Atheism V's Theism.

I do not understand your post. Why do you believe I am leaning toward atheism?.

Do yourself a favour and try not to block God out of you life.

Do not be so self centred and think about your life and how you behave in this life will be judged in the next.

 

How IS it a scientific statement? Upon what laws of science are you basing this? Upon what research? Upon what evidence? This is just an opinion. You have ignored my point about how your argument is flawed when you say something cannot exist without a creator when you say god exists without a creator. You ignored my point about how it's no more likely for an omnipotent, highly intelligent being to always exist than it is for an unconscious material.

Yeah, that just doesn't make sense and has no science to back it up. A creative force must exist to create an unconscious universe, but no creative force must exist to create that being. Uh, what? That just seems backwards.

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this - evidence of morality is not evidence of god. People have already gone over where morality comes from and it's irrelevant. You're making these claims based on nothing scientific at all. They're just opinions. I could say that because the sky is blue Thor must exist. It has just as much logic and scientific evidence as your claims.

Dude, you're a broken record. See my previous responses. You're not going anywhere.

Ah, well this is a twist.

Please give me evidence for the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I never made the claim that god doesn't exist. I don't need to. I'm simply an atheist who lacks belief in god, and so far, you haven't given me any evidence that he exists. Me failing to prove he doesn't is not proof that he does. What the frak.

Because you don't seem to think that morality is a product of evolution, or that the instinct to breed is either. If you understood how evolution worked, you'd realize that there doesn't need to be a god for it to work. So your lack of basic knowledge of evolution and your arguments that "god did it" instead of evolution lead me to think that you don't believe in evolution and think it's faulty, and therefore, god exists.

Either way, this thread is going no where. You just keep on going in circles, repeating yourself, never advancing your arguments or acknowledging counter points.

 

If it can happen, then it isn't an impossibility. You may want to reevaluate what you're saying here and make a consistent argument.

Anyway, no, I don't think that all of the atoms that make up a 747 could be smushed together an infinite number of times and one of those times would result in a fully formed plane. However, given an infinite number of opportunities for natural forces and matter to interact, I think you would inevitably end up with a development of stars, and then planets, and then life, and then intelligent life, and then science, and then a plane. We are a natural force in the universe because we are the results of innumerable other natural forces. Natural forces ultimately led to the creation of 747s, and I don't think a god was necessary for any of it.

The big bang isn't really thought to be the beginning of our universe's existence. Rather, it was a transition from whatever form the universe was in prior to the event. Even if the big bang was a creation event, rather than just a transition of form, it still wouldn't preclude the universe from being infinite. There can be infinity within bounds. For instance, there are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1. And there is at least as much evidence, if not more, suggesting that our universe is not the only one as there is suggesting that there is a god.

Life wants to continue. I don't know where that comes from. I also don't know why that mystery would lead someone to believe in a god when there are millions of other mysteries, attributed to god, that have been proven to have natural causes.

Because helping people is the right thing to do, and hurting people is wrong. To paraphrase Lincoln: "When I do good things, I feel good. When I do bad things, I feel bad." That's as good a reason to do good and not bad as I need.

You said we couldn't be moral without theism. You said society would collapse because of it. Socrates/Plato makes it pretty clear that we don't need a god in order to be moral.

 

If God does not exist then the universe, solar system, gravity animals, plants, and us, are all just chance. The belief in this kind of luck takes great faith and most irrational. The chances of people existing and thinking the way we do today by chance is so improbable it is impossible. - No, it's not "chance." It is the result of biochemistry, the constituent materials of all life on Earth interacting according to their physical properties, PLUS natural selection. Natural selection ensures that life makes improvements, since beneficial changes are rewarded, often spectactularly.

Why do we have moral values?. - What we term morals and ethics are social constructs, mental/emotional tools that we need in order to survive as a social species. Without such "values," we would be at a serious survival disadvantage, since groups are stronger than individuals, whether you're talking family, tribe or beyond.


Why do we care for one another?. - See above.

What is the point of our existence?. - Who says there even needs to be one? The question is leading.

An atheist will tell you we have evolved and developed these things to ensure the continuation of mankind. - An atheist will tell you that s/he does not believe in God, in any variation. That is all that atheism as a "thing" describes.

