Atheism

[Tigers of Old]

Bugger calling yourself an agnostic;be an ignostic.

;D I like it.

You are making no claims(well except for the claim that we can never know),put the burdon of proof on people who are.

That's the beauty of it.
You simply have to ask 'how do you know?'

 

[evo]

You simply have to ask 'how do you know?'

..and even if they do give you a good answer just say "that just seems like hoo ha to me" ;D

 

[Tigers of Old]

..and even if they do give you a good answer just say "that just seems like hoo ha to me" ;D

;D

 

[Djevv]

Serious questions. Either we are in His image or we are not. Still interested to see what religion God is a devotee of, and how He looks if we are in His image, and what - logically and philosophically - this actually means in terms of reproduction and all the evolutionary features we have.

Genuinely interested in how you can resolve this.

In his image means we have Him stamped deep within us. I think it is natural for us to look for him in our world and makes people 'religious'. That was what I based my tongue in cheek argument on.

God is a spirit, not a physical person. Interestingly though when He came to Earth He was incarnate as a man - with all the equipment so to speak. I think God paid man a real complement when that happened.

 

[Djevv]

Sorry Djevv.I can't be bothered any more.It's obvious to me you don't really want to seriosly discuss it.

I'll leave you to Pantera et al.

Hold on a minute there buddy! You mean we are supposed to be being serious on this thread!! Seriously!

 

[Six Pack]

Say it aint so Evo :'(

 

[Djevv]

So you resort to an explanation that is less likely and lacks any evidence compared to the model that you choose to discard through personal incredulity? That is not healthy skepticism, that is some sort of twisted ad hoc justification for your religious beliefs.

Why do you think my explanation is unlikely? In my experience out of nothing comes nothing. I know of no science that contradicts that. My explanation is not 'ad hoc'. It is simply that an intelligence designed the universe. Dead simple and easy to understand. BUT I don't know precisely how it was done.

We were have a discussion about natural selection and you were skeptical....that is an evolutionary mechanism for biological life. It was you who strayed onto another topic, clouding your response to my questions. If you want to extend the discussion to other areas of complexity in the universe then that is fine (although stars, planets and galaxies follow the relatively simple physical laws of Newton and Einstein).

I'm talking about the formation of stars and planets. I'm also referring to CDM which nobody has ever seen or detected being responsible for all the lumpiness (stars, planets, galaxies) in the universe. I'm sorry but I don't find a story like this terribly convincing. But then again, I'm not a physicist and possibly don't understand things aright.

No, my interest is in the fallacious claims that you (and others) have made on this thread. It just so happens that your motive for making such claims is the justification of your religious beliefs.

The only claims I've ever made for my faith is either based on personal experience or historical data (other thread). Which of these is a fallacy?

Perhaps there was no beginning? Perhaps it is cyclical? I personally am not sure, and I am comfortable with that. Not being a physicist, I am not overly qualified to comment on these things. One thing I am sure of is that you (and other religious adherents) are as ignorant as I am on these matters. Your explanation has no basis and raises more questions than it answers.

So, at the end of the day you have no idea. OK well it's honest. I still can't see why the ID hypothesis is not as reasonable as any of yours.

You are deflecting. I'll repeat myself, your 'God hypothesis' raises more questions than it answers. This is quite different from a good scientific theory, which is based on observation, is simple and has strong predictive power.

I'm not talking about a scientific theory here. This is a metaphysical idea which explains why the universe and ourselves are like we are.

What? You raised the issues of sandcastles on the beach and then you say this?

Do you understand why I made this analogy yet?

 

[Djevv]

..and even if they do give you a good answer just say "that just seems like hoo ha to me" ;D

Hmmm, the story of this thread in a nutshell.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Why do you think my explanation is unlikely? In my experience out of nothing comes nothing. I know of no science that contradicts that. My explanation is not 'ad hoc'. It is simply that an intelligence designed the universe. Dead simple and easy to understand. BUT I don't know precisely how it was done.

Seriously, where have you observed intelligence before? You are looking at the complexity of life and inferring that it was designed...a very common, human reaction. However, Darwin's insights identified a simple mechanism that naturally leads to the appearance of design. Humans and all of our human characteristics are one outcome of this and other processes. Where did God come from? You insist on explanations for everything, but you suspend this demand when it comes to the 'uncreated creator'.

I'm talking about the formation of stars and planets. I'm also referring to CDM which nobody has ever seen or detected being responsible for all the lumpiness (stars, planets, galaxies) in the universe. I'm sorry but I don't find a story like this terribly convincing. But then again, I'm not a physicist and possibly don't understand things aright.

