To the Atheist: The Universe. By Chance or Design?

[asterix404]

Oh I didn't get pissed off with ya... nono far from it. I am serious too not scarascam at all. People don't understand about all the shit that is totally ignored and tought and this has happend for about 2k years...

[SNPete]

I started this thread with the desire to hear something solid and substantial, even scientific that supported the atheistic view of how the universe came to be without deity.

So I return from a three day camping trip with the expectation of finding something solid with which to be challenged and what do I find? Mostly statements saying little more than; “I see no proof for God, this is what I think, religious people are wrong”, etc.

I do thank Starboy and Asterix for offering something more than that though.

OK here is my point, the reason for the thread. I was hoping for something deeper that what was posted. Atheists keep saying that religious people are fools because what they believe is based on faith and belief and cannot be proved.

Well in this thread, atheists have shown that what they think or believe is based on nothing more than opinion and what they believe. A type of faith, if you will. The core teaching is “there must be no God”. All belief and opinion is based on that theory. Atheism is a belief system.

Bottom line: Atheists practice the same line of thinking as the people they call fools. What they believe is based on unproveable faith.

The pot calls the kettle black!

[tman_ndsu08]

Bottom line: Atheists practice the same line of thinking as the people they call fools. What they believe is based on unproveable faith.

Indeed!

[Athena]

Quote by: SNPete I started this thread with the desire to hear something solid and substantial, even scientific that supported the atheistic view of how the universe came to be without deity. So I return from a three day camping trip with the expectation of finding something solid with which to be challenged and what do I find? Mostly statements saying little more than; “I see no proof for God, this is what I think, religious people are wrong”, etc. I do thank Starboy and Asterix for offering something more than that though. OK here is my point, the reason for the thread. I was hoping for something deeper that what was posted. Atheists keep saying that religious people are fools because what they believe is based on faith and belief and cannot be proved. Well in this thread, atheists have shown that what they think or believe is based on nothing more than opinion and what they believe. A type of faith, if you will. The core teaching is “there must be no God”. All belief and opinion is based on that theory. Atheism is a belief system. Bottom line: Atheists practice the same line of thinking as the people they call fools. What they believe is based on unproveable faith. The pot calls the kettle black!

I would like deeper discussion too, but as science is also taken on faith by those of us who are not educated scientist, can we discussion Amenhotep IV's monotheism, and the Sumerian stories translated by Hebrews, and this whole god thing from the beginning of the god thing? When the Greeks determined, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech, they gave up believing in many God's but argued with the Christians over who has the right to define God.

The book of John, "In the beginning there was the word, and word was with God, and the word was a god .All things came into being and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

What came into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it..." From here spins a tale about how Jesus is the light and the word. But to appreciate this story we need to understand Plato, as John is influenced by Greek philosophy, taking Christianity a step further from the tribal war God of Abraham. Are you willing to go there? This is a whole different God from the old testament God. It was tied to the old testament because of the need to prove Jesus was the promised messiah, and to transition from one religous understanding to another. This was most unfortunate, to my point of view. Whatever, I are willing to examine Plato and then the book of John?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: SNPete Well in this thread, atheists have shown that what they think or believe is based on nothing more than opinion and what they believe. A type of faith, if you will. The core teaching is “there must be no God”. All belief and opinion is based on that theory. Atheism is a belief system.

Funny, I read the entire thread, and I didn't see any assertions that "there is no God".
Maybe you should pay closer attention.

[SNPete]

To Athena: Your points are well taken, but the point of this thread is to discover the atheistic reasoning for the origin of the univerves, sans diety.

BTW Eve follows Dawn. Goes both ways.

[SNPete]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Funny, I read the entire thread, and I didn't see any assertions that "there is no God". Maybe you should pay closer attention.

Ya think?

Look at all the atheist responses to people of faith. Quote. There is no God. Ergo, you (the person of faith) are an idiot.

[Starboy]

Quote by: SNPete Bottom line: Atheists practice the same line of thinking as the people they call fools. What they believe is based on unproveable faith. The pot calls the kettle black!

