Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread

[Shiruba]

I love stuff like this. Lol @ the infinite complexities of creation. I could do better.

When did he say that he could do better, again? I'm pretty sure that you can critique things that you yourself can't do - if not, you have no right to critique how the water tastes, because you didn't purify it, how well your house was made, because you've never built one, how someone beats their teenage son, because you've never raised one, etc. You're still allowed to have an opinion even if that thing isn't something you have hands-on experience with.

Sorry for butting in, I don't have an advanced knowledge on how cells develop and how mutagens are applied to genetic code, but it's an "argument" I've seen before that bugs the shit out of me.

 

[Strange_matter]

So you admit that Ra has to exist?
Well, Jesus was aware of those prophecies too so you can't deny that he could have consciously fulfilled them. Not to mention that our main source of information on Jesus is from some guys who were trying to promote the idea of him being the son of God, so not exactly an unbiased viewpoint.

Jesus was aware of the prophecies, but he couldn't have control of all of the outcomes if He was only a man, like being born in Bethlehem, living in Egypt, then living in Nazareth

Please note that even if all this was accurate, it would be evidence for any deity, not necessarily the Christian (or Abrahamic) God. You could very well explain the same phenomena with Åsatru, Greek/Roman/Egyptian polytheism, Hinduism, Pastafarianism or, heck, Arceism.
The question is, did they know it was a lie? I mean, there have been martyrs in every religion worth its salt, people who have died for their faith aren't exactly uncommon throughout history. Many of those faiths have been glaringly contradicting, but people have died for them nonetheless. If the disciples were convinced they were right, to a point where they'd die for it, it doesn't matter how objectively true it turns out to be. See for instance Islamic suicide bombers, or Falun Gong members being killed for what they believe. Just because someone dies for their religion, doesn't make the religion true.

I acknowledge that many of my points only support some kind of deity in general; I'm hoping that if I can convince them that God is real they might be able to figure out the truth from there, then again that could backfire, and they might jump to conclusions...
My point is that Jesus's disciples actually reportedly saw his miracles, so if they were lying one of them would probably break down, before the Romans... not to mention Paul become a Christian after delivering Christians to be persecuted, because he supposedly had Jesus appear to him on the road (this was after Jesus died.)

 

[Ides_of_March]

Jesus was aware of the prophecies, but he couldn't have control of all of the outcomes if He was only a man, like being born in Bethlehem, living in Egypt, then living in Nazareth

I've been watching this pass by slowly, as I do most creationist jargon, but I just want to point out your reliance on the validity of prophecy (as popularized by Lee Strobel as you so gullibly put) is done at your own peril. Just for example, the three prophecies you've mentioned here alone, are not only either flat out not made in the Old Testament or misinterpretations of the texts (contrary to what the gospels say). There's also no empirical data to show that they actually happened even if they were "prophecies." There are whole videos that have been made on the INvalidity of biblical prophecy and how the new testament not only doesn't back any of them with evidence, but actually flat out lies (see above) about several of the ones it says Jesus fulfilled. Seriously, when was the last time you read or heard something said about the bible and then went out to look for a reason to see if it's false? As a science major, guess what, that's what you do in research labs. Now I know you want to say, "But Lee Strobel already did all that, and he's a lawyer, and he's converted now, and..." I want you to stop there, and actually go back, into all the things you've been told from the time you were teency, tiny. When your parents told you, that you either bow to this god of ours and take the dip in the water or you're going to hell (or maybe they were nice and told you that you'd get an XBox idk). And when you've gone back, and listed out the things that make you convinced Jesus was god, go and find out what other people have to say about it. And when you're reading the articles and watching the videos, ask yourself these VERY important words, "Would I believe what creationism or evolutions says, IF I was not told at a young age that eternal heaven awaits those who believe in this, and a loveless, fiery eternity awaits those who don't." And if your argument is you feel a nice little tingle when you pray and talk about Jesus, just know that the same tingle has been shown to occur in people who believe in Allah, Nirvana, and the Juju on the mountain top. (I may have made up the last one, but you get my point).

