| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
All people believe in god. Atheists simply believe that humans are the greatest and only authority. Christians believe that God (the Trinity) is the greatest and only authority. Muslims believe that God (Allah) is the greatest and only authority. Etc. The question is whether there is IRREFUTABLE evidence for the god of ANY belief. I submit that there isn't. | ||
| 2734 |
This is what I was waiting on and I knew it would finally surface... >>>prove I am not sitting on a purple dragon at this very moment. Take a picture of yourself showing applicable view and post it on the internet. No purple dragon, proof complete. Two plus two does not equal five. It's beyond elementary to prove a negative.<<<<< Too easy... snap us a pic of god and you'll make a Atheisim a thing of the past. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
I should mention that even though Fred is camera shy, his mom LOVES to make appearances on wooden doors, window reflections, toast, grilled cheese, heck she's all over the place... | ||
| Superdavetfft |
2734 +1 hehe but they do exist! I like that photo of jesus from the movie dogma, the whole thumbs up, you da man attitude is much more appealing than that mutilated cross thing...  | ||
| Blake |
More from SDave... A person with no knowledge of science or how the universe actually works will attribute it to a deity. Maybe so. What about those with good understanding or even exceptional understanding of science and the universe? Plenty of them hold that purely naturalistic causation of the universe and life is unlikely. Over the centuries each society has built civilizations with gods that fit their knowledge at the time. It is fallacious to try to posit an invalidity in all deistic beliefs based on the agreed (proved) invalidity of some. Primitive man had gods for everything or spirits in the Native American culture. Some did, others did not. As stated above, one or any collection of fallacious deistic beliefs in no way renders others fallacious. To contend so is like contending that since 2+2=5 is false, that all math is false. It just isn't logically valid. As their knowledge grew their perspective changed and they realized fire wasn't magical, it was merely rapid oxidization of a combustible fuel. I'm not sure what deistic belief held that fire was magical. I don't see how that relates to the issue of origins. The issue of religion is not prerequisite to consideration of the issue of origins. I wish all the atheists arguing the point would just drop it and debate the issue of origins on its own. Apparently that is impossible. If they cannot attack religion, they have no motive.  As man continues to strive intellectually this perspective will continue to expand and provide the observer with a more grand understanding of things. You mean like actually reading and argument instead of just the title? This is another reason why scientists are usually atheists as they have that very perspective that affords them insight into the workings of the universe. Huh? I'm darn near a scientist; just more practical. I'm an engineering analyst with a background in advanced math, physics, and testing (lab work). I'm no atheist. I might agree that most university "scientists" are atheists. It's pretty much a prerequisite for the job these days. The scientist will continue to grow as he strives to answer other questions as well. However the theist will never grow because by placing 'god' at the end of every question they block themselves from gaining the very perspective they need in order to understand. The originator of the currently favored "big bang theory" was a catholic priest. I don't know any believer anywhere who "(places) 'god' at the end of every question." Physics and science are real and provide answers to explain how stuff works. They do not explain how stuff and life came to be. Science is often wrong, biased, and polluted with personal agenda, sometimes to the GREAT detriment of mankind. Prove the feasibility of abiogenesis and the birth of the universe through purely naturalistic mechanisms. It is pure fantasy from what I've learned. | ||
| Blake |
More from SDave... Fact is that I don't know if a deity exists Nice. I respect that. ... you don't know, nobody does BUT that does not provide religion license just to say 'god did it' for every question science hasn't yet answered. I have no idea what you are talking about. Religion need not be involved. For instance, at one time science did not know about microbes. Yet they were theorized and discussed as plausible explanations for various maladies. How is that valid, but discussion of a heretofore unknown (scientifically speaking) being existing outside the limits of space-time is not? Why, because you cannot fathom such a being? Well some couldn't fathom the existence of microbes, yeah they were "scientists." Science provides the answers, provable, testable, reproducable, observable FACTS based on evidence and backed up by public & open peer review and discussion. This line of discussion is going nowhere. Religion provides blinders, 'just do what the church says and don't ask any questions'. How well can a person learn and grow with blinders on? What does religion have to do with the most plausible explanation for origins? That said, your understanding of religion is incredibly poor. "Don't ask any questions"? LOL! What chuch is that, the church of Obama? LOL! Nothing irritates many clergy more than people who don't engage and question. You would be welcome at many churches to engage in thoughtful discussion of origins or about scripture. You should try it. Education is good.  | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Since the atheist view is that theism is false then all they have to do is refute theism's positions. Theism takes the position that God exists. Atheism refuses to take this at face value and takes the position that without evidence there is no reason to believe that god(s) exist. Atheist don't have to prove that god doesn't exist only that the evidence and theory behind the existence of god is faulty. I've not researched the existence of Socrates. I assume there is physical evidence of his existence in at the very least his writings and writings about him from his time. Now I can see that you might lead this to Jesus and other prophets by way of religious texts. But we're not having a debate over the existence of them. They could and most likely did exist. But were they what they claimed to be? Aliens... they may exists and there are numerous 1st hand accounts. But without physical evidence they're no more substantial than accounts of angels, ghosts, ect. There's actually an equation that was developed to try to quantify the likelihood of life developing in a galaxy. But considering that the equation was developed with only one known (our solar system) how reliably can it be? 1. the cosmological argument from contingency <----- creationism 2. the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe <--- Creationism 3. the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties <----Personal Belief 4. the teleological argument from fine-tuning <-----Creationism/ID 5. the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality <---- Personal Belief Craig further summarizes: 1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe. <----Creationism 2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. <---Creationism/ID 3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world. <---Personal Belief 4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. <---Biblical Text 5. God can be immediately known and experienced. <---Personal Belief Much of that is Creationism Theory, it's from different angles but it's the same idea. Maybe I need to listen to it again and examine his arguments further. But that's the overview that I got the first time listening. Granted I was also doing other things at the time. If Hitchens wanted to effectively debate Craig then he should have attacked creationism since that was the only argument I felt had real substance. However, what I mostly heard from him, again I wasn't hanging on every word, were arguments against the morality and fallibility of religion. | ||
| Sifo |
I see that no one is willing to take the challenge to discuss my points about DNA. That would have been discussion on purely scientific theory. Instead I see a lot of complaining about theists being unwilling to discuss things in a scientific light. Interesting.  I get the feeling that responses to this (and other similar threads) are more about trying to bash theists than about discussing anything. I guess I'm done unless I happen to see something worthwhile come up. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>All people believe in god. << Nope, they don't. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sure they do. It's just that god, that which is the highest authority, is man himself. Isn't that ultimately the issue at hand. | ||
| Danger_dave |
agnostic noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. | ||
| Danger_dave |
'scuse the cut and paste - I'm writing other stuff as well. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Understood. I have no problem with someone who claims to be agnostic or atheist. They have made a decision on God or have at least punted on the decision on God (which is simply a deferred refutation of God). I don't agree with the decision, but a choice has been made. If there is no God, what authority is there above man? | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, I consider Geology to be an observational science. many parts of Geology are not open to easy viewing, as much has to do with deep conditions and events under miles of rock. So.. Assumptions are made, and if found false, new assumptions take their place. ( if the politics isn't preventing that. See Lysenko ) At the edge of what's thought to be known, and certainly in the question of origins, some assumptions overlap with religious faith. As more is known, those edges move. Some concepts of creation, "religious" or "scientific" have been shown wrong in the past. Most of those concepts, such as the "age of the Earth" as figured from biblical sources, are creations of later men seeking understanding, and are not proof or disproof of the Gods. It doesn't matter if such concepts become dogma, or even well accepted by the public. And some theories may never be proven no matter how pretty the computer animation is. I like the planetary impact theory of Lunar creation, but will have to wait until we get ftl travel & much better telescopes to know for sure. Many of the "soft sciences" have only partial grounding in scientific method. It's not a sharp line sometimes. I consider the ideas of a popular and, we are told, brilliant economist to be guesses based on theories not tested taken as dogma, far more philosophy than science. OTOH, some studies from marketing firms show remarkable understanding of human nature. Flat Earth. People who lived in valleys and never leave think the planet is a bowl. But from the time of Aristotle, the well educated knew, and even with a very imperfect idea of what went around what, were able to do calenders and astronomical predictions. http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/notes _size_shape.htm | ||
| Aesquire |
On DNA, Seems to me that spontaneous creation of DNA by random chance is unlikely. I got nothing to prove that, but I also know long odds happen. In the end, I don't know. | ||
| Blake |
