Why I am not an Atheist (souls, myth, worship, God)

[Georgiafrog]

For the most part, theists and atheists agree on a basic set of rules for morality. Atheists believe that man evolved this sense of morality for the better survival of the species. Theists believe that the creator must have either a benevolent or malevolent NATURE that was instilled into all creation, which would truly distinguish one from the other(let's say it's ingrained in our DNA). Only the theists view of morality can truly determine whether an action is inherently right or wrong, without pausing to consider what the overall implications would be to humankind's continued existence. I have used the example of global overpopulation a couple of times on various threads, because I find it an interesting question to atheists. If evolution were to continue, and overpopulation were to continue as well, would not partial elimination of our species become a crucial part of the continued existence of the species? Would we not have the same learning experience that forged our relative moralities tugging at us to do something to quell the threat? A change in circumstances for an atheists view of morality also allows for a change in said morality. Situational morality can be used to justify any behavior, making no behavior judgeable or truly immoral to any other individual.

I also believe sciences progress in determining just how razor sharp the edge is upon which life is balancing in the Universe is further evidence of a creator. Imagine finding an intricate watch in the woods. Do you wonder who made it, or how the elements randomly came together to form it? I believe our creator used tools such as the big bang and evolution to make it all happen. While science doesn't walk hand in hand with the holy books of human religion, it fits in more and more nicely with a creationist viewpoint. The more and more complex and unlikely that science proves life in the Universe to be, the more evidence is uncovered that it wasn't an accident.

[Bud235]

When science explains how species evolves, it tries to unveil the true answers. It's no different than explaining how hurricane is formed. So don't draw any human society moral conclusions with it.

Religion works differently, it creates a fictional God to control its followers, telling fictions, asking them to worship, ...

Atheists are simply people without religious affiliations. If they want to know how things really work, they go to real answers. They are not bound by a particular religious identity.

So, to give you a straight answer: Atheists do not take theory of evolution as a family value to worship. To them, that's not a moral guide book either.

Religions breed stupid people.

[Georgiafrog]

Your opinion is clear Bud. Your logic is not. I see you posting all over the place saying you don't believe in God. But thats all you ever say. Why do you care so much to even post if you have no answers, claim to have no answers, and claim to not even be bothered by what possible answers there may be? And your last sentence? You have given me exactly zero reasons to think anything other than that about yourself. Did you even read my post?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Georgiafrog

If evolution were to continue, and overpopulation were to continue as well, would not partial elimination of our species become a crucial part of the continued existence of the species?

Not necessarily, but also it's the arrogance of man to assume our continued existance on this planet. We may well be an evolutionary mistake, as our arrogance and assumption of being The One True superior Being is a big mistake. We don't have dominion over the other beasts, as a simple virulent and highly contagious bacterium or virus will likely show us soon enough. And we surely are missing the "Altruism" gene wouldn't you agree?

Imagine finding an intricate watch in the woods. Do you wonder who made it, or how the elements randomly came together to form it? I believe our creator used tools such as the big bang and evolution to make it all happen.

The irreducible complexity argument perhaps? I'd assume someone lost it, and as to how it ever came to be in the first place, we actually have all the transitional fossil forms, as it were, of all the earlier timepieces of yor to show the evolution of a Rolex from then to now. Oh, and BTW, evolution would predict the arrival, on the scene, of an entirely different "breed of cat", the digital watch with no moving parts. It occupies a niche that was always there, but it required the evolution of the technology (chip manufacture, Liquid crystal displays, micro-batteries, indestructible plastic cases, etc.) before it could appear.

The more and more complex and unlikely that science proves life in the Universe to be, the more evidence is uncovered that it wasn't an accident.

Quite the opposite to me, actually. It may very well be quite unlikely we showed up, but that alone doesn't then default to it being someone else's idea. What are the chances that He would ever "be" either? Why don't Creationists ever accept that if we take their ID philosophy just one step further back, we then have to figure out how He came along, he being even vastly more complex and capable than we. And then, who designed Him? And so on and so on...

All that had to happen, frankly, was the admittedly unlikely occurrence of some formation of very simple DNA that suffers but also records mutational errors. The rest is just Lego™ set logic. Evolution from a basic uni-cellular organism to a mountain gorilla, and then, mistakenly, down a notch to us. The basic system's there; it took the opportunity to evolve into available niches. QED. Easy to understand.

The true question is rather why any of any of any of it? Why is there even a sub-atomic particle, of which your God is presumably made? THAT'S the real Q, not what did He or we do with it once it was here. Some day we may get a glimpse of it, and I can assure you, based on the "evidence" to date, it won't include mythic supermen.

Christians will only allow their imaginations to open up so far. You've got to REALLY open your head up, and then even a superman God is not explainable. Unless you just blindly believe in ancient writings aimed at a peasant level of non-education and non-inquiry.

