This is a continuation of the theist/Atheist debate thread. The old one got, well HUGE, so we continue it here for convenience. If you’ve got the time, spend it here!
This is a continuation of the theist/Atheist debate thread. The old one got, well HUGE, so we continue it here for convenience. If you’ve got the time, spend it here!
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
jminnis:
Since you’re so keen on visiting web sites to buttress your opinions and to prove that yours is the open mind here, you’ll obviously find this site a worthwhile use of your time: http://www.discovery.org/
Jcc,
You have perked my interest in the pre-Cambrian period and the lack of fossils with your reply. I do not have reliable knowledge about that time period and the geological finds within in, thus I shall yield the field to you for that issue, as it will be intellectually dishonest for me to try to counter it at my current level of personal knowledge.
Please do note, of course, that more informed members of my (atheist) stance or certain websites might still want to contest that particular issue.
LeFire:
As a note, the Cambrian explosion occurred in the lower Cambrian period, not the Precambrian. The sudden appearance of all the new multi-cellular organisms in the fossil record serves as the stratigraphic demarcation between the Precambrian and the Cambrian.
And by all means, please do as much research on this as you can.
jcc,
I have a very simple question. If the complexity of the universe requires there to be a “designer”, why wouldn’t the “designer” need a designer? He/she/it would be MUCH more complex than our universe. Why is it that nature needs a designer but God does not? God would be even more inconceivably complex. How could he/she/it exist without a designer. The need for there to be a designer for God seems incontrovertible to me…
Also, you can nitpick evolution all you like, but I do not see you suggesting an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory. Please provide a theory that better explains the evidence at hand, and I am all ears. I don’t think scientists have ever claimed to know EVERYTHING about the universe, that would be omniscience. No self-respecting scientist would ever make that claim.
In addition, you referred to God as “omnipotent” earlier in your posts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, omnipotence is self-contradictory. It is a logical impossibility. If you claim to be a logical being, you cannot possibly hold the belief that something is omnipotent. Can God create a universe so large that even he can’t move it?
Your constant circumlocution and bandying about of scientific jargon do not hide the fact that your arguments are still BASED ON FAITH. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. Just don’t expect those of us on this site to think that your beliefs are based on REASON.
Funkapotamus:
My answer to your question ?why wouldn’t the “designer” need a designer?? earlier in this blog was apparently unsatisfactory for many atheist bloggers, but since you asked, I’ll take another stab at it….
If the universe was designed and created (i.e. Something brought into existence from nothing), then logically, from our perspective within it, the designer must be omnipotent (how else could EVERYTHING in it be made by one entity?). So, to ask, ?who designed the designer? is to ask what omnipotent being created an omnipotent being? Whatever could, would, by definition, be God. So it’s counterproductive to try to proceed back up that logical ladder. We can’t possibly grasp this concept unless we exist in the same realm as the omnipotent. It’s impossible for us to determine what existed before the creation of the universe, therefore it’s unreasonable for us to place our finite, anthropomorphic restrictions on an entity whose existence, by definition, transcends our realm. I called it a tautology, but the atheists howled. If you can find a flaw in the logic, please let me know, and on the other hand, if you have a better explanation, please be forthcoming. But until then, given my limited knowledge, I’m forced to be content with the answer that God must be ?uncreated.?
When Einstein was developing his theories on relativity, he initially couldn’t get the equations to balance so he introduced a ?fudge factor? and kept it there until science found a real value for it. Likewise, in algebra the square root of -1 is an ?imaginary? number, but a number nonetheless because without it we couldn’t have designed all the electronics in the computer I’m writing this on. I believe the same is true for the problem of evolution. As a Geologist, I’m enormously interested in what ?natural? mechanism is responsible for the spontaneous generation of new species. But, like all other knowable aspects of the universe, if it’s meant for us to find it, we will, but in God’s time (i.e. When we as a culture are mature enough to handle it).
I will be the first to admit that the arguments I make here ARE based on faith?which is based on facts. There is nothing unreasonable about what I’ve said here.
To participate in a reasoned, logical and polite discussion about the nature of God, we must all start at a mutually agreed upon presupposition. And until we do that, we’ll never make any headway in this debate.
If god is defined as “all that is currently unknown to us” then I would god still exits but is dying.
Think of all the things that used to be attributed to god before we figured them out via scientific reasoning. Fire, storms, thunder, the stars, the planets etc.
We humans did not evolve from apes, however not that long ago in geologic time we looked like apes and had no more language than the apes have now.
This is my first post. I consider myself to be a practical realist at least thats what in put in the what religion are you box on applications
How can so many supposed well educated people such as doctors, lawyers and others with advanced educations still believe in gods?
Of all people that I would think immune to brainwashing and accepting ideas from others without question, these would seem to be the last to be swayed.
