be a foreigner, he gave her the exact characteristic of my car, described my character, and how i look, in a way that she felt no doubt when she met me the first time. This is just a example. Along my 25 years as a christian, i have experienced by myself, and heard many other things, that can be called a miracle. Are these experiences not substantial ?

Revelation, as such, is simply a particular class of mental event, and may well be the subject of scientific study.

There is of course no way to distinguish between a hypothetical 'genuine' revelation and a hallucination in themselves. To establish significance of some experience as going beyond ordinary mental processes would require matching its content against external verifiable events in a careful, unbiased, methodical, ie scientific manner.

Personal experiences are definitely significant, there is a lot of effort going in to study consciousness, behavior, attitudes, etc.

Such events as you describe could be investigated scientifically, to establish whether the probabilities of such correspondences arising without some currently unknown mechanism or intervention were such as to raise a significant question. One would need to know how many times similar 'predictions' were made and did not appear to actually match any subsequent events, for example.

In practice, when someone with the skills and approach to thoroughly assess such events has had the opportunity to thoroughly investigate such events, they have either ended with insufficient and/or conflicting information to 'prove' anything either way, OR a perfectly natural and unremarkable explanation has been found, that the original observers never thought to look into, or did not have the knowledge and/or equipment necessary to do so.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists only limit themselves to what can actually be tested and verified to at least some degree, any thing else is by definition in the world of speculation.

 

Science by definition can explain much less things, than it can not explain. So why only seek answers in science ?

Because that statement is totally backwards - if there is insufficient evidence of any kind to allow an emprical hypothesis to be be formed and tested, there is NO basis for any claims of knowledge.

History has shown Science explaining far more things than even imagined by mythology, as so many things, from thunder and lightning to the motions of the stars and planets have been uncovered to replace the false beliefs of earlier times.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Craig has no credence whatsoever - I have heard him attempt to justify the belief in something by what amounted to wishful thinking, in that he could not accept a reality where something like 'absolute morality' did not exist...

You mean he could not accept, that something like absolute morality did not exist, right ? Well, the moral argument of God is something quit clear and enlightening. Why do we instinctively know, to kill someone is bad ? John McArthur has a interesting writing on the subject :

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

In Mein Kamph Hitler wrote, "He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.

Scientific study has revealed a far more detailed and plausible basis for the emergence of ethical codes and attitudes than religion. Morality is ultimately the weakest argument for religious belief, IMHO, considering how many evil practices have been supported by religious 'authority', from the stoning of adulterers, the burning of witches, the persecution of homosexuals, the killing of infidels in general, encouragement of the endorsement of slavery, failure to condemn rape and torture - indeed the endorsement of inflicting them on a conquered nation.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
To ignore or minimize the fundamental fallacy of attempting to explain complex design and improbability with something even more complex and improbable reveals a deep and determined blindness to reality and logic.

 

and you reveal that you have actually not read the homepage i linked to, explaining things that should elucidate you a little more on the subject. Fact that you have not read the page, shows quit clearly you are not searching the truth, wherever it leads you, but you want just no God to be there. I can frankly come up with the most rational and logic explanation, but you won't accept it, since it goes against your wish no God to exist...

 

You have not given any links, AFAICS, pointing to non-apologetic or other than Christian-based sites who demonstrate a determination to believe that God does exist far surpassing any 'desire' on the part of people here that Got not exist.

I came back to point out the more blatant fallacies in your 'arguments' for the benefit of others reading this forum. I know it is wasted on you.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: On an emotional

KSMB wrote:
 On an emotional level, that sort of activity is an insult to cosmology, physics and math.

Really? An insult to math, cosmology, and physics? I never knew they could be offended. 

One has to wonder who really believe in magical beings here theist or the atheist who speak of science as a sort of living being, with feelings that could be hurt, and motivations to convey.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:KSMB

theTwelve wrote:

KSMB wrote:
 On an emotional level, that sort of activity is an insult to cosmology, physics and math.

Really? An insult to math, cosmology, and physics? I never knew they could be offended. 

One has to wonder who really believe in magical beings here theist or the atheist who speak of science as a sort of living being, with feelings that could be hurt, and motivations to convey.

 

 

When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

That makes more sense than creating a deity that you claim has feelings so you can feel special

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Really? An

theTwelve wrote:
Really? An insult to math, cosmology, and physics? I never knew they could be offended. 

One has to wonder who really believe in magical beings here theist or the atheist who speak of science as a sort of living being, with feelings that could be hurt, and motivations to convey.

One has to wonder about people who cannot tell hyperbole language from precise descriptions.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:When people

jcgadfly wrote:
When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

And how do you know they'd be offended? I see no reason as to why the majority of individuals working in these fields, judging that vast majority of them past and present combined would be religious, would feel insulted by what's been said?

Are you just going to create more mythical offended beings for us?