Some of the posters on this thread simply answered honestly with 'I don't know'. Perhaps people who jump to the conclusion that it must have been created are as foolish as those that say it must have been chance. The best the honest ones can do is poke holes in the arguments of both sides. I don't see the harm in that. Who wants to make foolish claims that can have holes poked in them easily? I will say this, if you spend any time actually observing and studying the universe it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that it has much to do with humans at all.

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: SNPete Ya think? Look at all the atheist responses to people of faith. Quote. There is no God. Ergo, you (the person of faith) are an idiot.

Just checked again. It's not there. You must be seeing things.

I haven't met very many people who will make the positive assertion that "there is no God". Usually, that kind of comment comes from reactionary youth. Every intellectually honest person I know at least holds an agnostic position, where they admit their belief in God is irrational, or they simply hold no beliefs at all.

[SNPete]

Quote by: Starboy Some of the posters on this thread simply answered honestly with 'I don't know'. Perhaps people who jump to the conclusion that it must have been created are as foolish as those that say it must have been chance. The best the honest ones can do is poke holes in the arguments of both sides. I don't see the harm in that. Who wants to make foolish claims that can have holes poked in them easily? I will say this, if you spend any time actually observing and studying the universe it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that it has much to do with humans at all. Starboy

Well put. "I don't know" is way better than some of the answers I have seen. This is a thought provoking post. Thank you.

[SNPete]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Just checked again. It's not there. You must be seeing things. I haven't met very many people who will make the positive assertion that "there is no God". Usually, that kind of comment comes from reactionary youth. Every intellectually honest person I know at least holds an agnostic position, where they admit their belief in God is irrational, or they simply hold no beliefs at all.

Thank you for checking.

I forgot to add one thing. What you said might be the case, but the bottom line is that the atheists have said little more than I" disagree" and "this is what I think". I repeat what I said a couple of posts ago; Atheist use the same logic and arguments to "support" their position as those that they call fools. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me!

[Starboy]

Quote by: SNPete Thank you for checking. I forgot to add one thing. What you said might be the case, but the bottom line is that the atheists have said little more than I" disagree" and "this is what I think". I repeat what I said a couple of posts ago; Atheist use the same logic and arguments to "support" their position as those that they call fools. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me!

I agree. And I am doing my best to raise the level of atheist arguments. Theists are forewarned.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Specifying that the choice is between your metaphorical watchmaker and chaos and chance is a completely false choice.

Chance plays a very small role in nature. The sun doesn't rise by chance and neither do the planets move through space by chance. Nor are they controlled by some puppet master or watchmaker. Apollo need not ride through the sky daily on a golden chariot to keep the sun on its course.

Newton explained it all in math simple enough for most middle schoolers to understand. This doesn't either prove or disprove the existence of god. It only suggests that neither the chance nor the watchmaker model makes any sense.

Micheal Shermer argues that "The answer can be found in the properties of self-organization and emergence that arise out of what are known as complex adaptive systems. As a complex adaptive system the cosmos intelligently designs itself. It is one giant autocatalytic (self-driving) feedback loop that generates emergent properties, one of which is life.”

There is nothing here that precludes the possibility of an omniscient creator to set everything in motion. It does however question the need for a "personal god". As you move back toward the big bang there is less and less need for a active and involved god.

Once set in motion the planets move according to their own natures. Complex adaptive systems change and reform because that is what they do by the basic physics of their existence. No watchmaker needs to grind gears or springs. That is not the model of the omniscient god.

If there is indeed an omniscient god that started all of the universe, which includes humanity as well as the sun and stars, that still doesn't explain the various dogmas that the priests and ministers spend their days perfecting, nor does it suggest the existence of a "personal god" involved daily in human affairs.

[SNPete]

Quote by: RickSp If there is indeed an omniscient god that started all of the universe, which includes humanity as well as the sun and stars, that still doesn't explain the various dogmas that the priests and ministers spend their days perfecting, nor does it suggest the existence of a "personal god" involved daily in human affairs.

