Jump to content


Photo

Is There A God (part 1)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 November 2010 - 12:42 PM

But I don't think evolution is a human construct. It's not hard, you and I just see the world differently. Besides, this is off topic, so I'm definitely, absolutely going this time.  :)

View Post


If evolution is not a human construct, then from where did it originate? And, being off topic was when there was no evidence for your original assertion. Be that as it may, maybe getting off “THE” topic, will keep some from going off topic.

#22 Phish

Phish

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • SoCal Baby!!!!

Posted 25 November 2010 - 10:37 AM

Okay, the problem you’re having here is this: The OP questions are concerning “God”, and not god, or gods. I’m fairly sure that you are completely aware of the concept I am speaking about. And “God” is no more a “nebulous” or murky concept then evolution, or natural selection.  So your attempt to use the “god” versus “God” red herring at this thread renders that portion of your most a non sequitur.

Also, if you’re going to claim “I absolutely believe that the God of Abraham is false”, then you are “de facto” an atheist, and not and agnostic. Not only that, but the OP called for evidences:
And you provided absolutely none (zero, zilch). So your attempt to use the statement “I'm not going to list them” (for your errant Bible fallacy) red herring at this thread renders that portion of your post a non sequitur as well. And when combining (within context) your further insult “since I'm sure you'll run into discussions of most of them by looking around this forum” will do nothing more than garner you a warning. And I suggest you read the forum rules (that you agreed to prior to being accepted to this forum) before posting here again. Trolling tactics are not allowed here, and neither are Ad hominem attacks, name calling or mudslinging, so I would caution you to be aware of the slippery slope you seem to heading down.

View Post



OK Ron, point taken. I didn't know this was supposed to be a "debate" thread. I just thought it was an opportunity to elaborate on your views so everyone on the forum know where everyone else is coming from. If I'm missing the point of this thread, I apologize.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 November 2010 - 02:16 PM

OK Ron, point taken. I didn't know this was supposed to be a "debate" thread. I just thought it was an opportunity to elaborate on your views so everyone on the forum know where everyone else is coming from. If I'm missing the point of this thread, I apologize.

View Post

Just a few points, so as not to depart from the OP, or the dialogue:

1- Sometimes we (all) confuse debate, dialogue, and communication with hostile argumentation. And, the conversations within this thread are intended to be those of the former, and not that of the latter.

2- The above mentioned “debate, dialogue, and communication” are interspersed throughout the entire forum. This “interaction” should never be observed as a negative, but always needs to be constructive. This is why we have Forum Rules, as standards with which to work and communicate in.

And we must always be aware of the common time-wasting talk.origins-style tactics (see:Evo Babbeling )

Having said that, there is a “non-debate” area in which NO debate is go on: Non-debate Area

Setting ALL of that aside; the OP of this thread was succinctly and directly asked of “atheists” who believe “there is “absolutely” NO God”; AND asked them specifically for “evidence, or evidences to prove this conclusion”. It was not asked of agonistics, or anyone else who believe there “may” or “may not” be a God or gods; or those who think “we cannot know” God or gods, due to said lack of knowledge.

So, to wrap it all up as neatly (and hopefully concisely)as possible: If someone is stating “This is what I believe”, they are making a “Faith” statement. If someone says “This is what I know”, they are making a factual statement. Either of these statements are open for “debate, dialogue, and communication” (except for in the Non-debate forum). And, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with “debate, dialogue, and communication”, as long as it fits within the parameters (standards) of the forum rules.

SO

Whenever you see dialogue opened, and it further asks for “Evidence”, you should “Absolutely” be prepared for that (those) evidence (evidences) to be scrutinized and questioned. This is intended to be neither “hostile” nor “offensive”, but inquisitive. To see it it/they meet muster and can be verified/validated.

#24 guillxer

guillxer

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Rhode Island

Posted 18 December 2010 - 09:06 AM

I don't see any way of proving or disproving a God, god or gods as it stands. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a pretty brilliant creator, but not terribly disappointed if there was not. Whatever the case may be our view on the subject probably does not effect the reality of the situation. So keeping an open mind is all one can do.

- Also, I was raised Methodist and then Catholic, but am now agnostic fyi.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 09:49 AM

- Also, I was raised Methodist and then Catholic, but am now agnostic fyi.

View Post


That's okay, I was raised with no theistic faith, and was a hedonistic atheist until I actually sifted through all the evidences (historicity of Christ, Teleological argument, Ontological argument, cosmological argument etcettera...) and now I am a Christian.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 April 2011 - 05:09 AM

I don't see any way of proving or disproving a God, god or gods as it stands. 

View Post

Then, obviously, you have not read (or don’t understand) the many lines of evidence. But, that’s okay, because Romans Chapter one explains it quite succinctly.

It is easy to prove God exists, the question is “will you accept the evidences?”


I wouldn't be surprised if there were a pretty brilliant creator, but not terribly disappointed if there was not.  Whatever the case may be our view on the subject probably does not effect the reality of the situation.  So keeping an open mind is all one can do.

View Post

If you were keeping an open mind, you wouldn’t be outright denying the plethora of evidence FOR God.

#27 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 12 April 2011 - 12:25 PM

I figure this is a good thread for my first post, I've read through the forum rules and have read through a number of the threads, so I feel prepared to enter into discussions.

First - yes, Ron I believe that there is absolutely no God. I consider myself a 'positive' atheist in that I go beyond not believing there is a God to believing that there is NOT a God. It's largely a semantic difference, but one that comes up frequently among my atheist friends.

The evidence that I have to support my position are as follows:

1. Personal Experience. I have never personally experienced anything which would lead me to conclude there is a god. I have had no visions, revelations or anything of the like.

2. Improbability. God is, to me, a staggeringly improbable being. It's oft repeated on this forum that Evolution falls apart due to its improbability. I see the existence of a sentient, timeless, omnipotent creator being as being significantly MORE improbable than any materialistic explanations.

3. Plausibility of Materialistic Explanations. I know of no phenomenon that do not have plausible materialistic explanations which seem to be borne out by observational evidence. While I understand that certain questions do not have hard-and-fast answers, such as what causes gravity, or how abiogenesis occurred, I do not see a need to posit a supernatural explanation. Every single phenomenon for which we used to need supernatural causes - lightning, diseases, mental illnesses, etc. can now be simply and easily explained without appeal to the supernatural. That we don't know the answers yet is no reason to infer a deity.

