Athiests

[JoJo]

I think we are completely off the topic at hand hahaha. I don't think I'll ever really understand that sort of faith unless I get some of it. My mind can be changed by evidence as easy as pie. Richard dawkins story about the Golgi Aparatus from his colledge years resonates with me.

I pray that God will open your eyes to Him and your heart to faith. You wouldn't regret it for a second!

 

[AAA]

My question for you is, which is the more reasonable position, that the universe was created by a Divine Cause, or that it it was due to a random set of events?

It seem to me that the odds are higher for the "Divine Cause" theory, so, therefore, should be the default position. What do you think?

A "random set of events" is pretty deflationary isn't it? I mean, was the grand canyon, in its stunning beauty, designed, or did it arrive by a "random set of events"?

There's no good reason to believe it was designed, but there's also no specific reason to think of it as "just" resulting from "random" events. Our understanding is that it was formed by erosion created by the Colorado River over millions of years. It is perfectly plausible that the water cycle on earth including climactic influences lead to the formation of the Colorado River. The main factor influencing the path that the water took is probably gravity. It is perfectly plausible that physical forces underlie the formation of the Grand Canyon over geological time, so it seems pretty deflationary to think of the Grand Canyon as being "just" due to "random forces". So called "random forces" are responsible for many items of stunning beauty and complexity, including snowflakes and the like, not to mention playing a role in the evolution of all life on Earth from a common ancestor (also influenced by natural means of selection, of course).

If you drop a ball, it always falls down. Is that random, or is that not consistent, special, and beautiful in and of itself? There's no reason to believe that an invisible agent is making sure that all balls always fall down.

Why is it so hard to believe that the origin of the universe may not also be similarly explained by physical forces that we just do not yet understand?

For thousands of years, humans have consistently and wrongly explained the otherwise unexplained by postulating various unseen agents or gods. In taking the default position that the universe was divinely created, you are just perpetuating that naive tradition.

Of course, the fact that humans have only ever been wrong when saying "godidit" does not prove that we are wrong in saying "godidit" when considering the origin of the universe now. I'm the first to admit that. Nevertheless, and most importantly, there simply is no good reason to actually adopt the iron age (or older) idea that "godidit" to explain the origin of the universe or anything else that is unexplained.

Our history of erroneously thinking, time after time, that "godidit" is what actually makes the "godidit" position the unreasonable position. Can't you get out of the iron age and consider the full fruits of thousands of years of human exploration and critical enquiry? The only reasonable position regarding the origin of the universe is "I don't know, but I am glad that there are people employing the intellectually honest discipline of science (ie. doing the hard work) to figure it out".

Its unreasonable to say "godidit" in 2009, and if you make that claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence for it (and to show how you avoid the infinite regress that that statement invokes). If you're not up to that task, then shouldn't you just keep that naive and unsupported position to yourself?

I should add that even if your default position was that the universe was designed, you'd still have no justification for believing that it was "divinely" designed". It's possible that the universe was created by (i) a god that doesn't give a crap about this universe or its conscious inhabitants, or (ii) a purely evil god who revels in the pointless suffering occurring here for millions and millions of years on an unimaginable scale, or (iii) a team of 12 gods who are gambling in a casino on the outcome of the reality entertainment that our universe is providing them, or... well, you get the picture.

You are technically correct in pointing out that I am agnostic, but the term agnostic doesn't do justice to my actual beliefs, which should be clear to you when I say that just as you are an atheists regarding Allah (that is, I bet you wouldn't consider yourself agnostic regarding Allah), so am I an atheist for all sets of theistic beliefs. I am an atheist in the same sense that I am an asasquatchist: I can't prove that sasquatch doesn't exist, but I see no reason to believe that sasquatch does exist, so that's how I live my life.

 

[AAA]

If God is withholding evidence of His existence, who am I to question His motives? I follow the Bible and the Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please him."

If aliens are withholding evidence of their existence, I just don't care. Is my eternity in their hands?

You are admitting that "the world looks as a world with no god would look".

Not so. Because God has spoken to His people, those who recorded their experiences in the Bible, and in our lives today. Also, a world with no God would have no good in it.

