Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

There is no "we."
There is me.
There is you.
Your theorizing does not mean I don't know.
I know what I know.
You know what you think you know.
You theorize.
There is absolutely no "we."
I am on a different page than you.
I am in a different book than you.
I am in a different library than you.
I like it that way.
I plan to keep it that way.
You don't have the power and authority to decide for me what is, or is not,
credible evidence.
Here are some raw materials and some objects that man made from raw
materials. It is irrational to believe that non-intelligent natural processes
produced or made possible all of this:

Lead, tin, copper, bauxite, iron ore, raw latex, crude oil, coal, cotton, trees,
granite, gems, mercury, zinc, glass, paper clips, rubies, chemicals, potassium,
topaz, diamonds, titanium, nickel, plastics, paper, jasper, lumber, natural gas,
minerals, steel, corn, grain, gasoline, milk, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy
products, fruit, sapphires, cell phones, computers, refrigerators, concrete,
etc
`
The world of untold millions of different kinds of raw materials and physical
objects made by humans from those raw materials, and the way they co-exist
together allowing humans to build the modern world as it exists today --displays
a staggering amount of Intelligent Design.
`
It is unreasonable, illogical, and nonsensical to believe that all that up there
was produced by natural processes apart from an Intelligent Mind.


`

 

And again, its hilarious that you keep repeating that. You truly
do not have a clue with regard to what the Opening Post and
this thread is about. Just a quick surface reading of the
Opening Post could solve it for you -- but why go to that much
trouble -- just keep on making your point:

"And again, if someone thinks god caused something, then that
person isn't an atheist."___WillReadmore

`

 

Many Christians believe in Theistic Evolution.
If they are correct that means God created the
world through evolutionary processes so then
evolution had an Intelligent Designer.

The Watchmaker Argument. makes good sense to me.
It does not make sense to me to to believe that biological
evolution working through purely natural processes
produced the human eye or produced this fine-tuned
Universe.

Start quote.
When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist.
I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to
show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims
are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have
been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of
physics.

• Frank Tipler, "Preface", The Physics Of Immortality, New York, Doubleday, 1994.End quote.

____________________

The physicists are getting down to the nitty-gritty, they've really just about pared things down to the
ultimate details, and the last thing they ever expected to happen is happening. God is showing through.

• John Updike, Roger's Version, 1986.

____________________

And here is Fred Hoyle in more detail:

Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language super-calculating intellects use, "Some super-calculating intellect
must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through
the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 1040000." Of course you would. … I have always been
intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12C to the 7.12 Mev level
in 16O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis,
these are the two levels you would have to fix … A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that
a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no
blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

• Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, volume 20, September 1982, p. 16

___________

Source:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

LOL - that's a LOT of paragraphs that do no more than claim I'm stupid for some reason you can't state.

Fry didn't say that God puts cancer in children. That's just inflamatory nonsense - a trivialization of what Fry believed - as I pointed out.

You're trying to postulate what some body of atheists claims and then suggesting that your postulations don't make sense.

If you want to argue against some body of atheists, the first step would be to identify who these atheists are - with citations.

I'd also point out that claiming that God did the good stuff and none of the bad stuff is totally self serving and without evidence of any kind.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that mankind can NOT make judgements like that. And, those feature that appear seriously bad to mankind may well move toward some objective of an omniscient and all powerful god.

Do you disagree that is an accurate representation of the message of the Bible?

Is it impossible to imagine that those who held to their religion even as being killed for their beliefs weren't impressing on the population the imporance of decisions that affect everlasting life?

Does "good" mean enjoyable?

 

That says that some BELIEVE there is an intelligent designer. It doesn't say anything about whether that actually happened. Believing something doesn't make it so. We're still all humans.

Maybe god touched off the big bang such that the physcis of our system would result in mankind, fully produced by the root features of our physics alone.

Would that be impossible for an allpowerful god?

With science, what happens is that people work their whole lives to find concrete evidence how things work.

