Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'll be an atheist for a moment

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 4:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I really don't think you get the point of the position.

The point is if we don't know the answer to something, we don't automatically assume an explanation to that lacking in understanding. God is just very low on the list of things that would be likely explanations for anything physical going from experience, we know we have been proven wrong over and over on virtually everything we used to attribute to a panacea explanation (God, Ghosts, Fairies, Etc).

Therefore very good reasons are needed to accept that explanation, or any explanation whatsoever over a non-explanation for an area of real ignorance.

I don't know exactly how consciousness arises, how the universe began, how live originated from non life etc. It seems incredibly stupid to advocate for an explanation without good reasons to accept it over any other. Personally I take the default position to reject each and every explanation that is given until given good reasons to think it's likely true, and that includes well accepted explanations such as relativity, evolution and especially quantum mechanics.

The moral of the story is never to start with the conclusion and work to justify it, the best way to find something is to start with something that needs justification and find the best explanation, and then let that be your conclusion if you have good enough reasons to think it's convincing.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 4:48:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?


Well, the fine-tuning argument, unless it is refuted, lends enough probabilistic/inductive evidence for the existence of a god that a consistent atheist has to accept it.

But the fine-tuning argument has been refuted many times in many different ways.

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

Not every argument :)
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 5:51:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

You now disbelieve that a god exists? Atheism does not inherently explain morality nor does atheism describe the origination of the universe.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:54:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 5:51:55 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

Atheism does not inherently explain morality nor does atheism describe the origination of the universe.

There is no onus on atheism to explain these things. The onus is on science and scientists.

Human morality already has a more than adequate explanation:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Cosmologists are working on the origins of the universe and there are several promising models. What more do you want?

The problem with theists is that they think in absolutes. They have to have an explanation and they must have it now. If you can't provide it immediately, they will insert their god. Scientists can't entertain that approach for obvious reasons. It's contrary to the scientific method. Once a supernatural intervention is countenanced, that's the end of the line. There can be no further investigation, no evidence gathering, no laboratory testing, and no predictions can be made. It's a dead end. Inserting a deity into the picture is pointless.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:31:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Nope. What most atheists will point out is that the fact we don't have an explanation for something does not justify using "God" as the answer.


Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

Yes there is a "need" to answer that question, we want to know. But like with many things we don't know so we say...............GOD DID IT.


What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

No we don't rule out God, we don't rule out many Gods working by committee either.


Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed.

Right, and there are many ways they try to justify that inference, eg taking human made objects that have complexity (watches, houses) or using improbability to justify intelligent design. All have being shown faulty.

But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Refining process ?

"Natural selection led only the smartest"

Horse sh*t. Natural selection is all about the living thing and it's environment. Natural selection does not have a goal in mind to select a trait like intelligence, or weight or height or what ever.


Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

Objective morals does not necessarily mean we have "purpose" or vice versa.


The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Astronomical improbable things happen all the time and we don't infer intelligent design. It just some people use against the odds argument selectively to the human race as well see that justifies intelligent design. It doesn't.


Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

Alot of theistic arguments do have "evidence" and alot of the evidence is not in dispute, eg humans exist, sun exists, if water did not exist on this planet we would not exist, complexity exists in life, etc etc

For the most part it's the REASONING that is used with that evidence that is shown faulty.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:35:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 5:51:55 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

You now disbelieve that a god exists? Atheism does not inherently explain morality nor does atheism describe the origination of the universe.

He's playing atheist's-advocate.

Atheism isn't intended to explain anything. It's simply the belief that no gods exist. Try the word "secular".

There are secular explanations for both the universe, and morality. And they not only fit the evidence far better than theistic explanations, but make better sense.

Morality is a socially adopted code to allow social groups to benefit from not living in individual isolation. Could you build your own house, provide your own power and grow your own food? And I'm not talking about purchasing a solar power-generating system, buying fertilizer, rakes, shovels, etc., or hiring a contractor to build a house. I'm talking about you doing all of these things by yourself, without the advent of the Internet, books, instructional videos, etc. All of those things come from society. It's just you... and an isolated bit of land. How far would you go? How long could you live?

And yet, without a moral code, that is how every creature would be forced to live. Without a moral code, everyone simply grabs whatever the want, fights over property, has sex with whomever they can over-power, simply because the mood strikes. Individuals steal food, kill anything they see as a threat, and may even enslave others. Society cannot endure such behaviors. So morals arise as an evolutionary modification to allow a species to benefit from living in social groups.

As for the universe, theism has played quite a trick on the minds of the majority. It is automatically assumed that the universe must have been "created" - caused to come into existence, from a state of non-existence. But that conclusion runs absolutely contrary to the evidence. The most compelling evidence one has to consider is the existence of the universe. That's strong evidence that it exists. So from where do we leap to the conclusion that it ever didn't exist? There's no evidence to support that conclusion.

However, there is much evidence to suggest that the universe exists in a different state now than it once did. The universe is expanding. If you reverse that expansion, rewinding through about 13.7 billion years brings the universe back to a single point. This suggests that something may have happened at that point, 13.7 billion years ago, to start the expansion we can currently observe.