What I would like to know is why do we have a desire to have the human race to continue?. - This would undoubtedly be a complicated answer, but part of it is undoubtedly our natural instinct for survival. We as a species have a natural tendency to hold "our own" in higher regard than other kinds of life.

Why do we bother to care for the sick and elderly where does this compassion come from?. - Sympathy and empathy.. Even other primates care for their family and tribal members in similar fashion.

A world without theism would bring about the eventual collapse of society. No person would be able to tell another what os right and what is wrong. Morality would be left to ones own concience, and if someone else committed something that you regarded as wrong, who are you to put your opinion on to them?. - We don't enforce laws based on theism. We come to consensus of what is allowable and what is not in society, and we tend to agree on the most serious crimes, such as theft, rape and murder. Of course, there are theists who would argue that murder is acceptable when committed against the member of some out-group, i.e. some "infidel." The ancient Israelites thought like this, valuing their own over the "gentiles," as do at least a number of Muslims today. Christians have also thought this way historically, putting "heretics" and "witches" to death, and so forth. They seem to lose all compassion for certain other human beings, and they do it based on their religious indoctrinations.

 

This is a terribly flawed analogy. Life isn't constructed like a plane or any other human machine. Life can be terribly simple, relative to a human being, and still be life. I recommend you look up a little something called "Climbing Mount Improbable."



One thing I love about Dawkins's books is how well he brings evolution down to the layman's level. If you read (or perhaps listen to) his books describing evolution and what is wrong with the uninformed religious attacks against it (such as your borrowed 747 argument - he does address that one specifically in at least one book), I think you'll come to understand how evolution works and, I should hope, come to see why it is quite obviously true. It's overwhelmingly supported by evidence, but the evidence tends to be out of people's reach, since it's so often of a complex, scientific nature.

 

This is a non-sequitur. Deterministic events do not require a design.

Sounds reasonable, but on closer inspection this is begging the question. Whether something 'works' or not assumes that it has a purpose that it should meet. But what is the purpose of living things? There is only an extrinsic purpose if there is an intelligent designer. We can project some purpose on it of our own, but that then is subjective, and it is likely we will say that life 'works' simply because the purpose we are likely to project onto it is whatever we are already doing.

I'd be surprised if you're happy to accept that this 'intelligent' designer makes mistakes that humans wouldn't make. Are you really OK with that?

I have seen people attempt to work out the odds and they're always highly questionable, thats why I point it out. Anyway, so you're saying that a multiverse theory is post-hoc and sounds improbable. Can't say I entirely disagree to be honest. But surely you can see how one might think the same of the god theory?

Complexity DOES arise from randomness, or at least from what the typical layperson calls randomness. Unless you think someone is sitting under the ground for millions of years delicately crafting the lattice structure of a diamond, or that there is someone up in the air gently placing water molecules together to create a snowflake.

Of course, you might say that these are the result of the laws of physics, and from there argue that those laws were intelligently designed. But that just brings us back to the question of where the universe came from, which is still unanswered.

It's in our genetic code. And it's there because selection pressure made species who had that in their genetic code more prolific.

A species which acquires this trait has an advantage over those that don't. It is more likely to be successful. Just because it isn't immediately beneficial to an individual doesn't mean it isn't beneficial to the species, and evolution doesn't work on individual organisms.

There are numerous species where the father actually doesn't care about their offspring, in fact. They simply haven't had the same environmental pressures, or maybe they just haven't had the lucky accident to evolve that trait, but still had enough beneficial traits to survive.

Species adapt to their environment. This gives the appearance of progress I suppose. But progress towards what? Unless there is a goal, there can be no progress, only change. If you, as a theist, think that god has some kind of goal in mind then that explains why you would think of it as progress. Me, as an atheist, I just see it as change.

I understand that, I really do. But appearances can be deceptive. And yes, our current knowledge of evolution still leaves people asking questions. It's imperfect. Some of the things we think we know about evolution will surely turn out to be wrong, as some have already. But at present I see no evidence that evolution indicates intelligence behind it.

See above. Evolution doesn't work on an individual scale.