4. Unsatisfactory Nature of Religion. If there is a God, and particularly if God has revealed himself through Scripture, then religion should be better than it is. Scripture should be better than it is. Ask any random person on the street and they'd be able to write a better, more moral 10 Commandments than exist in Scripture. The God of the Bible misses on some MAJOR moral issues, slavery being the obvious one. The same is true of every religion. If an earthly scripture is the revealed wisdom of an omnipotent, eternal creator deity it should be impossible to improve on it, yet it's almost painfully easy to do so.


These are the major reasons I believe there is no God.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 April 2011 - 01:44 PM

I figure this is a good thread for my first post, I've read through the forum rules and have read through a number of the threads, so I feel prepared to enter into discussions.

First - yes, Ron I believe that there is absolutely no God. I consider myself a 'positive' atheist in that I go beyond not believing there is a God to believing that there is NOT a God. It's largely a semantic difference, but one that comes up frequently among my atheist friends.

The evidence that I have to support my position are as follows:

1. Personal Experience. I have never personally experienced anything which would lead me to conclude there is a god. I have had no visions, revelations or anything of the like.

2. Improbability. God is, to me, a staggeringly improbable being. It's oft repeated on this forum that Evolution falls apart due to its improbability. I see the existence of a sentient, timeless, omnipotent creator being as being significantly MORE improbable than any materialistic explanations.

3. Plausibility of Materialistic Explanations. I know of no phenomenon that do not have plausible materialistic explanations which seem to be borne out by observational evidence. While I understand that certain questions do not have hard-and-fast answers, such as what causes gravity, or how abiogenesis occurred, I do not see a need to posit a supernatural explanation. Every single phenomenon for which we used to need supernatural causes - lightning, diseases, mental illnesses, etc. can now be simply and easily explained without appeal to the supernatural. That we don't know the answers yet is no reason to infer a deity.

4. Unsatisfactory Nature of Religion. If there is a God, and particularly if God has revealed himself through Scripture, then religion should be better than it is. Scripture should be better than it is. Ask any random person on the street and they'd be able to write a better, more moral 10 Commandments than exist in Scripture. The God of the Bible misses on some MAJOR moral issues, slavery being the obvious one. The same is true of every religion. If an earthly scripture is the revealed wisdom of an omnipotent, eternal creator deity it should be impossible to improve on it, yet it's almost painfully easy to do so.
These are the major reasons I believe there is no God.

View Post


Question: How can you be against what you say absolutely does not exist?

I don't believe in ghosts, but do I go join a Aghost group? Do I put up websites, blogs and forums against ghosts? Do I write books, do papers, give speeches etc... against what I say does not exist? Nope. It's because I "truly" don't believe in ghosts. So therefore I do not waste my time, money, or thought on the subject.

What I see when people like yourself come here and make such statements, is someone by their own actions of being against a God they claim does not exist, actually indirectly admitting that God does. Either that or you would have to admit that you are fighting shadows, ghosts, and faries etc... And basically wasting your time and money doing it. How can there be money involved?

1) Your PC consumes power while it's on. So if you spend a lot of time fighting God and His creation, you are paying electricity to do so.
2) If you pay internet, if you add up how much it cost per hour, you are shelling out money to do this. So electricity plus internet costs. You may be paying out more than you realize.
3) Then you have personal time that you could be doing something else. Yet waste time fighting what you say absolutely does not exist.

So when you try and make others that you disagree with, look stupid for believing what they do, your own actions do the same in the opposite manner. Because I very seriously doubt you could explain why you put so much effort in fighting what is not there (as you claim).

1) Can you be against what does not exist?
2) Can you hate what does not exist?
3) Why would you waste time on some thing that does not exist?
4) Why would you spend money on what does not exist?
5) And if you truly believed God did not exist, why would you even lift a finger against Him?

Atheism itself is a oxymoron belief. How can you be against what you claim does not exist?

Let's look at it from another angle.

1) Do you fight the sky-daddy quite often?
2) Do you fight fairies quite often?
3) Do you fight pink unicorns?
4) Why?

Now don't get mad, this is what your side has come up with. And all that is done to make us look stupid, reflects back because it's you guys who are fighting it.

#29 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 12 April 2011 - 03:15 PM

Question: How can you be against what you say absolutely does not exist?

What I see when people like yourself come here and make such statements, is someone by their own actions of being against a God they claim does not exist, actually indirectly admitting that God does. Either that or you would have to admit that you are fighting shadows, ghosts, and faries etc... And basically wasting your time and money doing it. How can there be money involved?


The difference between people who believe in ghosts and people of Faith is that rarely does a persons belief or non belief in ghosts influence their vote, how they spend their money, or what policies they support. People of Faith are strongly motivated BY their Faith to choose certain political parties or platforms, to organize and raise money to support policies and and ideologies I disagree with and that I consider detrimental.

For example, I support same-s@x marriage and abortion rights. There are a great many people who oppose these platforms and would seek to change the laws of the land based exclusively on their Faith. I believe that convincing people that there is no God will encourage them to support the causes I believe in.

If there were a group of people who were actively campaigning to eliminate socialized medicine in Canada because they believed that people become Ghosts when they die and this was a good thing, so more people should die, I would probably be on a Ghost v. No-Ghost forum as well!

1) Your PC consumes power while it's on. So if you spend a lot of time fighting God and His creation, you are paying electricity to do so.
2) If you pay internet, if you add up how much it cost per hour, you are shelling out money to do this. So electricity plus internet costs. You may be paying out more than you realize.
3) Then you have personal time that you could be doing something else. Yet waste time fighting what you say absolutely does not exist.

So when you try and make others that you disagree with, look stupid for believing what they do, your own actions do the same in the opposite manner. Because I very seriously doubt you could explain why you put so much effort in fighting what is not there (as you claim).


First of all, I hope that you don't feel I'm trying to make a person look stupid for believing what they do having Faith isn't stupid and that isn't my goal.

As for your other point. Yes. I do spend money and time on this subject. But that's because I like it. I enjoy the argument for the argument's sake. I like to research the points that people make, I like to educate myself on the topic. It's a hobby and one that I thoroughly enjoy. Ultimately, THAT is why I signed on to this site, not because I expect to convince any of you - I don't - or that I feel evolution needs me to defend it - it doesn't - but because I want to be here purely to enjoy the experience.

1) Can you be against what does not exist?
2) Can you hate what does not exist?
3) Why would you waste time on some thing that does not exist?
4) Why would you spend money on what does not exist?
5) And if you truly believed God did not exist, why would you even lift a finger against Him?

