(December 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: I just had a thought to try and get a scale of how an atheist views things. So, to an atheist, if intelligence within life, such as evolution or the example about sex feeling good, doesn't prove the existence of a creator or God or higher power or whatever who created it, then I have a question. Say we live in a time after a catastrophic event, during which all knowledge of the past has been wiped out and the human race has restarted. Now, lets say while digging in the Earth, a human finds a perfectly preserved sharpie (bc there's one sitting in front of me). Through the eyes of an atheist, intelligence doesn't prove the existence of a creator. So, does this mean the existence of the sharpie (intelligent design), does not prove the existence of a creator of said sharpie? And that it's equally as believable that the sharpie just randomly came together ?

No, in my "atheist" view of reality, natural occurances have a natural explanation. I can think of no example of a writing implement made of refined petrochemicals that has been created by purely natural means, so I would conclude that it was deliberately manufactured.

(December 6, 2013 at 4:34 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: I'm asking if the metaphor is an accurate portrayal of atheism.

It isn't, because "Through the eyes of an atheist, intelligence doesn't prove the existence of a creator" is incorrect. We recognize human design because we have seen human design. This future person would be intrigued by this Sharpie specifically because it stands out among the "uncreated" backdrop.

Wait, wait, wait.. You recognize human design, but.... You don't believe in a God or creator. So how is that incorrect?

---

(December 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: I just had a thought to try and get a scale of how an atheist views things. So, to an atheist, if intelligence within life, such as evolution or the example about sex feeling good, doesn't prove the existence of a creator or God or higher power or whatever who created it, then I have a question. Say we live in a time after a catastrophic event, during which all knowledge of the past has been wiped out and the human race has restarted. Now, lets say while digging in the Earth, a human finds a perfectly preserved sharpie (bc there's one sitting in front of me). Through the eyes of an atheist, intelligence doesn't prove the existence of a creator. So, does this mean the existence of the sharpie (intelligent design), does not prove the existence of a creator of said sharpie? And that it's equally as believable that the sharpie just randomly came together ?

No, in my "atheist" view of reality, natural occurances have a natural explanation. I can think of no example of a writing implement made of refined petrochemicals that has been created by purely natural means, so I would conclude that it was deliberately manufactured.

What does natural mean??

What do you call humans? A collection of chemicals...

(December 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: I just had a thought to try and get a scale of how an atheist views things. So, to an atheist, if intelligence within life, such as evolution or the example about sex feeling good, doesn't prove the existence of a creator or God or higher power or whatever who created it, then I have a question. Say we live in a time after a catastrophic event, during which all knowledge of the past has been wiped out and the human race has restarted. Now, lets say while digging in the Earth, a human finds a perfectly preserved sharpie (bc there's one sitting in front of me). Through the eyes of an atheist, intelligence doesn't prove the existence of a creator. So, does this mean the existence of the sharpie (intelligent design), does not prove the existence of a creator of said sharpie? And that it's equally as believable that the sharpie just randomly came together ?

Ah...

The old, long refuted 'Watchmaker' argument.

Nice to see the classics are still around.

We don't detect design because of the function or the complexity of an item. We detect design in contrast to things that occur naturally.

What if these future diggers then uncovered a hacksaw? Would they then assume the Sharpie maker made the hacksaw? Of course not. So, you are arguing for a life maker, a sun maker, a rock maker, etc.

Your Sharpie maker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

1. A Sharpie is complex
2. A Sharpie has a Sharpie maker
3. The universe is also complex
4. Therefore the universe has a Sharpie maker

The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clarified by another example:

1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
2. Leaves grow on trees
3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
4. Therefore money grow on trees


And yet another failure of your analogy. The Sharpie is made ex materia. In other words, it is made by rearranging preexisting material. You are trying to draw an analogy to the universe that you claim a god created ex nihilo , out of nothing. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation.

(December 6, 2013 at 4:57 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: Wait, wait, wait.. You recognize human design, but.... You don't believe in a God or creator. So how is that incorrect?

Because in your metaphor you fail to take in the criteria for rejecting the intelligent design claim. If I find a sharpie, I will compare it to all of the natural things around to me to determine whether it had been designed. I'd look at nature to understand what characteristics come about naturally and what has to have been done purposely by an intelligence.

That is the problem with claiming intelligent design of the universe. There is nothing to compare it to. You have no base standard to determine the qualities of what is designed by intelligence and what isn't. For all we know, what you perceive as having the hallmarks of design may, in fact, just be the nature of existence, and until you have some sort of standard to compare it to, claiming intelligent design is unfounded.

(December 6, 2013 at 4:57 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: Wait, wait, wait.. You recognize human design, but.... You don't believe in a God or creator. So how is that incorrect?

Your statement ("Through the eyes of an atheist, intelligence doesn't prove the existence of a creator") makes little sense to me. I don't know of any atheist who promotes that idea. If the original post in this topic is indicative, I'm not sure our definitions of "intelligence" are the same, at least when it comes to the natural world. Evolution and natural selection do a very good job of explaining much of what we consider to be intelligence at work in nature.