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

And how do you know they'd be offended? I see no reason as to why the majority of individuals working in these fields, judging that vast majority of them past and present combined would be religious, would feel insulted by what's been said?

Are you just going to create more mythical offended beings for us?

 

 

 

 

It is a conjecture - just like God. Why do you and angelo worship a conjecture?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

And how do you know they'd be offended? I see no reason as to why the majority of individuals working in these fields, judging that vast majority of them past and present combined would be religious, would feel insulted by what's been said?

Are you just going to create more mythical offended beings for us?

 

 

The vast majority of modern physicists and biologists are theists?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The vast

mellestad wrote:
The vast majority of modern physicists and biologists are theists?

Nah. Nowadays, most scientists with degrees are atheists, especially those in the natural sciences.

Edit: Wait, I should go check.

Edit: Many surveys have different results. They also interpret the terms atheism and agnosticism differently. This one's pretty good though.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: The point

BobSpence1 wrote:

The point is there appears to be NO clear cause for the decay, yet it occurs, at a purely random but statistically precise rate - the probability of decay of any particular atom of a specific type in a given period of time can be stated to a high degree of accuracy. This means that the more atoms in a group, the more precisely we can predict what proportion will decay in a given period of time, even though we cannot predict at all when a particular atom will decay. This is observed fact.

It either means that there IS a purely random 'energy' or some other 'force' pervading reality which triggers such events when it imparts the tiny 'nudge' needed to tip such unstable atoms over the small energy threshold stopping from decaying immediately, OR the fundamental limit on the precision with which the energy of a particle can be defined (according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) means that there is simply a finite probability that at any instant it may temporarily possess sufficient energy to trigger the decay.

So the takeaway message from this solidly established science is that any simplistic idea of necessary 'cause' is simply obsolete.

Since even the decay of a single atom can, in the right circumstances, trigger something as significant on our scale of reality as the nuclear chain reaction leading to a city-destroying atomic explosion, it is in principle not a logical stretch to consider similar primordial essentially uncaused events as capable of triggering the Big Bang event.

A nuclear chain reaction leads, as you mention it by your own, to a city destroying explosion. A completely random event, which destroys , or in other words " order to chaos " . The BigBang cannot by all means be compared . First of all, the atoms where formed right after the "Big Bang" when our known universe originated from pure energy some billions of years ago. So you have not given by all means a rational explanation....

BobSpence1 wrote:

Revelation, as such, is simply a particular class of mental event, and may well be the subject of scientific study.

hahaha. good one.. you wanna say, the mind is capable of " knowing " the future intuitively , and that should be subject of scientific study ?

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is of course no way to distinguish between a hypothetical 'genuine' revelation and a hallucination in themselves.

Of course. I forgot to ask the pastor, if he took some LSD....

BobSpence1 wrote:

To establish significance of some experience as going beyond ordinary mental processes would require matching its content against external verifiable events in a careful, unbiased, methodical, ie scientific manner.

Well, the bible has tons of prophecies, see the odds these fulfilled by chance.... Jesaja 53 is a good example. Since we know through the qumran rolls, this book was written before Jesus, how do you explain, the events took place exactly as described ?
How about the nation os israel, which fulfilled biblical prophecy, and is back in its holy land, as a nation ? 200 Years ago, Skeptics were laughing about the bible..... now, they ignore the hard facts.... you can google - prophecy fulfilled in my life testimonies -
and find numerous testimonies of Christians who had similar experiences.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Because that statement is totally backwards - if there is insufficient evidence of any kind to allow an emprical hypothesis to be be formed and tested, there is NO basis for any claims of knowledge.

I absolutely disagree.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay1.htm

Most practitioners of science today hold that the only way to knowledge about the natural world is science. They deny, therefore, that divine revelation in the Bible can afford to man any true knowledge about nature. They include that denial in their definition of science, but this is an error, a distortion of science. It cannot be proved that science is the only source of knowledge about the natural world. It cannot be proved by science that the biblical revelation about the origin of the world is not true. Science cannot prove that divine revelation is not a source of true knowledge, particularly concerning origins. Belief in science as the only way to such knowledge is a faith, just as much as is faith in divine revelation. Faith in autonomous human reason is a faith, even as is faith in divine revelation. And neither one is science.

BobSpence1 wrote:

History has shown Science explaining far more things than even imagined by mythology, as so many things, from thunder and lightning to the motions of the stars and planets have been uncovered to replace the false beliefs of earlier times.

Essential questions remain unanswered, like meaning .Why are we here? What is life all about? No conceivable advance of science will empower it to answer these questions. The real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things.
Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Scientific study has revealed a far more detailed and plausible basis for the emergence of ethical codes and attitudes than religion.

So what exactly has science revealed ?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Morality is ultimately the weakest argument for religious belief, IMHO, considering how many evil practices have been supported by religious 'authority', from the stoning of adulterers, the burning of witches, the persecution of homosexuals, the killing of infidels in general, encouragement of the endorsement of slavery, failure to condemn rape and torture - indeed the endorsement of inflicting them on a conquered nation.

that has actually nothing to do with the argument... You might take a few minutes, and see Craigs video on the subject....