We also have a background of microwave radiation throughout the observable cosmos which is predicted under the theory that the universe began to expand from a point 13.7 billion years ago. This event would also have generated a signal in the radio frequency band and the residual RF signal is found to be present no matter where you direct your signal detecting device. Maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation which were initially drawn on the data from the theory alone, also match maps which have since been generated by satellites actually mapping the radiation.

If the universe (as we know it), emerged from a single point, that point should display a varied profile from the rest of the universe. It should be rather cold and dark by comparison. This cold void was discovered by researchers not intending to seek evidence for big-bang, and they were unsure what they had located when it was first detected. It is now known as the WMAP Cold Spot.

Some are surprised to learn that there appear to be but four fundamental forces in the universe. Most are familiar with gravity. But electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force tend to be lesser known. However, we note that these remaining three forces are altered with the density of the universe, as well as it's temperature and gravitational field. And if we begin to work backward through time, adjusting each of the forces as the density, temperature and gravitational field change, we find them tapering down to a single set of values. They merge into a single point at a period 13.7 billion years in the past.

So there is strong evidence for big-bang. But I see no evidence whatsoever for creation. Big-bang needn't mean that everything came into existence in that moment. Since what we know of the properties of matter/energy include that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it seems to make far more sense that they (in at least one of the two known forms), have always existed. And it seems most likely that the state of existence prior to big-bang, was energy. From pure energy, can transform all of the matter and energy currently found in the universe. And if all of the matter in the universe were converted to energy, there would be no way (no way of which I'm aware), for it to be detected. It would appear to be nothingness, yet all of the original matter/energy would still exist.

That's not atheism's explanation. Atheism is just the disbelief that any gods exist. But it is one (of a few) explanation(s) which seems to fit with all of the known evidence, and remains consistent with logic. It's a secular explanation which makes far more sense than a disembodied intelligence, zapping up all of the physical through a purely unknown, undescribed, and unlikely "magical" method.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:42:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

If you actually made the effort to listen to atheists you would realize that almost none of them are saying this. The fact that we don't have satisfactory answers is the very reason why we strive to learn more about the universe. Theists make no such effort, they have a magic book which tells them everything.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What do you think cosmologists and physicists do all day?

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Unless you are defining God in a logically contradictory way no one is ruling him out. We are saying that we should have satisfactory evidence for his existence before accepting him. Why is that so difficult to understand?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly!

The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible. Whenever theistic creationism comes anywhere in the vicinity of the educational or political arena it won't take any more than a matter of minutes before religion (and references to pseudo State-Religion separations) become employed tactics.

The ploy is to relate theistic creationism to mythology as much as possible, and keep it away from the educational system like a father trying to prevent his daughter from dating a boyfriend outside of their race.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am tired of your constant strawman against atheists. People have shown that you are mistaken TIME and TIME again.

At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

Why does there have to be a why? If the Big Bang was a quantum event (which it almost certainly was), then it could easily be an uncaused event, throwing out the need for a why.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

You cannot assert "God" and then not back up the claim. The God hypothesis is rejected in science because it is unfalsifiable. If you want to make the claim that it was God, back it up.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

It depends on how you define complexity and intelligence.
Natural selection also led to the more beneficial gene pool surviving, and intelligence was a good factor for different species.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

Some secular philosophies actually allow objective morality without the need of a god, but even if there was no objective morality does not mean that you can do whatever you want. Ethics still exist.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

There really is no way of knowing if life could have survived in a different universe or not. It might be unlike any life in our universe, but it could still be life.

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Stawman, Miller-Urey is hardly ever touched on except by people that are just learning about abiogenesis. There is, however, a lot of science that supports abiogenesis.

Also, the ending part has to do with evolution, and that has already been addressed to you many times by people.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

You really put thinking theists to shame with your strawmans. At least I am intelligent enough to know/admit that the only evidence I have for the three Golden Goddesses (and any god out there) is anecdotal.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 4:04:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly!

The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible. Whenever theistic creationism comes anywhere in the vicinity of the educational or political arena it won't take any more than a matter of minutes before religion (and references to pseudo State-Religion separations) become employed tactics.

The ploy is to relate theistic creationism to mythology as much as possible, and keep it away from the educational system like a father trying to prevent his daughter from dating a boyfriend outside of their race.

Native people from all over the world all have their own creation stories. I hope you advocate for all of those stories to be taught in your schools as science. Or are you a hypocrite?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 4:23:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

No, I'll be an atheist for a moment:

"Myself/my family member/loved one/friend has been hurt by the church, so I seriously doubt there's a God.
How can anyone believe in God when people who believe in God are so mean?
And if there is a God, then how come I can't see him or touch him, and how come he doesn't make himself appear at my beck and call?
And if God is anything like the God of the Bible, then I hate him. He's not very nice."