That's not the same as someone who has spent NO time on the topic having a feeling that things couldn't work that way. I don't mean this to be derogatory. We can't all study every topic.

If you want to discuss what one of these individuals believes I'd be fine with that.

I pointed out two key things you are ignoring about Fred Hoyle and what he believed.

The first is that his view on cosmology has been clearly shown to be absolutely wrong. And, that's not all that surprising, as he wasn't really a cosmologist and tended to like theories that were outside the manstream of science.

The other is that he believed that life came from the Earth being constantly subjected to bombardment by bioparticles of virus size and below.

Does THAT sound to you like any religious model you've evern heard of?


More importantly, you appear to have copied that Hoyle quote from WIKI where the views of Hoyle are described.

So, why did you ignore the statements of what Fred Hoyle actually believe???

How come you pretend like he's backing your creationist ideas?

How come you aren't curious about how this constant rain of particles could go totally undetected?

I'm tending to think you are more interested in promoting your modle than being truthful about what people like Hoyle actually believe.

 

Why would you bring up Updike on physics???

His education has NOTHING to do with science. At Harvard, he led Harvard Lampoon. After graduation he took coursework in art, hoping to create cartoons. And, his more metaphysical take certainly doesn't match your own beliefs.

Do you really sift for quotes that you think might be marshalled to your cause merely because they sound vaguely positive of something??

Are you convinced Updike is right out physics nearing some sort of end?

 

You're not stupid.
I never said you were stupid.
I said this:
Based on your posts, it is clear to me that you do not know
what has been said in this thread regarding your concerns.
You simply do not know. You are unaware of the nuances
within this thread and unaware of the explanations I have
posted herein.

So its clear that you "just jumped in" and started making
comments without being aware of all the nuances and
distinctions and explanations that have been made by
me {and atheists too} in this thread.

 

You can't get Fry off your mind. So what is it with You & Fry?

By the way, this Opening Post is NOT on the subject of Fry.
Fry is mentioned one {1} time in the Opening Post.
And that one {1} mention of Fry was NOT a major point
of the Opening Post --- rather it was merely one small example
of what one atheist had said about the God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

 

Nobody is going to spend time reading 13 pages of posts.

I just responded to the OP.

So far I see huge posts in support of the OP, but without references to new nuances.

 

You brought up Fry (with no citation) and I pointed out that he isn't an example of what you were hoping for.

That's a style issue at least. We need to be careful when we quote people.

But, I haven't treated that as the major issue with the OP.

 

Yeah, OK. Thank God for Walmart.

... said no one ever.

 

No.
Not in this case.
I made a brief statement about what Fry said in my OP.
It was a reference to a well know video that went viral.
I do not need to provide a link to a brief reference like that.
I can say, Franklin Graham said God was merciful. I do not
need to provide a link for saying that.
By the way . . .its Fry again.
What is it with You & Fry?

False.
By the way, its Fry again.
Do you greatly admire Fry?
You can't seem to get Fry off your mind.
Why is that?

It does not need to.
I am surprised that you did not mention Fry again?
By the way, which one of these do you like the most?
{1} Fry.
{2} Fry
{3} Fry
{4} Fry.

No.
That is false.
Hey, its Fry again.
Why are you unable to forget Fry?

Heh heh, no kidding. Seriously?

Thought For Today.
Stephen Fry said he was going to ask God
{the God-That-Does-Not-Exist}
why He put bone cancer in children.


`

`

 

We know pretty darn well how all that stuff in Walmart was created. And, it's NOT because we have some coplexity measurement capability. It's because we have HUGE experience with manufactured goods.

Well, we're not arguing wheher there is intelligent design.

The issue is whether god made this universe including all its detail.

And, there is ZERO scientific evidence of that.

There IS scientific evidence concerning how your list of "raw materials" came about. All those have been studied - and continue to be studied today. And, we have universities with technology departments teaching people how to create and/or utilize these materials.

My own view is that science and religion are two entirely different tool sets. Their fundamental assumptions are way different, their ideas of evidence are different, their logic is different.

