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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-18-2012, 06:09 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,295,648 times
Reputation: 2973

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
What kind of evidence are you after? That God reveal him/herself to you physically?
This is a question I simply refuse to answer for two reasons:

1) The claim there is a god is yours not mine therefore the burden of saying what the evidence is lies with you not me. In everything from science to law the people making the claims say EXACTLY what their claim is and then THEY tell us what the evidence for that claim is.

2) If I define what evidence I want/expect I close my mind. I do so because I pre-define what I will accept and therefore risk missing or not understanding the ACTUAL evidence if and when it arrives because it does not conform to my expectations/preconceptions. I therefore am willing to consider ALL arguments, evidence, data and arguments put before me without imposing any restrictions on what it has to be or what form it has to take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-18-2012, 06:18 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,521,771 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Perhaps some but I would not say most. The "default" position for most of us is "Here is a question and we do not know the answer to it so let us try to find out". That "default" does not presume anything about accidents, purpose, design, miracles, or anything. It is simply the position of saying "Ok life exists... we do not know why... ideas anyone?" and then evaluating those ideas individually based on their own merits and demerits.

The issue for the atheist v theism discourse is simply that of all the ideas put forward the idea there is a god entity who designed it all is not just slightly... but ENTIRELY... devoid of even a modicum of substantiation. We are therefore forced to say "Sorry we need to dismiss this idea until you can substantiate it.... whats the next idea for consideration???".

The problem is many of our species think simply having an idea automatically lends it not just credibility but substantiation and therefore that idea has to be disproved. Hence the tedious and endless debates with theists as we try to remind them what "burden of proof" means and where it lies.

I am not an "atheist" because I have considered the evidence for a deity and found it wanting. I am an "atheist" because I have asked for 18+ years for the evidence and not been given any TO consider. Comically the people who fail to give any evidence for their claim accuse me of being close minded to the evidence and rejecting it out of hand.

One can NOT reject what one has not even been offered.
We're all human beings and atheists are not as neutral as you claim to be. I don't claim to be 'more rational' than the atheists overall, although I do claim that subjectively speaking, believing the world was designed and created does make more 'common sense' to me given that, looking at the world around us, I can spot the evidence of design. If we consider the cell as a machine, for instance, and see all the machines that required INTELLIGENCE to design, is that not evidence that the cell too may have been designed and manufactured? Whatever force that designed it - now whether that's intelligent or not, is a good question, but if you have a load of bricks and you dropped it from say a plane 1 million times, 1 billion times, I don't think it would ever get close to being a house. That's what some scientists believe happened when cellular life first arose, how the DNA strand randomly formed together something meaningful.

I'm sort of at a crossroads in terms of belief myself. I find myself still convinced of some intelligence, yet I believe man sometimes creates images of what he thinks God is like. Maybe some would consider me an agnostic, because I'm not CERTAIN there is a God, I'm like you in that I am not fully convinced unless there is evidence, but the difference is I believe there is at least some evidence for a Creator. I also freely admit it could be subjective, in that the existence of Creator is something I feel strongly is probably true. By the same token is it not possible that your believing there is no creator, assuming this to be the truth, is also subjective?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 06:20 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,521,771 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
This is a question I simply refuse to answer for two reasons:

1) The claim there is a god is yours not mine therefore the burden of saying what the evidence is lies with you not me. In everything from science to law the people making the claims say EXACTLY what their claim is and then THEY tell us what the evidence for that claim is.

2) If I define what evidence I want/expect I close my mind. I do so because I pre-define what I will accept and therefore risk missing or not understanding the ACTUAL evidence if and when it arrives because it does not conform to my expectations/preconceptions. I therefore am willing to consider ALL arguments, evidence, data and arguments put before me without imposing any restrictions on what it has to be or what form it has to take.
You refuse to answer because you won't accept any possible evidence for a Creator, even when it is offered. The complexity of a cell, for instance. The fact it's like a machine. Do you not accept this as possible evidence for intelligent design? Or do you demand to see God doing it in front of your eyes? The burden isn't completely with the theist, IMO, I think it's sort of an arrogant position to assume so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 06:23 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,521,771 times
Reputation: 11862
Here's an analogy. Air. We can't see it, but we can see the wind blowing. The trees rustling in the wind is evidence that air has mass. Likewise, creation is the visible evidence of the invisible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 06:50 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,295,648 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
We're all human beings and atheists are not as neutral as you claim to be.
All the ones I know are. However as I never tire of pointing out "Atheist" is an arbitrary label and there is no way to generalize or categorize the attitudes and opinions of them as a whole and I have no doubt whatsoever that there are _some_ who think the way you painted it. I was not questioning that some think that way. I was questioning your use of "most". I do not see any reason to think it is the majority or even close to being so.

