A Question for Atheists

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A Question for Atheists

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I disagree with you

 

I disagree with you assumption that a person must have an explanation for everything.  If a person doesn't know something then they should just admit that they don't know instead of making up fictional character to explain away all the gaps in their knowledge.  

Second, if human reasoning is too limited to understand god then how can he be the simplest explanation for anything.  Inventing a complex entity does not give you a simple explanation.  That is illogical.

Edit: wanted to reword the last part.

 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 The thing is its you who

 The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know. I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist. Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception. I used to combat religious people all the time. I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see. Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Hey that other guy was

Hey that other guy was right, your explanation didn't really explain anything. If that's a good explanation then my explanation is that the universe was made by non-god. The only things we know about non-god are that it is not god, and it makes universes, and it's otherwise inexplicable. Now my account of the universe's origins is equal to yours.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


atheist6in6a6foxhole
atheist6in6a6foxhole's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-10-17
User is offlineOffline
 i can honestly say that i

 i can honestly say that i just don't understand how it happened. of course, i barely made it out of high school and i have yet to take one single college course, so my opinion doesn't matter anyway. however, i don't think it's fair to just say, "well, i don't understand it, so god probably did it!" that's what the egyptians did when they saw the sun, right? 

and the question of who or what made god is still valid whether you like it or not. you can't give the reasoning that everything needs a creator and then say "except god" because that leads you into infinite regression. god really can't escape that according to anybody's reasoning.

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -George Bush, Sr.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 The "I don't know"

 The "I don't know" rationality you all seem to hold to is flawed when it comes to creation. I can accept it when problems manifest in the material universe but not when it comes to explaining the state of things before the material universe was formed. Creation is the only logical reasoning. Nothing else could have triggered it. This of course leads to the reasoning that a creator exists. It is the only solution. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: The "I

scuppers wrote:

 The "I don't know" rationality you all seem to hold to is flawed when it comes to creation. I can accept it when problems manifest in the material universe but not when it comes to explaining the state of things before the material universe was formed. Creation is the only logical reasoning. Nothing else could have triggered it. This of course leads to the reasoning that a creator exists. It is the only solution. 

Magic is the only solution you have? Why do you prefer that to honesty?

"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


atheist6in6a6foxhole
atheist6in6a6foxhole's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-10-17
User is offlineOffline
 why is that rationality

 why is that rationality flawed? we're admitting that we don't understand or simply don't have a clue how it happened. that seems like rather flawless rationality. making claims with no empirical evidence seems like the flawed rationale for anything, really.

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -George Bush, Sr.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 So according to you

 So according to you something forming out of nothing isn't magical. According to you the only way to refute creation is the hocus pocus of spontaneous materialization due to absolutely no force. Sorry but that doesn't fly logically. 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:  The

"The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know."

I understand you believe you know.  I also understand I don't believe you know. 

"I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist."


If nothing changed peoples beliefs then peoples beliefs would never change.  Peoples beliefs do change therefore you are incorrect.

"Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception."


If you can see through the limitations of human perception then it really isn't a limitation is it?

"I used to combat religious people all the time. I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see."


Yes, if you decide on a conclusion you can usually work your way backwards to find 'evidence' for it.  The real trick, though, is to start with the evidence and work your way to a concussion.

"Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you."

When you don't know "I don't know" is called intellectual honesty.

 
"If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world."


It isn't a final conclusion, it is simple a place holder until you can gain real knowledge.  It's a much better place holder then making things up, which is something that has held back science for many years.

edit: fixed quotes


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Who ever said something came from nothing?

 I would like to ask who ever said something came from nothing. I have never heard a scientist make this claim. The only thing a rational atheist (bc not all atheist are smart) would say is that we don't know where everything came from. We have a really good idea back to a certain point. Being the singularity/Big Bang. But before that no one knows for sure and no one claims to know. There are some very interesting ideas. But we are not to that point yet. Where we differ from you is that we do not fill in the unknown with god. This is classic God of the Gaps theory. Unknown=My god. There is nothing logical about this. In fact it is arrogant and lazy. It is equally logical to say that since science can't claim the origins that means Zeus did it. Why would that be any less likely?

Second thing I would like to ask is this. If there was some sort of creator what makes you think it has to be a god-like deity? Why does the designer have to be a god? Why not an alien doing a science experiment and we are the result? Again "God of the Gaps" Unknown= My version of god. 