Look, I don't base my beliefs solely on scientific evidence. I base them largely on faith, and that is a personal decision. We can debate this round and round all day, but it will always come down to me saying, "I have faith in God's existence."

How do you know that your eternity is in god's hands?

How do you know that god spoke to his people who recorded his word in the bible?

How do you know that a world with no god would have no good in it? What do you mean by "good"?

While I think that you should seriously think about these questions, given our previous interactions here, I agree that you will always just conclude, "I have faith in God's existence", but I don't see why you think that it is reasonable to have that faith.

Why is it ok for someone to say "I have faith in Christ" and not ok for someone to say "I have faith that I won't live to see my 35th birthday", or "I have faith that the holocaust is a hoax", or "I have faith that Elvis is alive" or "I have faith in Zeus" or "I have faith that my horoscope is correct".

What makes it ok for people to accept the preposterous (ie. Gabriel dictated the word of Allah to the prophet Mohammed and then flew to heaven on a winged horse, or a carpenter named Jesus was born of a virgin only to be ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the sins of humanity only to rise from death after 72 hours, or that Shiva is the destroyer of the world, etc.) when it comes to religious beliefs, but not ok in any other domain?

 

[dadof10]

My question for you is, which is the more reasonable position, that the universe was created by a Divine Cause, or that it it was due to a random set of events?

It seem to me that the odds are higher for the "Divine Cause" theory, so, therefore, should be the default position. What do you think?

A "random set of events" is pretty deflationary isn't it? I mean, was the grand canyon, in its stunning beauty, designed, or did it arrive by a "random set of events"?

It evolved over time. I'm not asking about the Grand Canyon, I'm asking which seems a more reasonable theory, that's all.

There's no good reason to believe it was designed, but there's also no specific reason to think of it as "just" resulting from "random" events. Our understanding is that it was formed by erosion created by the Colorado River over millions of years. It is perfectly plausible that the water cycle on earth including climactic influences lead to the formation of the Colorado River. The main factor influencing the path that the water took is probably gravity. It is perfectly plausible that physical forces underlie the formation of the Grand Canyon over geological time, so it seems pretty deflationary to think of the Grand Canyon as being "just" due to "random forces".

Can you please show me where I used the word "just" in this thread? If you are going to respond, please stop poisoning the well.

So called "random forces" are responsible for many items of stunning beauty and complexity, including snowflakes and the like, not to mention playing a role in the evolution of all life on Earth from a common ancestor (also influenced by natural means of selection, of course).

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. I could say "God is responsible for many items of stunning beauty and complexity, including snowflakes and the like, not to mention playing a role in the evolution of all life on Earth from a common ancestor", but that would not prove God exists, or that the creation theory is more reasonable.

If you drop a ball, it always falls down. Is that random, or is that not consistent, special, and beautiful in and of itself? There's no reason to believe that an invisible agent is making sure that all balls always fall down.

Irrelevant to the topic.

Why is it so hard to believe that the origin of the universe may not also be similarly explained by physical forces that we just do not yet understand?

It's really easy to believe that. "I don't know" is the easiest way. You have to prove nothing and can sit back and poke holes in everyone else's theories. But that is not the question. We may not understand everything, but we do understand much. Shouldn't we believe the most reasonable theory until more information becomes available? From the above sentence, you seem to believe in "evolution" and "natural selection", yet it has not been proved. It's still a theory. I assume that if a more reasonable theory came along, you would reject "natural selection". Why is it so hard to accept the most reasonable theory on the topic of the origins of the universe, as you do for the theory of "natural selection"?

For thousands of years, humans have consistently and wrongly explained the otherwise unexplained by postulating various unseen agents or gods. In taking the default position that the universe was divinely created, you are just perpetuating that naive tradition.

First of all, I'm not "taking the default position". This line of questioning is about what the default position should be and why. Secondly, why the ad hom "naive" blast?

Of course, the fact that humans have only ever been wrong when saying "godidit" does not prove that we are wrong in saying "godidit" when considering the origin of the universe now. I'm the first to admit that.