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just dress it up in smart-sounding language, and people think it's a really good argument.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 6:28:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 4:23:40 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

No, I'll be an atheist for a moment:

"Myself/my family member/loved one/friend has been hurt by the church, so I seriously doubt there's a God.
How can anyone believe in God when people who believe in God are so mean?
And if there is a God, then how come I can't see him or touch him, and how come he doesn't make himself appear at my beck and call?
And if God is anything like the God of the Bible, then I hate him. He's not very nice."

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just dress it up in smart-sounding language, and people think it's a really good argument.

No, I'll be an atheist because I am.

I reject your claim that a god exists, in fact I reject all claims that any gods exists.

I know that will refuse to understand, cos if you do your god will send you to hell. I don't care.

No smart language just the truth, something no theist is capable of facing up to. It's why they always LIE about atheism.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

Whenever theistic creationism comes anywhere in the vicinity of the educational or political arena it won't take any more than a matter of minutes before religion (and references to pseudo State-Religion separations) become employed tactics.

Employed tactics? Tell me, if I want schools teaching your child my belief that Zeus created the world with a few lightning bolts would you object to that?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 8:15:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 4:23:40 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
No, I'll be an atheist for a moment:

"Myself/my family member/loved one/friend has been hurt by the church, so I seriously doubt there's a God.
How can anyone believe in God when people who believe in God are so mean?
And if there is a God, then how come I can't see him or touch him, and how come he doesn't make himself appear at my beck and call?
And if God is anything like the God of the Bible, then I hate him. He's not very nice."

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just dress it up in smart-sounding language, and people think it's a really good argument.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that a person can actually base their beliefs in logic and reason as opposed to some emotional need? Or is every rational argument you hear made by anyone about anything just an excuse to justify their emotions in your view?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:15:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

And this is exactly the point I'm making. The subject of Intelligent Design or it's earlier term Creationism (not Biblical Creationism) is constantly equated with religion. Before you could finish one paragraph you referenced the book written 2,000 years ago, which I think I can safely assume means the Bible.

As far as evidence, what are you demanding evidence of? Are you claiming that there is no evidence of inteliigent design?

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

Whenever theistic creationism comes anywhere in the vicinity of the educational or political arena it won't take any more than a matter of minutes before religion (and references to pseudo State-Religion separations) become employed tactics.

Employed tactics? Tell me, if I want schools teaching your child my belief that Zeus created the world with a few lightning bolts would you object to that?
And it only took your 3rd paragraph to mention a religious mythological character. Intelligent Design doesn't promote any God including the God of the Bible.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:38:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:15:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

And this is exactly the point I'm making. The subject of Intelligent Design or it's earlier term Creationism (not Biblical Creationism) is constantly equated with religion. Before you could finish one paragraph you referenced the book written 2,000 years ago, which I think I can safely assume means the Bible.

That's because 99.9% of the arguments I have ever seen regarding intelligent design were referring to God. It was 100% till you presented this.

As far as evidence, what are you demanding evidence of? Are you claiming that there is no evidence of inteliigent design?

Yes, I am claiming that there is no evidence. You are making a claim about reality, that requires evidence to be based in reality. (I am assuming) you don't have that, you have instead invalid arguments interpreting realty as the result of intelligent design. Invalid arguments are not evidence.

Of course you can always present them and we'll see where that goes.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

That was referring to the assumption I made that you were just like every other intelligent design advocate I have ever came across who believes in God based on the bible. Apparently that's not you.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

Still don't know what that is
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:46:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 4:23:40 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 7/25/2014 4:06:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Everything is satisfactorily explained without God.

Why does anything exist? There's no need to answer that question. We just are. Just like matter and energy in the universe just are and always have been.

What caused the Big Bang? We honestly don't know for sure. We can safely rule out "God" as being the cause because God has always been a way of explaining phenomena for centuries by superstitious people lacking education in scientific principles. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" rather than turn to debunked superstitious methods.

Theists often claim that life is full of intelligence and complexity and that therefore it must've been designed. But they are looking at the end result of a refining process that lasted billions of years through natural selection. Natural selection led only the smartest and most beneficially mutated in the gene pool to pass on their traits.

Morality is another common objection. Specifically, the existence of "objective morality" . Theists argue that if morals are objective, we must have a purpose. This simply isn't true. If survival is instinctual, objective morality could exist as an instinct objective to a purpose of survival in every human being. Even if objective morality existed this doesn't necessitate any sort of God.

The odds of the universe coming into being is another argument put forth by theists. Do we really know what the odds are of life existing? No, we don't. For all we know we could've adapted under any other set of conditions far different than those present in our universe. Also, using odds as proof of God's existence is flawed. If there's a possibility of it happening by chance anyway how does this even prove God is responsible?

Other typical arguments concern abiogenesis, diversity of life, etc. that are not possible without God. Most religious people probably aren't aware that abiogenesis is becoming closer to reality than they might think after advancements made in the Miller-Urey experiments showing that abiogenesis is a real possibility. Diversity of life is explained by just looking at how many species share the same amount of DNA. Any newly evolving species was integral to a preceding species.