In regards to your comment, though, I do recognize human design when I read about gods and creators in books written by humans. I just don't believe that those gods are any more real that the ones we create today in books and movies and comics.

(December 6, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: I just had a thought to try and get a scale of how an atheist views things. So, to an atheist, if intelligence within life, such as evolution or the example about sex feeling good, doesn't prove the existence of a creator or God or higher power or whatever who created it, then I have a question. Say we live in a time after a catastrophic event, during which all knowledge of the past has been wiped out and the human race has restarted. Now, lets say while digging in the Earth, a human finds a perfectly preserved sharpie (bc there's one sitting in front of me). Through the eyes of an atheist, intelligence doesn't prove the existence of a creator. So, does this mean the existence of the sharpie (intelligent design), does not prove the existence of a creator of said sharpie? And that it's equally as believable that the sharpie just randomly came together ?

Ah...

The old, long refuted 'Watchmaker' argument.

Nice to see the classics are still around.

We don't detect design because of the function or the complexity of an item. We detect design in contrast to things that occur naturally.

What if these future diggers then uncovered a hacksaw? Would they then assume the Sharpie maker made the hacksaw? Of course not. So, you are arguing for a life maker, a sun maker, a rock maker, etc.

Your Sharpie maker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

1. A Sharpie is complex
2. A Sharpie has a Sharpie maker
3. The universe is also complex
4. Therefore the universe has a Sharpie maker

The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clarified by another example:

1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
2. Leaves grow on trees
3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
4. Therefore money grow on trees


And yet another failure of your analogy. The Sharpie is made ex materia. In other words, it is made by rearranging preexisting material. You are trying to draw an analogy to the universe that you claim a god created ex nihilo , out of nothing. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation.

Ur missing the point, dewd! Again, what IS natural!? And more importantly, you are assuming the sharpie has a maker. There is no proof for these people. So your example of leaves and trees makes no sense for this example as we know leaves come from trees.

(December 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: Ur missing the point, dewd! Again, what IS natural!? And more importantly, you are assuming the sharpie has a maker. There is no proof for these people. So your example of leaves and trees makes no sense for this example as we know leaves come from trees.

Do you think the person in the example would assume the Sharpie had a maker, instead of thinking it no different than a flower or a frog or a seashell?

(December 6, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: Ur missing the point, dewd! Again, what IS natural!? And more importantly, you are assuming the sharpie has a maker. There is no proof for these people. So your example of leaves and trees makes no sense for this example as we know leaves come from trees.

Do you think the person in the example would assume the Sharpie had a maker, instead of thinking it no different than a flower or a frog or a seashell?

There's no way of knowing, that's very subjective to the individual, I'm assuming they are atheist and since I am not one, that's why I was asking.

---

The point is, sharpie, watch, dildo, the object doesn't matter. There is no proof that it was created, maybe there was a sharpie tree that existed long ago? We don't know. The same goes for fruit, or humans, or the universe, etc.. There's no proof we/it was created, and there is no proof the Earth is "natural", our definition of natural is limited to our experience. Therefore, based on atheism, which is: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (creator)..even though there is intelligence in the design of sharpie or fruit or human or universe, since there is no proof the creator exists, there is no belief.

Sooo, how can one argue that the sharpie, in the eyes of an atheist, has no proof of a creator, when we understand that "natural" is limited to our current perceptions?

(December 6, 2013 at 5:20 pm)Natedeezy Wrote: The point is, sharpie, watch, dildo, the object doesn't matter. There is no proof that it was created, maybe there was a sharpie tree that existed long ago? We don't know. The same goes for fruit, or humans, or the universe, etc.. There's no proof we/it was created, and there is no proof the Earth is "natural", our definition of natural is limited to our experience. Therefore, based on atheism, which is: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (creator)..even though there is intelligence in the design of sharpie or fruit or human or universe, since there is no proof the creator exists, there is no belief.

Nate, ask yourself why you picked a Sharpie as your created object in the first place. Why didn't you pick, say, a rock, or a tree? After all, if you're a theist they were all equally as created as the Sharpie, right? Chances are, it's because you understand that the natural-ness of the rock and the tree have nothing to do with just looking at them, and everything to do with attributes and contrast. We recognize design through actual examination; in the case of the Sharpie, you can see plastic and metals and ink that don't naturally occur anywhere around you, and so you'd be justified in seeing design there.

However...

Quote:Sooo, how can one argue that the sharpie, in the eyes of an atheist, has no proof of a creator, when we understand that "natural" is limited to our current perceptions?

You also aren't locked into that one answer either; if you see a Sharpie bush, you can amend your beliefs about Sharpies. But the way to get there is through evidence, something that gods and creators do not have, and therefore cannot be given justified belief.

Wow, Nate, you're pretty dim. Simon explained it perfectly.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.