U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-03-2012, 03:24 AM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Maybe you should post my whole response and not just take a sentence out of context. I already went through this and I hate repeating myself. Here's another example anyway.
If the things we observe all have something deeper why wouldn't life itself be like that. We look at the surface of the earth and below it is so much life and microscopic too that we cannot see. When we look out to the universe there are all sorts of EM waves we need special equipment to observe, and who knows what else we still cannot detect. So why would all these things in our observable life have such depth and life itself not. One has to stay open minded. Just as the walls you look at seem so plain there are atoms bonded to form molucules that make that wall and it goes for everything we see. That invisible bond between molecules exists so the depth of life does too. It is only logical. To say that all these things have depyth and life itself doesnot makes no sence. Some more evidence of the existance of God, at least for so many who are willing to be open. But of course for those who stay closed they see none of this.
This is not a new argument, but it is a strawman (1) . It is essentially the sheer complexity and mystery of the workings of matter and bioforms (to avoid the loaded term 'Life' as though it were some mysterious force that had to be 'given' to us) that suggests that it came together through the same inherent properties of basic matter than keeps it working today.

"When we look out to the universe there are all sorts of EM waves we need special equipment to observe, and who knows what else we still cannot detect."

All this 'depth' I may say was discovered by science and not even hinted at by religion which saw it as quite simple and uncomplicated- which it isn't as you recognize.

"To say that all these things have depth and life itself does not makes no sense. Some more evidence of the existence of God,"

There may be a god behind all this or there may not be. The attempt so far to show that there is has not worked very well as had been explained here and elsewhere. The logical position is to be agnostic about it 'I don't know whether there is a god or not' but the logical position there is to to not believe - yet- until we do know.

"One has to stay open minded."

Of course, and that means that one leaves the door open for evidence that there is a 'mind' (god) behind all this but should also go with the present lack of sound evidence for a god (despite the best efforts of Behe, Plantinga and our chum Mystic) and disbelieve in the god -claim until better supported and not take it as a given fact, because we simply don't know one way or the other.

"..evidence of the existence of God, at least for so many who are willing to be open. But of course for those who stay closed they see none of this."

Unless you can produce better evidence for the existence of God (or a sortagod) than the old watchmaker claim and appeals to unknown possbilities, you also logically should be agnostic about it which logically indicates disbelief (until you can) rather than belief in what is really not evidentially supported. To do otherwise is believing in something without sound evidence. It is a belief based on Faith rather than on evidence.

Even if you don't accept that the complexity and depth of life the universe and everything could as well be through natural processes as by a deity doing it all, you could at least see why we don't find the god -claim convincing and have logical and evidence -based support for that view. To be unable to understand that viewpoint is evidence of a truly closed - mind.

(1) to explain this often misused term "]The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
9,779 posts, read 13,355,348 times
Reputation: 11309
Once in a blue moon, usually when drunk, and it only lasts 3-10 seconds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 11:20 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,713,305 times
Reputation: 9029
Doubts? No way.
Very few Atheist doubt there Atheism. However i'm sure every religious person has doubted there belief in god, but there religion gets to there mind and they don't want to admit there doubts because they think they are gonna get punished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,371,891 times
Reputation: 3735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
The saying goes: For those who see it they see it in everything and for those who don't it is in nothing. I see the complexity of life as evidence for example. If you think of just how complex our own bodies are it is very logical that a being of intelligence "put" us together. To me the belief that "we" just happened doesn't make sence. It is like saying a car built itself or just appeared. Some intelligence went into the design and construction of it. Now think of how much more complicated life and human beings are.
Wow! Your rather oversized assumption here, as Nozz puts so eloquently, is based entirely on your particular inability to comprehend complexities, coupled with your personal decision to "believe' in a particular direction for the universe. This out of an infinite number of alternatives, but you also choose the very illogical and easily disproven version.

As well, by your very answers, you demonstrate that you obviously do not understand how more complex things can and do arise from the slow but positively reinforced accumulation of minor positive traits that are reliably duplicated when they contribute to an organism's DNA pool.

You'd be one of those who seemingly demands that a cat gives birth to a dog overnight, thus proving your brand and definition of Evolution. In strong opposition to the actual definition of same.

So sorry. The "whole entity" that is us did not occur overnight as Creationists seem to require in their faulty logic. Nope. Did not happen that way. As any Grade 10 biology student can ellucidate.

Rather than wasting my time and yours here and now, I strongly suggest that you might do a bit of reading on the subject (which I will also predict, as with all the others here, you won't do. That would cause you too much heartache.)

This is worth repeating now:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
So rather than offer any evidence out of the LOTS you claim there is, you just offer a meaningless and empty cliche phrase? See what I mean? You just proved my point. You people claim there is lots of evidence and then never provide a shred of it.

Every. Single. Time.