Here's a few fun facts to get you started:
1. 200 documented PhDs believe in creationism, 886 PhDs with just the name Steve believe in evolution (there are hundreds of thousands of PhDs named things other than Steve just fyi).

2. Evolution, believe it or not, is not the biggest obstacle to proving the earth is 6000 years old. Creationists have a mountain of things to overturn other than just evolution to be right. Not the least of which is the physics behind both the distance of stars and galaxies to our planet, and the process of nuclear decay. They would, put simply, have to rewrite the equations that govern everything from relativity to quantum mechanics to be right. No creationist(s) have provided any sustainable math that comes close to overturning either.

3. Like I mentioned earlier, you will be expected to provide hypotheses that are falsifiable in your career in biology. If you're going to argue for or against something, make sure we can prove it wrong before you try to prove it right. This should apply equally to your beliefs in my opinion.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Strange_matter

I don't think you are understanding the basic problem with your 'arguments.'

Lets say for example that you were correct in that our genetic code showed signs of intelligence or that there were fatal flaws in how we view evolution. This is not a proof of God. Any number of things could from aliens doing it, to a Wizard's incantation. At the end of the day we simply would not know why we are seeing intelligence. Attacking our current understanding of the universe does nothing to actually prove God's existence, than questioning why the government covers us certain things proves the existence of aliens. There is a huge logical gap you just jumped.

If a God is to be proven the easiest thing that could be done is to come down into our modern real world and you know, do some magical shit like it says he can do in the Bible for example. I don't know about other Atheists here, but this would be sufficient proof of a God. Heck, if God came to me personally alone and talked to me, or a reasonable logical proof was presented, I would believe in him.

But no, none of this has happened, at least to us personally (I actually have no problem with people using personal God experiences for their own personal proof of God). So why should we believe at all!?

---

On a different note, I also do have problems with what you mean by "the truth" and "taking it into consideration." But before I go on possibly an unjustified rant, I have to ask you: Do you actually believe the Bible is absolute truth cover to cover, or do you think that there needs to be a certain lens of interpretation when reading it to get the truth.

I ask this because with he former, we have a lot of issues when you ask anyone to take your "truth" into consideration.

 

[Crux]

I think the greatest argument against the existence of god is condescending assholes like the two of you!











STFU I know I'm a hypocrite

 

[Jorgen]

Sure, it probably is fantastically small. And in all the infinitely many hypothetical universes where the fundamental constants are not set in such a way that life is possible, nobody ever measures them. So when we do measure those constants, and find that their values are ideal for supporting life, that's no surprise: it's a necessary condition for the measurements being carried out in the first place.

Sure, I get that part. I'm just not so sure why it can't be considered improbable that we're able to measure them at all in the first place.

The use of the weak anthropic principle really just confuses me as a standard tool in the atheist's toolbox. It just seems really weird that "yeah, it all happened by chance" has to be accompanied by some clumsy argument about why intelligent life isn't as unlikely as it seems after all. Just bite that damn bullet imo, all you're admitting is the improbability, rather than impossibility, of something that, if not for anthropocentrism, would be a totally arbitrary characteristic of the universe anyway, so it isn't even that hard.

I dunno, I still feel like I'm misunderstanding something about the WAP, but from what I know it just seems like an unnecessarily clumsy way to try to counter watchmaker teleological arguments.

 

[Champion Steve]

Basically, if we weren't here, no-one would notice. Because there would be no-one there to notice. Only the universes that develop observers can be observed, thus all observed universes will have observers no matter how unlikely it is that any one universe will develop life capable of that. So, in all the universes and galaxies and planets where there is no 'evidence' of design, there is no-one there to say "Oh, maybe there is no God after all."

It's a counterargument to when people point out how specific the conditions required for life are and use that as an argument for a designed universe by pointing out that any universe that just happens to have sentient life would look designed to that life.

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Sure, I get that part. I'm just not so sure why it can't be considered improbable that we're able to measure them at all in the first place.