Atheism itself is a oxymoron belief. How can you be against what you claim does not exist?


Atheism is just a term. It can be broken down to mean being 'against' theism, but that isn't necessarily how an atheist considers themself. I agree with you, I can't be "against" God because there is no god. I don't hate Him for the same reason.

What I CAN be against, however, is the way people who do believe in God act, vote and operate in their daily lives. I can be against religion which is something that absolutely exists. The major Judeo-Christian religions couldn't exist without people believing in God. I think humanity as a whole would be better off without those religions, therefore it is in my interest to proselytize the idea that God doesn't exist.

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 April 2011 - 04:02 PM

What I CAN be against, however, is the way people who do believe in God act, vote and operate in their daily lives. I can be against religion which is something that absolutely exists. The major Judeo-Christian religions couldn't exist without people believing in God. I think humanity as a whole would be better off without those religions, therefore it is in my interest to proselytize the idea that God doesn't exist.

View Post


I hope you understand that I did read your post in its entirety, but for a few reasons I am only responding to the above paragraph (mainly because I recently had surgery, and the effects limit my typing ability right now). As I can, I will respond in greater detail. I appreciate both your response, and that of Ventus; but I cannot respond to his as I would like either right now.

Anyway, having said that, the theist can reply in kind as you yourself have responded, but from a opposing viewpoint.

Example: I CAN easily oppose the way people who believe 'against God' act, vote and operate in their daily lives. I can be against their religiosity (yes, atheists act with just as much, if not more, faith and dogmatism than that of any other world religion) which is something that absolutely exists. These so-called atheists (which can easily be viewed as religious) couldn't exist without people believing against God. I think humanity as a whole would be better off without atheism; therefore it is in my interest to proselytize the idea that atheism has absolutely no foundation, and is an entirely faith-based worldview.

Further, atheism is not simply a “term”; atheism is a philosophy, lifestyle, worldview and yes, religion.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 April 2011 - 07:51 PM

The difference between people who believe in ghosts and people of Faith is that rarely does a persons belief or non belief in ghosts influence their vote, how they spend their money, or what policies they support. People of Faith are strongly motivated BY their Faith to choose certain political parties or platforms, to organize and raise money to support policies and and ideologies I disagree with and that I consider detrimental.

For example, I support same-s@x marriage and abortion rights. There are a great many people who oppose these platforms and would seek to change the laws of the land based exclusively on their Faith. I believe that convincing people that there is no God will encourage them to support the causes I believe in.


So conformism is what you are looking for? A society that agrees on everything because they are not allowed to think differently? What you promote sounds more like religion than free thought. Because if your side was truly about free thought, they would not have any trouble with what we think, but that's not what we see now is it?

If there were a group of people who were actively campaigning to eliminate socialized medicine in Canada because they believed that people become Ghosts when they die and this was a good thing, so more people should die, I would probably be on a Ghost v. No-Ghost forum as well!


Ask a Vietnam Vet how his socialized government care is taking care of him? I have a good friend who was in a special farces group of that time. If he has a heart attack, he has to travel 50 miles away to get care. This past month he has driven himself during a heart attack that far because government care won't pay for a ambulance to take him. So every time he hits the road he could kill someone. But if he does not go, he dies himself. He also has several problems from fighting that war that they won't help him with. That is what government care will be like.

And do you know the real reason they want this? Another cash cow for their spending spree of spending all out SS money that no one can retire on in 5 years because there won't be any money.

First of all, I hope that you don't feel I'm trying to make a person look stupid for believing what they do having Faith isn't stupid and that isn't my goal.


Glad to hear that. So many come here just for that reason and they don't last long.

As for your other point. Yes. I do spend money and time on this subject. But that's because I like it. I enjoy the argument for the argument's sake. I like to research the points that people make, I like to educate myself on the topic. It's a hobby and one that I thoroughly enjoy. Ultimately, THAT is why I signed on to this site, not because I expect to convince any of you - I don't - or that I feel evolution needs me to defend it - it doesn't - but because I want to be here purely to enjoy the experience.


Glad to hear it, there should be some good debates on the way then.

Atheism is just a term. It can be broken down to mean being 'against' theism, but that isn't necessarily how an atheist considers themself. I agree with you, I can't be "against" God because there is no god. I don't hate Him for the same reason.


Glad to see you got the point. Most don't and take offense.

What I CAN be against, however, is the way people who do believe in God act, vote and operate in their daily lives. I can be against religion which is something that absolutely exists. The major Judeo-Christian religions couldn't exist without people believing in God. I think humanity as a whole would be better off without those religions, therefore it is in my interest to proselytize the idea that God doesn't exist.

View Post


If you consider yourself a freethinker, then by definition of the term you have to allows others free thought as well, whether you agree or not. If not, then what you promote is not absolute free thought, but free thought within certain boundaries which is conformism.

Do you consider yourself a free thinker?

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 05:43 AM

I figure this is a good thread for my first post, I've read through the forum rules and have read through a number of the threads, so I feel prepared to enter into discussions.

View Post


Hello Ventus, and thank you for your response. Reading the forum rules, and familiarizing yourself with them is common courtesy and common sense at any forum/web site we visit, so I thank you for that as well.

First - yes, Ron I believe that there is absolutely no God. I consider myself a 'positive' atheist in that I go beyond not believing there is a God to believing that there is NOT a God. It's largely a semantic difference, but one that comes up frequently among my atheist friends.

View Post

I agree, both of these atheistic viewpoints are semantically derived, there is really no difference when it comes to the crux of the worldview.

The evidence that I have to support my position are as follows:

Personal Experience. I have never personally experienced anything which would lead me to conclude there is a god. I have had no visions, revelations or anything of the like.

View Post


This is basically personal biographical information, and although I do respect it, the analogical inference I can make is “I have never personally experienced anything which would lead me to conclude there is an 'australia’. I have never personally been to Australia, and I could further argue that all the pictures of Australians and Australia itself could be faked, and therefore fallacious.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe there is such a place as Australia, but I am doing so completely vicariously through the experience of others to do so.

Further, I (being a former hedonistic atheist) have experienced God through revelation, historical data, logical reasoning (etcetera…), and I personally know thousands of other respectable and rational people (of every walk of life, education, race, and gender), let alone the many millions throughout history who have done the same. Now, to assure you that I am not attempting to fallaciously argue from “ad Populum”, I am only positing this as an addendum to your argument from “Personal Experience”. Just as ‘you’ have no personal experience, there are many who have, therefore your argument is not logical or cogent for many reasons, but it is personal and biographical, and to be respected on that level alone. Keep in mind (again), I have never experienced Australia, but it does not follow that Australia does not exist (non sequitur).