Every theist argument is put forth without evidence. It's pure conjecture. If something is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

No, I'll be an atheist for a moment:

"Myself/my family member/loved one/friend has been hurt by the church, so I seriously doubt there's a God.
How can anyone believe in God when people who believe in God are so mean?
And if there is a God, then how come I can't see him or touch him, and how come he doesn't make himself appear at my beck and call?
And if God is anything like the God of the Bible, then I hate him. He's not very nice."

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just dress it up in smart-sounding language, and people think it's a really good argument.

Not even close.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 12:21:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:15:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

And this is exactly the point I'm making. The subject of Intelligent Design or it's earlier term Creationism (not Biblical Creationism) is constantly equated with religion. Before you could finish one paragraph you referenced the book written 2,000 years ago, which I think I can safely assume means the Bible.

Creationism (And ID, which was basically a dishonest attempt to sanitise Creationism to circumvent the law) is the belief that the universe and earth was supernaturally created by a Divine Entity, and in pretty much ALL examples a specific God of some specific religion; and in the case of North American Creationism, almost ubiquotously the specific God of the Bible.

How you can possibly rationalise that even given the above, it is unfair to equate it to religion is absolutely beyond me. It is a religious belief. It is not a scientific one.

As far as evidence, what are you demanding evidence of? Are you claiming that there is no evidence of inteliigent design?

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

There may be Creationist Scientists; but not Creationists who scientifically investigate Creationism.

Well actually, that's wrong, there have been an innumerable number of Creationists who scientifically investigate Creationism. Most of the research they conducted, however has now formed an integral part of modern biology and cosmology that stands opposed to Creationism
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:38:35 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:15:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

And this is exactly the point I'm making. The subject of Intelligent Design or it's earlier term Creationism (not Biblical Creationism) is constantly equated with religion. Before you could finish one paragraph you referenced the book written 2,000 years ago, which I think I can safely assume means the Bible.

That's because 99.9% of the arguments I have ever seen regarding intelligent design were referring to God. It was 100% till you presented this.

I don't know what arguments you are referring to so I can't say anything about them as far as your standpoint and experiences are concerned. Are you sure that you are talking about (arguments for) Intelligent Design, and not Biblical Creationism?

As far as evidence, what are you demanding evidence of? Are you claiming that there is no evidence of inteliigent design?

Yes, I am claiming that there is no evidence. You are making a claim about reality, that requires evidence to be based in reality. (I am assuming) you don't have that, you have instead invalid arguments interpreting realty as the result of intelligent design. Invalid arguments are not evidence.

Of course you can always present them and we'll see where that goes.

you have instead invalid arguments interpreting realty as the result of intelligent design.

Not really, no.

The question is is there proof of unintelligent design (a satirical word meaning life evolving without the aid of an intelligent force)? If you can prove that then the problem is solved. If you can't, then the only other alternative would be intelligent design. That being the case, why wouldn't the alternative classify as science?

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

That was referring to the assumption I made that you were just like every other intelligent design advocate I have ever came across who believes in God based on the bible. Apparently that's not you.

I am a Bible believing Christian, yes. But that doesn't really have anything to do with intelligent design and it's relationship to science and education.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

Still don't know what that is
A Creationist Scientist is a scientist who is at the same time a creationist. I use that term for the sake of those who oppose the term Creation Scientist.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:21:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 12:21:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:15:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

And this is exactly the point I'm making. The subject of Intelligent Design or it's earlier term Creationism (not Biblical Creationism) is constantly equated with religion. Before you could finish one paragraph you referenced the book written 2,000 years ago, which I think I can safely assume means the Bible.

Creationism (And ID, which was basically a dishonest attempt to sanitise Creationism to circumvent the law) is the belief that the universe and earth was supernaturally created by a Divine Entity, and in pretty much ALL examples a specific God of some specific religion; and in the case of North American Creationism, almost ubiquotously the specific God of the Bible.

First off, there are people who have made claims that ID is dishonest based on unfounded assumptions, like as you pointed out, the majority of ID proponents are Christians, which is irrelevant. The switching of the term creationism for intelligent design in a book called Of Pandas And People, which was assumed to have referred to Biblical Creationism. And just assumptions that ID teachers will evangelize their students.

People in power tend to set their own (confused) rules as to what religion is. Someone in power claims ID is religion, or a Christian front, and people buy into it.

Someone claims that Goldie Hawn's Buddhist oriented MindUp program implemented into public schools is not religious in nature, so now it's mediation practices are accepted by many.

How you can possibly rationalise that even given the above, it is unfair to equate it to religion is absolutely beyond me. It is a religious belief. It is not a scientific one.

Why do you have to equate an intelligent designer/creator to religion?

As far as evidence, what are you demanding evidence of? Are you claiming that there is no evidence of inteliigent design?

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

There may be Creationist Scientists; but not Creationists who scientifically investigate Creationism.

Well actually, that's wrong, there have been an innumerable number of Creationists who scientifically investigate Creationism. Most of the research they conducted, however has now formed an integral part of modern biology and cosmology that stands opposed to Creationism

I'm not sure who you are referring to, and are you talking about ID and Creationism (in the general sense), or Biblical Creationism?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 1:05:13 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:38:35 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:15:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 8:07:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:54:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The arguments that atheists make center around possibilities, and the all-too-common-theme of God being the fall-back answer to anything scientifically unexplained. And as it stands now in the educational arena, that standpoint (ironically) is fine and acceptable among Creation Scientists and proponents of ID

What is puzzling beyond measure is the insistence of this naturalistic view holding a monopoly even though naturalistic evolutionists don't claim that theistic creationism is impossible.