Regardless I can only speak for myself and I think the correct way is not to presuppose anything at all but to treat open questions as.. just that.. open questions. One should then consider the answers individually and on their own merits that are offered to those questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
believing the world was designed and created does make more 'common sense' to me given that, looking at the world around us, I can spot the evidence of design.
I know of no such evidence. I would also caution anything that seems like "common sense" to you. "Common sense" is often neither common nor sensible and if science has told us anything at all is that whatever the explanations we find for the universe they are not going to conform to "common sense" at all.

"Common sense" beaks down not just slightly but entirely when we look at the very small or the very large in our universe. "Common Sense" really is only applicable to the "middle world" we live in and attempts to apply what is "common sense" to us here to the questions of the universe result only in nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
if you have a load of bricks and you dropped it from say a plane 1 million times, 1 billion times, I don't think it would ever get close to being a house. That's what some scientists believe happened when cellular life first arose
No. It is not. That is just the strawman misrepresentation of what Science claims that theists and creationists tend to spew to obfuscate the reality. If that is the claim you have been sold then go back to whoever sold it to you and get your metaphorical money back. It is simply a crass misrepresentation of Evolutionary Theory designed to mislead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
You refuse to answer because you won't accept any possible evidence for a Creator, even when it is offered.
Did you even read what I just wrote? This sentence above is not just wrong but is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I just said. Try again son.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 07:10 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,521,771 times
Reputation: 11862
Well if we take the most common definition of atheism, someone who believes there is no God, who either thinks, or reckons there is no God, then yes, by extension that person does not believe in any sort of intelligence that either created/initiated or/and sustains the Universe. My analogy of the bricks is not a strawman argument. And I'm not one of those who rejects Evolution per se. Evolutionary Theory doesn't really offer answers to the 'why' question, or even the how the first life develops. It leaves the gaps. Atheists DO fill in the gaps by saying 'it just happened' without any outside help. It's common for atheists to plead ignorance, to deny the very essence of what they call themselves, one who denies God. As I said, I'm speaking of God rather broadly. Any atheist who isn't a pure materialist is, IMO, not a true atheist.

True, I might be totally wrong. One could use the flat earth analogy. I mean the earth SEEMS flat. Yet design is something demonstrable in nature. So if I observe it in nature, e.g. humans creating tools, why am I not allowed to infer it happens on a cosmic scale? A cosmic creator using cosmic tools.

I know what you wrote and what i'm saying is, even if there was no Bible or idea of God...well it's hard to speculate. But humans would question or speculate as to who created all of us. Or what. And if there's evidence for intelligence behind it, many atheists would not accept it anyway. Even if it began with evidence not a proposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 07:22 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,295,648 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Well if we take the most common definition of atheism, someone who believes there is no God
The most common definition given by theists you mean. This is not the definition most people actually self identifying as atheist use and whats more I think after being on the forum this long you KNOW that already. Yet you present it anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
My analogy of the bricks is not a strawman argument.
Yes. It is. It is the same plagarised argument as the "Hurricane in a junk yard building a 747". The bricks/747 thing is a complete misrepresentation of what Evolution actually claims.

Evolution claims that what we have now was the result of a directionless (1) process of minute iterations (2) each of which resulted in a viable and reproduced stage (3).

The bricks nonsense you produce is different in those three points. It is a directed process (1) trying to get a specific result done in one single step of dropping all the bricks (2) and resulting in no intermediate stages but a complete reset and retry each time (3).

So not only is it a strawman it is a straw man that is literally the exact opposite of what is claimed in Evolutionary biology.

And again what worries me is that I know you KNOW this already yet you present it anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
or even the how the first life develops.
Nor should it. That is not what Evolution is about. Evolution is not about the origin of life. It is about what happened AFTER this process. Pointing out that evolution does not address the first rise of life is about as nonsensical as complaining that the field of Ballistics does not explain the chemistry of what Gun Powder explodes. Or that the sport of football does not explain why the ball falls to earth.