2. Improbability. God is, to me, a staggeringly improbable being. It's oft repeated on this forum that Evolution falls apart due to its improbability. I see the existence of a sentient, timeless, omnipotent creator being as being significantly MORE improbable than any materialistic explanations.

View Post


Due to the logical lines of evidence alone (The Teleological, Ontological, Cosmological, Causality, and Transcendental arguments, and First principles to name a few) the lack of God/Initial Causer/First Cause is rendered as highly improbable.

Therefore, the atheists’ argument from the “materialistic” stance alone (i.e. omitting metaphysical phenomena) is lacking logic and cogency. I further submit that the atheist cannot even surmount a logical, rational and scientific “materialistic” origins explanation, let alone a foundation for atheism itself. What does this mean? Atheism itself is a faith based worldview. Further; atheism requires even more ‘FAITH’ than any other world religion.

To carry this even one step further, then, it becomes easy to refute your claim by turning your argument around and saying it is “a staggeringly improbable” position to prove that ‘Atheism’ is anything other than a misnomer, because “A-Theism” (meaning no theism or God) is itself theistic due to its massive amounts of faith AND lack of empirical foundation.


3. Plausibility of Materialistic Explanations. I know of no phenomenon that do not have plausible materialistic explanations which seem to be borne out by observational evidence. While I understand that certain questions do not have hard-and-fast answers, such as what causes gravity, or how abiogenesis occurred, I do not see a need to posit a supernatural explanation. Every single phenomenon for which we used to need supernatural causes - lightning, diseases, mental illnesses, etc. can now be simply and easily explained without appeal to the supernatural. That we don't know the answers yet is no reason to infer a deity.

View Post


You don’t even have a plausible materialistic explanation for the laws of logic, altruistic love, the laws of mathematics, thoughts (etc…), remember, man did not invent these metaphysical phenomena, he discovered them (which begs the question, where did they come from?). And ALL of these are non-materialistic phenomena (i.e. metaphysical/supernatural) themselves. Further, you have absolutely NO empirical/materialistic evidence for hypotheses such as abiogenesis, macro-evolution (etc…), which therefor renders them as more implausible than God/Initial Causer.


4. Unsatisfactory Nature of Religion. If there is a God, and particularly if God has revealed himself through Scripture, then religion should be better than it is. Scripture should be better than it is. Ask any random person on the street and they'd be able to write a better, more moral 10 Commandments than exist in Scripture. The God of the Bible misses on some MAJOR moral issues, slavery being the obvious one. The same is true of every religion. If an earthly scripture is the revealed wisdom of an omnipotent, eternal creator deity it should be impossible to improve on it, yet it's almost painfully easy to do so.
These are the major reasons I believe there is no God.

View Post



The above is nothing more than a Red Herring dragged across the stage to divert from the crux of the argument. I would require you to provide:

1- How Atheism is a better religion than any other world religion

2- Better Moral Maxims than the 10 commandments (as posited by any ‘person on the street’). Keeping in mind, materialistically, what do morals even matter!

3- Where, in scripture God says slavery is okay (not merely your presupposed opinion, or cherry-picking of the scripture).

4- Where YOU can improve upon scripture (remember, you cannot even explain metaphysical/supernatural phenomena, as you only accept materialistic phenomena).


Conclusion: The bottom line is your last sentence “I believe there is no God”… Which itself, is a ‘FAITH’ statement.



I would also remind you, the OP itself asked for “evidence”:

These questions are directed ONLY at those of the perspective of the questions. There are questions for those of the opposite perspective at: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3892

The Questions:

Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

View Post



We did get your statement that you don’t “believe” in God, but you didn’t provide one piece of “evidence” for your belief. All you did provide was personal biopic opinion, which is an 'a priori' presupposition at best.

#33 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:20 AM

So conformism is what you are looking for? A society that agrees on everything because they are not allowed to think differently? What you promote sounds more like religion than free thought. Because if your side was truly about free thought, they would not have any trouble with what we think, but that's not what we see now is it?


No, that's taking it too far. I'm not asking that everyone believe exactly the same thing, or that everyone should absolutely agree on certain issues of public policy, I just want those issues which I feel passionately about to be, essentially, decided in my favour. I want a socially left-leaning government, therefore I work to convince people that left-leaning policies are better policies. I don't expect them to have exactly the same opinion as me, or to come to their conclusions for exactly the same reason, but if the net result is that I get a left-leaning government then I'm happy with it.

I absolutely do not want a "Brave New World" where everyone believes exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. That would be staggeringly boring.


Ask a Vietnam Vet how his socialized government care is taking care of him? I have a good friend who was in a special farces group of that time. If he has a heart attack, he has to travel 50 miles away to get care. This past month he has driven himself during a heart attack that far because government care won't pay for a ambulance to take him. So every time he hits the road he could kill someone. But if he does not go, he dies himself. He also has several problems from fighting that war that they won't help him with. That is what government care will be like.

And do you know the real reason they want this? Another cash cow for their spending spree of spending all out SS money that no one can retire on in 5 years because there won't be any money.


I can't speak to government care in the United States, I don't have any experience with it. I do know that I am by-and-large thrilled with the single-payer health care system we have here in Canada. It's not perfect by any stretch, but I am convinced that it's significantly better for the majority of the population than a private-payer system. I could probably be convinced that a two-tier system has merit, but I would be concerned about the level of care in the bottom tier deteriorating rapidly.

If you consider yourself a freethinker, then by definition of the term you have to allows others free thought as well, whether you agree or not. If not, then what you promote is not absolute free thought, but free thought within certain boundaries which is conformism.

Do you consider yourself a free thinker?

View Post


I don't want to place boundaries on what people think. I'm not saying "you CAN'T believe in God." I don't want to make religion or faith illegal, I want them to die a natural death.

#34 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 13 April 2011 - 12:06 PM

Just as ‘you’ have no personal experience, there are many who have, therefore your argument is not logical or cogent for many reasons, but it is personal and biographical, and to be respected on that level alone. Keep in mind (again), I have never experienced Australia, but it does not follow that Australia does not exist (non sequitur).


I know that it's not an argument that's any good for convincing others. But, just as you probably base a reasonable amount of your Faith on your own experiences of God, I - personally - base a reasonable amount of my certainty there is not God in my own experiences.