The use of the weak anthropic principle really just confuses me as a standard tool in the atheist's toolbox. It just seems really weird that "yeah, it all happened by chance" has to be accompanied by some clumsy argument about why intelligent life isn't as unlikely as it seems after all. Just bite that damn bullet imo, all you're admitting is the improbability, rather than impossibility, of something that, if not for anthropocentrism, would be a totally arbitrary characteristic of the universe anyway, so it isn't even that hard.

I dunno, I still feel like I'm misunderstanding something about the WAP, but from what I know it just seems like an unnecessarily clumsy way to try to counter watchmaker teleological arguments.

It was a main tool I used as an agnostic (and still as a Catholic to counter obviously "bad" teleological arguments). It is counter-intuitive but logical sound, but it does not explain anything, as in providing some insight by citing the casual structure of the universe. You should use it point out the inherent anthrpocentric biases in teleological thinking.

It only works against the "fine-tuned" universe though, although Darwinian evolution actually provides a mechanism for biological complexity, although there are certain elements that appear contingent instead of necessary in Darwinian evolution (as genetic drift does play a notable role too).

 

[Strange_matter]

Strange_matter
Lets say for example that you were correct in that our genetic code showed signs of intelligence or that there were fatal flaws in how we view evolution. This is not a proof of God. Any number of things could from aliens doing it, to a Wizard's incantation. At the end of the day we simply would not know why we are seeing intelligence.

I see your point, but It seems like there aren't many options outside of God- in the examples you provided there is already sentient life, how did it come about? Although there may be other theories as to how sentient life could develop.

Strange_matter
If a God is to be proven the easiest thing that could be done is to come down into our modern real world and you know, do some magical shit like it says he can do in the Bible for example. I don't know about other Atheists here, but this would be sufficient proof of a God. Heck, if God came to me personally alone and talked to me, or a reasonable logical proof was presented, I would believe in him.

Let's assume for jus a moment that I am right, and that Jesus really was God. People crucified Him after He was said to have performed miracles including healing people, so that might not be the best argument... I think there are some people, who would still refuse to follow Him. Believe it or not, I have actually heard of actually talking to someone before. His name was Brad Fout; he the youth leader to one of my youth leaders and he actually heard God talk to him in the same way he talked to Samuel in the Bible... Although I understand if you don't believe me considering this isn't firsthand and I am a random person on the internet.

Strange_matter
I have to ask you: Do you actually believe the Bible is absolute truth cover to cover, or do you think that there needs to be a certain lens of interpretation when reading it to get the truth.

I do believe the Bible is truth, granted there are occasional metaphors, but I believe the Earth was created in seven days, rather than that being a metaphor. I'm not trying to be arrogant or condescending, perhaps it's just hard to say these sorts of things without sounding like that. If I'm wrong, then none of my arguments, no matter how convincing matter, it's the truth that matters.
As far as imperfections in nature go, yes, there probably would be mistakes due to DNA polymerases, due to us currently being in a "fallen world" as Christians put it, as we are going to age and die. As for points such as the nerve in the giraffe neck, are you sure that that isn't the best position for the nerve to be, and that perhaps its position is due some unknown function- the appendix seems to have an immune role in early development- it seems to expose B cells to the antigens of healthy gut flora, from what I understand.
In all honesty, perhaps one of the biggest reasons I'm even bothering to talk about this is because I don't want to people to go to Hell... I'll even admit that I deserve to go to Hell, so I know I'm not better than any of you- according to my faith Jesus has taken the punishment I deserve. If I am bothering anyone, please don't think that I am condescending, rather realize that I am doing this because I care what happens to you.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Look kid, if your God is real like the way you think, I am going to hell no matter what happens. The bible states that any man who puts on a woman's clothes is an abomination to God. So yeah, I am already screwed in that regard. Furthermore I absolutely refuse to be subservient to a God whom would put people to hell for all entity for any reason. Eternity is an unreasonable punishment time for anything IMO, I wouldn't even put Hitler through that. And why would I am lot of other people go their? Not observing a God we see absolutely no evidence for. This is ignoring any other awful beliefs God has in the Bible.

