The whole point of this thread was to come up with a plausible explanation for the universe and everything in it - apart from God based from a quote from atheist Kia Nelson. . From what I have read, I see, Darwin, Dawkins, evolution, randomness big numbers and a whole lot of “faith” to believe that we “came to where we are today” is the product of pure chance.
You can and chose to throw up Bertrand Russell Teapot analogy, but even in the Wikipedia link you provided, stated many objections to his line of thought.
The atheist clamor for proof form the theist and objects to his faith, while boldly proclaiming in the evidence of science, yet Darwin had many problems with his theory of random mutation and natural selection. Today’s study in micro biology is confirming Darwin’s own doubts. But people like Eugenie Scott, the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, will pull out all the stops when it comes to questioning anything negative (and there is plenty of it that can be discussed) about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Contrary to popular opinion, I am NOT looking for a fight, what I am looking for is a reasonable thought process that explains some of life’s Big Questions:
How and why did the universe begin?
What’s the point of living? Why are we here?
Should we fear death?
Are moral values relative or absolute?
How do we decide between right and wrong?
Darwin doesn’t do it for me and neither does Dawkins. In a debate with a colleague from Cambridge where they both teach, Dawkins admits that a case for a creator can be made. So in part, at least he still is thinking about the questions. He just believes he can make a lot of money bashing theism. And isn’t that what life all about?
What I have seen here mostly is theism bashing. And that is fine for those who don’t want to think through the issues.
Have a look at this video about what goes on at the micro biological level and see if the "randomness and chance" of how everything began can begins to fade just a little. I know it did for the famous atheist Dr. Anthony Flew. I am not saying he is buying into Christianity. But he has changed is view on Darwin and the evolutionary process, somewhat at least.
How and why did the universe begin?
What’s the point of living? Why are we here?
Should we fear death?
Are moral values relative or absolute?
How do we decide between right and wrong?
In order
Dumb luck
No reason, no reason
Yes, that's when we're done.
Relative / fluid
Empathy / Common Sense
Evolution is not random at all. Natural selection by it's very name implies an ordered decision making process. Random is the nature of mutations not the nature of evolution. Nature selects genes that benefit the organisms chance of survival (at least long enough to pass on genes). Evolution is the biggest argument against the supernatural. If God created men and all the animals he did a terrible job. Why do we have weak eyes compared to other animals? Why do we have a tail and gills in the womb? Why do we suffer from cancer (a disease that sharks are immune to) and other diseases? Why did God create down's syndrome or other genetic diseases (cystic fibrosis is a great example)? Why does natural childbirth kill so many? Evolution explains all these things. Believing in Religion would lead you to think God messed up. I personally choose to believe He didn't.
Check out the messed up route the "inferior laryngeal nerve" of the Giraffe takes on it's way from the brain to the mouth.
Evolution is not random at all. Natural selection by it's very name implies an ordered decision making process. Random is the nature of mutations not the nature of evolution. Nature selects genes that benefit the organisms chance of survival (at least long enough to pass on genes). Evolution is the biggest argument against the supernatural. If God created men and all the animals he did a terrible job. Why do we have weak eyes compared to other animals? Why do we have a tail and gills in the womb? Why do we suffer from cancer (a disease that sharks are immune to) and other diseases? Why did God create down's syndrome or other genetic diseases (cystic fibrosis is a great example)? Why does natural childbirth kill so many? Evolution explains all these things. Believing in Religion would lead you to think God messed up. I personally choose to believe He didn't.
Check out the messed up route the "inferior laryngeal nerve" of the Giraffe takes on it's way from the brain to the mouth.
Hitchen is a man who definately understood the arguments, better than most. (That being said, Nik, he isn't the most feared of the new atheist movement, not by a long shot.) I am sure he wishes he hadn't lead so many astray. The sad thing is he now knows the truth and there is nothing he can do about it. I have seen neary all his debates. He is a colourful personality with a quick wit that made him very likeable among his fellow atheist friends. Maybe that is why they haven't replaced him in the four horsemen. Now there is trinity three of the new atheist. Lead by Sam Harris at the top, with Dawkins and Dennett.
Why the tribute now Mark, his death was in December? Was he in the news for something?
You do realize the statement of "sad thing is now he knows the truth and there is nothing he can do about it" is based solely on the god-squad view, and in fact, this fella's stated goal of fighting religiousness until the day he dies was actually accomplished, and he would have been super proud.
I had a long thing typed out.. lost it when the page refreshed...
