Hey you evolutionists...

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

If a creator did create the universe, would the creator not have created the "natural laws"?

If the universe appears to operate on purely natural laws that do not require a supernatural agent, why presume there is one?

You are playing "what if" guessing games.

Maybe what we take as "natural" laws are the miracle in itself.

You are playing "what if" guessing games.

What if there is an omnipotent, omniscient elephant living in the trunk of my car? You look, you don't see an elephant. But maybe that's the miracle....that it doesn't appear an elephant exists there at all, and yet it does? What if you just don't believe strong enough in this elephant, and thus you are too blind to see it? Prove to me that such an elephant does not live in my trunk. There is no logical or rational reason to presume that such an elephant exists.....but what if?

That is your argument in a nutshell. Seems rather silly when I word it like that, doesn't it?

Oh, and //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif, even assuming your hypothesis were correct for a moment.....all that establishes is the god of the deist. You still haven't established that this is the Christian/Jewish/Islamic personal god who takes an interest in the affairs of humans. It doesn't establish the existence of an afterlife, or eternal punishment for those who "sin" and eternal happiness for those who do not. It doesn't establish Jesus as his son, or any of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus.

 

[HeatSeeker 10+ year member]

Evolution just don't make sense,They say how things started as mud or goo (Whatever it was) then evolved and got better and better and better... look at effin nature. Its called the law of thermal dynamics. Entropy: When its left alone and not taken care of it falls apart...aka gets worse not better.

You best be joking brah. Best be ****ing joking....

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

Your looking at this from the wrong direction, and i think its because the word atheism causing confusion. Using your analogy, imagine your on a jury and the prosecutor is trying to convict someone of a crime with very little evidence. Your not sure whether or not the person is guilty because all youve been presented with is a minimal amount of circumstantial evidence. Now imagine that prosecutor standing in front of you talking about his 'faith' in the defense's guilt. His 'faith' has informed him of the defense's guilt and the members of the jury will be able to see this guilt if they too can find the faith in their hearts. The definition of faith is "a belief that is not based on proof." So has the prosecutor really met the burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I was looking at it from the direction of a prosecutor attempting to prosecute the defense by presenting a lack of evidence as evidence. I now see that the issue with such an analogu is arising from a difference in perspective; I view theists as the defense, while atheists view themselves as the defense. Because of this, it's probably best to get away from the mock court room.

It should be obvious that the most intellectually honest thing you can do is admit that you simply dont know if the defendant is guilty or not. This is what most atheists are doing in regard to religious claims. The problem is these words atheism and agnoctism confuse people. So if i call myself an atheist people think im claiming that there IS NO god. The truth is that my atheism towards god is the same as your athiesm towards fairies. You dont believe in fairies just like i dont believe in god but its not that fairies are impossible, there just isnt any really good reason to believe such a profound claim about the world.

I appreciate you explaining your stance to me better. That being said, would you agree that our difference in belief arises from a difference in experiences? If so, would you agree that it is possible that I could have experienced something that has lead me to believe in God that you have not?

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

I appreciate you explaining your stance to me better. That being said, would you agree that our difference in belief arises from a difference in experiences? If so, would you agree that it is possible that I could have experienced something that has lead me to believe in God that you have not?

How would you treat such an argument with regard to fairies? or holocaust deniers? Its important to understand that defending any other belief about the world in this way is extremely inadequate. And theres obvious reasons why we dont allow this sort of discourse in any other area of life; because of how well aware we are about things like wishful thinking, subjective biases, etc.

If your experience doesn't grant you access to some sort of empirical reproducible evidence that can be displayed to other people you should really be skeptical of any assumptions your inclined to make about your own experiences. And there's certainly no experience you can have that can give deference to any specific religious claims; Jesus born of virgin, resurrection from the dead, transubstantiation, or any other specific dogmatic claim that has done genuine harm to human societies.

The only reason we dont treat religious beliefs with the skepticism that we do any other outlandish claim about the world is because of how politically incorrect it is to do so in our society. These are, frankly, absurd claims about the world that are greatly sheltered, which only encourages the violent and divisive status quo in a world where we have christains against muslims against jews (to take just a few examples).