Do you have any proof that "humans have only ever been wrong when saying "godidit""? This is a positive statement that needs proof.

Nevertheless, and most importantly, there simply is no good reason to actually adopt the iron age (or older) idea that "godidit" to explain the origin of the universe or anything else that is unexplained.

Our history of erroneously thinking, time after time, that "godidit" is what actually makes the "godidit" position the unreasonable position.

Because people, ignorant of scientific facts, ascribe SPECIFIC DETAILS within creation to the miraculous, then are proved wrong, that somehow makes the ENTIRE CREATION THEORY unreasonable? How so?

Can't you get out of the iron age and consider the full fruits of thousands of years of human exploration and critical enquiry?

More ad hom attacks. Are you having fun?

The only reasonable position regarding the origin of the universe is "I don't know, but I am glad that there are people employing the intellectually honest discipline of science (ie. doing the hard work) to figure it out".

"I don't know" is not a theory, it is a position. I'm asking which theory is more reasonable.

Its unreasonable to say "godidit" in 2009, and if you make that claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence for it (and to show how you avoid the infinite regress that that statement invokes). If you're not up to that task, then shouldn't you just keep that naive and unsupported position to yourself?

All you have done is attack me for being "naive" and still in "the iron age", and claimed a position (I don't know) is the most reasonable theory. Maybe you should keep your non-theories and ad homs to yourself.

I should add that even if your default position was that the universe was designed, you'd still have no justification for believing that it was "divinely" designed". It's possible that the universe was created by (i) a god that doesn't give a crap about this universe or its conscious inhabitants, or (ii) a purely evil god who revels in the pointless suffering occurring here for millions and millions of years on an unimaginable scale, or (iii) a team of 12 gods who are gambling in a casino on the outcome of the reality entertainment that our universe is providing them, or... well, you get the picture.

The only two theories that I know of for creation are "Cause" and "Randomness". "I don't know" is not one. If there are others, please enlighten us "naive" Christians. If you wish to pontificate about the Grand Canyon and the iron age, please go somewhere else, because you are not answering my question.

You are technically correct in pointing out that I am agnostic, but the term agnostic doesn't do justice to my actual beliefs, which should be clear to you when I say that just as you are an atheists regarding Allah (that is, I bet you wouldn't consider yourself agnostic regarding Allah), so am I an atheist for all sets of theistic beliefs. I am an atheist in the same sense that I am an asasquatchist: I can't prove that sasquatch doesn't exist, but I see no reason to believe that sasquatch does exist, so that's how I live my life.

Due to your abrasiveness, I don't care.

 

[JoJo]

While I think that you should seriously think about these questions, given our previous interactions here, I agree that you will always just conclude, "I have faith in God's existence", but I don't see why you think that it is reasonable to have that faith.

Why do you care? Seriously, I want to know. Am I hurting you? Am I hurting others? Are my beliefs imposing on you somehow?

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I'de like to take a stab at this if you don't mind. I'm not an atheist, but I'm quite familar with naturalistic thinking and consider myself agnostic.

I have a question that has never been answered by Atheists and I have been asking for years. Maybe you could give it a shot.

Sure.

The burden of proof, it's said, is on the person who believes in a Creator. The Atheist equates unicorns, bigfoot, ufo's, etc. with belief in God.

The burdon of proof is on who poses the question. If a Christian/Theist claims that a diety or God exists, burdon of proof is on them. If a Naturalist/ Atheist claims that there is no god (s), then the burdon of proof is on them. Neither side is in perpetual need of proof, its all context.

That's all well and good, because the default position, the one without the burden of proof, should be the most reasonable one. In the case of fictional characters, the more reasonable position is that they DON'T exist, until proved otherwise.

Reason is relative to experiance and ignorance. Evidence is the deciding factor. The only default position is ignorance. A person isn't born knowing what anything is. It can sense, but not define. So Atheism and Agnosticism take that arena.

My question for you is, which is the more reasonable position, that the universe was created by a Divine Cause, or that it it was due to a random set of events?

Well both are out there. I think we need to explain what those random events are though. They where random then, but now we have an idea of how they work.

