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.
By the same logic you posit here, you MUST believe that unicorns exist, because you have not flown all over this Universe and looked behind every planet, star, meteor to make sure no unicorn is hiding there.
What does you god think of your worship of unicorns?
Apply same logic as number 1, except more ridiculous. Ergo: If you *KNOW* there are no unicorns, you must be a unicorn.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not faith in anything. I am an atheist precisely *because* am faithless.
Argument from authority. Logical fallacy. Over infinite time all odds equate to 1.
Same as above.
s
Next?
I couldnt help but notice that you failed to cogently rebut all of my points using rational arguments . I was hoping you would be able to give reasons for maintaining your 'atheism' in light of the points i listed. You failed. Want to try again ?
I couldnt help but notice that you failed to cogently rebut all of my points using rational arguments . I was hoping you would be able to give reasons for maintaining your 'atheism' in light of the points i listed. You failed. Want to try again ?
How about this then:
I am an Atheist because I see NO reputable evidence that there is a creator. If I had an inkling, I would be an Agnostic. So far, not even a tiny shred of evidence has shown me that 'god did it'.
Is that one that's turning to bone? As in "fossilized"?
4. If the worlds foremost atheist Biologist and co founder of the DNA structure, Dr. Francis Crick, in his own book affirms Sir Fred Hoyles calculation that first life on earth arose spontaneously without intelligent intervention at an astounding 10x40,000 th power probability , then you should have no doubt that it is utterly impossible .... thereby rendering your assertion of being a real atheist totally null and void . This means youre in fact, a Believer ! (its not such a bad thing now is it ?!) (Yes, for us, it is...)
Wow! Typical. Even if this were true, which it is not, you go from "10X40,000" to "utterly impossible", when in fact, the number of possible chemical reactions that were happening in the primoridal broth of pre-components was in the near-uncountable quintillioo-zillions per cubic mile, multiplied by a bah-zillion micro-molecular reactions per hour in that cube of seawater alone, times, let's say, a hundred million years.
Gadzooks, RV! Suddenly, the simple possibilites of the necessary inter-reactions between simple amino acids happening at all approaches "unity" (i.e.: it absolutely must happen) In other words, it probably happened a few zillion times the world over, each and every day!
I'm a bonifide biologist, with a few degrees, including some specialization in genetics and biochemistry and ecology. I say that while the initial probablities of a chance assembly of amino acids in a small volume of seawater, over a small time, was low, once that did happen, the rest is quite logical, like giving a 3 yr old kid a really big Lego™ set.
Yep, for a while he only makes silly chance connections, but eventually, as he ages (by the time he's played with it for, say 2 to 5 years), he's probably making some nifty stuff. The system facilitates this because it can be easily assembled in a near-infinite number of ways, all the way up to a pretty good model of the Starship Enterprise. all based on a few basic building blocks.
http://aleptu.com/images/2009/04/lego_v8_engine.jpg
(Consider all these models as being very different "species", but all built with the same basic construction methods, and from a very limited set of identical building blocks. Remind you of anything? Like DNA?)
But then you guys come along and shout that "This model is too complex to have ever been built by anyone other than The Great Creator!"
..and you refuse to accept the transitionals we have (which include yourself, BTW) Well, to be blunt: sorry; you're wrong. It's all quite simple if you bother to understand anything about basic building block theory, logic and chance. And then you roll into it the affinity for esch other that the essential amino acids have for each other.
See: DNA/RNA in your high school biology textbook.
Oh yeah, I forgot: as a multi-graduate biologist and engineer, I'm going to officially declare that there is no God.
There. Gosh, that was easy. Feel free to quote me on this one, RVLover! No, really! Seems that's all it takes for you, as long as it supports your badly argued side.
________________________________
5. Have you as 'an atheist' devised a cogent explanation where the scientifically confirmed 250 razor precise Physics Constants (anthropics) of our Cosmos came from , which are ALL required simultaneously...
Wrong... see my comments below...
...so Earth can be here so we can live on this planet ? Since a tenet of atheism/humanism is Naturalism, could you explain how Naturalism brought these into existence all at one time.
Wrong. They occured, evolved, as it were, at vastly different times, and the observable Naturalist world evolved to fit the existing ecological conditions, not the other way around!
Current "Solar Flux" levels, plus humidity, atmospheric component levels, ocean salinity, even the rotational speed of the Earth,are all slowly changing, and who said they all arrived at their current values at the same time? In fact we know the opposite to be quite true. You been reading Genesis again? It shows!
then continues to allow them to operate flawlessly for thier own sustanence as well as Ours ?
Wrong. They are changing all the time, but slowly. In some cases, they no longer sustain themselves. Mountains erupt, glaciers melt, planets get hit by meteors, temperatures change... it's all in constant flux, RV!