I may type it out again, but basically a lot of the referenced article reflects things we have addressed namely:
- We may be hardwired to believe in a greater power (of course, that way we're not paralyzed by the fear that everything that happens may just be out of our control)
- Religious groups had an evolutionary advantage as they behaved better and such (again, not a religious necessity, but a moral / empathetic one, also cults are pretty well behaved and grow up fast)
- We may be hard wired into developing a relationship with someone who isn't there (lends more credit to my statement that religion is a fairy tale for adults IMO)
- It goes into storytelling, and uses literature as a sign that mankind has this "rule" about how antagonists and protagonists get their punishment and rewards. I agree with this part wholly. Again though, aside from the earlier "random life" shit, people like to think that they will be rewarded not for their attributes / skills but their choices. Mathematically, the vast majority of people below say, "8 out of 10" when it comes to intelligence, attractiveness, physical prowess, wit, charm, wealth, shiny hair etc etc. Why wouldn't I want the main determinant in my stories to be not what makes up who I am, but how I choose to use how little / much I have?
You do realize the statement of "sad thing is now he knows the truth and there is nothing he can do about it" is based solely on the god-squad view, and in fact, this fella's stated goal of fighting religiousness until the day he dies was actually accomplished, and he would have been super proud.
As many more should be.
Mark
Why I allow myself to continue posting in this thread is beyond me. But it comments like this that just suck me back in.
If what you say is true and Hitchens spent his adult life fighting not just the religion but in fact spent a great deal of time arguing that there is in fact NO GOD. Then its not just the "God-squad" view. My statement holds true, he, Hitchens, is dead. He believed there was no afterlife, no judgement, no punishment, no God, no Jesus, no heaven, no hell. He spent years trying to convience people he was right.
All I said was he now knows the truth. Either he was right all this time. Or he was wrong all this time. The fact is he now knows the truth. And in fact there is nothing he can do now to convience anyone one way or the other.
Why I allow myself to continue posting in this thread is beyond me.
Should have stopped right there, Brent . . . plus ca change, and all that. It is much akin to any other debate between two intractable positions. One side will not convince the other, no matter the quality of their argument.
Comments
Haha..
I did notice you had changed yours too... Ignorance is bliss isn't it.
Mark
The whole point of this thread was to come up with a plausible explanation for the universe and everything in it - apart from God based from a quote from atheist Kia Nelson. . From what I have read, I see, Darwin, Dawkins, evolution, randomness big numbers and a whole lot of “faith” to believe that we “came to where we are today” is the product of pure chance.
You can and chose to throw up Bertrand Russell Teapot analogy, but even in the Wikipedia link you provided, stated many objections to his line of thought.
The atheist clamor for proof form the theist and objects to his faith, while boldly proclaiming in the evidence of science, yet Darwin had many problems with his theory of random mutation and natural selection. Today’s study in micro biology is confirming Darwin’s own doubts. But people like Eugenie Scott, the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, will pull out all the stops when it comes to questioning anything negative (and there is plenty of it that can be discussed) about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Contrary to popular opinion, I am NOT looking for a fight, what I am looking for is a reasonable thought process that explains some of life’s Big Questions:
How and why did the universe begin?
What’s the point of living? Why are we here?
Should we fear death?
Are moral values relative or absolute?
How do we decide between right and wrong?
Darwin doesn’t do it for me and neither does Dawkins. In a debate with a colleague from Cambridge where they both teach, Dawkins admits that a case for a creator can be made. So in part, at least he still is thinking about the questions. He just believes he can make a lot of money bashing theism. And isn’t that what life all about?
What I have seen here mostly is theism bashing. And that is fine for those who don’t want to think through the issues.
Have a look at this video about what goes on at the micro biological level and see if the "randomness and chance" of how everything began can begins to fade just a little. I know it did for the famous atheist Dr. Anthony Flew. I am not saying he is buying into Christianity. But he has changed is view on Darwin and the evolutionary process, somewhat at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M
In order
Dumb luck
No reason, no reason
Yes, that's when we're done.