Our challenge should be picking which toolset to use. Are we interested in how this universe works? Are we interested in Jesus forgiving our sins, or providing an afterlife?

And, mixing the tools can not be justified. The tools and how they are used can not just be swapped back and forth as if they don't depend on radicaly different root assumptions and definitions.

 

Yeah, here is my exact quote:

" ■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist Stephen Fry says this.]"__JAG

That was ALL I said about . . here it comes . . . FRY .

I do not need to provide links and documentation for a casual remark like that.

Yes. You have. And not just one {1} time.

 

You would be correct about Graham, obviously.

But, there are problems with your use of Fry. And, without a cite there is no way to point out what the problem is.

See, there you go.

You now suggest the comment by Fry was pure sarcasm.

But, that's not the sense in which you quoted him.

I don't care about Fry that much. But, I DO think we need to get the straight version of what people are purported to have said.

 

I thank God for Walmart.
I love Walmart.
I love Sam's Club too.
I believe in shopping.
I believe we ought to use 2 carts
every time we go to Walmart or to
Sam's Club.
I believe in my "Ten {10} Item Rule"

Pile those carts high with stuff.

If at least 10 items do not fall out
of each cart on the way to the
check out counter -- we need to
return to the aisles and put more
stuff in both carts.

. . .LOL. . .

 

Only if I get another stimulus! I hope the Almighty will deliver on that. He'll have my vote if He does.

 

Agreed.

False.

Incorrect.
You did it.
You found the video.
Or you already knew about it.

False.
I do not.
I meant exactly what I said in the quote.
" ■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist
Stephen Fry says this.]"__JAG

False.
It is.
" ■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist
Stephen Fry says this.]"__JAG

The evidence in your posts strongly suggests that you do.

Fry said what I said he said, which was this:

" ■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist
Stephen Fry says this.]"__JAG[/QUOTE]

 

I hear ya.
They sent me and my family a check for $2400.00.
They sent out millions of checks for $3500.00
"Uncle Sugar" is generous with tax dollars.

`

 

Agreed.
Sure.
I never claimed there was scientific evidence demonstrating the
existence of God that rises to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4.
There is not.
Christianity is a faith -- not an intellectual system.
There ARE some evidences for the existence of God,
but they are in the category of Probability and Plausibility
and NOT in the area of 2 + 2 = 4 certainty.

And Probability and Plausibility are very subjective -- which
means they are saturated with our human biases, prejudices,
and presuppositions.

 

Borrowed fiat dollars, really.

 

YES!! there is zero scientific evidence of there existing a god (or anything else that is supernatural).

That's not arguable.

And, you can state that within your religion there is religious evidence of a god - whatever your religion considers to be evidence.

And, that's not arguable, either. Science doesn't get to help improve the definition of evidence that your religion chooses.

This is one of the problems of there being a science v religion debate.

Another is that in religion, there is no resolution or decision making process. So, champions of the various faiths have no more chance of making headway with other religions than they have with science.

In fact, the root assumption of religion is that there IS a god!! One can't debate the fundamental assumptions of religion from within that religion.

 

I believe you meant what you said.

But, you used Fry's comment without the context that shows that Fry doesn't actually support your position AT ALL.

And, that CAN be defined as a lie.

 

Okay . . . but . . .
You do know, do you not, that I hold that the existence of
God cannot be demonstrated true with empirical evidence.
So? So what debate is there?

If you can, be specific. Please give me the precise specific
point that you think I am avoiding.

God is either Omnipotent or He is not Omnipotent.
God either causes all things or He does not cause all things.
Fry means that if God does exist and is Omnipotent then He
causes bone cancer in children. "God, what's that about?"__Fry

JAG asks the Fry's of this world to be consistent with their
own principle --- and not to "flip back and forth" by the way,
we have one, I guess atheist, here that keeps telling me that
"anyone who says God causes anything is not really an atheist"
. . .LOL. . . he has no clue what the OP is about nor has he
read my posts in this thread with comprehension. But that's
okay. This is the Internet!