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

If so, would you agree that it is possible that I could have experienced something that has lead me to believe in God that you have not?

If you have experienced something that convinces you to lean one way or the other, then by all means use that as a reason to believe. I feel as though people's minds trick them into believing what they want to believe. It seems to me, though, that 99% of people who are religious(any religion) are so because it was the way they were raised. It makes believing in something that is normally unbelievable, much easier.

For instance, most kids who are in religious families start going to church before they even know what's going on, so the notion of god, Jesus, etc. is instilled in them at a very young age. You say grace at dinner time, pray at night, and do all of the other things that your family does...I mean, why wouldn't you? Add on top of that that there's probably some crosses, pics of Jesus, bibles, etc. somewhere in your house...it makes it hard to not follow what your loved ones feel so strongly about.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I give no credit to the Argument from Personal Experience because it is perhaps the least reliable experience. There are so many ways in which we are fooled internally particularly when we have confirmation bias. Read any of the reviews here if you want an example.

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

I was debating this the other night with some friends for literally hours. Their points were as follows:

- I was living a bad life, then I accepted it as real, Im doing well now. That means God is real.

- The bible said the earth was round, therefore that means God is real.

- The bible says many will speak out against that which they do not understand, which means you dont understand what is real, therefore God is real.

- We are here therefore God is real.

- People experience medical miracles therefore God is real.

- People change from athiest to Christian therefore God is real.

Those were just a few of the rediculous arguements they used.

Everytime I tried to use any kind of scientific evidence or any real world tangible evidence, he just said it wasnt real. For instance I told them they found the 47million year old missing link to humans which was a sort of lemur monkey. His arguement was that it wasnt really a missing link. I told him that through carbon dating the deepest rocks of the earth that we know its a couple billion years old. He said thats not credible because the Bible doesnt say so. Supposedly carbon dating isnt real and its just a guess a scientist makes.

I was explaining the reasoning behind why they think the big bang is a good theory. If something moves in a straight line at 1mph for 5 hours, it will be 5 miles away. It it moves for another 10 hours, thats 15 miles away from the starting point. If there are a bunch of these points (points in our universe) and we know their direction and speed (trajectory), we can tell where they met and exactly how long ago they met at that common point. His arguement was that its just something I read in a textbook and textbooks always change.

I told him thats just physics and cannot change. I also told him textbooks and scientific theory always change because we are looking for the best answer, and whenever we find new evidence that supports a different theory, that is what is accepted as the best theory. The bible just says "this is how it happened, even if someone that makes more sense is found, it must be false because this book is always right no matter what".

When a bible thumper dies and they dont end up in a land of clouds, angels, dead relatives, god, etc but end up being eaten by worms and decomposing its going to be a serious case of POW! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!

 

[Alpine4life89 10+ year member]

I was debating this the other night with some friends for literally hours. Their points were as follows:
- I was living a bad life, then I accepted it as real, Im doing well now. That means God is real.

- The bible said the earth was round, therefore that means God is real.

- The bible says many will speak out against that which they do not understand, which means you dont understand what is real, therefore God is real.

- We are here therefore God is real.

- People experience medical miracles therefore God is real.

- People change from athiest to Christian therefore God is real.

Those were just a few of the rediculous arguements they used.

Everytime I tried to use any kind of scientific evidence or any real world tangible evidence, he just said it wasnt real. For instance I told them they found the 47million year old missing link to humans which was a sort of lemur monkey. His arguement was that it wasnt really a missing link. I told him that through carbon dating the deepest rocks of the earth that we know its a couple billion years old. He said thats not credible because the Bible doesnt say so. Supposedly carbon dating isnt real and its just a guess a scientist makes.

I was explaining the reasoning behind why they think the big bang is a good theory. If something moves in a straight line at 1mph for 5 hours, it will be 5 miles away. It it moves for another 10 hours, thats 15 miles away from the starting point. If there are a bunch of these points (points in our universe) and we know their direction and speed (trajectory), we can tell where they met and exactly how long ago they met at that common point. His arguement was that its just something I read in a textbook and textbooks always change.