And even lets say I submitted to God in order to go to "paradise" and spent my entire life repenting in fear. This person that goes to heaven in the end is not me, I would of died long ago in self brainwashing.

I am reminded of something I heard on the Atheist Experience, I am paraphrasing here.

My mom was worried that I wasn't going to heaven. I told her not to worry, because she wasn't going there either. My mother loves me and would feel great sadness if she knew she would never see me again, and that I was roasting in hell. There is no sadness in Heaven, so my mother could never go there. She would have to be stripped of any love of me, so that she would feel no sadness over my fate, and then she wouldn't be my mother anymore.

Oh and about people who refuse to follow God even if they have evidence, you know who else believes in your God, yet completely yet rejects him? Satan. And you know, considering the world this figure lives in, I can't disagree with the fallen angel.

So man, don't worry about me, if you are right, I will be perfectly happy roasting in hell doing sinful things, talking about logical absolutes with the demons. And you won't even have to worry about me in hell at all: no sadness.

 

[Jorgen]

I dunno man, if God really existed and were as wrathful as he's painted in the OT, I'd be pretty willing to put dignity aside and do what he says. It's just that there's no real reason for me to think that's the case.

Also man oh man strangeguy, your line of thinking drives me up a wall. Almost all of it is just blatant appeal to authority. Just a heads-up, people take you more seriously if your arguments are supported by more than just shallow namedropping.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I dunno man, if God really existed and were as wrathful as he's painted in the OT, I'd be pretty willing to put dignity aside and do what he says.

Don't get me wrong, I am a coward, but if he did exist I don't think its even possible for me to even be in his good graces. The best shot I would have is a team up with Satan and hope he isn't as all powerful as he claims he is.

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

I dunno man, if God really existed and were as wrathful as he's painted in the OT, I'd be pretty willing to put dignity aside and do what he says. It's just that there's no real reason for me to think that's the case.

Also man oh man strangeguy, your line of thinking drives me up a wall. Almost all of it is just blatant appeal to authority. Just a heads-up, people take you more seriously if your arguments are supported by more than just shallow namedropping.

I am being somewhat serious:

Well, how would you compare the Judeo-Christian diety to Arceus' portrayal in Arceus and the Jewel of Life?

From Wikipedia:

Editors for GamesRadar described Arceus in the film as "the Old Testament God" and a "pretty mean god".[9]

I really liked Arceus in the movie, and I think God in the Old Testament is quite similar to the portrayal of Arceus.

 

[shade]

mattj don't be ridiculous, i obviously don't think i could design a better genetic code, but then again i'm not omniscient. im pretty sure you were trolling anyway, even a devout christian knows that is a complete non-argument.

strange_matter, i don't believe that massive reroute would be necessary to 'expose B-Cells to healthy gut flora' as this is a nerve, b-cells would be transported in the blood or lymphatic system. there is no scientific basis for your claim, i researched it well. this reroute of the nerve appears to have originated in fish - our evolutionary ancestors. in fish, this reroute did not exist, as the nerve innervated the gills. however, as we became more specialised for land, the nerve rerouting took on weirder and weirder forms as it was slightly easily in an evolutionary sense than rewiring the entire nerve. you should google laryngeal nerve giraffe and watch the dawkins video on it, very interesting indeed. even so, there are countless examples of evolutionary 'mistakes'.

calm mind latios, the abrahamic god in the old testament is a brute, it is wholly incontestable. if thats the god we have to look forward to, i have no intention of praising it at all.

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

mattj don't be ridiculous, i obviously don't think i could design a better genetic code, but then again i'm not omniscient. im pretty sure you were trolling anyway, even a devout christian knows that is a complete non-argument.

strange_matter, i don't believe that massive reroute would be necessary to 'expose B-Cells to healthy gut flora' as this is a nerve, b-cells would be transported in the blood or lymphatic system. there is no scientific basis for your claim, i researched it well. this reroute of the nerve appears to have originated in fish - our evolutionary ancestors. in fish, this reroute did not exist, as the nerve innervated the gills. however, as we became more specialised for land, the nerve rerouting took on weirder and weirder forms as it was slightly easily in an evolutionary sense than rewiring the entire nerve. you should google laryngeal nerve giraffe and watch the dawkins video on it, very interesting indeed. even so, there are countless examples of evolutionary 'mistakes'.

calm mind latios, the abrahamic god in the old testament is a brute, it is wholly incontestable. if thats the god we have to look forward to, i have no intention of praising it at all.