You don't understand the first thing about science. No one claims that creationism is impossible, we are saying that is irrelevant. We don't teach explanations on the basis that they are not impossible. We teach explanations that have evidence based in reality to back them up. If you want creationism taught in schools then provide evidence for it, and I'm sorry but a book written by who knows who 2,000 years ago saying so is not good enough. You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

And this is exactly the point I'm making. The subject of Intelligent Design or it's earlier term Creationism (not Biblical Creationism) is constantly equated with religion. Before you could finish one paragraph you referenced the book written 2,000 years ago, which I think I can safely assume means the Bible.

That's because 99.9% of the arguments I have ever seen regarding intelligent design were referring to God. It was 100% till you presented this.

I don't know what arguments you are referring to so I can't say anything about them as far as your standpoint and experiences are concerned. Are you sure that you are talking about (arguments for) Intelligent Design, and not Biblical Creationism?

Arguments for intelligent design as far as every one I have ever heard has always been in support if biblical creationism, which not the same thing as concluding it. If the former is not what you are trying to do then I fail to see the point. If that is what you are trying to do, then my original point stands.

As far as evidence, what are you demanding evidence of? Are you claiming that there is no evidence of inteliigent design?

Yes, I am claiming that there is no evidence. You are making a claim about reality, that requires evidence to be based in reality. (I am assuming) you don't have that, you have instead invalid arguments interpreting realty as the result of intelligent design. Invalid arguments are not evidence.

Of course you can always present them and we'll see where that goes.

you have instead invalid arguments interpreting realty as the result of intelligent design.

Not really, no.

The question is is there proof of unintelligent design (a satirical word meaning life evolving without the aid of an intelligent force)? If you can prove that then the problem is solved. If you can't, then the only other alternative would be intelligent design. That being the case, why wouldn't the alternative classify as science?

Now you are just shifting the burden of proof. If you are arguing for intelligent design then you must support that argument. Telling others that they can't prove your claim false does not make your claim true. And if you are still confused I am not arguing for unintelligent design, I am arguing that any assertion regarding whether there was intelligence behind the origin of the universe is unjustified.

As far as your question about science it is quite simple, science uses reality to learn about reality. You are talking about something outside of reality making it out of the boundaries of science.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

That was referring to the assumption I made that you were just like every other intelligent design advocate I have ever came across who believes in God based on the bible. Apparently that's not you.

I am a Bible believing Christian, yes. But that doesn't really have anything to do with intelligent design and it's relationship to science and education.

Directly no, but I have a hard time believing that your Christian views play no role in the discussion or why you advocate for the topic to be taught. It would appear obvious in fact that it is the driving force behind it.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

Still don't know what that is
A Creationist Scientist is a scientist who is at the same time a creationist. I use that term for the sake of those who oppose the term Creation Scientist.

Then the term is entirely useless. We don't give credence to what a scientist has to say simply because he/she is a scientist. We give credence to them because they specialize in a particular field and have produced evidence supporting their claims. If you can show me a number of scientists who study the origin of the earth and have amassed verifiable scientific evidence to support intelligent design or whatever other claims are being made I'd be happy to hear what they have to say. Until then their position is irrelevant to the discussion.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 10:52:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:24:44 PM, Envisage wrote:
I really don't think you get the point of the position.

The point is if we don't know the answer to something, we don't automatically assume an explanation to that lacking in understanding. God is just very low on the list of things that would be likely explanations for anything physical going from experience, we know we have been proven wrong over and over on virtually everything we used to attribute to a panacea explanation (God, Ghosts, Fairies, Etc).

Therefore very good reasons are needed to accept that explanation, or any explanation whatsoever over a non-explanation for an area of real ignorance.

I don't know exactly how consciousness arises, how the universe began, how live originated from non life etc. It seems incredibly stupid to advocate for an explanation without good reasons to accept it over any other. Personally I take the default position to reject each and every explanation that is given until given good reasons to think it's likely true, and that includes well accepted explanations such as relativity, evolution and especially quantum mechanics.

The moral of the story is never to start with the conclusion and work to justify it, the best way to find something is to start with something that needs justification and find the best explanation, and then let that be your conclusion if you have good enough reasons to think it's convincing.

+1
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM, Double_R wrote:

Arguments for intelligent design as far as every one I have ever heard has always been in support if biblical creationism, which not the same thing as concluding it. If the former is not what you are trying to do then I fail to see the point. If that is what you are trying to do, then my original point stands.

You'll actually have to provide an example of what you mean. I know that there are most certainly proponents of ID that believe the Bible, but there are also proponents of ID of different faiths including deism. What do you mean by support of biblical creationism?