Nothing stays the same, except the stubborn Christian mindset.
Since you are sure there is no intelligence behind the Universe and its construction (atheism) , Im sure you must have some reasonable and plausible explanation as to why this does NOT represent willful Design for a specific goal (?) .
Easy. You go at this from entirely the wrong side. You assume we arrived on a planet that had to instantly fit our physiology precisely, else we'd perish. I've heard this stupendously illogical argument too many times, but once again; that's not how it worked, RV!
We evolved here, so of course (of COURSE, silly person!) we fit the prevailing conditions exactly. By the method of chance mutation and the consequent testing of the "fit" of that mutation against the realities of this world, only those that fit the best wil survive.
Is that hard to understand?
So, of course we fit it to a "T", and we could not work in an environment that had a bit more CO2 or NO2 or whatever. We evolved to utilize the conditions to the best we could.
But then, we didn't have to (do I really have to go on with this? Do the rest of you guys understand this ultra-logical and simple concept? I mean for Gawd's sake, it's so simple, a rabbit could understand it!)
In the simplest terms, RV, we fit precisely because we evolved to fit precisely. If future changes occur slowly enough (global cooling to another ice age, for instance), we and the other species on the planet will evolve the necessary physiology to fit that new world precisely as well!
If, on the other hand, the changes are dramatic, suchas the Chixilub meteorite impact, then, voila, the majority of the predominant (for example: dinosaurian) life on the planet can't handle the rapid changes, and they die off, leaving a few tiny secretive mammals to survive and start evolving rapidly into...
us!
Sheesh. Didn't they teach you anything in school? Tell you what; don't ever use that silly point about precise conditions for life again, OK? It should be embarrassing for you. I assume you're smarter than that!
I could go on with a few more examples,
I'd rather you didn't because those standard nonsense "website points" are so poorly thought out, and they have all been carefully and rationally refuted so often in the past, that my head is starting to hurt.
but, Id like to hear how you enjoy living in NC and if your property taxes are reasonable.
Best regards.
And I hope I cleared up a few of your misunderstandings. Have a nice afternoon!
Last edited by rifleman; 07-31-2009 at 06:08 PM..
Reason: typoz
1. Atheism doesn't state that there is absolutely no god. Do you know for absolute certainty there is no Zeus. By your logic, you must believe in Zeus, Thor, Athena, Hercules, Demeter, Ra, Osiris, Mythra, Horus etc. You don't need to scour the entire universe to not believe in something. Have you scoured the entire universe and discovered there is no FSM. If you haven't then you must believe that the FSM is real.
REPLY: An atheist is one WHO BELIEVES there is no personal Creator for our Universe ; in order for the atheist to be completely justified in his belief , he needs to be sure of his absolute assertion otherwise he is an agnostic and not an atheist . Atheists pride themselves in reason and rationale for their definitive conclusion and arent ashamed to say atheism is very rational and believable ; ergo, scouring the Cosmos is a minimal requirement in order to be sure . If he hasnt, then, he is not a bonified atheist. He might desire to be an atheist however.
2. Once again, atheism is not claiming certainty on the belief in god. You don't need to have complete knowledge of everything to not believe in god. Do you believe in Neptune? If you don't then you must think that you have complete knowledge of everything.
REPLY: True. Atheism is claiming certainty on the belief of NO God. In order to be absolutely certain there is no God requires as a minimum, a corroborating trip around the Cosmos in addition to having all-knowledge to absolutely confirm God is nowhere to be discovered including personally knowing how a personal theistic Diety might operate minute by minute and what his Nature consists of . If he cannot , then he is not a bonified atheist. He may desire, however, for a personal theistic Creator not to be real based on his personal ulterior motives .
3. Atheism is not faith. Faith is believing that something is true despite the fact there is no evidence to substantiate its truth. Atheism is not believing in god because there is no evidence that proves god exists. This is contrary to a position of faith.
REPLY: Atheism IS a faith ; by default, if someone says 'there is no Designer/Creator for what we have'... it begs the question WHAT DID bring about our personal Universe , first life, et al . Every proclaimed atheist has a worldview , what he thinks the purpose of his own existence is, and the meaning to all that exists (at a minimum) . The trouble is, many atheists are relunctant to discuss their affirmative beliefs for fear of being scrutinized . Your definition of Faith is in error and based on an apriori-commitment to atheism ; more accurately: Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation. It should be centered on good reason from looking at the evidence , and rationale in arriving at whether something is of a non-intelligent /natural cause or an intelligent (thus willful) cause
. Because the Cosmos' origins cannot be duplicated in addition to the arrival of first life, etc...it thus requires a degree of FAITH from examining the evidences that have been left behind. Both Theists and Atheists excersise Faith...only Atheists need considerably more Faith in thinking this finetuned Cosmos/Solar System/Earth, etc... came about via Naturalism and Materialism --- articles which virtually every professed atheist holds fast to because it is the only other game in town., besides SuperNaturalism involving a willful personal Creator.