You have also shown that you do not even understand the basic concept of the Big Band Theory. It was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space/time. You should read a real book on the subject. Not one of the christian versions that are trying to criticize it. 

As far as Occam's razor goes, in this case there really is no simple explanation for the origins of the universe because we have no idea. 

 

So to finish up I will ask a few questions again. Please answer honestly. 

1. Who ever claimed an atheist believes nothing created everything?

2. Is it any less logical to say that Zeus created the universe rather than your god?

3. Why do you assume a creator/designer automatically must be a god? 

4. Have you ever read a scientific book about the Big Band Theory? 

 

 

 

 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Occam was

scuppers wrote:

Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.

A creator that creates the Universe before he switches the light on?

 

 

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There may have never been

There may have never been 'nothing'. 

All that needs to have existed indefinitely was the closest to 'nothing' that Quantum theory seems to suggest is possible to exist. The sort of 'nothing' which appears to be able to randomly generate actual pairs of particles which are complementary in nature which can almost immediately recombine and revert back to a minimal quantity of energy.

This is the sort of thing that Science suggests may be all that is required as the 'ground state; of existence.

This sort of assumption is much more consistent with the correct statement of Occams's principle, which is not about 'simplicity' as such, it is that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Using your interpretation of Occam's Razor, we could justifying "explaining" everything by invoking magic, which is always going to simpler in a naive sense. And of course this is just what primitive peoples have always done -everything not otherwise understood had its own demon or god or whatever to make it happen.

Assuming something like 'God' that can magically do all the unexplained things is bringing in enormous new entity, whereas science is using direct extrapolations from existing and observed phenomena.

'God' begs far more questions about reality than it answers. It actually doesn't answer anything, it is just a label on your ignorance - "the limitations of human reasoning" you refer to.

We are honest in saying about such ultimate questions that "we don't know'. Saying God does not need a justification for its existence whereas our observed reality does, is simple naked assertion and totally unsupportable by anything but naked assertion.

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


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

scuppers wrote:

 So according to you something forming out of nothing isn't magical. According to you the only way to refute creation is the hocus pocus of spontaneous materialization due to absolutely no force. Sorry but that doesn't fly logically. 

Indeed, your view is magical. Please stop ascribing your view to me.

Creation ex nihilo is the idea of the god-believers not the atheists.

"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


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 Theists never seem to

 Theists never seem to describe or provide evidence for any process in which magic creates anything (let alone a universe.)  Do you suppose the universe just squirted out of god's dick in a big god-cum puddle?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Revelation' is just a

'Revelation' is just a feeling, an internal experience, and without any other empirical justification, is just you saying God must exist because the idea makes me feel good.

It has zero truth value, except to demonstrate certain mechanisms in the human mind, and basing an argument for God on such things is a admission of ignorance.

We observe things happening with no apparent cause every day, such as spontaneous radioactive decay. Is God watching every unstable atom in the Universe deciding when to give it a kick? Carefully calculating his timing so that everything is consistent with pure randomness?

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


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Ratdog, historical and

 Ratdog, historical and anthropological study is what led me to believe in God. Once I advanced into the upper thresholds of those fields I realized things didn't add up. I was never religious before I tried to research and contribute to the loose ends in those fields. I was smacked like a ton of bricks when found out what i did. I'll give you one example. I discovered the theory of evolution mirrors elements of the creation story in the Upanishads. I am do not believe in Hinduism but anyone who believes in evolution does to a small extent. In fact many of the ancients, from the Greeks to the tribes of Africa, all were philosophically confounded by the supernatural. Why? These people were not primitive in their thinking. They were just as smart as any human is now. The only logical solution was divine causation. It is only now that we value ourselves in such high esteem that we substitute any notion of God for our own devices. We forget that all over the planet before modern times spirits and serpents were worshipped by many cultures seperated by vast distances. Why did they come up with similar theology? I believe the Bible answers these question in a far more superior fashion then any far- reaching theory about male fallace symbolism or Jungian consciousness. All that crap is just an alternate explanation to make humanity feel good about ourselves. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is equally valid to say

It is equally valid to say that anyone assuming that some entity of a nature to consciously design and create the Universe would have special concern for a totally insignificant life form occupying an utterly infinitesimal proportion of it is truly narcissism of gigantic proportions, and just as much a way of making us feel important in some totally unjustified way.