Complexity is an attribute of the observer, not the observed. If something seems complex to you then this is just a measure of your ability to comprehend it and nothing more. As evidence for a god it certainly is not, especially given the same questions you bypass about human life and it's complexity are still applicable to the god you invent to explain that complexity away. You have answered nothing by inventing such a god. You have just moved all the same questions to that god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
If the things we observe all have something deeper why wouldn't life itself be like that. We look at the surface of the earth and below it is so much life and microscopic too that we cannot see.

When we look out to the universe there are all sorts of EM waves we need special equipment to observe, and who knows what else we still cannot detect.

So why would all these things in our observable life have such depth and life itself not. One has to stay open minded.
And you? Open-minded? Again, you assume that complexity you are in awe of thus requires a Creator of unlimited capabilities. Simply not so, not how it works, or ever did.

Depth comes from Evolved complexity, nothing more. Building a big city out of Legos™ does not make them somehow magical, btw. Logical and accumulative yes: Godly, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Just as the walls you look at seem so plain there are atoms bonded to form molucules that make that wall and it goes for everything we see. That invisible bond between molecules exists so the depth of life does too. It is only logical. To say that all these things have depth and life itself does not makes no sence. Some more evidence of the existance of God, at least for so many who are willing to be open. But of course for those who stay closed they see none of this.
"does not make sense" to you perhaps. Not good enough. For those of us objective scientisty-types who have seriously investigated these things in the most logical ways imaginable, over and over, from many perspectives, the claims FOR a God have inevitably found the "evidence" so very sorely lacking in every case. How often do you demand that we re-investigate it? Until we finally see it your way, and only then?

Horse manure! While we scientists have taken another, and another, and another... objective look-see to be ever more sure of our results, we are always disappointed by the sad and sorry conclusions about God and Creationism, no matter how often or in what manner we look. You of course assume we didn't look hard enough or from the right perspective.

Perhaps that's fair enough (though v. unlikely at this point..): but when we finally go bat-sheizze-blind from squinting YET AGAIN into the microscope in order to satisfy your unending demands, and yet continue to find NOTHING, NADA, then I have to ask you:

When will you finally agree that you might indeed be so very wrong?

Q: what sort of honest research have YOU ever done? Do you even understand the processes involved in honest & thorough research? Give me/us the details please. (PS: don't just quote your bible either. No sale on that tired response.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:10 AM
 
707 posts, read 572,626 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
Those are commonly referred to as fantasies or delusions.
More specifically they are what you refer to as delusions. However if God does exist than it would be you who is being deluded. I've accomplished so much with God in my life that if you believe it to be a delusion or crutch why should I care. My point is that for those of us who believe we believe from our hearts and for those who don't there is nothing they will see as evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:15 AM
 
707 posts, read 572,626 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
So rather than offer any evidence out of the LOTS you claim there is, you just offer a meaningless and empty cliche phrase? See what I mean? You just proved my point. You people claim there is lots of evidence and then never provide a shred of it.

Every. Single. Time.



Complexity is an attribute of the observer, not the observed. If something seems complex to you then this is just a measure of your ability to comprehend it and nothing more. As evidence for a god it certainly is not, especially given the same questions you bypass about human life and it's complexity are still applicable to the god you invent to explain that complexity away. You have answered nothing by inventing such a god. You have just moved all the same questions to that god.
"Complexity is an attribute of the observer, not the observed." This is completely untrue. Just because we do or don't have to means to observe the complexity still exists. I find so many atheists never actually address the question but come back with gibberish "theories" they do not understand but have basically quoted and pasted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:17 AM
 
707 posts, read 572,626 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
That's all you have in rebuttal to facts?

I don't answer to gibberish and copy and pasted "theories" that one does not understand. I like to talk in plain english with people willing to share their thoughts and their own ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:20 AM
 
707 posts, read 572,626 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I once watched a news show where the newsreader was giving the politician a rather hard time -as they do. The politician then asked whether the newreader was a lawyer. This is a bit of a dishonest trick ('I will only entertain queries on these matters from experts in the field') designed to fend off pertinent questions.

I don't think you were doing that, but it's maybe worth repeating my position of not being an accredited expert on anything much, but an ordinary bod who is trying to evaluate the many various claims thrown at me. If I try to address (for example) Mystic's Universal field theory, I am somewhat out of my depth, but by some study, I believe that I have grasped the matter enough to get a grip on the merits and demerits of the theory.

Millions of people are arguing about all sorts of matters and it's right that they should, rather than swallow whatever they are told. Even if they are university graduates, if they graduated in physics, how is that going to help in deciding the ID/evolution debate? We are all laybods in some areas and the right thing to do is to refer to the authorities in the relevant areas. Maybe that's what Zippedisks did - unless he really is an expert in the field.



Indeed we are. The First cause question elicits the response: 'what caused First cause?' Theism tries to find a solution to this by postulating an eternal uncreated force that had the 'Will' (Mystic's useful term, term, I recall) and the ability to be the first cause without itself needing to be caused.