Due to the logical lines of evidence alone (The Teleological, Ontological, Cosmological, Causality, and Transcendental arguments, and First principles to name a few) the lack of God/Initial Causer/First Cause is rendered as highly improbable.


Personally, I don't find any of those logical arguments convincing. I'm reasonably sure there are threads here dedicated to each one individually where it might be better to discuss the flaws and merits of each of them, but suffice it to say none of them - either individually or collectively - convince me either that there is a First Cause, or that this First Cause must therefore be a sentient creator deity.


Further; atheism requires even more ‘FAITH’ than any other world religion.


This is an argument I've never understood; that Atheism requires more Faith. I don't understand how it's possible to quantify faith. I assume that its generally meant that the evidence supports the notion of God, therefore the atheist must reject more evidence than the theist. I, and most atheists I think, would disagree and claim that the evidence is more strongly pointed to there not being a God, but that's essentially the crux of this whole website, so it's not like we'll resolve the argument in either direction in this thread.


To carry this even one step further, then, it becomes easy to refute your claim by turning your argument around and saying it is “a staggeringly improbable” position to prove that ‘Atheism’ is anything other than a misnomer, because “A-Theism” (meaning no theism or God) is itself theistic due to its massive amounts of faith AND lack of empirical foundation.


This is really a semantic argument isn't it? I suppose we could try to come up with a better word to describe atheism that doesn't contain that contradiction, but it's really a problem with the word, as opposed to the ideology. At least, that's how it seems to me.


You don’t even have a plausible materialistic explanation for the laws of logic, altruistic love, the laws of mathematics, thoughts (etc…), remember, man did not invent these metaphysical phenomena, he discovered them (which begs the question, where did they come from?). And ALL of these are non-materialistic phenomena (i.e. metaphysical/supernatural) themselves. Further, you have absolutely NO empirical/materialistic evidence for hypotheses such as abiogenesis, macro-evolution (etc…), which therefor renders them as more implausible than God/Initial Causer.


I don't see how logic, love, mathematics and thought are metaphysical phenomenon. Love, for example has a pretty solid materialistic grounding in biochemistry, the same can be said for thoughts. Mathematics is a language for expressing the properties of the materialistic world as is logic. I don't think any of those things are 'metaphysical' in a way that requires them to have been created by a supernatural deity.

As for abiogenesis and macro-evolution. I believe that there is very strong evidence supporting what you call 'macro-evolution'. I disagree with the division that's made on this site between 'macro' and 'micro', but I have read enough threads to know that if I bang that drum I'll be accused of equivocating and get the boot, so I'll accept that, for the sake of arguments here, there is a division and frame my points accordingly.

I know that the immediate question that's easy for you to ask, having made the previous statement, is "So prove it then". I'd ask that you not, in this thread at least. Pretty much the whole Creation V. Evolution sub-board is, I think, the better place for that argument to be carried out.

Where abiogenesis is concerned, I don't accept what's essentially a "God of the gaps" argument. The idea that, because we don't know now we never will, therefore God. Earthquakes weren't properly understood until the Theory of Plate Tectonics was developed in the 1950's and 60's. I believe that in time we will understand the process of abiogenesis.

The above is nothing more than a Red Herring dragged across the stage to divert from the crux of the argument. I would require you to provide:

1- How Atheism is a better religion than any other world religion

2- Better Moral Maxims than the 10 commandments (as posited by any ‘person on the street’). Keeping in mind, materialistically, what do morals even matter!

3- Where, in scripture God says slavery is okay (not merely your presupposed opinion, or cherry-picking of the scripture).

4- Where YOU can improve upon scripture (remember, you cannot even explain metaphysical/supernatural phenomena, as you only accept materialistic phenomena).
Conclusion: The bottom line is your last sentence “I believe there is no God”… Which itself, is a ‘FAITH’ statement.
I would also remind you, the OP itself asked for “evidence”:
We did get your statement that you don’t “believe” in God, but you didn’t provide one piece of “evidence” for your belief. All you did provide was personal biopic opinion, which is an 'a priori' presupposition at best.

View Post


I disagree that it's a Red Herring. It's hugely relevant to my own personal Atheism, which was, I think what the OP was asking for. So, here are my answers to your points.

1. Atheism is true, whereas every other religion is false. Therefore it is better.

2. Morals matter, materialistically, for the proper functioning of societies and for the enjoyment of a long and happy life. Were I asked to make the 10 commandments better, this is how I'd do it:

I'd keep commandments six through ten, they are fine. For a new first five I'd go with.
1. Think of the welfare of others before you think of yourself.
2. All people shall be equal in the law.
3. Respect yourself in mind and body.
4. Do what you said you would do.
5. Say please and thank you.

3. Nowhere in the bible is slavery condemned. That is a glaring moral failing.

4. As per above, those five new commandments are an improvement upon scripture. Likewise I would condemn the practice of slavery. I would remove Genesis 19:8 (one of the most despicable acts ever conceived). There's three ways in thirty seconds.

Finally, I believe I satisfied the OP's request for evidence. I can ultimately only provide my personal reasons for being an Atheist and lay out those pieces of evidence that have convinced me That you do not accept the same evidence I do is fine, but, as indicated by my points above, there are counter arguments that can be made to all of your reasons to discount the evidence that I accept.

I expect us to go round and round on these points for some time, but I think that "I disagree with your evidence" is a different thing than "You don't have any evidence".

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 01:46 PM

Just as ‘you’ have no personal experience, there are many who have, therefore your argument is not logical or cogent for many reasons, but it is personal and biographical, and to be respected on that level alone. Keep in mind (again), I have never experienced Australia, but it does not follow that Australia does not exist (non sequitur).

View Post

I know that it's not an argument that's any good for convincing others. But, just as you probably base a reasonable amount of your Faith on your own experiences of God, I - personally - base a reasonable amount of my certainty there is not God in my own experiences.

View Post

Actually, it can be an argument that convinces others, if you have evidences to back up your observations and experiences. This is called “testimony”! But, as I pointed out in my refutation of your analogy, a negative response is nothing more than “inexperience”. It doesn’t prove anything but autobiographical information.


Due to the logical lines of evidence alone (The Teleological, Ontological, Cosmological, Causality, and Transcendental arguments, and First principles to name a few) the lack of God/Initial Causer/First Cause is rendered as highly improbable.