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


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 That's not true. Religion

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 In fact this fits in with

 In fact this fits in with anthropological study on religion and how they all relate to social structure.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Except that their is no

Except that their is no evidence that societies with high levels of religious belief have less crime than others - in fact there is significant evidence that it can go the other way.

So the 'moral' argument is totally void, or, if anything, a disproof of God.

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


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: That's not

scuppers wrote:

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

Possibly the most stupid post ever, including some of my own.

 

On a side note, I just hope Doomy doesn't see that he's free to kill and maim now.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Its not about crime or

Its not about crime or morals. Its all about you if you're devoid of God. You don't have to hurt but you don't have sacrafice anything to get you what you want. This turns brotherhood into individuality.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I would argue also that the

I would argue also that the idea of a beginning is developed from a deterministic thought process, and that there may be reason to suspect that the universe itself is not purely deterministic.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 scuppers wroteWilliam of

 scuppers wrote

William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.

 

You don't understand Occam's razor. There are simple answers and simpleton answers.

When there two explanations are offered, one must discard the one that explains the least or explains nothing at all, or raises more questions than it answers.

God did it both explains the least and raises more questions than it answers.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Gimme an answer then. I'll

 Gimme an answer then. I'll defend mine. ( I will not accept "I don't know" cause the razor actually has something to cut with my reasoning)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Its not about

scuppers wrote:

Its not about crime or morals. Its all about you if you're devoid of God. You don't have to hurt but you don't have sacrafice anything to get you what you want. This turns brotherhood into individuality.

There is no logical connection between belief in God and the fact that for everybody, achieving some things inevitably requires some sort of 'sacrifice'.

God belief just seems to imply attaching different values to certain things, including some things which only exist in the mind of the believer, so in some cases you are 'sacrificing' something which is purely made-up in the first place.

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


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Since many of you revel in

Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold the Pink Unicornian views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created Pink Unicorns" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... Pink Unicorns did as they exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If they were subject to the limitations in human they wouldn't be Pink Unicorns. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is Pink Unicorns.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: The "I

scuppers wrote:

 The "I don't know" rationality you all seem to hold to is flawed when it comes to creation. I can accept it when problems manifest in the material universe but not when it comes to explaining the state of things before the material universe was formed. Creation is the only logical reasoning. Nothing else could have triggered it. This of course leads to the reasoning that a creator exists. It is the only solution. 

 

You certainly have quite the ego and no humility. Just because abiogenesis has not been scientifically discovered doesn't mean an imaginary being created it. The Bible states that the earth is flat and the earth does not move and the sun goes around the earth. If you lived in the Dark Ages you would be arguing as you are here. Logic and the Bible would dictate these things, but ultimately science proved otherwise. In fact the church persecuted those who thought different. It took 400 years for the church to finally apologize for how they treated Galileo.  I believe this sets quite a precedent to be skeptical of world views originating from a primitive desert religion.

Imaginary and non-existent things look alike.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


StrawberryJam
atheist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-01-22
User is offlineOffline
It's not really your fault you think this way

scuppers wrote:

 Gimme an answer then. I'll defend mine. ( I will not accept "I don't know" cause the razor actually has something to cut with my reasoning)

Humans have a desire and need to put problems to rest. Unsolved problems tend to create anxiety and stress for one who feels the need to have solutions right now. Working on finding the solution seems to be too much effort for most brains, just like asking children to clean their rooms, some will and most will find it drudgery and avoid it, stall it, or shove shit in drawers and closets just to move on hoping the appearance of having a clean room is enough.

There comes a time when we grow up, we realize that if we think we know something, we in fact know very little, and that there are so many things we have no knowledge of. It is wise to admit what we do not know, and very foolish to think we know with absolute certainty what we do not.

I would think if your God saw how much thought went into his existance by non believers, he would be ashamed of his believers for not giving it one whit of thought at all in most cases.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: The thing

scuppers wrote:

 The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know. I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist. Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception.  I used to combat religious people all the time.  I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see. Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

Hmmmmm.... a concerned troll.... esoteric knowledge .... he who has ears let him hear

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:I cannot

scuppers wrote:

I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

Omg, that could be one of the dumbest things i've ever heard, and quite ironic actually.  Saying "I don't know" is a great and honest conclusion, we advance by trying to find the awners to things we don't know, are you dumb or something?  When someone like you can't handle the "I don't kinow" and then inserts god, YOU are the one not allowing knowledge to advance and progress by claiming you already have the awnser, which is unprovable.  Give your head a shake man!!!