I told him thats just physics and cannot change. I also told him textbooks and scientific theory always change because we are looking for the best answer, and whenever we find new evidence that supports a different theory, that is what is accepted as the best theory. The bible just says "this is how it happened, even if someone that makes more sense is found, it must be false because this book is always right no matter what".

When a bible thumper dies and they dont end up in a land of clouds, angels, dead relatives, god, etc but end up being eaten by worms and decomposing its going to be a serious case of POW! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!

sounds like a dumbass

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The Bible changes as well, does it not. Whenever the state decides it is in the best interest to change the Bible, it changes.

Notice that the goals of the Bible are remarkably similar to the goals of the state. Also note that the goals of the state was well established before the organization of Christianity and the cannonization of the Bible.

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

The Bible changes as well, does it not. Whenever the state decides it is in the best interest to change the Bible, it changes.
Notice that the goals of the Bible are remarkably similar to the goals of the state. Also note that the goals of the state was well established before the organization of Christianity and the cannonization of the Bible.

I told him the Bible has different versions but supposedly thats different.

I just LOL so fucking hard when someone tells me they believe in God.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I told him the Bible has different versions but supposedly thats different.
I just LOL so fucking hard when someone tells me they believe in God.

I believe in God. It gives me a sense of hope. I readily admit that's probably a delusion, but either way. It works for me.

 

[Al_Capowned 10+ year member]

i am god,

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I was debating this the other night with some friends for literally hours.

Been there, done that.

Their points were as follows:

- I was living a bad life, then I accepted it as real, Im doing well now. That means God is real.

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc; a logical fallacy. A came before B, therefore A caused B.

- The bible said the earth was round, therefore that means God is real.

Confirmation bias. Ignores all the external and internal contradictions in the Bible but accepts the interpretation of certain sections.

- The bible says many will speak out against that which they do not understand, which means you dont understand what is real, therefore God is real.

Special pleading.

- We are here therefore God is real.

Sounds like Argument from Personal Incredulity.

- People experience medical miracles therefore God is real.

Ditto. Also, makes one wonder why some people drop dead when of seemingly good health.

- People change from athiest to Christian therefore God is real.

Don't know how to describe this; inconsistency? Certainly they don't acknowledge the conversion of almost every atheist who was originally a theist of some religion (I don't know many people lucky enough to not have been indoctrinated); Christians are now losing more people than they're gaining, so I suppose that is evidence that he doesn't exist.

Those were just a few of the rediculous arguements they used.

Be glad that it wasn't more ID focused, because those conversations are a nightmare to navigate.

Everytime I tried to use any kind of scientific evidence or any real world tangible evidence, he just said it wasnt real. For instance I told them they found the 47million year old missing link to humans which was a sort of lemur monkey. His arguement was that it wasnt really a missing link. I told him that through carbon dating the deepest rocks of the earth that we know its a couple billion years old. He said thats not credible because the Bible doesnt say so. Supposedly carbon dating isnt real and its just a guess a scientist makes.

I was explaining the reasoning behind why they think the big bang is a good theory. If something moves in a straight line at 1mph for 5 hours, it will be 5 miles away. It it moves for another 10 hours, thats 15 miles away from the starting point. If there are a bunch of these points (points in our universe) and we know their direction and speed (trajectory), we can tell where they met and exactly how long ago they met at that common point. His arguement was that its just something I read in a textbook and textbooks always change.

I told him thats just physics and cannot change. I also told him textbooks and scientific theory always change because we are looking for the best answer, and whenever we find new evidence that supports a different theory, that is what is accepted as the best theory. The bible just says "this is how it happened, even if someone that makes more sense is found, it must be false because this book is always right no matter what".

When a bible thumper dies and they dont end up in a land of clouds, angels, dead relatives, god, etc but end up being eaten by worms and decomposing its going to be a serious case of POW! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!

This sounds like the people who think everything in science is some obscure theory that is of no use. For example, I heard someone railing against the value of high-level mathematics the other day while they were watching their HDTV.