The question is is there proof of unintelligent design (a satirical word meaning life evolving without the aid of an intelligent force)? If you can prove that then the problem is solved. If you can't, then the only other alternative would be intelligent design. That being the case, why wouldn't the alternative classify as science?

Now you are just shifting the burden of proof. If you are arguing for intelligent design then you must support that argument. Telling others that they can't prove your claim false does not make your claim true. And if you are still confused I am not arguing for unintelligent design, I am arguing that any assertion regarding whether there was intelligence behind the origin of the universe is unjustified.

I'm not quite sure whether or not you're confusing evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer vs. evidence of intelligent design within creation or nature. It seems that you might be viewing ID as proving that there is an intelligent force responsible for life, and then moving from there into religion. There's not any more evidence that life came into existence naturally without intelligent cause than it's counter-part.

But the point I'm making is that it's the proponents of ID that basically push for both views to be presented in the educational arena, whereas the naturalistic evolutionists seek a complete monopoly. The general theme behind the exclusion of ID is that it's not science, and it's a form of religion. Unintelligent Design is not any more science than it's counter-view Intelligent Design.

And a significant segment of the population has not bought into naturalistic evolution.

As far as your question about science it is quite simple, science uses reality to learn about reality. You are talking about something outside of reality making it out of the boundaries of science.

No, not at all. Unnatural cause (in this case intelligent design in nature) is just as much science as natural cause. Why would you differentiate natural cause/unnatural cause (intelligent design) in nature-science from natural cause/unnatural cause in, say, forensic science?

And I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.

You don't use that standard of evidence in any other endeavor of your life, so why you do in this case is beyond me.

That was referring to the assumption I made that you were just like every other intelligent design advocate I have ever came across who believes in God based on the bible. Apparently that's not you.

I am a Bible believing Christian, yes. But that doesn't really have anything to do with intelligent design and it's relationship to science and education.

Directly no, but I have a hard time believing that your Christian views play no role in the discussion or why you advocate for the topic to be taught. It would appear obvious in fact that it is the driving force behind it.

This represents probably one of the biggest problems in the Naturalistic Evolution/Intelligent Design issue. Immediate assumptions in regards to religion.

When I was a professing atheist, to the best of my knowledge in knowing my overall (and historic) character, I don't think I would have had any problem with the concept of both opposing views being presented objectively in the public classroom, whether ID had to be isolated from the science department or not. I think the concept of presenting both, and allowing people to choose would have made perfect sense to me. I admit that I had no bias against religion and/or Christianity, possibly because I was not brought up in a church or any sort of religious environment.

As far as it goes now, "If" a student were to decide to embrace a religion as a result of taking an ID course in a public school setting (it's certainly possible, no guarantee that it wouldn't happen), there is every possibility that the student may embrace a religion other than Christianity. They could become a Mormon, a religion I highly disagree with. They could become a Muslim. Or....they could become a deist.

Basically, I do not believe Naturalistic Evolution should hold any monopoly in the educational system.

BTW what the hell is a creation scientist?

I actually meant to say Creationist Scientist.

Still don't know what that is
A Creationist Scientist is a scientist who is at the same time a creationist. I use that term for the sake of those who oppose the term Creation Scientist.

Then the term is entirely useless. We don't give credence to what a scientist has to say simply because he/she is a scientist. We give credence to them because they specialize in a particular field and have produced evidence supporting their claims. If you can show me a number of scientists who study the origin of the earth and have amassed verifiable scientific evidence to support intelligent design or whatever other claims are being made I'd be happy to hear what they have to say. Until then their position is irrelevant to the discussion.

The general principle behind me using the term creationist scientist (every once in awhile I accidentally say "creation scientist") is to differentiate between a scientist who embraces naturalistic evolution, and one who embraces ID/creationism and/or biblical creationism. I'm certainly not going to just say "scientist" in that you wouldn't know who/what I was talking about.

I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 12:55:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM, Double_R wrote:


I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.

You are absolutely, 100%, correct on that. Such a stunt is done alllllll the time. The same is done with the phrase "Biblical scholars". "Biblical scholars" say one thing, but "conservative theologians" say another.

One must realize that many, many - not a just a few - of the so-called "Biblical scholars" are out to destroy the credibility of the Bible, and a prime example is Bart Ehrman. When a fella objects because one manuscript says "Peter", and another says "Simon", and people take the objection seriously, we have a real problem.

However, one does not need to worry so much about the Ehrman's. One needs to worry about the sheep in wolve's clothing.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 11:04:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 12:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM, Double_R wrote:


I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.

You are absolutely, 100%, correct on that. Such a stunt is done alllllll the time. The same is done with the phrase "Biblical scholars". "Biblical scholars" say one thing, but "conservative theologians" say another.

One must realize that many, many - not a just a few - of the so-called "Biblical scholars" are out to destroy the credibility of the Bible, and a prime example is Bart Ehrman. When a fella objects because one manuscript says "Peter", and another says "Simon", and people take the objection seriously, we have a real problem.