Some people don't like going off topic but personally I don't mind it as long as it's not avoiding the question or anything. AFAIAC it's up to you if you want to discuss it here or elsewhere.

 

Actually, creating one's own morality is inimical to the belief in God; i.e., people who create their own moralities and say they believe in God are deceivers.

Which is not to say, of course, that every theist whom an atheist claims is creating his own morality is in fact doing so.

 

Prove it.

 

So improbable it is impossible? Seriously? Improbability does not mean impossibility. It is improbable that all of the air in your house will disappear and reappear on the dark side of the moon. It is possible, however improbable. Rare things occur all of the time in the universe.

You are using the Argument of Incredibility. Which is a logical fallacy.

Because it benefits the species, therefore those traits are desirable. If the trait of killing everyone around you was predominant, would the human race exist?

You have already answered your own question.

So Sweden is collapsing? What about Iceland?

Your Holy Book promotes killing gays, unbelievers, adultery, children, and condones slavery. It is anything but a guide to morality.

 

Why do you accept the words of one mythical creature (Socrates) and not the words of another which some believe to be a mythical creature?

 

It's a simple matter of definitions. Determinism simply states that an event is a necessary consequence of a certain set of antecedents. You might believe that the change from antecedent to consequent follows a design, or that the antecedents were designed to be the way they were, but unless you have any evidence to back that up, it's just one possible take on it.

 

Oh holy crap. How many times will you creationists bring up this tired, worn out and thoroughly discredited analogy?

Evolution starts simple and then adds complexity. Humans didn't just poof into existance in the Theory of Evolution in their current form. That's what YOU believe happened.

 

Those who disbelieve evolution do not understand evolution.

 

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Species that just allow their off spring to die, if their off spring are born helpless like in humans, don't survive. If their off spring die then their genes don't continue. The genes that make a parent care for their young get passed on.

Evolution also explains morality. Morality is what enables genes to continue to be passed on.

 

The entire premise of this thread is the logical fallacy knwon as the argument from personal incredulity.

 

Ahh... but your science adds to the equation such things a billions of years of existence of the universe, when such numbers are non-provable. Regardless of the scale or method of measuring that is used by those scientists, all of those scales, methods, procedures are in fact man-made and made in such a way as to support some lame excuse of the existence of the universe and of man.... to include the THEORY of evolution. Then when it is discovered that a particular method or procedure is no longer valid, they simply modify the THEORY to include the new data.... Talking about being transparent... that is the most transparent of anything on earth.

 

I accept the argument made in the book. If god had explained objective morality in the Bible in the same way that Socratese does in The Republic, I would accept it. I still wouldn't believe that god is real, though. The author's credibility is meaningless when the argument is clearly true. If Dr. Seuss wrote out the same argument and somehow made it rhyme, I'd still accept it.

 

Well, the existence of Socrates is my whole point. Can you prove that such a mythical creature called Socrates ever existed? There are no written records made by this so-called Socrates... his first mention was made by what would be his alleged students (disciples). Yet you openly accept his being as real,, because his disciples claimed that they were instructed by him? Hmmmm.

 

No, I can't prove he existed. And I don't care if he did or not.

 

Then you believe in fairy tales?

 

No.

10char

 

You gotta be kiddin' me. Humans stage deterministic events every day, either using known physical laws by themselves or augmenting them as with computer programs. As far as anyone knows, no such events occur save by design, which is why your claim that deterministic events can occur absent design is utterly devoid of any logical foundation.

 

I'm going to argue like the OP.


Humans can't build planes because it's impossible that the Wright Brothers built and flew an A380 with no prior experience on this planet of powered flight.

 

But you have already indicated that you 'trust' the teachings of that mythological creature that you call Socrates. Socrates, for all intents and purposes, is a fairy tale. There is no proof of his physical existence. Yet you believe in his alleged teachings, in fact, you brag on those teachings. Now, if you can prove that Socrates is not a mythological creature and/or fairy tale, then you could say that you don't believe in fairy tales. At this point you are hard pressed to prove that you don't hold such a belief.

 

I trust in the argument, not the person who made it. If Socrates didn't make it, then Plato did, through the character of Socrates. I don't know if Socrates existed or not. I don't care if he did or didn't. I don't see how you can equate that with believing in fairy tales.