View Post


Personally, I don't find any of those logical arguments convincing. I'm reasonably sure there are threads here dedicated to each one individually where it might be better to discuss the flaws and merits of each of them, but suffice it to say none of them - either individually or collectively - convince me either that there is a First Cause, or that this First Cause must therefore be a sentient creator deity.

View Post


It doesn’t matter if you don’t find them convincing, unless you have convincing refutations for them. And yes there are many other threads dedicated to these evidences; then again, you are the one asserting t God as being “improbable” without giving ANY convincing reasoning why He is “improbable”. As I maintain across this forum: If you are going to make assertions, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the evidences to support your assertions. Otherwise you are merely making “faith statements”.

ALL of the arguments I presented are logically, rationally, (and yes) even sometimes scientifically sound. The atheists, skeptics, agnostics (or atheists who claim to be agnostic) can do no more than ignore that soundness, or sink to quibbling, prevaricating, equivocating (etc…) to get out of the tight reasoning. If you think you can provide these “flaws” you speak of, I’m sure you’ll find many takers. But, as I said (again), saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.

Further; atheism requires even more ‘FAITH’ than any other world religion.

View Post


This is an argument I've never understood; that Atheism requires more Faith. I don't understand how it's possible to quantify faith. I assume that its generally meant that the evidence supports the notion of God, therefore the atheist must reject more evidence than the theist. I, and most atheists I think, would disagree and claim that the evidence is more strongly pointed to there not being a God, but that's essentially the crux of this whole website, so it's not like we'll resolve the argument in either direction in this thread.

View Post


Once again, it matters not that you (or any other atheist) disagree with, if you cannot provide evidence against, refutation of, or factual argument that dissuades the evidence for God, you are living a world-view of faith that God does not exist. Further, if you cannot provide evidence that your world-view has factual merit, you are living a world-view of faith that God does not exist.

I find it odd that some atheist cannot honestly tackle the origins question form a materialistic viewpoint, and see all the flaws in their worldview. It was one of the questions I had to deal with when I was an atheist, and a starkly convincing line of evidence that I was living a lie.



To carry this even one step further, then, it becomes easy to refute your claim by turning your argument around and saying it is “a staggeringly improbable” position to prove that ‘Atheism’ is anything other than a misnomer, because “A-Theism” (meaning no theism or God) is itself theistic due to its massive amounts of faith AND lack of empirical foundation.

View Post

This is really a semantic argument isn't it? I suppose we could try to come up with a better word to describe atheism that doesn't contain that contradiction, but it's really a problem with the word, as opposed to the ideology. At least, that's how it seems to me.

View Post


There is no description of atheism adduced, which is not contradictory. It’s not simply a problem with ‘semantics’, but a logical, rational and scientific problem as well. And the atheist has no answers; therefore they live a life of faith that there is no God/Cosmic Initiator/Initial Causer (etc…) continually begging the questions: Where did the universe come from? Where did the Laws that govern the Universe come from? Where did Life Come From? (etc…) And to simply say “It just is”, or “it’s a semantics problem”, is simply living by faith.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 01:47 PM

You don’t even have a plausible materialistic explanation for the laws of logic, altruistic love, the laws of mathematics, thoughts (etc…), remember, man did not invent these metaphysical phenomena, he discovered them (which begs the question, where did they come from?). And ALL of these are non-materialistic phenomena (i.e. metaphysical/supernatural) themselves. Further, you have absolutely NO empirical/materialistic evidence for hypotheses such as abiogenesis, macro-evolution (etc…), which therefor renders them as more implausible than God/Initial Causer.

View Post


I don't see how logic, love, mathematics and thought are metaphysical phenomenon. Love, for example has a pretty solid materialistic grounding in biochemistry, the same can be said for thoughts. Mathematics is a language for expressing the properties of the materialistic world as is logic. I don't think any of those things are 'metaphysical' in a way that requires them to have been created by a supernatural deity.

View Post


You “don’t see how logic, love, mathematics and thought are metaphysical phenomenon.”? Show me one! You cannot! You can show me the effects of these metaphysical phenomena on physical phenomea, but you cannot capture one and paint it green, or photograph it, or physically measure it (like any other physical phenomena) because they are “metaphysical” in nature! Go ahead, disprove my statement (if you dare).


As for abiogenesis and macro-evolution. I believe that there is very strong evidence supporting what you call 'macro-evolution'. I disagree with the division that's made on this site between 'macro' and 'micro', but I have read enough threads to know that if I bang that drum I'll be accused of equivocating and get the boot, so I'll accept that, for the sake of arguments here, there is a division and frame my points accordingly. 

View Post


Again, you are doing nothing more than making a faith-based statement. I think the better reason you’ll accept it, is because you can provide absolutely NO empirical evidence to support “macro’ or ‘abiogenesis’. Further, you can attempt to equivocate on many-many unproven subjects, and get called on them as well. As I stated previously, if you make a factual statement (like the one you made above), it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence for it, or cease pretending they are factual.



I know that the immediate question that's easy for you to ask, having made the previous statement, is "So prove it then". I'd ask that you not, in this thread at least. Pretty much the whole Creation V. Evolution sub-board is, I think, the better place for that argument to be carried out.

View Post


Once again, if you make the statement(s) as if they are fact, it is incumbent upon YOU to already “prove it”! To make the statements, then tell me not to call you on it, is disingenuous at best. If you don’t wasn’t called on it, don’t mention it, or draw inference to it.


Where abiogenesis is concerned, I don't accept what's essentially a "God of the gaps" argument. The idea that, because we don't know now we never will, therefore God. Earthquakes weren't properly understood until the Theory of Plate Tectonics was developed in the 1950's and 60's. I believe that in time we will understand the process of abiogenesis.

View Post


Abiogenesis is not a “god of the gaps” argument. Its an illogical and unscientific proposal that lacks evidence, and credibility. Further, the ‘Theory of Plate Tectonics’ is reasonable and rational; abiogenesis’ on the other hand, is irrational (something from nothing, life from nonlife). You can attempt that argument if you wish, but you are doing nothing more praying for future events (Argumentum ad Futuris).



The above is nothing more than a Red Herring dragged across the stage to divert from the crux of the argument. I would require you to provide:

1- How Atheism is a better religion than any other world religion

2- Better Moral Maxims than the 10 commandments (as posited by any ‘person on the street’). Keeping in mind, materialistically, what do morals even matter!

3- Where, in scripture God says slavery is okay (not merely your presupposed opinion, or cherry-picking of the scripture).