My point of view is that the universe is Eternal and always was, so the random events make the most reasonable argument to me. The Big Bang took place when there was no time, so eternal existance and the laws of physics clicks with me, though I can't be for certain, so I wait to see what more can be descrived and tested. Though a person who beleives that everything has a beginning and end would side with a creator. Both sides are reasonable and both share cons and pros.

It seem to me that the odds are higher for the "Divine Cause" theory, so, therefore, should be the default position. What do you think?

I think you need to show why it is more resonable. As I explained above reson is reltive based on world view. Nothing to comples is needed, just an explanation of why oyou take the position. ;)

 

[AAA]

I see that we have gotten off on the wrong foot. Let me start by apologizing for having offended you and for seeming abrasive. That was not my intention, though I continue to think that divine creation is naive, in the same sense that I think that belief in astrology is naive. I'm just calling what I think is a spade a spade.

There is much for me to respond to in your post, and I am tired, so I will have to continue over the next couple of days.

Let me just indicate that you are guilty of a fallacy here, and I think that this fallacy is at the heart of our different perspectives:

you seem to believe in "evolution" and "natural selection", yet it has not been proved. It's still a theory. I assume that if a more reasonable theory came along, you would reject "natural selection". Why is it so hard to accept the most reasonable theory on the topic of the origins of the universe, as you do for the theory of "natural selection"?

The fallacy is called equivocation: you are equivocating in your use of the word theory. As it relates to evolution, the word has a particular scientific meaning. As it relates to creation, the word really means guess, hunch, or speculation. There is a big difference in those 2 meanings of the word "theory" which your quote above does not acknowledge.

 

[AAA]

While I think that you should seriously think about these questions, given our previous interactions here, I agree that you will always just conclude, "I have faith in God's existence", but I don't see why you think that it is reasonable to have that faith.

Why do you care? Seriously, I want to know. Am I hurting you? Am I hurting others? Are my beliefs imposing on you somehow?

I'm too tired to answer in my own words right now, but I know that my answer would be along the lines of what a fellow Christian-turned-atheist wrote when asked, "What drives your desire to engage people of faith regarding the unreasonablity of their faith?"

Here's what he wrote (again, not my words):

"The universe we find ourselves in, as revealed by science, is more surprising and wonderful than any religious fairy tale crafted by human minds. Indeed, reality turns out to be bigger and stranger than human minds can imagine. You can’t make this [stuff] up. Literally.

I ... discovered, as hundreds of millions of atheists around the world already knew, that life can be full of purpose and meaning and morality without God.

It turned out that my discovery of critical thinking and atheism was the best thing that ever happened to me. And when something transforms your life for the better, you want to share it with people. So that’s one reason I engage people of faith.

But Christianity had transformed my life for the better, too. So there’s something else going on here. It’s this: I engage people of faith because I care about the truth.

Truth matters. If God does not exist, billions of believers are wasting a lot of time and money and resources that could be devoted instead to making the world a better place. If God does not exist then believers need not fight back science that happens to contradict their Iron Age mythologies. If God does not exist, then believers need not hate and fight and kill each other over whose Book is right or whose religious doctrines are correct. If God does not exist, believers need not terrify their children with fears of hell, or tell them it’s the next life that matters, or train them to accept magical explanations rather than encourage their curiosity to figure out how the world really works. If God does not exist then we don’t need to play intellectual Twister to make the demands of the Old and New Testament relevant and moral. We can just do what is relevant and moral."

I think we're all just searching for the best way to seek truth and to share that with others. Isn't that why you seem to repeatedly engage atheists around here JoJo?

 

[JoJo]

To share the truth, AAA? Oh, that I could! If only you could see! If only atheists didn't put all their eggs in the basket of logic and science while negating the value of faith. What are you afraid of?

Some atheists want so badly to believe that God doesn't exist, don't they? No ultimate authority, no judge, no one to ultimately answer to but themselves and their self-made morality, no fear of eternal damnation apart from God, no worry that their late atheist ancestors, parents, grandparents, friends, sisters, moms, brothers just might be in hell... If you believe it doesn't exist, then surely it doesn't...right?