Yet you are willing to be so sure that people who do this day in day out are wrong, because you have a feeling that God exists and you are therefore skeptical of their findings. They have hypotheses that can be tested and that fit the observations. If you think they're wrong provide evidence of such. "I'm sorry but I don't find a story like this terribly convincing" is not evidence.

The only claims I've ever made for my faith is either based on personal experience or historical data (other thread). Which of these is a fallacy?

You claim that macroevolution has not occured. This is a fallacy that I can easily speak to. You have made other claims about flood geology that are also fallacious. Neither of these claims are based on personal experience or historical data.

So, at the end of the day you have no idea. OK well it's honest. I still can't see why the ID hypothesis is not as reasonable as any of yours.

Because ID hypotheses (which are what exactly? Irreducible complexity? Thoroughly disproven. Anything else? Nope.) are supported by the evidence! My background isn't in physics or astronomy so I wouldn't presume to second guess the conclusions of the scientists in these fields. That is not to say that you can't, but at least do so by presenting contradictory evidence, not continuous arguments from incredulity (henceforth known as :confused :bs).

I'm not talking about a scientific theory here. This is a metaphysical idea which explains why the universe and ourselves are like we are.

You make claims about the physical world. You are in the arena where physical laws apply (this universe), thus you are bound to explain these things according to physical laws.

Do you understand why I made this analogy yet?

Of course. It is a variation on the watch argument. It comes from a limited understanding of evolution presented as a :confused :bs.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Patsy, too many uses of vague words. Would need better proof than that. For the first time in this thread, I think McFly might be right.

As the ant said, this is normal language used by scientists as the referred to study is based on statistical analysis. That is not to comment on the accuracy of the study which would involve looking at the experimental design.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Perhaps if you want to have a decent debate, and you are not getting the responses you are looking for right now, you should adjust your posting style and you might see a difference.

When you support a post containing the words -
"Seriously, you guys give religion too much courtesy - it is a medieval JOKE - no different to burning witches and worthy of no higher respect." then don't expect to get a detailed response to your questions from me. End of story. If that is your level of thinking then there is no point discussing it further.

Chillax Jay...just asking questions.

I ask straight questions and I justify my responses. I am just looking for the same courtesy.

To repeat myself, I was not supporting the content of the original poster, but was responding to the basis of you criticism of that post, claiming intolerance of religion. I think I have responded enough on this thread for my view on religion to be known. :-\

 

[Djevv]

Seriously, where have you observed intelligence before? You are looking at the complexity of life and inferring that it was designed...a very common, human reaction. However, Darwin's insights identified a simple mechanism that naturally leads to the appearance of design. Humans and all of our human characteristics are one outcome of this and other processes. Where did God come from? You insist on explanations for everything, but you suspend this demand when it comes to the 'uncreated creator'.

Not just the complexity of life, everything. My only inference is that there must be an ordering principle behind it. A life force behind the universe. I can't prove it, but I believe it is there. The uncreated creator does get rid of the infinite regression you get with naturalistic theories. There is also the Design argument from the fine tuning of the universal constants - which is powerful ID evidence.

Yet you are willing to be so sure that people who do this day in day out are wrong, because you have a feeling that God exists and you are therefore skeptical of their findings. They have hypotheses that can be tested and that fit the observations. If you think they're wrong provide evidence of such. "I'm sorry but I don't find a story like this terribly convincing" is not evidence.

It's not that they are 'wrong'. But I simply think common sense dictates that a theory that postulates a substance that has never been encountered, MUST have some issues - I remember posting an article on it the last time we spoke on this issue in which a number of eminent physicists made the same observation. I will concede it is the best available at present.

You claim that macroevolution has not occured. This is a fallacy that I can easily speak to. You have made other claims about flood geology that are also fallacious. Neither of these claims are based on personal experience or historical data.

I really am skeptical about macro-evolution, it is probably the most poorly understood part of evolution. But I have stated and restated that evolution has no bearing on my faith and can easily be explained with God involved. I wonder if you keep bringing it up because you are an expert in the field and I am not? The flood geology I presented does not adequately describe the gelogical record. Of that I am well aware.

Because ID hypotheses (which are what exactly? Irreducible complexity? Thoroughly disproven. Anything else? Nope.) are supported by the evidence! My background isn't in physics or astronomy so I wouldn't presume to second guess the conclusions of the scientists in these fields. That is not to say that you can't, but at least do so by presenting contradictory evidence, not continuous arguments from incredulity (henceforth known as :confused :bs).