4- Where YOU can improve upon scripture (remember, you cannot even explain metaphysical/supernatural phenomena, as you only accept materialistic phenomena).
Conclusion: The bottom line is your last sentence “I believe there is no God”… Which itself, is a ‘FAITH’ statement.
I would also remind you, the OP itself asked for “evidence”:
We did get your statement that you don’t “believe” in God, but you didn’t provide one piece of “evidence” for your belief. All you did provide was personal biopic opinion, which is an 'a priori' presupposition at best.

View Post


I disagree that it's a Red Herring. It's hugely relevant to my own personal Atheism, which was, I think what the OP was asking for. So, here are my answers to your points.

Atheism is true, whereas every other religion is false. Therefore it is better.

View Post

It is a “Red Herring” because it is not cogent to the OP, and in the OP I asked for “evidence” not mere opinion. So, now you post another opinion sans any evidence: “Atheism is true”. Therefore your assertion is moot.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 01:49 PM

Morals matter, materialistically, for the proper functioning of societies and for the enjoyment of a long and happy life.

View Post

So, morals are relative then? What if another person’s morals are contrary to yours, and they are more powerful than you? Do your morals then bend to theirs? And how does this affect "the proper functioning of societies and for the enjoyment of a long and happy life"? What if, for arguments sake, this more powerful society measures their happiness by making your life sadder and shorter? Now your morals are on their collective ear, AND you now have a shorter and unhappier life!

Were I asked to make the 10 commandments better, this is how I'd do it:

I'd keep commandments six through ten, they are fine. For a new first five I'd go with.
1. Think of the welfare of others before you think of yourself.
2. All people shall be equal in the law.
3. Respect yourself in mind and body.
4. Do what you said you would do.
5. Say please and thank you.

View Post


Yes, but since your god is yourself, you are already observing commandments one through five. So, you didn’t improve on them at all, you simply shifted them to yourself. And the rest are covered by Jesus when he said: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Mat 27: 37– 40 (Also see Mark 12:33). Therefore, you didn’t improve it at all, you simply personalized it.


Nowhere in the bible is slavery condemned. That is a glaring moral failing.

View Post

That’s because slavery is of man (due to the fall of man), this in no way proves God approves or condones of slavery, so you failed to provide evidence for your assertion once again. This is like my asserting that since you haven’t personally physically gone to places in the world today and stopped the slave trade that you yourself condone and approve of slavery today! Now, do I believe you condone slavery? No… But then again, I may be wrong, but I haven’t accused you unjustly either!


As per above, those five new commandments are an improvement upon scripture. Likewise I would condemn the practice of slavery. I would remove Genesis 19:8 (one of the most despicable acts ever conceived). There's three ways in thirty seconds.

View Post


Once again, did God do this, or did man? You seem to delight in cherry picking scripture to make it mean what you want it to mean!


Finally, I believe I satisfied the OP's request for evidence. I can ultimately only provide my personal reasons for being an Atheist and lay out those pieces of evidence that have convinced me  That you do not accept the same evidence I do is fine, but, as indicated by my points above, there are counter arguments that can be made to all of your reasons to discount the evidence that I accept.

View Post


No, once again you have merely stated your opinions, and cherry-picked scriptures. I would suggest you spend a little more time theological studies before you continue in your misconceptions.

I expect us to go round and round on these points for some time, but I think that "I disagree with your evidence" is a different thing than "You don't have any evidence"

View Post


No, I doubt we’ll go ‘round and ‘round on the points, I’ll just continue to point out the flaws in your argumentation, and you’ll learn from it, or you won’t. This isn’t my first rodeo, and you aren’t the first atheist to come here with the copy-and- paste arguments from other atheist forums, and try to pass them off here.

#38 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 13 April 2011 - 02:26 PM

... had a long post here, accidentally deleted it. Darn. Will respond later.

#39 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 13 April 2011 - 05:28 PM

It doesn’t matter if you don’t find them convincing, unless you have convincing refutations for them. And yes there are many other threads dedicated to these evidences; then again, you are the one asserting t God as being “improbable” without giving ANY convincing reasoning why He is “improbable”. As I maintain across this forum: If you are going to make assertions, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the evidences to support your assertions. Otherwise you are merely making “faith statements”.


God is improbable because of His necessary complexity. The universe is a staggeringly complex place, SO complex in fact that it is frequently said that it requires a designer.

An omnipotent, omniscient God who is capable of creating such a universe is himself vastly MORE complex than anything he has created. The existence of such a staggeringly complex entity is just so astonishingly unlikely and, due to its complexity fails to answer the very proofs that it is set out to solve, such as the Teleological (if the Universe is so complex that it requires a designer, then God - being MORE complex than the universe - must ALSO require a designer).

ALL of the arguments I presented are logically, rationally, (and yes) even sometimes scientifically sound. The atheists, skeptics, agnostics (or atheists who claim to be agnostic) can do no more than ignore that soundness, or sink to quibbling, prevaricating, equivocating (etc…) to get out of the tight reasoning. If you think you can provide these “flaws” you speak of, I’m sure you’ll find many takers. But, as I said (again), saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.


I could just wiki the criticisms of those proofs, but you'd accuse me of cutting and pasting, which I don't want to do. Suffice it to say that I disagree that those proofs are sound and I am far from alone in that. If you'd like, I'd be happy to open new threads for each of these proofs where we can argue for an against them.


And the atheist has no answers; therefore they live a life of faith that there is no God/Cosmic Initiator/Initial Causer (etc…) continually begging the questions: Where did the universe come from? Where did the Laws that govern the Universe come from? Where did Life Come From? (etc…) And to simply say “It just is”, or “it’s a semantics problem”, is simply living by faith.

View Post


What I meant by a semantics problem is the notion that "atheism" is self-contradictory because it requires a belief a "theism". If you prefer, you can call me a 'materialist' - I believe that everything has a material cause and do not accept the notion that a supernatural being exists.

Also, you keep saying the Atheist 'has no answers', yet I provided in my initial post what my answers are. You disagree with them, that's fine. You think there are flaws with them - that's okay too. But it's inaccurate to say that atheists have no answers. We have answers that we think work perfectly well that you disagree with. That's a distinction that I think is important to make.

You “don’t see how logic, love, mathematics and thought are metaphysical phenomenon.”? Show me one! You cannot! You can show me the effects of these metaphysical phenomena on physical phenomea, but you cannot capture one and paint it green, or photograph it, or physically measure it (like any other physical phenomena) because they are “metaphysical” in nature! Go ahead, disprove my statement (if you dare).


