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.
Oh good heavens, you can't prove "consciousness" any more than theists can prove a God. Just because we have "consciousness" does not mean it carries over into some other life after we're dead. Maybe I don't quite get what the heck you all are talking about because it seems you purposefully try and confuse with your words but it sounds like a bunch of hooey. Logic dictates there is no god, period.
Hurry up and get the trademark on this or I'm gonna steal it from ya.....
Creationists do tend to paint themselves into a corner with their logic dont they? Claiming that anything appearing to be complex and intelligent had to have been created but then have no reasonable explanation for how their ever-intelligent God came to be. What is funny is how many of them critisize an Atheist for having the view that "something came from nothing" but then they hold that exact view about their God.
What baffles me the most about their position is that it is baseless. Why is an exception made for God to their rule that something cannot come from nothing other than pure need and desire for it be so?
{ BTW, I've never actually heard an Atheist claim that everything came from nothing, which appears to me to be common theistic fallacy and propaganda }
Sorry Ilene but rifle and his cohorts who repeatedly raise logic as the basis for their position are wrong. Their position cannot be defended or even supported using logic. Logic requires the use of syllogisms that are consistent and proceed from the basic premise (brute fact assumed to be true) logically to the asserted predicate (conclusion). There is no logically consistent syllogism that can proceed from a brute fact (premise) of a universe that is devoid of consciousness to one that contains consciousness (predicate). The same is true for life and intelligence. So the claims of logic and logical in defense of their untenable position is frustratingly ignorant.
I fear you guys didn't get my drift. Perhaps my current state of agitation over my loss is at fault here, but my point, in it's simplest form, is that my old once-friend, the Southern Baptist, who was proselytizing to me after the death of my true close friend (did you keep all those relationships straight? I'm not sure I did...)... had unholstered his Logic Gun and, as a funcy but scientifically untutored and emotional Christian, was saying, with a sweep of his arms towards all the complex and "huge" beauty where I live, that "All of this can't have come from nothing. That's not logical!"
And yet, when asked THE EXACT SAME QUESTION, i.e.: where did his God get His building materials? Out of nothing, right? , this being seemingly OK with Christians, or perhaps they just go into hyper-gloss-over mode with that one? Yes, that would make it all so simple I'll agree, but....
Again: according to their argument against me, that is simply & absolutelynot possible. Something [i.e.: this universe] cannot come out of nothing, hence there must be a God!. Who, you see, made it all out of nothing.
It truly boggles the mind... such shallow and superficial stupidity on display!
Hence, the circular argument devours itself, Mystic. How can my old proselytizing Baptist "friend" use this against me but not against himself?
BBbzzzzzhhhhzzzttttt..... sparks come pouring out of my ear-holes as my brain short-circuits!
The OP makes a good argument for atheism being a faith. What we see has to be explained and it takes faith to accept any explanation.
No faith is required to believe in the imaginary, all it takes is imagination.
However that is not what you are asserting, you want the atheist stance to be equally ridiculous as yours is. Let us examine that.
The theist claims that god created everything and simply spoke this into being aka something from nothing. Some theists claim a recreation or reordering from an existent chaos but that is simply trying to make the conclusion fit the ever expanding knowledge.
The atheist posits a big bang (not an explosion) and for that we see evidence of an expanding universe.
The nursery rhyme of twinkle twinkle little star comes to mind when we look at the theist claims. If the ancients had access to the Hubble telescope, they would have realised that all that twinkles are not specks of fairy dust and vary between planets and stars. Many ancient cultures actually discovered this and noted movements and erected monuments/markers to these albeit primitive observations, the Jews, meh, they were just good liars and storytellers.
The theist posits that god created life and here is the first possible delving into science where mudpuppies can equal the basic elements that make up our bodies. Back then they probably did not realise we were mostly water bags and by observing decomposition to dust, dust is where we came from. The theist claims were OK for some time but them we developed smart tools and could dig up fossils of stuff no mention is made of, ancient reptiles called dinosaurs, ancient man, skulls different and now the simple god did it fails as there must be more.
The atheist posits "we do not know where life originated" but we search using our new tools.
As time progresses we come to the understanding that diseases are actually caused by microbes we can only see under intense magnification, we figure out how to kill these and develop vaccines and medicines. Gone are the demons that once caused this. Then we discover, the medicine stops working, we look again and see these microbes have changed and adapted to the stuff that was designed to kill them. We also find that simple hygiene also allays much of the unwanted diseases. Yet these bugs persist and we soon find out they evolve and adapt.
In time we discover the basic building blocks called DNA and RNA and a whole new understanding opens up to mankind. (I am no expert here) This knowledge allows us then to test and see that almost everything on the planet assigned a living status has this DNA stuff. We discover that chimps and other critters have similar DNA to humans and from this we can map possible origins of where we came from.
We discover more tools and find more clinical ways to kill each other (bad) but also find other cool ways to extend life from simple diseases that once were terminal. We also find these new methods have a better success rate than rote chanting, incense, wailing, prayers et al. which for all intents and purposes do nothing.
