Even today Christians continue to overlook the most reasonable/plausible understanding of biblical reality - a pansychism where Yahwheh was simply the first piece of matter to fully awaken/evolve unto full sentience. This materialistic evolution was ultimately a psychological development instead of a biological abiogenesis.  (This view makes it incredibly easy to resolve the Problem of Evil, explain how God intervenes in a material world, and show how He 'became' man). Across 13 billion years Yahweh gradually formed the universe from leftover matter (i.e. matter not yet fully awakened unto acute sentience). His own physical hand is the source/cause of all the so-called "forces" (gravity, elecricity, nuclear forces, magnetism, eletro-magnetism). His power is identical in kind to ours, meaning free will moves matter (viz. throwing a punch). After all, SOMETHING must be self-moving, because a first mover of some kind must exist, and free will is the obvious candidate for a self-moving principle, as it is confirmed/ experienced/ witnessed every moment of our lives (e.g. every time I choose to throw a punch or take a step).

Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist: 
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable. 
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable. 
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them?  Inconceivable. 
- How did natural selection occur?  Inconceivable (see below).
Reductionism is a determinism - a cause-effect dynamic tantamount to a domino effect which, as such, is inconducive to natural selection. 
Why so? Suppose I feel hunger and thus desire food. If free will moves matter, as I have claimed, I am not locked into a domino effect, I can freely lunge toward food and consume it.

Whereas, in a domino effect, my desire for food is irrelevant/ useless, as all motion is a blind causality wholly deterministic.  In a chain of dominos tipping rightward, for example, they will still fall to the right even if some of them desire the left, because desires would be irrelevant/useless, since a deterministic universe couldn't care less what we desire. 

Thus, in a reductionism, natural selection will fail because, in a blind causality: 
- Hunger won't precipitate food-gathering and satiation.
- Libido won't precipitate mating and reproduction.
- Fear of attack won't precipitate flight.
- Mammals won't seek the needed shelter, hibernation, and migration.
The dominos will simply fall blindly and randomly, resulting in starvation and extinction.

To solve this, an atheist could postulate a panpsychism but, without Yahweh (or some other Creator), it's a bit of a reach to account for our reality because our bodies are machines. In a panysychism, a mechanical body isn't even strictly necessary for sentience, and yet, fortuitiously enough, we happen to live in a world where ONLY mechanical bodies are sentient. Just a weird coincidence? Or was it Yahweh's creative design? Obviously I vote for the latter.

I think you’re over complicating things a bit when you think about atheism. People are atheists because they don’t believe in gods, not because they do believe they have answers to any given question. On that count, any explanation that isn’t a god would do…and no explanation for anything is necessary to notice that you don’t believe in gods.

I could say to you that the existence of gods is itself implausible and the idea that gods are the answer to any question is inconceivable….but having heard that, one presumes you still believe?

#1 Your ignorance and incredulity is not a (good) argument
#2 Put down the pipe
#3 Chapters and verses please

(3 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think you’re over complicating things a bit when you think about atheism.  People are atheists because they don’t believe in gods, not because they do believe they have answers to any given question.   On that count, any explanation that isn’t a god would do…and no explanation for anything is necessary to notice that you don’t believe in gods.

I could say to you that the existence of gods is itself implausible and the idea that gods are the answer to any question is inconceivable….but having heard that, one presumes you still believe?

My post casts doubt on the touting of reductionistic atheism as a reasonable/ plausible position.

If it is highly implausible, apparently even unreasonable, atheists should be forthcoming about this. 

"I could say to you that the existence of gods is itself implausible and the idea that gods are the answer to any question is inconceivable….but having heard that, one presumes you still believe?" Not getting your point.  What you say isn't terribly important of itself. What matters is the reasoning behind it. Personally I don't see anything unreasonable/ implausible about my belief in God. On the contrary, my post suggested that theism might very well be the most plausible position.

We do have a tendency to believe that our beliefs are reasonable. Even if they aren’t. Seems like this would apply to theists and atheists alike. You believe, for example, that hunger would not lead to food gathering under whatever you think atheism is. As an atheist…that seems like an unreasonable belief to me….. based on every time I get up and rummage through the fridge.

(2 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote: #1 Your ignorance and incredulity is not a (good) argument
#2 Put down the pipe
#3 Chapters and verses please

Suppose I related to you a conclusion that I hold, but you enumerated reasons for considering it unreasonable/implausible. I could then reply to you:

#1 Your ignorance and incredulity is not a (good) argument
#2 Put down the pipe
#3 Chapters and verses please

Would you be satisifed by my reply? Is that kind of reply appropriate? 

Look, there are only so many reasonable options available, metaphysically speaking, in terms of defining and explaining reality. Why go with in an implausible one?  The reductionistic hides behind the barrier of, "We don't know the answer yet but we hope to find out eventually, until then you have no right to settle on a plausible view."

Really?  These guys can't even postulate a First Mover  - it is in fact a logically incoherent concept in a domino effect - but they expect me to give them endless time to scientifically "figure this out". Isn't it more reasonable for me to postulate a First Mover, one that DOES make sense, namely free will?

(2 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We do have a tendency to believe that our beliefs are reasonable.  Even if they aren’t.  Seems like this would apply to theists and atheists alike.  You believe, for example, that hunger would not lead to food gathering under whatever you think atheism is.  As an atheist…that seems like an unreasonable belief to me….. based on every time I get up and rummage through the fridge.

Rummage through the fridge when you're hungry? In a random-causality domino effect oblivious to your hunger? I know you very much WANT that to make sense, but it doesn't.

That the universe doesn’t care or notice that I’m hungry doesn’t seem to have any effect on whether or not I do… nor does it seem to have anything to do with gods. I’m not seeing why this is a problem for atheism or for natural selection?

…honestly…seems like a bigger problem for people who believe in a theistic god…..whole lot of hungry believers out there. He busy or something?

(2 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That the universe doesn’t care or notice that I’m hungry doesn’t seem to have any effect on whether or not I do… nor does it seem to have anything to do with gods.  I’m not seeing why this is a problem for atheism or for natural selection?

I think you're in denial. I was pretty clear why it's a problem. Again, if some of the rightward-falling dominos have a desire/hunger to go left they will still fall right. Desires are useless/ irrelevant in a domino effect.  Reductionistic atheism is therefore an insufficient/unsatisfactory explanation of reality. 

Let us all begin with the plausible/satisfactory theories, and debate amongst those, instead of getting bogged down with impossible theories. Just sayin'