BobSpence1 wrote:

I came back to point out the more blatant fallacies in your 'arguments' for the benefit of others reading this forum. I know it is wasted on you.

oh , i see. Doing proselytism of atheism...


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:theTwelve

mellestad wrote:

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

And how do you know they'd be offended? I see no reason as to why the majority of individuals working in these fields, judging that vast majority of them past and present combined would be religious, would feel insulted by what's been said?

Are you just going to create more mythical offended beings for us?

 

 

The vast majority of modern physicists and biologists are theists?

Why do so many scientists believe in God?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/why-do-so-many-scientists-believe-in-god-t125.htm


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: They

butterbattle wrote:
 They also interpret the terms atheism and agnosticism differently. This one's pretty good though.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html 

The link doesn't work.

But I am familiar with the idiotic assumption Dawkins makes in the God delusion, by claiming scientist of National Academy of Scientist who don't believe in a "personal" god as atheist, as if impersonal god believers, are atheist. 

Regardless, if you can paint a picture of the average scientist as Richard Dawkins (not just atheist), then it would be plausible to believe that most scientist are insulted by something like the anthropic principle. But the picture of the average scientist in the image of Dawkins, is just sheer mythologizing, and delusion. 

I sincerely doubt that my non-believing bio professor, though he disagrees with the assumptions of the anthropic principle would find it insulting to his profession. 

If you're offended by the assumptions of something like the anthropic principle that's fine, pointing out that a certain scientist is insulted by it, that's fine, but don't get in the business of taking your pet peeves as representative of larger population that's just not there. 

 

 

 

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
When people speak colloquially about science (as in what you quoted) it usually means the people who bust their humps working in the fields would be insulted.

And how do you know they'd be offended? I see no reason as to why the majority of individuals working in these fields, judging that vast majority of them past and present combined would be religious, would feel insulted by what's been said?

Are you just going to create more mythical offended beings for us?

 

 

The vast majority of modern physicists and biologists are theists?

Why do so many scientists believe in God? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christian-apologists-scientists-and-authors-f9/why-do-so-many-scientists-believe-in-god-t125.htm

 

 

ROFL.  Did you read your article?  It says, in the U.S. (one of the most religious countries on earth), only 40% of "scientists" believe in god (12 years ago).  Since they said "scientists" in general, I imagine a survey of only physicists / bioligists / geoligists etc. would be even more damaging to your point.

 

From a well-cited wiki article, using the same sources and studies in the article you linked: According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians[specify] and least popular among biologists.[specify] In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.[56] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists — defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences — 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[57]

 

So, in the most brilliant scientific minds in the world only 7% believe in a personal god, and only 28% express belief in a non-personal deistic god.  Not only that, but belief in religion among scientists has been declining drastically in the last hundred years.  Again, this survey is the same one that your article linked to, so eat your own dog food buddy.

 

Oh, and no-one is claiming your pastor hallucinated.  In fact, I imagine it was more like cold calling.  This is, again, excactly what I mean.  Do you believe in psychics?  If I call Miss Cleo, is it a truth, or a lie?  Because according to you, I have to believe in that.  There is zero difference between a street-side palm-reader and your wife's story.  There are millions of people who swear they believe things you would say are irrational.  But you utterly fail to apply the same standard of evidence to your own beliefs.

 

Now I am even getting tired of this, because this is just silly.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:  Again,

mellestad wrote:
  Again, this survey is the same one that your article linked to, so eat your own dog food buddy.

So how about we have you eat your own?

Quote:
So, in the most brilliant scientific minds in the world only 7% believe in a personal god, and only 28% express belief in a non-personal deistic god.  Not only that, but belief in religion among scientists has been declining drastically in the last hundred years.
 

Dude, you should serously learn how to read the survey 

Quote:
The survey doesn't ask about beliefs in non-personal deistic God. The survey only ask about a personal God. It ask if you belief in a personal God, with the given responses read as "belief in a personal god"; "disbelief in a personal god"; or "doubt and agnosticism about a personal God".

Read the survey heading, and eat your own dog food there buddy:http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Secondly using the NAS to make the case for insulted scientific community, is dimwitted at best, particulary when the NAS issued a statement claiming ""Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"

 

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:The link

theTwelve wrote:
The link doesn't work.

Dang. Oh, you found it and posted it. Thanks.

Quote:
But I am familiar with the idiotic assumption Dawkins makes in the God delusion, by claiming scientist of National Academy of Scientist who don't believe in a "personal" god as atheist, as if impersonal god believers, are atheist. 

Regardless, if you can paint a picture of the average scientist as Richard Dawkins (not just atheist), then it would be plausible to believe that most scientist are insulted by something like the anthropic principle. But the picture of the average scientist in the image of Dawkins, is just sheer mythologizing, and delusion. 