I think we're all just searching for the best way to seek truth and to share that with others.

So, let's see. You want me to walk away from my Creator, my Provider, my Protector, my Rock, my Comfort, my only real Peace, my Salvation? I once had an atheist tell me that God was my crutch. My response to him was that we are all broken and to have something to lean on ain't a bad thing. No, I reject your idea of truth and I pray that one day you too will find Him.

Jesus Christ is Lord!

 

[AskTheA]

Quite the thread hijack! haha. AAA, if these folks wanted counter apologetics, they know how to find them. Is there a chance that you are PZ Myers? Kidding.

 

[JoJo]

AAA, if these folks wanted counter apologetics, they know how to find them.

You don't have to look far.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Here is a question. Do you as a Atheist look at the watchmaker argument with any significance? Not necersarily as pure creation, but as a way of symbolizing all that is.


Example being, a creation that had to be made out of its complexity, or an eternal entity with continuos revolutions and no battery life known. The idea of possibly an absent watchmaker, or possibly us being the continuos maintaners of the watch?

 

[AskTheA]

I really don't see the appeal of the watchmaker argument in the creationist sense. You are walking in a forest and pick up a watch - hey it's designed. It's designed not because it's complex, but because we've seen people make watches before. A creationist would think the trees are designed, so in a sense, he's walking in a forest of watches, picks up the only non natural (I use the term natural loosely) watch and say, therefore design!
But in the metaphorical sense, hmm. I don't see much there. I suppose you could look at the universe as one giant timekeeper. Time is defined by an sequence of events in a sense, as there is no absolute time (Einstein). I don't see the poetic sexiness that you might be looking for. As maintainers of the watch, I don't see that simply because we seem to only be a small part of it. We can steward earth and whatnot, but if we start talking drake equation, it's really hard to steward say, planet X or some business like that, and who's to say the inhabitants of planet X would want us meddling with them? Naw, I don't see much with a watch metaphor.

On a semi related note, in apologetics, it seems the main dudes use arguments for deism, yet they are christian? I can kinds see some reasoning behind design => god, but I don't see design => Yahweh.

I have another question! Are there any types of "christianity" that you guys don't consider christian? What about smaller sections, JW, Latter Day Saints, 7th day adventists, The Family/Children of God, those sorts?

 

[AAA]

If only atheists didn't put all their eggs in the basket of logic and science while negating the value of faith. What are you afraid of?

Please explain what is the value of faith. This is basically what I was asking when I wrote the following in a previous post:

Why is it ok for someone to say "I have faith in Christ" and not ok for someone to say "I have faith that I won't live to see my 35th birthday", or "I have faith that the holocaust is a hoax", or "I have faith that Elvis is alive" or "I have faith in Zeus" or "I have faith that my horoscope is correct".

What makes it ok for people to accept the preposterous (ie. Gabriel dictated the word of Allah to the prophet Mohammed and then flew to heaven on a winged horse, or a carpenter named Jesus was born of a virgin only to be ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the sins of humanity only to rise from death after 72 hours, or that Shiva is the destroyer of the world, etc.) when it comes to religious beliefs, but not ok in any other domain?

Some atheists want so badly to believe that God doesn't exist, don't they?

What makes you think that atheists want to believe that god doesn't exist? The reality is that we lose everyone we love and/or die. Your world view permits you to live forever in heaven. My belief that god does not exist is not the attractive belief, and I believe it despite that. I think that its much more likely that believers want to believe that god does exist.

 

[JoJo]

I think I've already shown a sampling of the value of faith in my previous posts.

I've also already explained why I think atheists don't want to believe in God (see above post). You are right, however, that believers want to believe God exists. I mean, no one is forcing us to believe it, we desire Him.

 

[AAA]

Some atheists want so badly to believe that God doesn't exist, don't they? No ultimate authority, no judge, no one to ultimately answer to but themselves and their self-made morality, no fear of eternal damnation apart from God, no worry that their late atheist ancestors, parents, grandparents, friends, sisters, moms, brothers just might be in hell... If you believe it doesn't exist, then surely it doesn't...right?