[tgnostic]

The souls cannot be perceived in any form of logic towards the within of Our humanity. But inuititively we feel that our Ego's would be our souls.

Similarly on the outside the intuition shows an Irrational God that must be justifed logically and we constantly become overwhelmed about any Such Existence.

Dialectics telss that we can do better only fi we cheat the existence of nature.

p.s. They fired me from greenpeace yesterday.

[Georgiafrog]

Even if I were to grant the premise that a divine creator be at least as
complex as it's creations, this still does not change the viewpoint that the fine tuning of the universe we inhabit exhibits characteristics more preferably explained by design. And who is to say that the creator is not a simple being, and is acting/creating purely from it's nature?
And it doesn't change the fact that the watch shows obvious characteristics of having been invented in the first place, whether the owner lost it or not (or cares about it, for arguments sake), or whether or not it may be improved upon. Irreducable complexity is an arguement against cross-species evolution. Didn't bring it up at all. Don't see any defense to the morality clause. If we are an evolutionary mistake, our so called morality is even more pathetically worthless. And doesn't change the point that atheists like to bring up that we are still evolving. Will we just stop evolving and not address the danger facing us now? We are clearly more advanced than any bacterium. How can there be a mistake in evolution? What was the original intention? Who decided that? And why must you all close with a shot at someones intellegence?

[Bud235]

Originally Posted by Georgiafrog

Your opinion is clear Bud. Your logic is not. I see you posting all over the place saying you don't believe in God. But thats all you ever say. Why do you care so much to even post if you have no answers, claim to have no answers, and claim to not even be bothered by what possible answers there may be? And your last sentence? You have given me exactly zero reasons to think anything other than that about yourself. Did you even read my post?

I read your post, and I understand what you were trying to say.

Let me summarize what you said (you'll be the judge if I misrepresented you):

1). Evolution that atheists believe represents bad morals: strongest survives. Everything happened just randomly.

2). Theists have moral worldviews. Everything was created by someone (let's not mentioned to too obvious G-O-D) for reasons.

I did not misrepresent you, didn't I?

Now, you did not understand my answers. Evolutions is science, it has nothing to do with morals.

[ZugZub]

Originally Posted by Georgiafrog

Imagine finding an intricate watch in the woods. Do you wonder who made it, or how the elements randomly came together to form it? .

I can't believe that people are still using this same old false analogy! You assume that because two objects share one common quality, that they must have other qualities in common. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

1. A watch is complex
2. A watch has a watchmaker
3. The universe is also complex
4. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

What a load of crap. Hey look, I can do that too:

1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
2. Leaves grow on trees
3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
4. Therefore money grow on trees

Hey, that's fun! Ergo, GOD DID IT!

[Predos]

Originally Posted by Georgiafrog

Even if I were to grant the premise that a divine creator be at least as
complex as it's creations, this still does not change the viewpoint that the fine tuning of the universe we inhabit exhibits characteristics more preferably explained by design. And who is to say that the creator is not a simple being, and is acting/creating purely from it's nature?
And it doesn't change the fact that the watch shows obvious characteristics of having been invented in the first place, whether the owner lost it or not (or cares about it, for arguments sake), or whether or not it may be improved upon. Irreducable complexity is an arguement against cross-species evolution. Didn't bring it up at all. Don't see any defense to the morality clause. If we are an evolutionary mistake, our so called morality is even more pathetically worthless. And doesn't change the point that atheists like to bring up that we are still evolving. Will we just stop evolving and not address the danger facing us now? We are clearly more advanced than any bacterium. How can there be a mistake in evolution? What was the original intention? Who decided that? And why must you all close with a shot at someones intellegence?

You are jumping to some rather unsupported conclusions here. Additionally you are dismissing out of hand the possibility that all creation is just one giant mistake. Because we are here does not make us morally or in any other way superior. We are the ones claiming that we are more advanced than any other being on the planet, but is is based on our capability to judge. Not the most unbaised judge of that, are we?

Addressing your questions, they are meaningless in that they include the presumption of our superiority and your belief in a creator. Because it happened does not make it by design.

I, too, happen to think that there may be a creator but have so far seen nothing that I would consider solid proof. Maybe that's just me.

[Georgiafrog]

Originally Posted by ZugZub

I can't believe that people are still using this same old false analogy! You assume that because two objects share one common quality, that they must have other qualities in common. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

1. A watch is complex
2. A watch has a watchmaker
3. The universe is also complex
4. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

What a load of crap. Hey look, I can do that too:

1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
2. Leaves grow on trees
3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
4. Therefore money grow on trees

Hey, that's fun! Ergo, GOD DID IT!

Let me get this right.

1) Leaves show evidence of design.

2) Dollar bills show evidence of design

3) Leaves and dollar bills are both the product of design.

When I first read your post I wasn't sure you were on my side.