I sincerely doubt that my non-believing bio professor, though he disagrees with the assumptions of the anthropic principle would find it insulting to his profession. 

If you're offended by the assumptions of something like the anthropic principle that's fine, pointing out that a certain scientist is insulted by it, that's fine, but don't get in the business of taking your pet peeves as representative of larger population that's just not there.

Is this whole response to me? 

I'm confused as to what this is responding to.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Don't you think there would

Don't you think there would be a certain bit of offense taken by some who have devoted their lives to their research if a person trained only in the study of a holy book said, "You're wasting your time - God did all of this and that's all you need to teach"?

Then again, you and angelo are content with the goatherd stories so perhaps I'm asking the wrong person.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Waiting

angelobrazil wrote:

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

O

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

Time, or at least time as we know, did not exist before the big bang. Also, if I remember correctly, the big bang was an expansion of time and space 

 

Correct. This implies a cause.(wrong not all things have a cause(QM)) Nothing starts from nothing(nothing cant have existed because somethings exist). What was the cause thow of the universe ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm

 

 Why do you assume it had a cause and that that cause was god?


 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/


 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Don't you

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't you think there would be a certain bit of offense taken by some who have devoted their lives to their research if a person trained only in the study of a holy book said, "You're wasting your time - God did all of this and that's all you need to teach"?

Notice the changing of the goal post, a statement claiming an, insult to physics, science, mathematics etc (a claim that implies a majority view), has now become a claim that "some" who devoted their lives are insulted. 

Some atheist may find mustard a revolting condiment to put on hot dogs, but it would be entirely idiotic of me to claim by this some, that "atheist" (implying the majority) are revolted by mustard. 

Some white people are racist, doesn't mean that most white people are. Some scientist might be offended by the anthropic principle, doesn't mean that most are. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't you think there would be a certain bit of offense taken by some who have devoted their lives to their research if a person trained only in the study of a holy book said, "You're wasting your time - God did all of this and that's all you need to teach"?

Notice the changing of the goal post, a statement claiming an, insult to physics, science, mathematics etc (a claim that implies a majority view), has now become a claim that "some" who devoted their lives are insulted. 

Some atheist may find mustard a revolting condiment to put on hot dogs, but it would be entirely idiotic of me to claim by this some, that "atheist" (implying the majority) are revolted by mustard. 

Some white people are racist, doesn't mean that most white people are. Some scientist might be offended by the anthropic principle, doesn't mean that most are. 

 

I told you it was a conjecture (you know - an opinion) much earlier in this thread. I see you have difficulty reading.

As I also said, it is very much like the god you and angelo worship. Why do you worship what sprang forth from the mind of man?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I told you it

jcgadfly wrote:
I told you it was a conjecture (you know - an opinion) much earlier in this thread. I see you have difficulty reading.

And apparently you don't understand that just because it's an opinion, doesn't mean that its not a stupid one. Just like a theist opining that atheists have a desire to admit their mothers into mental hospitals, because Brian Sapient does, would be a dumb ass conjecture to make. 

He had an opinion on what the majority (not some, or a few) of the individuals in the fields oh physics, mathematics, and the sciences would feel, that was utterly stupid. And apparently this point alludes you huh?

Quote:
As I also said, it is very much like the god you and angelo worship. Why do you worship what sprang forth from the mind of man?

Wtf are you talking about? When did I start worshiping a god? The only god I worship is the flying spaghetti monster, and that's cuz he's real, and I can feel his presence every Sunday at the dinner table along side the parmesan cheese. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
I told you it was a conjecture (you know - an opinion) much earlier in this thread. I see you have difficulty reading.

And apparently you don't understand that just because it's an opinion, doesn't mean that its not a stupid one. Just like a theist opining that atheists have a desire to admit their mothers into mental hospitals, because Brian Sapient does, would be a dumb ass conjecture to make. 

He had an opinion on what the majority (not some, or a few) of the individuals in the fields oh physics, mathematics, and the sciences would feel, that was utterly stupid. And apparently this point alludes you huh?

Quote:
As I also said, it is very much like the god you and angelo worship. Why do you worship what sprang forth from the mind of man?

Wtf are you talking about? When did I start worshiping a god? The only god I worship is the flying spaghetti monster, and that's cuz he's real, and I can feel his presence every Sunday at the dinner table along side the parmesan cheese. 

You make me wonder about you. Sometimes you say things that make sense. then you mix in siding with a believer in the anthropic principle.

As for my opinion, saying it's stupid doesn't make your opinion less so. You claim that  the post that got us on to this subthread claimed that all practitioners of science would be offended by angelo's statements. How is your idea that none would be offended better?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:mellestad

theTwelve wrote:

mellestad wrote:
  Again, this survey is the same one that your article linked to, so eat your own dog food buddy.