Logic and Mathematics: These are both languages. They are not fundamental principles. Languages are physical things consisting of units (words or numbers) which are combined according to rules (grammar) in order to express or explain physical reality. They do not, and cannot exist outside of or independently of the physical world. Logic only functions because of the already existing physical properties of the universe - and indeed only really works at the levels humans have evolved to operate in. Logic is very bad at explaining quantum physics, for example. Mathematics works there, but it's a more elegant language than logic is. Logic struggles mightily with something like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or Shroedinger's Cat, yet mathematics can express these quite well.

Love and Thought: These have been fairly conclusively demonstrated to be the result of physical biochemical processes. You have evolved to find certain pheromones and physical attributes desirable. Therefore when you encounter those attributes your body undergoes measurable physiological changes which you interpret as 'love'. Likewise, thoughts are clearly dependent on the biochemical processes of our brains. This is easily demonstrated by the efficacy of psychoactive narcotics. Anyone who's ever taken an anti-depressant or anti-psychotic or illegal hallucinogen or even caffeine can speak to the thought-altering power of chemicals.

Again, you are doing nothing more than making a faith-based statement. I think the better reason you’ll accept it, is because you can provide absolutely NO empirical evidence to support “macro’ or ‘abiogenesis’.


Essentially what I'm trying to do is keep the thread more generally about atheism and not get bogged down in debating specific points of evidence for and against. I figured that was the purpose of the other forums and threads, but if you want a piece of evidence for macro-evolution, here you go:

All haplorhine primates share a mutation on the GULO gene which makes us unable to synthesize Vitamin C. Most other mammals and the strepsyrhine primates do not have this mutation and as such don't get scurvy. This indicates, to me, that the haplorhine primates all share a common ancestor. Now, if you want to claim that the haplorhine group consists of a separate baramin, or kind and that the changes within that group are simply adaptations within kind, I suppose that's fair. But it does call into question the special creation of humans.

Abiogenesis is not a “god of the gaps” argument. Its an illogical and unscientific proposal that lacks evidence, and credibility.


To make the claim that 'we don't know how Abiogenesis happened therefore it must have been God' is, as I'm sure you're aware an argument from ignorance - which is what the God of the gaps is. Now, claiming that it's illogical and unscientific is another thing. I would disagree. Evidence indicates that all life shares a common ancestor, the evidence being that we all use DNA as the method for information storage in our genes. This leads me to suspect that life only arose once, which would mean that it's difficult, that we shouldn't expect the process to be simple or easy to synthesize. But I disagree that the idea of simple chemical processes leading to more complicated chemical processes (which is basically all life really is) is illogical.

So, morals are relative then?


I don't see how stating that morals are essential for the functioning of society leads to them being relative. In fact, the similarities between the moral structures of societies which never contacted each other speaks to the constancy or morals, not their relativity.

Yes, but since your god is yourself, you are already observing commandments one through five. So, you didn’t improve on them at all, you simply shifted them to yourself.  ... . Therefore, you didn’t improve it at all, you simply personalized it.


I don't see how I make my god myself. I don't worship myself, or ascribe special status to myself, or claim that I should be worshipped before any others. In fact, the very first of my 'new' commandments is the opposite, others should be considered first.

That’s because slavery is of man (due to the fall of man), this in no way proves God approves or condones of slavery so you failed to provide evidence for your assertion once again This is like my asserting that since you haven’t personally physically gone to places in the world today and stopped the slave trade that you yourself condone and approve of slavery today! Now, do I believe you condone slavery? No… But then again, I may be wrong, but I haven’t accused you unjustly either!


Doesn't God very clearly describe things which are 'of man' that he is opposed to, that he considers 'abominations' in his revealed scripture? The omission of slavery in those is the same thing as condoning it.

Also, I make no claim to being the moral authority of the universe, therefore my not actively trying to stop slavery is different from God's as he DOES claim to be the moral authority of all creation.

Once again, did God do this, or did man?

It was the actions of a man who is held up in the scripture of God as being a good and noble example of how a person should live. This is inconsistent with those scriptures being a worthwhile basis for morality.

I’ll just continue to point out the flaws in your argumentation, and you’ll learn from it, or you won’t. This isn’t my first rodeo, and you aren’t the first atheist to come here with the copy-and- paste arguments from other atheist forums, and try to pass them off here.

View Post


And I will respond in kind, as I don't see your arguments as being without flaws. I also would like to say that, while I'm sure you've seen many of my points before, I'm not actually copying and pasting them and I hope I'm not giving that impression. I'm actually taking the time to think about what I believe and where I think the flaws in your arguments in support of the existence of God are.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 April 2011 - 06:56 PM

No, that's taking it too far. I'm not asking that everyone believe exactly the same thing, or that everyone should absolutely agree on certain issues of public policy, I just want those issues which I feel passionately about to be, essentially, decided in my favour. I want a socially left-leaning government, therefore I work to convince people that left-leaning policies are better policies. I don't expect them to have exactly the same opinion as me, or to come to their conclusions for exactly the same reason, but if the net result is that I get a left-leaning government then I'm happy with it. I absolutely do not want a "Brave New World" where everyone believes exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. That would be staggeringly boring. 


The results of what you want require us to conform to be in your favor.


I can't speak to government care in the United States, I don't have any experience with it. I do know that I am by-and-large thrilled with the single-payer health care system we have here in Canada. It's not perfect by any stretch, but I am convinced that it's significantly better for the majority of the population than a private-payer system. I could probably be convinced that a two-tier system has merit, but I would be concerned about the level of care in the bottom tier deteriorating rapidly.


Wait until you need something done that costs a lot of money, and you would live if it were done. But the social health care decides that your life is not worth the money required. That you now have your life determined by a board of people who care more for the money than they do about people. Hitler did that on a much bigger scale. Problem is, once people get no consciousness for voting people to a sure death, then they will also have no problem lowering that bar to include thousands more all in the name of saving money that will be spent elsewhere carelessly.

I don't want to place boundaries on what people think. I'm not saying "you CAN'T believe in God." I don't want to make religion or faith illegal, I want them to die a natural death.

View Post


Same difference. You just put it in different words.

And if that does not happen quick enough for you, what will you want to die a natural death then? Maybe that's what makes this type of health care appealing. One can deem people who believe a certain way not worth allowing to live. Which would also make them die a natural death, but with their death on someone's hands. Seems the anti-Christ spirit is alive and well, as you demonstrate so well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users