More from Tankhead... I have viewed the dawkins craig debate before many times. Impossible since they've never debated. Dr. Craig has addressed some of the flawed reasoning and faulty logic that Dawkins uses in his books. Craig producing scripture as argument is (AS ALWAYS IN EVERY ARGUMENT) A MOOT POINT. Not if the scripture is employed in scholarly fashion as with any other historic work of literature. The idea that biblical literature is invalid as evidence is nonsense, a notion strongly rejected by any reputable historian. Your point fails to recognize how Dr. Craig uses historic literature in his argument. Is it quite the possibility that the atheist in the op thread takes Dawkins stand lately about not wasting time debating over and over and over again with both sides stating the same arguments? No that is not possible since she had already committed to the debate. I would consider but I do not assume like Blake has. You assume much, and most of it wrong. See above. SDave stated: There isn't a creationist on this planet that could keep up intellectually with Hitchens or Dawkins. Especially that idiot Ray Comfort and his banana argument (look into it, it's pretty funny). Essentially debating a creationist is like arguing with someone who thinks the world is flat as Dawkins states in the above clip. That said you don't need to be a genius to debate a creationist, just ask politely - 'prove it'. Science can prove it, evolution is a fact, not theory and you can google that all you like to learn more. Science doesn't know everything but that does NOT give religions license to state 'god did it'. That merely states that science has not yet figured it out, but it will in time. I agree 100% LOL! See my rebuttal to SDave. You agree 100%? But you don't assume anything? LOL! Craig also talks about, in the debate that I listed, that no ever said that we should serve God, but rather work towards being like god. I have heard many Born again and or religious people say to me and in interviews that they are servants of the lord. Which is it. A is A. A can't be A sometimes and B other times. I have no idea what you are talking about, other than what I understand folks mean when they say they aim to server the lord. They mean to live according to god's will as clarified by Jesus. This has zero to do with the question of origins. As stated repeatedly, it seems impossible for atheists to debate the topic of origins without waging criticism of religion. It's a bizarre thing. SDave stated: Atheists don't claim anything and this is probably the #1 most misunderstood/misrepresented piece of info out there regarding atheism. Atheists simply state 'we do not know', that is all. Theists claim they DO know and that 'god did it' is the answer for everything. So then the atheist merely requests that the theist provide proof of their claim. I agree 100% See my response to SDave's comments in my prior post. In short, you're 100% wrong. | ||
| Froggy |
Until some superior alien race shows up and enslaves us, nothing. | ||
| Etennuly |
If there is no God, what authority is there above man? First and foremost is what we all call 'Mother Nature'. We are all at the whim of what Nature's forces will have of us. Religious, non religious, believers, sinners, atheists it does not matter. Earth's or the Universe's Nature makes all humans equal at it's time of action. Throughout the known time of man the unexplainable, overwhelming, unstoppable forces of Nature have been given the term God and a name. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Nature isn't an authority. It's merely the physical universe. A recognized God who is completely irrelevant isn't God. For someone to state that there is God, that entity MUST occupy the position of authority. Conversely, whatever is recognized as the ultimate authority becomes God. For some, it is a worship of nature. For others it is Allah. For still others, it is the trinity. For atheists, man itself holds that position. Or in other words, "I am my own ultimate authority." For agnostics, Man itself is the ultimate authority until I find something else. | ||
| Blake |
more from SDave... When discussing religion, you can only do so (with any possible result that is) when both parties are allowed similar perspectives. If I engage a 3 year old in a discussion about how the internal combustion engine works then we know it's obviously pointless because the child has no concept of chemical reactions causing pressure to rotate hardened steel etc etc. The concepts, the building blocks, of that basic knowledge required to participate in that discussion simply are not there. If I were to engage a religious zealot who's been indoctrinated with church teachings since birth and continues to follow church teachings only without expanding their knowledge into other realms (such as science, biology, etc etc) then to debate them would be just as foolish yes? I don't know. It depends upon the topic of debate. Regardless, you've created a straw man. The person simply doesn't have that perspective and cannot understand the atheist's points, no matter how well founded. I don't see that, but I don't know anyone who fits the odd character you've defined. The same can be said of 'true believers'. Are you talking about yourself? Your belief in atheism is quite amazing especially since you have provided little to nothing to support it other than "if it ain't proved by science I don't believe it" which is an intellectually bankrupt base of belief or non-belief. If you have an individual that has the religious blinders on so tightly that they cannot even consider an alternate view of the universe other than their personal 'god' there is not any point in engaging that person in discussion. What about someone who is not religious much at all, is a scientist well versed in cosmological issues? You seem to imagine all who find evidence (there's that darn scientific word again) for intelligent design only come to that by predisposition, by their religious faith. You couldn't be more wrong. You're wrong a heck of a lot, a bewilderingly amount actually, so it's not surprising. A number of atheist scientists, after having considered some of the recent revelations