So how about we have you eat your own?

Quote:
So, in the most brilliant scientific minds in the world only 7% believe in a personal god, and only 28% express belief in a non-personal deistic god.  Not only that, but belief in religion among scientists has been declining drastically in the last hundred years.
 

Dude, you should serously learn how to read the survey 

Quote:
The survey doesn't ask about beliefs in non-personal deistic God. The survey only ask about a personal God. It ask if you belief in a personal God, with the given responses read as "belief in a personal god"; "disbelief in a personal god"; or "doubt and agnosticism about a personal God".

Read the survey heading, and eat your own dog food there buddy:http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Secondly using the NAS to make the case for insulted scientific community, is dimwitted at best, particulary when the NAS issued a statement claiming ""Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html <-- The original article

 

Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?  The best you could possibly get out of it is that they are deists, at the worst atheists.

 

If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.  The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.  Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has.  This confirms one of the basic ideas of many atheists...religion exists primarily to "answer" questions that used to be unanswerable, but now they can be answered.  Religion is an almost useless, sometimes harmful vestigal organ of the human psyche in the modern world.

 

(Edit for duplicate words)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
molested wrote: Can you

molested wrote:

 Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?

Well, what's my case?

1.) that you're reading of the survey was totally bogus (which it was), and

2.) That it's dimwitted to imply that the majority (not just some) of scientist, mathematicians, physicist are insulted by something such as the anthropic principle. 

And I believe my case has already won out in both of these arguments, unless someone still desires to protest? 

Quote:
If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.  The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.

If you believe that only difference between atheism and deism is cosmology, than you know little about the history of deistic thought. For instance lets take an exemplar of deism, Thomas Jefferson. His God belief wasn't merely about a cosmology, but rather the grounding for his deism was his views on morality, the notion of inalienable rights, and belief in a divine providence. One of the prime beliefs of traditional deism is a this sort of notion of telos.

Quote:
Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has.  

And i'd accuse you of confusing cause vs. correlation. Atheism doesn't arise out of knowledge of the natural world, but rather out of privilege, that allows one to engage in those sort of explorations. Atheism begins to flourish when societies have accumulated a comfortable degree of security, wealth and prosperity, where dependencies on communities, and others is no longer a necessity, and reflections on despair, the misery of wars, senseless deaths, and suffering is faint and not penetrating parts of their everyday life.

This is why religion flourishes in places where these sort of reflections are a part of their everyday lives. It's not because one society knows more about the natural world, than the other, but rather because one society has the privilege to even care for that sort of knowledge, while the other has no use for it.

Why you find high levels of atheism among "higher" scientist is not because of the wealth of their knowledge about the natural world, but rather because of the direction of their passions and values. The prime value of thinking scientifically is detachment, a way of looking at the world non-aesthetically, and unemotionally, calculated, and unaffected by it. 

I'm a student of risk management, and one the majors offered by our department is "Actuarial Science", a profession in this major, though offering huge salaries, consists of sitting in a room with little human interaction, calculating numbers all day. Though the field is lucrative, it doesn't appeal to many because of the lack of human interaction, but the field appeals to those who like that sort of isolation and disengagement, to coldly calculating numbers all day.

But what you will find in those that do make profession out of this, is high levels of atheism. The field, as well as the field of natural sciences, attracts individuals who are allured to detachment, more allured to things that are unmoving, than moving, less allured to the art, and more allured to the mechanic.

I'm personally far more allured to the former than the later, I'd take a great novel over the origin of the species any day. If I were to sit through a lecture going over the compositions of stars, I'd be utterly bored. Though I enjoy learning about evolution, and certain areas of our biology, the rest of the natural sciences bores me. I've heard individuals here talking passionately over the discovery of some new chemical, or something like that, and the allure bewilders me, as I am of the allure of stamp collecting. 

In fact, you'd find a different, and far less hostile view of religion among atheist allured more by the aesthetic, the arts, poetry, literature, than the sheer mechanics of things, examples would be atheist such as Harold Bloom, John N. Gray, George Santayana, Jurgan Habermas, and etc...

It's not knowledge of the natural sciences that creates atheist, but that individuals with an affinity for that sort of knowledge are drawn to atheism. 

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:molested

theTwelve wrote:

molested wrote:

 Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?

Well, what's my case?

1.) that you're reading of the survey was totally bogus (which it was), and

2.) That it's dimwitted to imply that the majority (not just some) of scientist, mathematicians, physicist are insulted by something such as the anthropic principle. 

And I believe my case has already won out in both of these arguments, unless someone still desires to protest? 

Quote:
If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.  The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.

If you believe that only difference between atheism and deism is cosmology, than you know little about the history of deistic thought. For instance lets take an exemplar of deism, Thomas Jefferson. His God belief wasn't merely about a cosmology, but rather the grounding for his deism was his views on morality, the notion of inalienable rights, and belief in a divine providence. One of the prime beliefs of traditional deism is a this sort of notion of telos.