Yah, why not? What's wrong with a little celebration of that
for a change? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that
God will "get His foot in the door" and maybe later want to
actually "enter the room"?
Do you think they're "putting their guard up"?

How about you? Do you ever give any thought to where you
will spend Eternity?
You ever think about Death?
If you are age 60 and you live to age 90, you have 360 months
left before you find out if John 3:16's "perish" really means
perish. Suppose God was dead serious about perish?
Suppose the atheists are correct in what they say about the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist --- that He punishes the unbelievers
severely? You figure you'll just take your chances on that?

Maybe we can encourage them to change their minds and
make it relevant?

Maybe we can change that? And make those things become
relevant to them?

So maybe we can get them to start mentioning those things?
Why do we have to stick with "what is"? Why not go for
"what could be"?

Well, we can try again.
You ARE enjoyable to talk to.
However we do go over the same points over and over again.
We don't explore any "new ground."
I don't even know what you believe about God?
Is it a secret?
Your avatar says "Devil's Advocate" -- I know what that means.
You argue from positions you don't actually hold.
For all I know you could be a Pentecostal Preacher?
That handles snakes while you're preaching?
And speaks in "unknown tongues."
. . .LOL . . .

{1} maybe my Opening Post is more of a Request than it is
an Argument?

{2} Maybe we can forget the word "celebration" and just use
the word "list" --- so now atheists can just "list all the good
things" the God-That-Does-Not-Exist does.
Like this:
{1} Causes Walmart's to come to exist.
{2} Causes Hospitals to come to exist.

Think they'll do that?
I don't.
I doubt you do either.

I'm a simple soul. Very uncomplicated.
A "Faith kind of guy."

Tell me exactly what that "issue" is, please.
I'll give it a sincere shot.

Okay.
Why not just agree to the following?
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} Or an agnostic.
{3} i don't believe in God.
{4} But He may exist.
}5} I can't prove He does.
{6} I can't prove He doesn't.
{7} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{8} That means He is all powerful.
{9} He could have created a different world.
{10} But He did not do that.
{11} He created the world we now have.
{12} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{13} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{14} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{15} Therefore God is also responsible for hospitals and the Red Cross.

Question for Swensson: Will you, or will you not, tell me you agree
with that up there?

Okay.
Let's party again.

I guess we are?
But I'm not sure.
We do repeat our points a lot.

Looking forward to reading your reply.



`

 

I do not tell lies.
You have no remote clue what my "position" is.
I am not even sure you know what a "lie" is.
Your posts are funny.
You have no remote clue regarding what my Opening Post is actually about.
You have no remote clue regarding what this thread is actually about.
Yet you continue to "post away" nonetheless.
You cannot get Fry off your mind.
Fry is very very important to you.
Fry.
Fry.
Fry.
Fry.
Your posts about Fry are incorrect.
Please continue to post about Fry.
Post away and be sure to mention Fry.

" ■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist
Stephen Fry says this.]"__JAG
{to be understood in the context of my OP}

Say, have you made any posts about Fry lately?
We do not want to forget Fry.

Also its about time for you to write me a post and tell me that
people who say God did anything are not really atheists.
I am looking forward to reading that again --- and be sure to
please mention Fry again.

Say, did you know this:

" ■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist
Stephen Fry says this.]"__JAG
{to be understood in the context of my OP}

______________

I wrote this below to Swensson in my post just above.

WillReadmore, do you understand what this means?

JAG Wrote:
"Okay. Why not just agree to the following?
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} Or an agnostic.
{3} i don't believe in God.
{4} But He may exist.
}5} I can't prove He does.
{6} I can't prove He doesn't.
{7} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{8} That means He is all powerful.
{9} He could have created a different world.
{10} But He did not do that.
{11} He created the world we now have.
{12} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{13} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{14} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{15} Therefore God is also responsible for hospitals and the Red Cross."___JAG

`