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Creation is

scuppers wrote:

 Creation is the only logical reasoning.

Wrong!

scuppers wrote:

Nothing else could have triggered it.

You simply don't know that, and that's what makes you look foolish!


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
neptewn you are 100% wrong.

neptewn you are 100% wrong. The Pink Unicorn is a false god. My Flying Spaghetti Monster is He who created the universe. All hail His noodly apendage.

http://www.venganza.org/

Great tag line "Use your head, or somebody else might".

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:  Your only

scuppers wrote:

  Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

  My greatest dream is to build an animal rescue center for abused animals.  Every animal you take in can cost thousands even tens of thousands, it is a money pit.  You can raise money, but the truth of the matter is most shelter owners pay out of their own pockets to keep the animals alive.  How I am concerned only with material gain exactly?   


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even if some logic points to

Even if some logic points to something 'creating' the Universe, there is no logic requiring it to be intelligent or infinite or omnipotent, etc. 

'Intelligent' in particular would in turn require explanation as to how that came to be, since our observation on Earth is that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon that develops from non-awareness over both the life of an individual and the history of life on Earth.

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


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Let me rephrase the

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 


StrawberryJam
atheist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-01-22
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Let me

scuppers wrote:

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 

 

Each person believes in the Christian God for varying reasons. What is yours? One can not say yours is irrational without facts. Give us the facts.


fcaustic
fcaustic's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Humans didn't used to know

Humans didn't used to know what caused lightning, snowflakes, the seasons, the diversity of life etc. and assumed that these were all things that were caused by a god or gods. We now know, thanks to admitting our ignorance and actually studying them, the natural causes behind these things. You can see the parallel I'm making can't you?

An argument from ignorance is really no argument at all.

 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Each person believes in the

Each person believes in the Christian God for varying reasons. What is yours? One can not say yours is irrational without facts. Give us the facts.

 

I have many. Too many to explain in a post. My particular area of expertise is history and anthropology (especially the hominin fossil record). Two off the bat are 1) Alexander's empire being split into 4 and given to his generals. 2) the fossil record of New World monkeys. Ask me a question if ya like I'll and reply in detail if specific enough. 


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Let me

scuppers wrote:

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 

 

If you've read all the replies so far and you still don't know the answer to that, then you don't really want it.  You're just here to waste other peoples' time. 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:scuppers

Gallowsbait wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 

 

If you've read all the replies so far and you still don't know the answer to that, then you don't really want it.  You're just here to waste other peoples' time. 

Just looking for intelligent debate. Contribute if ya like. I reasoned the Atheist vs. Theist board implied this kind of argument. What would be the point of its existence if everyone just agreed on the issue its named after? That would be a waste of time as all would agree and thus stagnate intellectual stimuli.


DormantDragon
DormantDragon's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Sorry if someone has said this before...

..but sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut, you know? Just have to jump in before I've read the entire thread.

The thing is, saying "I don't know" is not an attempt to rationalise anything - it's an honest admission that we don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion; a statement of exemplary honesty, I might add, when compared with the theist's assertion that if we don't understand how something happened, there must be a giant, brainless mind called God behind it.

Obviously no-one can go back and actually see how the universe got started. But astrophysicists find the cosmic smoking-gun evidence for the Big Bang, and deduce that this is what we should expect to see if the universe as we know it started with the explosion of a small, hot, dense collection of matter.

Now, I am surely no physicist - in fact, when I get to seriously contemplating some of the concepts of physics, I have to sit down, 'cause my head starts spinning - but at least the basics make sense to me. Some physicists propose the existence of a quantum vacuum, which is not nothing, but a chaotic collection of particles, in which the origins of matter, as such, may lie. (Any physicists on the forum, by the way, feel free to correct my simplistic attempt at explanation here). Now, if such a thing as a quantum vacuum preceded and gave rise to the universe as we know it, that is in effect a much simpler explanation than the idea that an infinitely knowledgeable, powerful, creative mind preceded and actively made the universe.