However, one does not need to worry so much about the Ehrman's. One needs to worry about the sheep in wolve's clothing.
Yes indeed. Bart Ehrman I think is a part of the whole atheists know the Bible better than Christians movement. Because a few former-ministers-turned-atheist formulate a pack and twist scripture, because they were former ministers or Bible students their interpretations and references to history get taken seriously.

It's assumed that they're actually exposing something they present as fraudulent.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 11:23:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 11:04:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM, Double_R wrote:


I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.

You are absolutely, 100%, correct on that. Such a stunt is done alllllll the time. The same is done with the phrase "Biblical scholars". "Biblical scholars" say one thing, but "conservative theologians" say another.

One must realize that many, many - not a just a few - of the so-called "Biblical scholars" are out to destroy the credibility of the Bible, and a prime example is Bart Ehrman. When a fella objects because one manuscript says "Peter", and another says "Simon", and people take the objection seriously, we have a real problem.

However, one does not need to worry so much about the Ehrman's. One needs to worry about the sheep in wolve's clothing.
Yes indeed. Bart Ehrman I think is a part of the whole atheists know the Bible better than Christians movement. Because a few former-ministers-turned-atheist formulate a pack and twist scripture, because they were former ministers or Bible students their interpretations and references to history get taken seriously.

It's assumed that they're actually exposing something they present as fraudulent.

I was actually referring to the ones who are still nominal Christians. Of paramount, and I do mean p-a-r-a-m-o-u-n-t importance, is the recent movement to change the traditional (and supported) dates of composition of the books of the New Testament, to change the authorship of the NT books, and to question the ability to really know what the Bible says.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 12:11:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 11:23:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/28/2014 11:04:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM, Double_R wrote:


I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.

You are absolutely, 100%, correct on that. Such a stunt is done alllllll the time. The same is done with the phrase "Biblical scholars". "Biblical scholars" say one thing, but "conservative theologians" say another.

One must realize that many, many - not a just a few - of the so-called "Biblical scholars" are out to destroy the credibility of the Bible, and a prime example is Bart Ehrman. When a fella objects because one manuscript says "Peter", and another says "Simon", and people take the objection seriously, we have a real problem.

However, one does not need to worry so much about the Ehrman's. One needs to worry about the sheep in wolve's clothing.
Yes indeed. Bart Ehrman I think is a part of the whole atheists know the Bible better than Christians movement. Because a few former-ministers-turned-atheist formulate a pack and twist scripture, because they were former ministers or Bible students their interpretations and references to history get taken seriously.

It's assumed that they're actually exposing something they present as fraudulent.

I was actually referring to the ones who are still nominal Christians. Of paramount, and I do mean p-a-r-a-m-o-u-n-t importance, is the recent movement to change the traditional (and supported) dates of composition of the books of the New Testament, to change the authorship of the NT books, and to question the ability to really know what the Bible says.
I know that there's definitely nominal Christians that warp scripture and reduce Jesus to a mere human being who never raised from the dead. etc.. I'm not really familiar with the movement you're referring to (although I don't doubt it one bit). Do you know of a link off hand I can refer to?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 1:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/28/2014 12:11:18 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/28/2014 11:23:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/28/2014 11:04:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:00:32 PM, Double_R wrote:


I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.

You are absolutely, 100%, correct on that. Such a stunt is done alllllll the time. The same is done with the phrase "Biblical scholars". "Biblical scholars" say one thing, but "conservative theologians" say another.

One must realize that many, many - not a just a few - of the so-called "Biblical scholars" are out to destroy the credibility of the Bible, and a prime example is Bart Ehrman. When a fella objects because one manuscript says "Peter", and another says "Simon", and people take the objection seriously, we have a real problem.

However, one does not need to worry so much about the Ehrman's. One needs to worry about the sheep in wolve's clothing.
Yes indeed. Bart Ehrman I think is a part of the whole atheists know the Bible better than Christians movement. Because a few former-ministers-turned-atheist formulate a pack and twist scripture, because they were former ministers or Bible students their interpretations and references to history get taken seriously.

It's assumed that they're actually exposing something they present as fraudulent.

I was actually referring to the ones who are still nominal Christians. Of paramount, and I do mean p-a-r-a-m-o-u-n-t importance, is the recent movement to change the traditional (and supported) dates of composition of the books of the New Testament, to change the authorship of the NT books, and to question the ability to really know what the Bible says.
I know that there's definitely nominal Christians that warp scripture and reduce Jesus to a mere human being who never raised from the dead. etc.. I'm not really familiar with the movement you're referring to (although I don't doubt it one bit). Do you know of a link off hand I can refer to?

Just look at Wikipedia under, for instance, Book of Mark:

Wiki: "A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 CE) ascribes this gospel to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim"

Comment: There is no proof that the tradition "began" in the 2nd century. None whatsoever. And note: most modernistic scholars say that Mark did not write the Book of Mark.

Wiki: "The book was probably written c.66"70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution."

Comment: In other words, since the book records Jesus's predictions of the destruction of the temple - and these "scholars" do not believe that Jesus could have made such an accurate prophesy - they just move the date up to the time of the JudeoRoman conflict (66-70 AD). That's their reasoning. If the Book of Mark was written in, say, AD 50 ... well ... they can't have that.