An important thing to explain to them is the "web" of knowledge. Any individual fact may have a different explanation than we expect, and any single theory may not seem very plausible. But knowledge is a cumulative effect, where different facts and theories are interwoven. The same ideas that create all the technology in life (from medical advances to electronics to buildings) are the strongest parts of our web of knowledge, and while some ideas are more on the periphery, there is strength in the accumulation of facts and knowledge we have.

Sounds like you're talking to someone who prefers to deny reality.

 

[zealous 10+ year member]

How would you treat such an argument with regard to fairies? or holocaust deniers? Its important to understand that defending any other belief about the world in this way is extremely inadequate. And theres obvious reasons why we dont allow this sort of discourse in any other area of life; because of how well aware we are about things like wishful thinking, subjective biases, etc.

Holocaust deniers can simply be pointed to mass graves, concentration camps, photos, etc. Fairy lovers can be asked why it would be logical to believe fairies existed.

If your experience doesn't grant you access to some sort of empirical reproducible evidence that can be displayed to other people you should really be skeptical of any assumptions your inclined to make about your own experiences. And there's certainly no experience you can have that can give deference to any specific religious claims; Jesus born of virgin, resurrection from the dead, transubstantiation, or any other specific dogmatic claim that has done genuine harm to human societies.

You ask for reproducible, empirical data as your evidence, yet humanity has no way of providing empirical data for everything (in actuality, very few things) in the Universe, let alone outside of it, and since the God I believe in transcends this Universe, there is no reason to assume that my God should be detectable/traceable by reproducible, empirical data. The fact that my God is a person further complicates demands for reproducible, empirical data.
Here's a hypothetical situation: Let us say that I am an extremely wealthy, well connected person and you're an average joe whom I have just met outside the coffee shop. We don't exchange names or any other info, but have a conversation about coffee cup lids. You tell the story to a scientist friend of yours and he demands that you provide reproducible, empirical evidence that I exist. You begin your search, but I am in hiding, using my wealth and status to conceal my very existence to anyone who isn't looking for me, or who says they want to find me, but who's desire is only superficial. How would you go about obtaining reproducible, empirical evidence in such a case?

Also, I find it quite odd that atheists have little to no respect for the good that religion, especially Christianity, has done for humanity. Where do you think the morals/laws that keep people from murdering and stealing from one another came from? Do you really believe that such morals/laws do harm to humanity?

The only reason we dont treat religious beliefs with the skepticism that we do any other outlandish claim about the world is because of how politically incorrect it is to do so in our society. These are, frankly, absurd claims about the world that are greatly sheltered, which only encourages the violent and divisive status quo in a world where we have christains against muslims against jews (to take just a few examples).

Frankly, the majority of the posts I have seen in this thread are skeptical in nature. I think that atheists are definitely allowed to be skeptical, and, it must be noted, that the only reason they are allowed to do so is that this country is founded upon Christian morals that hold that you have certain rights that are inalienable, ie. freedom of religion (or lack thereof //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif), and freedom of speech. Now, as much as you want yoke all religious people together, it is unfair to do so. When was the last time a group of American Christians got together because they are Christians who hate Muslims, and decided to act upon that hatred? And what if you were in the position of a Jew, having rockets fired into your backyard? The situation is much more complicated than your broad paintbrush acknowledges.

 

[Fast1one 10+ year member]

I think you are missing the point. Even if your argument was valid and there was a God, how do you know you chose the right one? How do you know if he cares? How do you know the morals he believes in reflect those in practice here? Because of a book that has had countless revisions through hundreds of years? What if he wants nothing of you? What if he's actually evil and just wants you to fail?

All these questions are "answered" with a book or passed down through generations by a story. A camp-fire folk tale. I am not arguing that a God does not exist. There is no evidence that supports it, yet at the same time there is no evidence that is completely against intelligent design either. However, blindly accepting a faith to me is illogical to me. Most do it because of their upbringing. Should they be born in any other environment, they would accept the new faith with open arms.