My point was a comparison with Arceus. My post was not a direct defense of Yahweh of the OT, but to compare to Him to Arceus; it can be considered a tu quoque since it is directed towards those who probably enjoy Pokemon media. Was Arceus brutal when he unleashed Judgment after he awoken from his slumber?

 

[billymills]

I doubt anyone in this thread has seen or has any interest in seeing any movie starting Arceus. Don't make pokemon references key to your points.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Personally I prefer Star Trek's depiction of God.

 

[Soul Fly]

that is not a "star trek depiction" per se but part of a larger Theist paradox called: The Problem of Evil

 

[Codraroll]

I see your point, but It seems like there aren't many options outside of God (...)

Oh yes, there is. Take your pick.

Mind you, the gods described there are only the ones people have seriously believed in. All these gods have been prayed to, loved, feared, fought for and people have probably died for well over half of them. They all have their own solid arguments as to why they represent the Truth About Life, the Universe and Everything. People have had personal experiences "proving" to them that their god is real. It's also fair to assume that quite a few gods have been believed in throughout history, but forgotten before anybody could add them to a Wikipedia article. Rule out the number of followers, and personal (subjective) experiences, and you can add a few more. Just because people don't believe in a deity, does not make the arguments for or against its existence any less relevant.

In this company, Christianity is just one among many. Nothing really makes it stand out in a conceptual way (Jesus isn't particularly unique either). What would make one religion more truthful than another? How can any one religion claim "All the others here are wrong, but mine, which fundamentally is just the same as theirs, is the right one"? How can one argue that one deity is more real than another, when they both use the same arguments to prove their points? A defender of one faith would have to reject the same arguments that "proves" his own point, in order to reject another deity.

I've heard somebody say "at heart, it's all God they believe in. They just don't know it," in reply to this. To which I asked "why God and not, say, Odin?". When people believe that all religions ultimately praise the same deity, why do they always assume their own deity to be the correct interpretation?

I believe Tim Minchin summed up this issue quite perfectly. Here's a quote from the song "Thank you, God":

What are the odds, that in history’s endless parade of gods, that the God that you happened to be taught to believe in, is the actual one, and he digs on healing?

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

I love stuff like this. Lol @ the infinite complexities of creation. I could do better.

Actually, you cannot do better whether "creation" is the result of a ingenious deity or the clumsy blind watchmaker or natural selection and anthropic bias.

In the case of the latter. "Evolution is cleverer than you are"!! :) Orgel's Second Rule.

 

[HBK]

Ugh, this so called "festive season" wherein I'm forced to believe in the great miracle that was the birth of jesus christ and all the hocus pocus that followed ( at least according to the bible ) due to the inability of my family members to respect and accept my personal opinion. Not so festive for me. Had to wake up at 6 am in the morning and attend a 60 min mass. Wasn't pretty.

 

[mattj]

Actually, you cannot do better

that's the point

These people who are like "Lol@ God. Creation is so dumb!" are just laughable. The world around us is nearly infinitely complex. We just found out there's a second programming language hidden within DNA. People who say stuff like "God should have done it this way if there really was a God" are just pompous blowhards.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Had to wake up at 6 am in the morning and attend a 60 min mass. Wasn't pretty.

What do you mean you had to? Mind explaining? Your profile says you are 19 years old which means your parents have jack shit 0 legit control over you.

 

[HBK]

Uh, I live with my parents, haven't graduated yet and have no source of income apart from my monthly allowances. Age is LITERALLY just a number.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Did they threaten to kick you out if you didn't go or something?