Wiki: "The author used a variety of oral sources, including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative, which he rewrote (scholars debate by how much) and connected with introductions and conclusions"

Comment: Then he wasn't inspired of God, was he? No, he just kinda gathered together some oral traditions, embellished them, plagiarized a little, and Voila! We have the Book of Mark! What's worse is that they then claim that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke simply plagiarized from Mark.

Wiki: "The widely accepted theory today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material."

Comment: A frontal assault on the inspiration of the scriptures. "Matthew and Luke just copied Mark."

Wiki: "in the 20th century William Wrede demonstrated that Mark's sequence is in fact an artificial and theological construct bearing little relationship to the actual ministry of Jesus." (emphasis mine)

Comment: So when all is said and done, the anonymous author of Mark just made most of it up! And who, by the way, was Willliam Wrede? An atheist? Nope, he was a German Lutheran, supposedly a Christian.

THAT is what I mean by destructive criticism. The atheists didn't come up with this stuff. Oh, no! PseudoChristians came up with it!

And look where they leave you: Mark, companion of Peter, didn't really write the Book of Mark - and whoever wrote it did so when the Romans were already besieging Jerusalem. Thus, Jesus's prophesies appear to be a little gratuitous. It'd be like a man forecasting WWII after Pearl Harbor! Then, to make matters worse, most of the Book of Mark never really happened.

That's liberal Christian "scholarship" for you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 8:56:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/27/2014 12:47:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
I'm not quite sure whether or not you're confusing evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer vs. evidence of intelligent design within creation or nature. It seems that you might be viewing ID as proving that there is an intelligent force responsible for life, and then moving from there into religion.

I am not confusing the two because they are the exact same thing. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer by definition.

I view ID in that way because that is how every other ID proponent I have ever seen has attempted to use the argument. But that is a pointless discussion, let's just move on.

There's not any more evidence that life came into existence naturally without intelligent cause than it's counter-part.

But the point I'm making is that it's the proponents of ID that basically push for both views to be presented in the educational arena, whereas the naturalistic evolutionists seek a complete monopoly. The general theme behind the exclusion of ID is that it's not science, and it's a form of religion. Unintelligent Design is not any more science than it's counter-view Intelligent Design.

Again, you don't understand what is actually being taught.

It is true that there is either an intelligent designer or there is not. That doesn't mean that what is being taught in schools must be a choice between one of those two options, which is exactly what you are trying to make it seem.

We teach what we know, and what we know is what we can observe and detect. When we talk about nature we talk about the driving forces that dictate how the universe works. The forces are all we are teaching because that is all we can observe and detect, you are talking about what's behind those forces. What we are saying is that we don't know what's behind those forces so there is no sense in trying to teach it, and that in following the principle of Occam's Razor the time to add an intelligence to the equation is when we have evidence for it.

And a significant segment of the population has not bought into naturalistic evolution.

Your point?

As far as your question about science it is quite simple, science uses reality to learn about reality. You are talking about something outside of reality making it out of the boundaries of science.

No, not at all. Unnatural cause (in this case intelligent design in nature) is just as much science as natural cause. Why would you differentiate natural cause/unnatural cause (intelligent design) in nature-science from natural cause/unnatural cause in, say, forensic science?

I have no clue what you just said. You really need to define your terms because you are jumbling them all up.

Nature is the forces and processes that control the universe. Some dictionaries define it as all processes that are not controlled by people. When we talk about nature the only thing that does not qualify as nature is that which is not made by man or any other intelligent being produced by nature.

You keep asserting this definition of nature as something that has no association with any kind of intelligence. When we define nature we are not defining it as something that lacks intelligence behind it because again, we are not talking about what's behind it. We are distinguishing between the two possibilities I just described. If nature is intelligently controlled then that simply adds a characteristic to it we didn't know about before, it does not change what it is.

Basically, I do not believe Naturalistic Evolution should hold any monopoly in the educational system.

Because you are redefining it as something which it is not.

The general principle behind me using the term creationist scientist (every once in awhile I accidentally say "creation scientist") is to differentiate between a scientist who embraces naturalistic evolution, and one who embraces ID/creationism and/or biblical creationism. I'm certainly not going to just say "scientist" in that you wouldn't know who/what I was talking about.

I do understand that in the semantics game the idea is to render the term evolutionist scientist or evolutionary scientist to merely scientist (to suggest authenticity), and to detach the word scientist from the word creation/creationist (to suggest inauthenticity), and just call them creationists. But I'm not going to play that game.

You are playing that game. You don't seem to understand that the word scientist itself has meaning only when we are talking about people who specialize in the field in question. That is why I asked you what you meant by a creationist scientist. I doubt there is any such thing because there is no science behind creationism. What you are talking about are scientists who specialize in other fields who happen to believe in creationism. That is utterly irrelevant. Would you go to a dentist if you were having a stroke? Of course not. Show me the people who have spent their lives uncovering real world evidence suggesting validity to creationism and I just might care what they have to say. Till then I don't give a rats a$$ if they're a scientist.