Your post gives food for thought. Dogmas, per se mean nothing. Truth is what matters. If truth and dogma agree, fine. As far as whether there is a personal God is concerned, you should explore that possibility. That is only my opinion.

[Athena]

Quote by: RickSp Specifying that the choice is between your metaphorical watchmaker and chaos and chance is a completely false choice. Chance plays a very small role in nature. The sun doesn't rise by chance and neither do the planets move through space by chance. Nor are they controlled by some puppet master or watchmaker. Apollo need not ride through the sky daily on a golden chariot to keep the sun on its course. Newton explained it all in math simple enough for most middle schoolers to understand. This doesn't either prove or disprove the existence of god. It only suggests that neither the chance nor the watchmaker model makes any sense. Micheal Shermer argues that "The answer can be found in the properties of self-organization and emergence that arise out of what are known as complex adaptive systems. As a complex adaptive system the cosmos intelligently designs itself. It is one giant autocatalytic (self-driving) feedback loop that generates emergent properties, one of which is life.” There is nothing here that precludes the possibility of an omniscient creator to set everything in motion. It does however question the need for a "personal god". As you move back toward the big bang there is less and less need for a active and involved god. Once set in motion the planets move according to their own natures. Complex adaptive systems change and reform because that is what they do by the basic physics of their existence. No watchmaker needs to grind gears or springs. That is not the model of the omniscient god. If there is indeed an omniscient god that started all of the universe, which includes humanity as well as the sun and stars, that still doesn't explain the various dogmas that the priests and ministers spend their days perfecting, nor does it suggest the existence of a "personal god" involved daily in human affairs.

Nicely said.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Funny, I read the entire thread, and I didn't see any assertions that "there is no God". Maybe you should pay closer attention.

An atheist by definition is one who denies the existence of God. If none in this forum have made the assertation that "there is no God", then none are true atheists, right? Wouldn't it be dishonest to claim to be an atheist, and yet be unwilling to make an out-and-out declaration that "there is no God"?? If one was to make the claim that "there is no God", wouldn't that require some evidence to back it up? Just asking......

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Zeebadee An atheist by definition is one who denies the existence of God.

Wikipedia says:

Quote by: Wikipedia There are two main forms of atheism: * Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. An argument commonly associated with weak atheism is that of rationalism: one should believe only what one has reason to believe. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism. * Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.

[Gorgo]

I'm just about every kind of atheist.

Any gods that I've ever heard of probably do not exist. I can't speak for the ones that I haven't heard of. I have no reasonable evidence to think any of them exist. The laws of nature are such that they are not likely to exist. There is evidence that people make such things up and sincerely believe the things that they make up.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo I'm just about every kind of atheist. Any gods that I've ever heard of probably do not exist. I can't speak for the ones that I haven't heard of. I have no reasonable evidence to think any of them exist. The laws of nature are such that they are not likely to exist. There is evidence that people make such things up and sincerely believe the things that they make up.

Yup, that is the size of it. And the dang funny thing about it is that for most all theists they think pretty much the same things about all the gods out there except of course their own god. And of course they then think that atheists are nuts. Go figure.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee An atheist by definition is one who denies the existence of God. If none in this forum have made the assertation that "there is no God", then none are true atheists, right? Wouldn't it be dishonest to claim to be an atheist, and yet be unwilling to make an out-and-out declaration that "there is no God"?? If one was to make the claim that "there is no God", wouldn't that require some evidence to back it up? Just asking......

No. Absolutely not. An atheist, by definition, is a non-theist. Nothing more. The old canard, "prove that God doesn't exist" is both tired and silly. Attempting to prove a negative is a fool's errand. If God exists there should be tangible evidence and the burden of proof is on the theists to demonstrate it. So far they haven't, which is why the reliance of faith is so important.

Each of us should consider the question - Is there a compelling reason to believe in a god or gods? Most believe in God because that is what they have been taught to believe. Some, perhaps many, give it no further thought.

I became an atheist when I could not find any particular evidence of the existence of god nor could I even identify a particular metaphysical reason for a god to exist. Simple as that.