Trying to attack a subject by pointing out it does not address things that are nothing to do with that subject is really weak.

Design in nature is not demonstrated by you either. It is assumed and declared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 07:35 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,521,771 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
The most common definition given by theists you mean. This is not the definition most people actually self identifying as atheist use and whats more I think after being on the forum this long you KNOW that already. Yet you present it anyway.



Yes. It is. It is the same plagarised argument as the "Hurricane in a junk yard building a 747". The bricks/747 thing is a complete misrepresentation of what Evolution actually claims.

Evolution claims that what we have now was the result of a directionless (1) process of minute iterations (2) each of which resulted in a viable and reproduced stage (3).

The bricks nonsense you produce is different in those three points. It is a directed process (1) trying to get a specific result done in one single step of dropping all the bricks (2) and resulting in no intermediate stages but a complete reset and retry each time (3).

So not only is it a strawman it is a straw man that is literally the exact opposite of what is claimed in Evolutionary biology.

And again what worries me is that I know you KNOW this already yet you present it anyway.



Nor should it. That is not what Evolution is about. Evolution is not about the origin of life. It is about what happened AFTER this process. Pointing out that evolution does not address the first rise of life is about as nonsensical as complaining that the field of Ballistics does not explain the chemistry of what Gun Powder explodes. Or that the sport of football does not explain why the ball falls to earth.

Trying to attack a subject by pointing out it does not address things that are nothing to do with that subject is really weak.

Design in nature is not demonstrated by you either. It is assumed and declared.
It's the definition of a word. A common working definition agreed upon by everybody.

Minute alternations to be sounds like a process of trial and error. If there is no intelligence behind that, there must be intelligence behind the LAW that results in that...the Universe itself must be God in that case. Maybe my analogy isn't quite right, but I was more trying to capture the fact that without a guiding force anything will be a random process.

By 'how' life develops I was talking about the mechanics of it...and yes, you're right, Evolution only traces as far back as single-celled organisms. While theoretically it might seem like nothing to go from the primordial soup to single cells, it's actually a tremendous leap. In fact, the parameters of the Universe and what not, but I'm not a Cosmologist so I won't try to argue scientifically.

I still stand by the dictum that an Ultimate Cause definitely exists, it's just what you want to call it. If not intelligence, the blind forces of the Nature. There's no two ways about it. I happen to believe reality is ultimate conscious, the atheist believes it is cold and simply material. THAT is, IMO, the essential difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 07:54 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,295,648 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
It's the definition of a word. A common working definition agreed upon by everybody.
No. It is not. These fora are rife with atheists pointing out to theists again and again and again that their position is not a belief in no god but a lack of belief in a god. They do this over and over again but it never stops you people coming out with the other definition anyway.

The fact of the matter is that if there is no reason offered to believe X then we will not believe X. X can be anything. Failure to think X is true or credible is NOT the same as active belief in !X. No matter how much you try, and fail, to represent it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Minute alternations to be sounds like a process of trial and error. If there is no intelligence behind that, there must be intelligence behind the LAW that results in that...
Says you. But "must" is a strong word and you have done nothing to back up that claim. Saying it must be so does not automatically must be so. Why "must" it be? Because you say so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Maybe my analogy isn't quite right
When an analogy represents the EXACT opposite of the thing it is being presented as an analogy to then "not quite right" does not cut it. A total and egregious misrepresentation is what it is. A lot more than "not quite" right. The bricks analogy does not represent what Evolution claims _at all_. Not just slightly wrong... it is ENTIRELY unrepresentative of the claims of evolution.

I have no interest in "dictums" at all. I am interested in hearing ideas and claims WITH their substantiation. If someone wants to dictate by fiat to me then they are talking past me or at me... not with me... and this is after all a discussion forum not a soap box, stage or blog.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Earth
1,113 posts, read 1,886,212 times
Reputation: 757
Here are my thoughts.

I believe in infinity.
I think matter and or energy has always existed.

It takes no intelligence to have order in the universe.
You can take a bunch of marbles and randomly drop then in a jar and they will look like this.


Or shake up a jar of dirt until its randomly mixed and it will settle out in orderly layers, no intelligence needed.

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