4. You're making the common argument from authority fallacy.
REPLY: It is not 'a fallacy' when an expert Scientist in his Field has painstakingly taken the time to calculate the probability of something occuring or have occured ; this is the branch of science called Mathematical Probability and it is something that you yourself often considers when making calculated risks such as stepping on an airplane intending to arrive safely at your destination , as an example. Therefore, youre fallacy assertion above is in itself, fallacious.
'The fact that someone else says something is so, doesn't automatically make it so.
'
REPLY: Except if youre an atheist making an absolute claim.(?)
5. The problem with this argument is that you're assuming that because you don't know the answer to something then that automatically means 'god did it.' This is really a form of arrogance though rather than a satisfactory explanation. It presumes to know the truth of something unknown even though there is no evidence to support it. Just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't automatically mean that god is the answer. It just means that you don't currently know the answer.
REPLY: Your answer is a convenient scapegoat in atheism, however, if something is a reality / can be measured / the degree of critical tolerance can be determined, etc......then it too begs the question whether it is a natural cause or if it displays the elements of design/specified engineering which can only come from a willful Mind at work. Afterall, Science is in the business of determining Causes of things and occurences ; therefore, it is not arrogance to discover whether something is justified at being a natural or intelligent cause. Do you think that 250 razor precise Physics Parameters (life enabling constants) to our Universe which are inter-dependent and work collaboratively , such as the Universe expansion rates critical tolerance being 1/1,000,000 th with the others being of simular incredible precision, originated and are sustained via acts of Naturalism which is the only other alternative to an almighty Designer/Creator on this issue ? If these Physics Parameters do NOT indicate any semblence of Design for a specific purpose, then please explain why you dont believe they do .
When did you become a professed Atheist , and why ?
I am an Atheist because I see NO reputable evidence that there is a creator. If I had an inkling, I would be an Agnostic. So far, not even a tiny shred of evidence has shown me that 'god did it'.
But have you bothered to go looking at the evidence, or, have you made up your Mind before coming to the table that Atheism is where you want to be ?
' when in fact, the number of possible chemical reactions that were happening in the primoridal broth of pre-components was in the near-uncountable quintillioo-zillions per cubic mile, multiplied by a bah-zillion micro-molecular reactions per hour in that cube of seawater alone, times, let's say, a hundred million years. ''
Hello. The above is total speculation and a desperate theory . There is plenty of evidence which is a reality for us both to discern, without having to check our Minds at the door ; believing given enough time, matter, chemicals, and accidents.... that anything can happen, is hardly objective science but does indicate an apriori-philosophical bias based on personal desire. Regards.
But have you bothered to go looking at the evidence, or, have you made up your Mind before coming to the table that Atheism is where you want to be ?
Speaking for myself, there is no evidence to look at. Several people have pointed out the fallacy of your arguments and you don't seem to understand their replies.
I have not made up my mind to be an atheist. I was born one, and my parents never made an effort to brainwash me to believe otherwise.
The only way I could cease being an atheist is by complete willful suspension of disbelief. Isn't that what faith is? And I would have to choose which of hundreds of gods to believe in...
1. Atheism doesn't state that there is absolutely no god. Do you know for absolute certainty there is no Zeus. By your logic, you must believe in Zeus, Thor, Athena, Hercules, Demeter, Ra, Osiris, Mythra, Horus etc. You don't need to scour the entire universe to not believe in something. Have you scoured the entire universe and discovered there is no FSM. If you haven't then you must believe that the FSM is real.
REPLY: An atheist is one WHO BELIEVES there is no personal Creator for our Universe ; in order for the atheist to be completely justified in his belief , he needs to be sure of his absolute assertion otherwise he is an agnostic and not an atheist . Atheists pride themselves in reason and rationale for their definitive conclusion and arent ashamed to say atheism is very rational and believable ; ergo, scouring the Cosmos is a minimal requirement in order to be sure . If he hasnt, then, he is not a bonified atheist. He might desire to be an atheist however.
2. Once again, atheism is not claiming certainty on the belief in god. You don't need to have complete knowledge of everything to not believe in god. Do you believe in Neptune? If you don't then you must think that you have complete knowledge of everything.