"The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool." - Epicurus


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: That's not

scuppers wrote:

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

What religious people do is invent a god that condones their desires to kill, steal or any other malevolent act toward others. The OT is full of examples of Yaweh telling his 'chosen' people to do these acts. So your only concern is impressing your invisible friend(actually your sub-conscience narcissistic ego). So actually you can treat people like shit as long as your god condones it. Your only concern is gain that makes your after-life easier. The evidence is all around us.

God is after all whatever is convenient for yourself. That's why every theist has a different moral code.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Let me

scuppers wrote:

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 

  I don't think belief in a creator in it's purest form is irrational.  By that I mean people who haven't attached anything specific to this creator they couldn't possibly know, they just look up and they believe we were created.  But as soon as someone starts cliaming they know things about this creator they coudn't possibly know (personality traits, that he likes certain things and not others and likes certian people and not others) to me instantly look so foolish and arrogant I really can't take them seriously.  But I don't have a problem with someone who is a good person and believes in god, ofcourse these independant rational theists who don't belong to any religion are few and far between. 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:scuppers

EXC wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

What religious people do is invent a god that condones their desires to kill, steal or any other malevolent act toward others. The OT is full of examples of Yaweh telling his 'chosen' people to do these acts. So your only concern is impressing your invisible friend(actually your sub-conscience narcissistic ego). So actually you can treat people like shit as long as your god condones it. Your only concern is gain that makes your after-life easier. The evidence is all around us.

God is after all whatever is convenient for yourself. That's why every theist has a different moral code.

I'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemy he didn't mean kill em. Its people that  use religion justify violence. As for the OT, the history of all ancient civilizations are brimming with constant warfare because it was unavoidable. It was killed or be killed. And the Jews didn't win every time in the Bible. Human propensity for evil at its finest( even the Jews occassionally).  It still goes on today. As for narcissism, I believe it much more egotistical and convenient to place humanism as the only logical prospect. It creates de-facto gods out of humanity.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote: I

marshalltenbears wrote:

 I would like to ask who ever said something came from nothing. I have never heard a scientist make this claim. The only thing a rational atheist (bc not all atheist are smart) would say is that we don't know where everything came from. We have a really good idea back to a certain point. Being the singularity/Big Bang. But before that no one knows for sure and no one claims to know. There are some very interesting ideas. But we are not to that point yet. Where we differ from you is that we do not fill in the unknown with god. This is classic God of the Gaps theory. Unknown=My god. There is nothing logical about this. In fact it is arrogant and lazy. It is equally logical to say that since science can't claim the origins that means Zeus did it. Why would that be any less likely?

Second thing I would like to ask is this. If there was some sort of creator what makes you think it has to be a god-like deity? Why does the designer have to be a god? Why not an alien doing a science experiment and we are the result? Again "God of the Gaps" Unknown= My version of god. 

You have also shown that you do not even understand the basic concept of the Big Band Theory. It was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space/time. You should read a real book on the subject. Not one of the christian versions that are trying to criticize it. 

As far as Occam's razor goes, in this case there really is no simple explanation for the origins of the universe because we have no idea. 

 

So to finish up I will ask a few questions again. Please answer honestly. 

1. Who ever claimed an atheist believes nothing created everything?

2. Is it any less logical to say that Zeus created the universe rather than your god?

3. Why do you assume a creator/designer automatically must be a god? 

4. Have you ever read a scientific book about the Big Band Theory? 

 

 

 

 

1. Some friends I know. Me at one time. My apologies for generalizing but no hypothesis= nada. 2. It wasn't at a time. Zues/ Mars/ Osiris/ Appolo/ Mithra/ any other animistic pantheon personification of nature all post date the Hebrew God. The only older evidence of diety worship is from Sumer (Marduk) and a good case can be made that here is the origin of all those other pantheons. In fact the Romans recognized them as the same representations. I chose the one that didn't change. 3. A creator would observe his creation and make his presence known.In fact the notion of creation implies intent. Prophecy and Jesus do this.  Thats why the other gods died in the annals of history. They were empty. 4. No I have never read a science book specifically on the Big Bang but am quite familiar with the basics of the theory. That's why I stipulated the answer for the creation of the dense matter before it exploded. It was intentionally worded this way to spark explanations that mirror religious tenets. I was wrong to assume. Most were prepared for my reasoning quite adeptly and I am impressed. Won't change my mind though. I'm up to the challenge of defending my belief.  