I can't speak with any certainty for all atheists, of course, but I think that most atheists reject belief in god because there just are no good reasons for belief in god, not because they want to reject belief in god.

Nevertheless, let's look at the reasons you've proposed that atheists might want to reject belief in the Christian god:

1. "No ultimate authority, no judge, no one to ultimately answer to but themselvesand their self-made morality, no fear of eternal damnation":

It seems to me that atheism is no more consistent with one wanting to avoid "ultimate" judgement" than Christianity is. Have you forgotten that the cornerstone of Christian theism is the belief that a Christian's sins are forgiven by Christ's blood? The Christian god once required the blood of animals to cleanse sin. For the last 2000 years, it seems that he's been satisfied with the blood of his son, so Christians are off the hook for their sins as long as they believe in the truth of this last sentence.

Furthermore, I am sure we can agree that what one truly believes directly influences one's decisions and actions. Well, I see no evidence that atheists live as though they can get away with anything any more than Christians live as though they can't.

This one's a stand-off at best.

2. "no worry that their late atheist ancestors, parents, grandparents, friends, sisters, moms, brothers just might be in hell":

Its probably true that most atheists who have ever lived grew up in Christian families (in North America at least). Accordingly, the common worry that such an atheist might have is that she would not be able to join her predeceased Christian loved ones who are in heaven. This is almost certainly a much more common fear than the one you have proposed, and so it seems to me that fear about the afterlife position of loved ones would be a much more common motivator towards Christianity than away from it.

There is an incredible fascination with the afterlife and what one's position in it will be on this forum and, I am sure, among Christians in general. Let's face it. The offer of eternal life is a powerful way of making people want to believe in the Christian god. Atheists reject belief in the Christian god despite that.

So JoJo, I don't think your reasons why atheists would want to reject belief in the Christian god really amount to very much.

Nevertheless, its really not that important, since I'm sure we will agree that wanting to believe something isn't a good reason for actually believing it, is it?

 

[JoJo]

So JoJo, I don't think your reasons why atheists would want to reject believe in the Christian god really amount to very much.

That's fine. You don't have to agree with my assessment.

By the way, Christians capitalize the name of God. But you know that, I'm sure. I have difficulty reading sentences that use lowercase to describe the God of the universe. Therefore, I will not be reading anymore posts that blatantly portray God as just another god.

 

[AAA]

I have difficulty reading sentences that use lowercase to describe the God of the universe. Therefore, I will not be reading anymore posts that blatantly portray God as just another god.

What kind of difficulty? What do you mean JoJo?

 

[AskTheA]

This thread is turning into another go-nowhere hit-yourself-in-the-head-with-a-hammer atheist vs christian thread.
AAA, you know very well that forum threads are the worst possible place to have debates. And you know your audience here. The ideal fuction of this thread is not the usual "pwning" and whatnot. We were having a nice debate about opinions and sociology, what it means to be convinced etc. You sir/madame, are pooping the proverbial party.
Christians, you also know what you're dealing with with this person. Average Atheist Anti-Apologist will not be convinced that you are justified in your beleifs unless you use objective evidence.

WRT God v god, I try to use Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit when I'm talking about those things specifically, and I use god when talking about a deistic god.

Feel free to drop in your 2cents about the questions and whatnot, AAA, but please please leave the arugments against faith/God/magic for another thread.

I just had Thanksgiving dinner and went to one of the best concerts of my life. 15 bands, Deathmetal Black Metal Speed metal all of that. I'm sore from mosh-pitting but I'm all smiles.

 

[AAA]

Christians, you also know what you're dealing with with this person. Average Atheist Anti-Apologist will not be convinced that you are justified in your beleifs unless you use objective evidence.

That is the main point isn't it (though I would replace "objective evidence" with "evidence and reason")? I mean, atheism vs theism is just one part of the struggle. The greater issue is dogma of any kind vs free/critical thought...

In any case, its not the main point of this thread. Sorry 'bout that ATA; I hadn't read the OP carefully.

Having said that, I don't think that you'll be able to avoid the usual discussions.