REPLY: True. Atheism is claiming certainty on the belief of NO God. In order to be absolutely certain there is no God requires as a minimum, a corroborating trip around the Cosmos in addition to having all-knowledge to absolutely confirm God is nowhere to be discovered including personally knowing how a personal theistic Diety might operate minute by minute and what his Nature consists of . If he cannot , then he is not a bonified atheist. He may desire, however, for a personal theistic Creator not to be real based on his personal ulterior motives .
3. Atheism is not faith. Faith is believing that something is true despite the fact there is no evidence to substantiate its truth. Atheism is not believing in god because there is no evidence that proves god exists. This is contrary to a position of faith.
REPLY: Atheism IS a faith ; by default, if someone says 'there is no Designer/Creator for what we have'... it begs the question WHAT DID bring about our personal Universe , first life, et al . Every proclaimed atheist has a worldview , what he thinks the purpose of his own existence is, and the meaning to all that exists (at a minimum) . The trouble is, many atheists are relunctant to discuss their affirmative beliefs for fear of being scrutinized . Your definition of Faith is in error and based on an apriori-commitment to atheism ; more accurately: Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation. It should be centered on good reason from looking at the evidence , and rationale in arriving at whether something is of a non-intelligent /natural cause or an intelligent (thus willful) cause
. Because the Cosmos' origins cannot be duplicated in addition to the arrival of first life, etc...it thus requires a degree of FAITH from examining the evidences that have been left behind. Both Theists and Atheists excersise Faith...only Atheists need considerably more Faith in thinking this finetuned Cosmos/Solar System/Earth, etc... came about via Naturalism and Materialism --- articles which virtually every professed atheist holds fast to because it is the only other game in town., besides SuperNaturalism involving a willful personal Creator.
4. You're making the common argument from authority fallacy.
REPLY: It is not 'a fallacy' when an expert Scientist in his Field has painstakingly taken the time to calculate the probability of something occuring or have occured ; this is the branch of science called Mathematical Probability and it is something that you yourself often considers when making calculated risks such as stepping on an airplane intending to arrive safely at your destination , as an example. Therefore, youre fallacy assertion above is in itself, fallacious.
'The fact that someone else says something is so, doesn't automatically make it so.
'
REPLY: Except if youre an atheist making an absolute claim.(?)
5. The problem with this argument is that you're assuming that because you don't know the answer to something then that automatically means 'god did it.' This is really a form of arrogance though rather than a satisfactory explanation. It presumes to know the truth of something unknown even though there is no evidence to support it. Just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't automatically mean that god is the answer. It just means that you don't currently know the answer.
REPLY: Your answer is a convenient scapegoat in atheism, however, if something is a reality / can be measured / the degree of critical tolerance can be determined, etc......then it too begs the question whether it is a natural cause or if it displays the elements of design/specified engineering which can only come from a willful Mind at work. Afterall, Science is in the business of determining Causes of things and occurences ; therefore, it is not arrogance to discover whether something is justified at being a natural or intelligent cause. Do you think that 250 razor precise Physics Parameters (life enabling constants) to our Universe which are inter-dependent and work collaboratively , such as the Universe expansion rates critical tolerance being 1/1,000,000 th with the others being of simular incredible precision, originated and are sustained via acts of Naturalism which is the only other alternative to an almighty Designer/Creator on this issue ? If these Physics Parameters do NOT indicate any semblence of Design for a specific purpose, then please explain why you dont believe they do .
When did you become a professed Atheist , and why ?
Twit filter time.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 07-31-2009 at 08:13 PM..
But have you bothered to go looking at the evidence, or, have you made up your Mind before coming to the table that Atheism is where you want to be ?
What evidence? The bible? The 'world around us'? I studied theology and have quite an interest in it, actually. The more I study it, the more implausible it seems. Of course Rifleman is far more eloquent than I could ever be (and quite patient, if I may add) so I'll just second his thoughts
You name me a good piece of ACTUAL evidence and we'll talk.
REPLY: An atheist is one WHO BELIEVES there is no personal Creator for our Universe ; in order for the atheist to be completely justified in his belief , he needs to be sure of his absolute assertion otherwise he is an agnostic and not an atheist . Atheists pride themselves in reason and rationale for their definitive conclusion and arent ashamed to say atheism is very rational and believable ; ergo, scouring the Cosmos is a minimal requirement in order to be sure . If he hasnt, then, he is not a bonified atheist. He might desire to be an atheist however.
What evidence do you have that there is a Christain God, but allows you reject the "Zeus is God" theory? Atheist, using the same criterea and standard of proof, reject both. But you reject one and not the other.
By your standard, aren't you a polytheist?
BTW I was a southern Baptist Christian before becoming an atheist, if that matters. I can tell you that I now reject a belief in your God for precisely the same reasons I reject a belief in Zeus.
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.
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.
Wrong approach! Go around and come in again!