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:scuppers

ex-minister wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 The "I don't know" rationality you all seem to hold to is flawed when it comes to creation. I can accept it when problems manifest in the material universe but not when it comes to explaining the state of things before the material universe was formed. Creation is the only logical reasoning. Nothing else could have triggered it. This of course leads to the reasoning that a creator exists. It is the only solution. 

 

You certainly have quite the ego and no humility. Just because abiogenesis has not been scientifically discovered doesn't mean an imaginary being created it. The Bible states that the earth is flat and the earth does not move and the sun goes around the earth. If you lived in the Dark Ages you would be arguing as you are here. Logic and the Bible would dictate these things, but ultimately science proved otherwise. In fact the church persecuted those who thought different. It took 400 years for the church to finally apologize for how they treated Galileo.  I believe this sets quite a precedent to be skeptical of world views originating from a primitive desert religion.

Imaginary and non-existent things look alike.

 

If you believe abiogenesis tookplace that's faith in its purest form. The Bible doesn't state that the Earth if flat it states its round (Isaiah 40:22) Tell me where if ya can. It was logical reasoning at the time that led them to that belief. The best hypothesis as it were. The Catholic Church leaders all fell prey to their human inclinations toward sin. Galileo was a good Christian. He was friends with the Pope and well respected in intellectual circles in highly religious late 16th and early 17th century Italy. He was convinced that Christianity and the Copernician view were not just compatible but complimentary. He visited Rome 5 times in attempts to get permission to publish his book. He almost succeeded. He never lost his faith while under house arrest. Good book about these visits is Galileo in Rome: A Troublesome Genius by William R. Rhea (a secular historian) It contains huge portions of his letters to the Pope, Vatican officials, and others  such as religious officials and powerful leaders/families of Florence and Rome, and more.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:scuppers

ex-minister wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know. I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist. Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception.  I used to combat religious people all the time.  I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see. Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

Hmmmmm.... a concerned troll.... esoteric knowledge .... he who has ears let him hear

i'm merely participating on a board that I thought encourages this kind of debate. If ya want philosophy that only agrees with your point then don't respond. Personal attacks don't constitute as a legitimate response.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 

  I don't think belief in a creator in it's purest form is irrational.  By that I mean people who haven't attached anything specific to this creator they couldn't possibly know, they just look up and they believe we were created.  But as soon as someone starts cliaming they know things about this creator they coudn't possibly know (personality traits, that he likes certain things and not others and likes certian people and not others) to me instantly look so foolish and arrogant I really can't take them seriously.  But I don't have a problem with someone who is a good person and believes in god, ofcourse these independant rational theists who don't belong to any religion are few and far between. 

If the agnostic position merits consideration ya have to consider one thing. Why would a creator sever the ties to creation as soon as its completed? An artist signs his work when done doesn't he/she. Besides personalities are human descriptors. People ascribe them to God based on their belief or preference. For example, most adherents believe God is love and compassion. Some atheists despise God so much they describe him as vindictive and cruel. Others appreciate the charity and self-restraint it provided for so long but now feel its not needed anymore. We can all apply context as evidence for these views. The truth is no personality can fit something that's not a person. 


fcaustic
fcaustic's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-01-24
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:If the

scuppers wrote:
If the agnostic position merits consideration ya have to consider one thing. Why would a creator sever the ties to creation as soon as its completed? An artist signs his work when done doesn't he/she. Besides personalities are human descriptors. People ascribe them to God based on their belief or preference. For example, most adherents believe God is love and compassion. Some atheists despise God so much they describe him as vindictive and cruel. Others appreciate the charity and self-restraint it provided for so long but now feel its not needed anymore. We can all apply context as evidence for these views. The truth is no personality can fit something that's not a person. 

If a creator does exist they're being pretty damn discrete about it. I mean why not simply write in the sky "It was me. -God"?

How could an atheist despise a god? You might as well say that atheists despise Sauron, or Voldemort. I think the god described in the Bible (at least in the OT) is an irrational tosser, but I'm also pretty darn sure he doesn't exist so I can hardly despise him.