Quote:
Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has.  

And i'd accuse you of confusing cause vs. correlation. Atheism doesn't arise out of knowledge of the natural world, but rather out of privilege, that allows one to engage in those sort of explorations. Atheism begins to flourish when societies have accumulated a comfortable degree of security, wealth and prosperity, where dependencies on communities, and others is no longer a necessity, and reflections on despair, the misery of wars, senseless deaths, and suffering is faint and not penetrating parts of their everyday life.

This is why religion flourishes in places where these sort of reflections are a part of their everyday lives. It's not because one society knows more about the natural world, than the other, but rather because one society has the privilege to even care for that sort of knowledge, while the other has no use for it.

Why you find high levels of atheism among "higher" scientist is not because of the wealth of their knowledge about the natural world, but rather because of the direction of their passions and values. The prime value of thinking scientifically is detachment, a way of looking at the world non-aesthetically, and unemotionally, calculated, and unaffected by it. 

I'm a student of risk management, and one the majors offered by our department is "Actuarial Science", a profession in this major, though offering huge salaries, consists of sitting in a room with little human interaction, calculating numbers all day. Though the field is lucrative, it doesn't appeal to many because of the lack of human interaction, but the field appeals to those who like that sort of isolation and disengagement, to coldly calculating numbers all day.

But what you will find in those that do make profession out of this, is high levels of atheism. The field, as well as the field of natural sciences, attracts individuals who are allured to detachment, more allured to things that are unmoving, than moving, less allured to the art, and more allured to the mechanic.

I'm personally far more allured to the former than the later, I'd take a great novel over the origin of the species any day. If I were to sit through a lecture going over the compositions of stars, I'd be utterly bored. Though I enjoy learning about evolution, and certain areas of our biology, the rest of the natural sciences bores me. I've heard individuals here talking passionately over the discovery of some new chemical, or something like that, and the allure bewilders me, as I am of the allure of stamp collecting. 

In fact, you'd find a different, and far less hostile view of religion among atheist allured more by the aesthetic, the arts, poetry, literature, than the sheer mechanics of things, examples would be atheist such as Harold Bloom, John N. Gray, George Santayana, Jurgan Habermas, and etc...

It's not knowledge of the natural sciences that creates atheist, but that individuals with an affinity for that sort of knowledge are drawn to atheism. 

 

 

I have to say thank you, because this is the first post I have read in which you have been polite.

 

1) Can you show why the survey is bogus?  We have 7 doctorates at my company, all physical scientists.  Most of them are non-theists, so it seems to anecdotally line up with what the survey reports.

2) I never intended to get into that part, so I can't say much either way, not being a scientist.  That is your fight with the other people, not me.

 

http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html <-- That seems like a decent primer on modern deism, and I am hard pressed to see much practical difference between an atheist and a deist.  Both believe morality is from nature, and that the supernatural does not interfere with daily life.  I fully understand the deism is not atheism, I was merely pointing out that deism is not something most atheists are very concerned about.

 

I actually agree with your points on the growth of atheism, but I do think that knowledge is a large part of it.  A monk in a monastery has plenty of time for contemplation, but he is not likely to become an atheist.  You are just talking about Maslow's hierarchy, and again, I think you are correct.  But I think I am correct as well, the thoughts co-exist and reinforce.  People without the luxury of time for thought will probably just believe whatever they were told during childhood without much introspection.

 

Your final point about people who prefer aesthetic is, again, not something I disagree with.  Most atheists would agree that religion is driven by emotion, and that reason is not the primary motivator.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Can you

mellestad wrote:

Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?  The best you could possibly get out of it is that they are deists, at the worst atheists.

 If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.

 

You bring it right to the point. Faith in the God of the bible influences your life dramatically. You are not the boss anymore of your own, but you accept someone else to be the boss of your life. You can't do anymore whatever you want, but you have to take a new direction, asking for God's will, and go new ways in your life. That is in my opinion  the main reason, atheists reject God. People do not want to leave their sinful , selfish, and egocentric life. I lived on both sides. I can only say : how much better is it to live with Jesus Christ. No comparison at all.... Atheist loose the very own reason to live, and life gets without sense. 

mellestad wrote:

The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.  Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has..

 

I see it exactly the other way around. The more i discover the miracles of nature, the more i admire the one, that all created. The more science discovers, the more nature points to a intelligent designer. 

mellestad wrote:

 This confirms one of the basic ideas of many atheists...religion exists primarily to "answer" questions that used to be unanswerable, but now they can be answered.  Religion is an almost useless, sometimes harmful vestigal organ of the human psyche in the modern world.

 

again. quit the oposit is the case. The more science goes forward, the more it gets conscious about its own limitations. Science has no answer about why the universe is exactly finetuned for life. Science has no answer about origin of life. Science doesnt know when sex first appeared. Science doesnt know. how inanimated materia got conciousness, intelligence, etc. It goes actually against natural laws, to assert, natural causes were responsable for all this evolution... 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?  The best you could possibly get out of it is that they are deists, at the worst atheists.