If you see a pattern here, the atheist sees that the theist claims bear no semblance to reality any more and we know that the ancients had no clue as they did not have the tools we have. Yet the theist still posits god did it favouring very old myths as they really cannot be construed as science.
Science is a field that is ever changing but the theist god according to scriptures is unchanging (sometimes). So the atheist "rejects" the godunnit and because we are constantly discovering new things we rely on Science as the more reliable method to answering the big question to which no one yet has an answer. The place holder of "We don't know" has less baggage that the "god place holder"
This process you want to claim as faith. How does admitting "I don't know" construe any concepts of faith?
Which of the two aspects have a better track record? Science or Theism?
So if atheism has any "faith component" it is the trust in science
A simple example in my field is the findings of scientists like Faraday, Kirchoff and others whose laws and theorems still hold true for any new folk entering the electrical fields, no faith required just education and training. We cannot see electricity either but we use it everyday.
The theists will go to great lengths to exhume long dead theologians to lay claim to the credence for god yet many of these folk had varying opinions and many times contradictory ones.
See the difference?
The adamant theist then tries to make the bible fit the new evidence and fails stuff like theistic evolution.
The atheist can apply the the new tools called the scientific method and test the scriptures and we find stuff never happened as reported.
A new theistic discipline emerges and is called apologetics which is just an appeal to magic. They want to maintain folk in the twinkle twinkle little star mindset and that is why they want to "teach" creationism in your schools.
Obviously I could take this to a much deeper level but have kept it as simple as possible for the scientific illiterate.
Sorry Ilene but rifle and his cohorts who repeatedly raise logic as the basis for their position are wrong. Their position cannot be defended or even supported using logic. Logic requires the use of syllogisms that are consistent and proceed from the basic premise (brute fact assumed to be true) logically to the asserted predicate (conclusion). There is no logically consistent syllogism that can proceed from a brute fact (premise) of a universe that is devoid of consciousness to one that contains consciousness (predicate). The same is true for life and intelligence. So the claims of logic and logical in defense of their untenable position is frustratingly ignorant.
Why can't consciousness come from somewhere devoid of consciousness?
I fear you guys didn't get my drift. Perhaps my current state of agitation over my loss is at fault here, but my point, in it's simplest form, is that my old once-friend, the Southern Baptist, who was proselytizing to me after the death of my true close friend (did you keep all those relationships straight? I'm not sure I did...)... had unholstered his Logic Gun and, as a funcy but scientifically untutored and emotional Christian, was saying, with a sweep of his arms towards all the complex and "huge" beauty where I live, that "All of this can't have come from nothing. That's not logical!"
And yet, when asked THE EXACT SAME QUESTION, i.e.: where did his God get His building materials? Out of nothing, right? , this being seemingly OK with Christians, or perhaps they just go into hyper-gloss-over mode with that one? Yes, that would make it all so simple I'll agree, but....
Again: according to their argument against me, that is simply & absolutelynot possible. Something [i.e.: this universe] cannot come out of nothing, hence there must be a God!. Who, you see, made it all out of nothing.
It truly boggles the mind... such shallow and superficial stupidity on display!
Hence, the circular argument devours itself, Mystic. How can my old proselytizing Baptist "friend" use this against me but not against himself?
BBbzzzzzhhhhzzzttttt..... sparks come pouring out of my ear-holes as my brain short-circuits!
Huh huh huh, that's the laugh I got from this!! Seriously, Rifleman, c'mon. Where's that all knowing, all seeing person that I look up to and why don't you blog more? We would read it, right folks?
The OP makes a good argument for atheism being a faith. What we see has to be explained and it takes faith to accept any explanation.
Ding, ding, ding.....we have a weiner!!! Atheism is NOT a faith my dear, it's just exactly what you've been raised to fear, ...... from the "debil"!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Edit to add: I just realized that not everyone might know my "debil" reference.........it's from The Waterboy with Adam Sandler? LOL
Last edited by Ilene Wright; 02-27-2012 at 12:03 AM..
The OP makes a good argument for atheism being a faith. What we see has to be explained and it takes faith to accept any explanation.
For once MoC we do agree, to an extent. You see, the theist has to have faith that a God exists, one which there is no evidence or reason to believe in. However, the Atheist isn't required to have faith that our way of thinking is right. We aren't threatened with punishment if we dont conform to our own way of thinking or any other mumbo jumbo.
However, we do have faith. Faith that one day, all of our technology and advances in science will one day unlock many of the secrets to our mysterious universe, as it already has. Faith that we will continue advancing while leaving the baseless theories of the past, in the past and move on to a better and more enlightening future.
The OP makes a good argument for atheism being a faith.
Oh dear! There it is again. The only reason I can think of for theists repeatedly claiming that atheists have 'faith' is so that they can say....
'You see!! Atheists are just as daft as we theists are'.
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.