It's a good and even persuasive answer but it does raise the question of why we can't have eternal matter which has inherent qualities of matter-production? This may run counter to the 'something cannot come from nothing' mantra but may look more reasonable than a complex, intelligent, powerful and apparently invisible being which has always existed.

It's all very speculative about areas where we have very little data so of course, I have doubts about that. In fact, I am so open to the possibility of some kind of ongoing creative universal force that we could regard as 'intelligent' and which we might label 'God' that it really isn't a disbelief that I sometimes have doubts about. It is a hypothesis for which I have seen no persuasive evidence and I don't have many doubts about that, just at the moment.

But. when we start to call this hypothetical creative force 'God' and start to link it it with any one of the deities on offer ('Which god?' is a very pertinent question (1), we do have some falsifiable data and stack up it does not. These are the gods (and crypto -gods of the atheist religions like Buddhism (Karma)and scientology (Thetans) of which we can say with very little doubt 'I believe that there is no God'.


(1) has to be a footnote - because the response 'the god of all of them' either means the god of one religion and all the others are wrong (which is back to square one of 'which god?') or it sidelined all religions and leaps back to another square one - a postulated cosmic 'It' which is unproven and rather academic anyway if it doesn't intervene in human affairs as I have no doubt seems to be the case.

As is one truth amung believers: God has always existed or created Himself before the universe. No one can really understand this but some thing are accepted because we don't know any of that except that God existed first. Our belief is in our hearts and not our heads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:23 AM
 
707 posts, read 572,626 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Wow! Your rather oversized assumption here, as Nozz puts so eloquently, is based entirely on your particular inability to comprehend complexities, coupled with your personal decision to "believe' in a particular direction for the universe. This out of an infinite number of alternatives, but you also choose the very illogical and easily disproven version.

As well, by your very answers, you demonstrate that you obviously do not understand how more complex things can and do arise from the slow but positively reinforced accumulation of minor positive traits that are reliably duplicated when they contribute to an organism's DNA pool.

You'd be one of those who seemingly demands that a cat gives birth to a dog overnight, thus proving your brand and definition of Evolution. In strong opposition to the actual definition of same.

So sorry. The "whole entity" that is us did not occur overnight as Creationists seem to require in their faulty logic. Nope. Did not happen that way. As any Grade 10 biology student can ellucidate.

Rather than wasting my time and yours here and now, I strongly suggest that you might do a bit of reading on the subject (which I will also predict, as with all the others here, you won't do. That would cause you too much heartache.)

This is worth repeating now:





And you? Open-minded? Again, you assume that complexity you are in awe of thus requires a Creator of unlimited capabilities. Simply not so, not how it works, or ever did.

Depth comes from Evolved complexity, nothing more. Building a big city out of Legos does not make them somehow magical, btw. Logical and accumulative yes: Godly, no.



"does not make sense" to you perhaps. Not good enough. For those of us objective scientisty-types who have seriously investigated these things in the most logical ways imaginable, over and over, from many perspectives, the claims FOR a God have inevitably found the "evidence" so very sorely lacking in every case. How often do you demand that we re-investigate it? Until we finally see it your way, and only then?

Horse manure! While we scientists have taken another, and another, and another... objective look-see to be ever more sure of our results, we are always disappointed by the sad and sorry conclusions about God and Creationism, no matter how often or in what manner we look. You of course assume we didn't look hard enough or from the right perspective.

Perhaps that's fair enough (though v. unlikely at this point..): but when we finally go bat-sheizze-blind from squinting YET AGAIN into the microscope in order to satisfy your unending demands, and yet continue to find NOTHING, NADA, then I have to ask you:

When will you finally agree that you might indeed be so very wrong?

Q: what sort of honest research have YOU ever done? Do you even understand the processes involved in honest & thorough research? Give me/us the details please. (PS: don't just quote your bible either. No sale on that tired response.)
To say that this one and most important aspect of life is different makes no logical sence. Just think about it. Can everything in this universe have more depth than we can see or know with our 5 sences and life itself not? From a logical point of view the answer is clearly NO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:29 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,280,365 times
Reputation: 2973
Still not presenting any evidence? Proving my point again. You talk and you talk, but no evidence ever gets presented for a god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
"Complexity is an attribute of the observer, not the observed." This is completely untrue.
Fraid not. Just try it some time. Take something you find very easy and present it to someone who finds it very hard.

Take mathematics for example. I find much of it easy. Calculus for example. Yet many people find Calculus massively complicated to understand.

Clearly they and I are looking at the same Calculus. So that is not changing. So what IS changing? The observer that is what. One observer looks and sees it as simple. Another looks and sees it as complicated.

QED, the complexity is a subjective attribute of the observer, not of Calculus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
I find so many atheists never actually address the question but come back with gibberish "theories" they do not understand but have basically quoted and pasted.
Then take it up with them, not me. I have copied and pasted nothing. So you are now ignoring me and just harping on about people who have nothing to do with me. If someone copies and pastes something then pull them up on it. Why mention it to me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top