 If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.

 

You bring it right to the point. Faith in the God of the bible influences your life dramatically. You are not the boss anymore of your own, but you accept someone else to be the boss of your life. You can't do anymore whatever you want, but you have to take a new direction, asking for God's will, and go new ways in your life. That is in my opinion  the main reason, atheists reject God. People do not want to leave their sinful life, selfish, and egocentric life. I lived on both sides. I can only say : how much better is it to live with Jesus Christ. No comparison at all.... Atheist loose the very own reason to live, and life gets without sense. 

mellestad wrote:

The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.  Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has..

 

I see it exactly the other way around. The more i discover the miracles of nature, the more i admire the one, that all created. The more science discovers, the more nature points to a intelligent designer. 

mellestad wrote:

 This confirms one of the basic ideas of many atheists...religion exists primarily to "answer" questions that used to be unanswerable, but now they can be answered.  Religion is an almost useless, sometimes harmful vestigal organ of the human psyche in the modern world.

 

again. quit the oposit is the case. The more science goes forward, the more it gets conscious about its own limitations. Science has no answer about why the universe is exactly finetuned for life. Science has no answer about origin of life. Science doesnt know when sex first appeared. Science doesnt know. how inanimated materia got conciousness, intelligence, etc. It goes actually against natural laws, to assert, natural causes were responsable for all this evolution... 

 

Ah, if only that were true...

1. Christians have that wonderful option of blanket forgiveness which allows them absolution without consequences for whatever "sins" they commit (until they want to commit them again). Atheists who live a "sinful, selfish and egocentric life" don't have that option. If they're lucky, they get forgiveness from the other members of their society - they are still responsible for the consequences of their actions.

2. An intelligent designer? Perhaps. The god of the bible - no way. the god of the bible was a creation of its authors. Why do you worship the creation instead of the creator?

3. As others have told you, the universe is not fine tuned for life. The earth is not fine tuned for life. Human bodies are poorly designed. If I were God, I certainly wouldn't want credit for any of it. As for the origin of life and abiogenesis (life from non-life), we don't know yet. That is still not a reason to put in "God did it" and stop looking for answers. Why are you so afraid of a search for answers?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Can you explain how this possibly helps your case?  The best you could possibly get out of it is that they are deists, at the worst atheists.

 If everyone in the world was a deist, atheists wouldn't give a crap, because deism and atheism are the same when it comes down to how you live your life.

 

You bring it right to the point. Faith in the God of the bible influences your life dramatically. You are not the boss anymore of your own, but you accept someone else to be the boss of your life. You can't do anymore whatever you want, but you have to take a new direction, asking for God's will, and go new ways in your life. That is in my opinion  the main reason, atheists reject God. People do not want to leave their sinful , selfish, and egocentric life. I lived on both sides. I can only say : how much better is it to live with Jesus Christ. No comparison at all.... Atheist loose the very own reason to live, and life gets without sense. 

mellestad wrote:

The only difference is cosmology, which might never be figured out before the big bang anyway.  Either way, my original point stands.  The more a person knows about the natural world, the less influence religion has..

 

I see it exactly the other way around. The more i discover the miracles of nature, the more i admire the one, that all created. The more science discovers, the more nature points to a intelligent designer. 

mellestad wrote:

 This confirms one of the basic ideas of many atheists...religion exists primarily to "answer" questions that used to be unanswerable, but now they can be answered.  Religion is an almost useless, sometimes harmful vestigal organ of the human psyche in the modern world.

 

again. quit the oposit is the case. The more science goes forward, the more it gets conscious about its own limitations. Science has no answer about why the universe is exactly finetuned for life. Science has no answer about origin of life. Science doesnt know when sex first appeared. Science doesnt know. how inanimated materia got conciousness, intelligence, etc. It goes actually against natural laws, to assert, natural causes were responsable for all this evolution... 

 

 

So, I am an atheist because I want to be immoral.  Ah, let's have fun arguing through personal attacks and assumptions.  You are a Christian because you are too weak minded to stand on your own, and your internal morality is too weak to be a productive citizen.  I have lived on both sides as well.

 

I can remember being a grade schooler and having major doubts about religion.  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17773?page=2#comment-260032

 

Now you are telling us we should be religious, because it will make us happy, without saying anything about it being right.  Well, the truth isn't always happy for everyone.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:So, I am an

mellestad wrote:

So, I am an atheist because I want to be immoral.  

 

have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

So, I am an atheist because I want to be immoral.  

 

have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 

Hello. I was a theist for 15 years. Then I sat down and actually read the Bible and it made no sense to my allegedly god-given reason. Now I am an atheist.

Pleased to meet you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:angelobrazil

jcgadfly wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 

Hello. I was a theist for 15 years. Then I sat down and actually read the Bible and it made no sense to my allegedly god-given reason. Now I am an atheist.