of science concerning DNA and the big bang and others have renounced their atheism and found evidence that a creator is the most probably explanation for our universe and life. Unfortunately there are many people that fall into one of those categories and until they, individually, decide to open their minds and think about things critically we cannot do anything to sway them. Look in the mirror. You could even go so far as to draw a parallel between religion and substance abuse. The individual must seek a solution or answers on their own. You can't force a drunk to sober up any more than you can force a true believer to believe facts. Again, look in the mirror. And really, sinking into yet more derision of people of faith. Bizarre. What I get from you SDave is just a lot of incredibly inaccurate pontificating with nothing in the way of actual scientifically valid debate, the very thing you seem to revere so much. It's beyond absurd. You'll do anything but thoughtfully address the actual topic. It's maddening. and Blake... I really don't know what else to tell you regarding the definition of an atheist. I deny any deity exists... That's different than saying you don't know. To deny something is pretty clearly a definite statement. You've now managed to contradict even yourself now. It's amazing. ...I don't believe it, I won't until something is proven and done so using proper peer reviewed scientific method. I don't think you even know what that is Dave. You don't even take the trouble to read that which you criticize and you talk about scientific method? Thus I'm an atheist and yet since I'm not 100% certain, nor is anyone, I cannot say that there is not some being that could be considered a 'god'. That puts me in that 6.9 area... But you just said that you "deny" that god exists.  My next question to you is that since science hasn't proved that the universe and life sprang forth purely by naturalistic mechanisms, which is the atheist standpoint, how is it you pretend to adhere to scientific proofs only? If you honestly only believed that which science reveals, then you certainly could not believe that the universe and live happened by only naturalistic mechanisms. If what you claim were true, you would have to be a straight agnostic, one who does not know, because that is exactly the state of science on the issue of origins. Even your own belief doesn't follow what you profess SDave. | ||
| Blake |
Vern, Throughout the known time of man the unexplainable, overwhelming, unstoppable forces of Nature have been given the term God and a name. I don't understand what you mean, "the term God and a name"? Pretty sure they were called "hurricanes" and "tornadoes" and "earthquakes" and "volcanoes" etc, for a long long time. Now that *GD* bird poo that landed on my clean shirt is another matter!  | ||
| Xdigitalx |
People of faith live longer. There are no superior alien race's. We are the rulers of the Universe. We just need to build better rockets. | ||
| Blake |
I think the aversion of some atheists to discussing the question of origins and choosing instead time and time again to focus on religion and people of faith is just an admission that they really have no compelling evidence to support their belief that the universe and life arose by purely naturalistic mechanisms. Theists don't suffer that issue. We can look around and see a wealth of evidence supporting the idea that the universe and life are a product of conscious intent, of infinitely intelligent design. | ||
| Aesquire |
That assumption that we are on top of the Galactic food chain is based on so little data. Not seeing tv messages from the Galactic Overlord, or the alien I Love Lucy, doesn't mean vast Empires aren't out there. Not all religions consider Gods to be perfect. Often the faith is based on a soap opera of betrayal, unfaithfulness and failure. Either the Gods themselves, ( Greek, Indian, Norse, etc. ) or the followers show blatant bad behavior in religious texts. Most of these are supposed to be morality lessons. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
A galactic alien empire somewhere among the stars doesn't automatically negate the existence of God. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
you can just as well say: That assumption that we are "NOT" on top of the Galactic food chain is based on so little data. Not seeing tv messages from the Galactic Overlord, or the alien I Love Lucy, doesn't mean vast Empires "ARE" out there. The majority of animals here (except for humans, er maybe including humans) will kill another species without question or remorse for food or self defense. Even IF there are other species out there on some planet somewhere in spaceland... I bet they are efficient killers as well, and could give 2 squats about us humans. | ||
| Blake |
It depends XD, if there is objective morality, then they indeed would care about us, just as we care about the whales and dolphins, and such. 2734, This is what I was waiting on and I knew it would finally surface... Too easy... snap us a pic of god and you'll make a Atheisim a thing of the past. You're right, that is too easy, so I'm sorry, but if you're interested in the topic, then you'll have to suffer through the debate like the rest of us. Seriously though, I'm not sure what you think you've demonstrated or revealed. Nothing new that I can see. Clue me in? | ||
| Blake |
FtB, >>> A galactic alien empire somewhere among the stars doesn't automatically negate the existence of God. I don't see how it would make any difference whatsoever to the debate. | ||
| Blake |
Frank, >>> Until some superior alien race shows up and enslaves us, nothing. Do you think it is probable that sentient extraterrestrial life exists? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I don't see how it would make any difference whatsoever to the debate. I agree. Was just adding it to the extra terrestrial discussion. |