The best ID arguments are the ones I mentioned above. If irreducible complexity were discovered in organisms it would shatter the currently held evolutionary theories would it not? I agree that nothing convincing has yet been found.

You make claims about the physical world. You are in the arena where physical laws apply (this universe), thus you are bound to explain these things according to physical laws.

Of course. It is a variation on the watch argument. It comes from a limited understanding of evolution presented as a :confused :bs.

My claim is simply that God made the universe from nothing in the beginning. We are the products of this creative process and are stamped with his image.

 

[jayfox]

Chillax Jay...just asking questions.

I ask straight questions and I justify my responses. I am just looking for the same courtesy.

To repeat myself, I was not supporting the content of the original poster, but was responding to the basis of you criticism of that post, claiming intolerance of religion. I think I have responded enough on this thread for my view on religion to be known. :-\

I'd agree.

 

[Six Pack]

I think all of our positons are pretty clear.

 

[jayfox]

Just humour me Jay. If millions of people have claimed to have seen an alien(s), does this constitute prrof of their existence?

If it was/is millions as you say then I would recommend that it needs a lot more looking into before coming up with a definitive position.

 

[Six Pack]

ufos lol

 

[jayfox]

For me, this dialogue confirms that jf and DJ have a belief/faith which they then seek desperately to validate by trying to fit the (square) evidence into a (round) hole and going through terrible mental contortions to do so.

Couldn't disagree more. Don;t have all the answers but I have no confusion or doubts about my faith. I would doubt that many non-believers could say the same.

Whenever the evidence based argument gets too hard for JF he falls back onto this anyway. "I KNOW God exists because I feel HIM and by the way so do many other people". As Disco said many many other people truly believe that UFOs are "out there" and really do carry little aliens around who look at us and occasionally anally probe us apparently. "I believe and so do lots of other people" is not evidence. Sorry, but it's not.

It may not be material evidence as you would like to see it but it is experiential evidence which can be just as important. If you have a cold do you see the cold virus that is causing you to feel crap? No. But do you feel the affects of it on your body/life. Of course. There is no perfect Earthly example to explain a relationship with God but there are plenty of things in this life that the average person accepts through experiential evidence only.

As I've suggested, they should forget this approach and just say "my religion is my faith - I don't understand how God operates and how He made us into existence" and leave it at that rather than relying on wacky philosophers like Platinga or dubious extrapolations on what Noah's Ark actually looked like because in the end, it all comes down to personal belief.

I largely agree. Faith is exactly that. Faith. We do not have all of the evidence but we believe anyway as we have enough evidence to be convinced. The Word of God is amazing evidence too if you ask me. And I just can;t buy that this world all evolved by chance. I can;t buy that a fish, a bird and an elephant all evolved by chance from the same initial, probably single celled, organism. For the fence-sitter, I can;t see how that is a more likely possibility than an Almighty Creator?

Just look at how Djevy is struggling with the simple question of "what is God's religion" and "why does he have genitals then" for the trouble these guys have in trying to maintain a logical or evidence based explanation of God.

We don;t know if God has genitals but I would doubt it as He is a spiritual being so they would not be physical even if He did have them. I can assure you that Jesus had them though.

God has no religion. He is God. He is religion.

God didn't get created. He is beyond time and space. But of course it is hard for us to understand as we are very limited whilst here on Earth.

 

[Disco08]

If it was/is millions as you say then I would recommend that it needs a lot more looking into before coming up with a definitive position.

People do look into it quite closely, as the study into individual's emotional reactions suggests. Still, until someone catches an alien in the flesh there really is no definitive proof, so would you accept all these personal testimonies as proof of alien existence?

 

[evo]

And I just can;t buy that this world all evolved by chance. I can;t buy that a fish, a bird and an elephant all evolved by chance from the same initial, probably single celled, organism. For the fence-sitter, I can;t see how that is a more likely possibility than an Almighty Creator?

:confused :bs



Sorry,just wanted to try out the new emoticon.Working fine. Carry on.

 

[jayfox]

People do look into it quite closely, as the study into individual's emotional reactions suggests. Still, until someone catches an alien in the flesh there really is no definitive proof, so would you accept all these personal testimonies as proof of alien existence?

As I said, before I came to a definitive position on it, I would need to look into it a lot more closely. The difference is that, even if they do exist, it has little bearing on how I live my life, the purpose of my life, and expectations of the afterlife, so it is small fry's compared to God. Having an existing belief in God I would obviously believe that they were created by Him anyway so they would be just another amazing creation of his, that's all.

But I still certainly don't believe that millions have had this type of experience. We would each know someone who had if that was the case.