Relative / fluid
Empathy / Common Sense
/thread
Mark
Check out the messed up route the "inferior laryngeal nerve" of the Giraffe takes on it's way from the brain to the mouth.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=recurrent+laryngeal+nerve+giraffe&rlz=1C1WPDB_enCA504CA504&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=9pWGS-gjZ3n-hM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQr7qXr9606kDZCZGcWePU9PjpvVkAGSDapNkEIExqnIiGMK0n0GQ%253B1600%253B1085%253BxDdD2QoVtwc7_M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fblog.eternalvigilance.me%25252F2013%25252F04%25252Fevidence-for-evolutionism-1-the-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve%25252F&source=iu&usg=__V6_aJGSobIX9MZo1WuMUORODbnU%3D&sa=X&ei=N6m8U_aCK46KyASsk4KQDg&ved=0CB4Q9QEwAA&biw=1366&bih=667#facrc=_&imgrc=9pWGS-gjZ3n-hM%253A%3BxDdD2QoVtwc7_M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.eternalvigilance.me%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F04%252Fgiraffe-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.eternalvigilance.me%252F2013%252F04%252Fevidence-for-evolutionism-1-the-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve%252F%3B1600%3B1085
Bolded betrays a basic, and common misunderstanding of Faith. But whatever . . .
Non-believers gonna non-believe.
Feel free to enlighten us.
I prefer "without any proof or evidence, i guess that's it."
The whole idea of "Why does God allow Cancer, or AIDS? Why does He allow children to starve?" is a canard. And it DOES betray a lack of understanding.
The Bible teaches that we are not guaranteed a perfect life through our devotion to God. Rather we are guaranteed a perfect Eternity.
I hope this answer satisfies your curiosity.
Guide for Christians when debating with Atheists.
Discussing things is still fun though. As you were.
And just to be fair.. The opposite point... and I'm not taking sides... After all moderators have to be moderate..;)
Debating a Christian – The Atheist Handbook | Atheism Resource
And I really like this guys method of debate.. Very mature no matter which side you are on.
How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer | OnFaith
Nope I clicked it but couldn't find an equivalent webpage the other way.
Do you know God?
Sure He would . . . and what makes you think He didn't? As Shakespeare said, "the fault lies, not in our stars, but in ourselves".
Amusing video, though . . . Happy Simcoe Day weekend.
but imo hes like a real life troll, butttt also he truly believes in what hes saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkNQDOPjcdU
Mark
Why the tribute now Mark, his death was in December? Was he in the news for something?
You do realize the statement of "sad thing is now he knows the truth and there is nothing he can do about it" is based solely on the god-squad view, and in fact, this fella's stated goal of fighting religiousness until the day he dies was actually accomplished, and he would have been super proud.
As many more should be.
Mark
wow this guy is my new hero, such utter brilliance. its like hes debating against 6 year olds. didnt even know about this dude...
Let me present:
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that?s not a joke
I may type it out again, but basically a lot of the referenced article reflects things we have addressed namely:
- We may be hardwired to believe in a greater power (of course, that way we're not paralyzed by the fear that everything that happens may just be out of our control)
- Religious groups had an evolutionary advantage as they behaved better and such (again, not a religious necessity, but a moral / empathetic one, also cults are pretty well behaved and grow up fast)
- We may be hard wired into developing a relationship with someone who isn't there (lends more credit to my statement that religion is a fairy tale for adults IMO)
- It goes into storytelling, and uses literature as a sign that mankind has this "rule" about how antagonists and protagonists get their punishment and rewards. I agree with this part wholly. Again though, aside from the earlier "random life" shit, people like to think that they will be rewarded not for their attributes / skills but their choices. Mathematically, the vast majority of people below say, "8 out of 10" when it comes to intelligence, attractiveness, physical prowess, wit, charm, wealth, shiny hair etc etc. Why wouldn't I want the main determinant in my stories to be not what makes up who I am, but how I choose to use how little / much I have?
Finally.. this makes me giggle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEGQ42RFfhg
Mark
The rebuttal....
Why I allow myself to continue posting in this thread is beyond me. But it comments like this that just suck me back in.
If what you say is true and Hitchens spent his adult life fighting not just the religion but in fact spent a great deal of time arguing that there is in fact NO GOD. Then its not just the "God-squad" view. My statement holds true, he, Hitchens, is dead. He believed there was no afterlife, no judgement, no punishment, no God, no Jesus, no heaven, no hell. He spent years trying to convience people he was right.
All I said was he now knows the truth. Either he was right all this time. Or he was wrong all this time. The fact is he now knows the truth. And in fact there is nothing he can do now to convience anyone one way or the other.
Should have stopped right there, Brent . . . plus ca change, and all that. It is much akin to any other debate between two intractable positions. One side will not convince the other, no matter the quality of their argument.
Let it go . . . your ulcer will thank you.