The problem is, notyourdaddy, is that many of these people aren’t privy to any knowledge of astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. Ask any lawyer how the higher elements on the periodic table came about – betcha he doesn’t know (they were cooked in stars that later went supernova). Ask him how our solar system formed (collapsing clouds of gas and dust) and the result will likely be the same. Of course, these are just basic questions, and you’d be surprised just how many people there are who don’t know these things. A little knowledge such as these facts is essential in the first steps in throwing mythology out the window in favor of discovery, logic and reason that is the hallmark of physical science. Unbelievably, an intro course covering these topics is not required in high school.
I do believe, however, if you sat these well-educated people down and explained these facts a light may go on. With evangelical christians, there is no hope (la-la-la I can’t hear you).
Tim: afraid I just have to take your bait in re: your post on 7/18. You’ll note that I am a ‘reluctant’ Atheist. Honestly, I wish U were right. Beginning of 2005, I had a lukewarm belief in the bible (lapsed Catholic, agnostic, that sort of thing). Dear friend tried to convert. Sent me McDowell’s ETDAV. This was the pivotal moment. I reread the book twice, something was wrong (the logic he used, which I have seen U use elsewhere). I stumbled on his Tower of Babel timeline, & his misuse of 3 authors in trying to prove monogenesis. I wrote a particularly scathing review of this on Amazon. Now, let’s play.
1st off, the citation from Josephus (1 threader very aptly pointed out that he was in no way an eyewitness, but he was a pretty good historian) is recognized as an interpolation. Origen & other church fathers (prior to Eusebius) knew of the book, but NEVER mentioned the infamous paragraph(s). Also, Eusebius was famous for stating that deceit & fraud were okay for the advancement of the church, & the paragraph(s) were cited in the 4th century.
Your reference to Tacitus is completely wrong. Tacitus referred to a ‘Chrestus’ (Greek for ‘Honored One’, usually reserved for freed Roman slaves), & that Chrestus was inciting riots in ROME. Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan was simply an attestation to the existence of CHRISTIANS, not Christ.
The Talmud you refer to were actually 2: the Palistinean and Babylonian (written in the 4th and 6th centuries), and they refer to a Yesu ben Strada (100 BCE) and a Joshua in 100 CE. Lucian was retelling a story, not an attestation. Honestly, citing McDowell? His book touches on the Gnostic gospels, dismisses them on the basis that they R 2nd century, or older, & then turns around & cites sources that are 2nd century or older (& some that cite other ‘lost works’).
Here is how I came to my conclusion. Rather than learning a # of scientific theories to disprove the document, I approached it (as closely as I could) w/some degree of objectivity. The other criterion I used was to investigate BOTH sides of the argument: skeptic & apologist. I researched JUST THE NT: nothing else. I read none of Paul (I don’t have a high opinion of him), or the OT. It was only AFTER this, that I stumbled on Paine’s Age of Reason (though Voltaire’s writings played a small part). If you are open to the discourse of ideas, then I have a bibliography for you (and PHARQUAR as well): The AR (of course), SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES (Ingersoll), & of course, my favorite frenchman, Voltaire. Almost all of these documents are free on the Internet.
Allow me to part w/a few quotes from the Great Agnostic:
“God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority of the human race” – Ingersoll
For PHARQUAR, who asked early on about morals: “‘Thou shalt not kill’ is as old as life itself. & for this reason a large majority of people in all countries have objected to being murdered.” – IBID
One more: “Man in his ignorance supposed that all phenomena were produced by some intelligent powers w/direct reference to him.” -IBID
& one from me, though nowhere near as funny or pithy as Mr. Ingersoll: ‘It sounds pretty enough: I have heard (and read) testimonials about/from people who claim to have a ?personal? relationship w/God. In my humble opinion, it is more likely that these folk have come to terms w/their subconscious (id), and have an ongoing internal dialogue w/it. However, since naming this (supposedly) external individual ?Bob? or ?George? or ?Melissa? would indicate a disassociative personality disorder, labeling it ?God? makes it more acceptable, and less prone to psychiatric review.’
& that’s my 2 cents worth.
It’s been a week: is anyone out there? Have the Xtians bailed out already? Just curious
.
reluctant,
I think everyone has moved to newer threads. Maybe you want to copy and paste your post to one of the more active threads; whichever seems most relevant.
cheers!
Thanks escher (D’oh!).
proofed profit from nhl betting
You may find it interesting to check out some helpful info on buy a game called jackpot rummy
project management
…
this is very good
good related article
Solar System Read A Mat
The renewable include wind, solar, biomass, tides, ocean thermal energy The dynamic pressure of the wind dominates over the magnetic p…
science fiction fantasy magazines