Pleased to meet you.

Yeah, pretty much the same, except I was exposed to a lot of Catholicism when I was a kid, and that was patently insane. I couldn't believe that adults actually went for that kind of nonsense. Later, as a teenager, I really tried to embrace the bible and give it a chance. Unfortunately, after a while, I couldn't take it seriously. The more I read, the more I realized I had made a mistake. Then, I was relieved that other people were thinking the same way I was, so it was an easy move back.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:have i

angelobrazil wrote:
have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Hmmm, not exactly that, but I've often seem something similar. Rather, I've seen theists who imply that they have no evidence for their beliefs, but believe because they want to believe. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18402

mellestad wrote:
You are a Christian because you are too weak minded to stand on your own, and your internal morality is too weak to be a productive citizen.

Haha!

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:angelobrazil

jcgadfly wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

So, I am an atheist because I want to be immoral.  

 

have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 

Hello. I was a theist for 15 years. Then I sat down and actually read the Bible and it made no sense to my allegedly god-given reason. Now I am an atheist.

Pleased to meet you.

 

well, i honestly doubt you were ever a true, born again christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't be a atheist today. Pleased to meet you as well. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

So, I am an atheist because I want to be immoral.  

 

have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 

Hello. I was a theist for 15 years. Then I sat down and actually read the Bible and it made no sense to my allegedly god-given reason. Now I am an atheist.

Pleased to meet you.

 

well, i honestly doubt you were ever a true, born again christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't be a atheist today. Pleased to meet you as well. 

How do you define a "true, born-again Christian"? I sense it may be "someone who believes what I believe in exactly the way I believe it".

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Yeah,

HisWillness wrote:

Yeah, pretty much the same, except I was exposed to a lot of Catholicism when I was a kid, and that was patently insane. I couldn't believe that adults actually went for that kind of nonsense. Later, as a teenager, I really tried to embrace the bible and give it a chance. Unfortunately, after a while, I couldn't take it seriously. The more I read, the more I realized I had made a mistake. Then, I was relieved that other people were thinking the same way I was, so it was an easy move back.

 

To be a christian isn't really something  based on reason in first place. It's based on faith. And on love the next. It's based on a real experience with God the father, the son, and the holy spirit. It's based on being  spiritually  born again , where someone makes actually a entry into a new family, the family of God. The holy spirit takes place in the heart of this person, and he becomes a new creation. When someone gets the seal of the holy spirit, nothing will be able to separate this person from the grace of god. this person will even give its life, to defend its faith.

 

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth,11 unless a person is born of water and spirit,12 he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh,13 and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 3:7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all14 be born from above.

 

Cor.5:17 So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away32 – look, what is new33 has come!34 

 

beside this, you must really KNOW God :

 

 John 17:3 Now this7 is eternal life8 – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,9 whom you sent.

 

Philippians 1:6 For I am sure of this very thing,9that the one10 who began a good work in11 you will perfect it12 until the day of Christ Jesus.

 

corinthians 1:8 He9 will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Atheism is the only religion, that thinks it doesn't need God. 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:How do you

jcgadfly wrote:

How do you define a "true, born-again Christian"? I sense it may be "someone who believes what I believe in exactly the way I believe it".

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/born-again.html    

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

  

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:jcgadfly

angelobrazil wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

How do you define a "true, born-again Christian"? I sense it may be "someone who believes what I believe in exactly the way I believe it".

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/born-again.html    

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

  

 

Did this stuff 15 years ago - then I stopped being afraid. Why does a being who claims to love his creation rely so much on fear? I don't mean fear as in "having respect for" as one should have when one gives a live electic waie a wide berth. That makes sense. God wants mind numbing, wet yourself into copmpliance and obesiance fear. Why?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:mellestad

angelobrazil wrote:

mellestad wrote:

So, I am an atheist because I want to be immoral.  

 

have i said that ? 

I have never met a atheist, which said that he wished strongly to become a Theist, to believe in the God of the bible, but reason lead him to atheism, therefore he was unable to believe in God.

Atheism has in first instance to do with own personal wishes.  It is perfectly human, that we are biased. And so are people who stick to atheism. I don't think,there is a atheist, which did not first want to be a atheist, and then went after the reasons to justify his choice. 

 

I was a theist for probably 19 years.  When I started to seriously doubt my religion, I was terrified.  I spent half my time desperately searching for answers that made sense because I was scared of hell, and even more scard of ceasing to exist.  I was desperate to convince myself the god I used to believe in was true.

 

I was never able to reconcile what I wanted, with what I found.  Eventually I came to terms with reality and accepted life as an atheist.  Your point is silly, why wouldn't I want to be immortal?  It is easy to be a Christian, and it is a huge, warm blanket.  If I could believe it, I would...but the whole thing is just too crazy.  

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.