NoGodaloud, you'll be hard pressed to find a strong atheist here. Most of us don't argue that no god exists, so please don't assert what we believe. We will tell you what we believe and assert, you don't get to tell us.

Most atheists simply lack a belief of God. We have considered the claims of theists and whatever flimsy evidence they have and not accepted it. Doesn't mean we assert no god, but simply that we do not accept the God claims based on the lack of evidence and lack of meeting the burden of proof on the part of theists.

My atheism is not dependent on science, evolution, abiogenesis, or big bang cosmology. If you want me to accept your claim of God, you must meet your burden of proof.

Furthermore, many theists accept the scientific consensus on things like evolution and the big bang theory, which simply proves that atheism is not dependent on them, that they are not arguments for atheism, or supported through atheism.

(August 18, 2010 at 7:29 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Most atheists simply lack a belief of God. We have considered the claims of theists and whatever flimsy evidence they have and not accepted it.

then i guess you have a better explanation for our existence. what is it ?
if you answer : i don't know, i can help you out.

you have exactly more two options.

Wheter the universe has existed eternally, without a beginning, in some form, or it had a beginning with the Big bang, but without any cause. The Big Bang simply happended, out of absolutely nothing.

which one of the two do you prefere, and why ? and why do you prefere it over God as best explanation ?

Quote:i can help you out.

No, you can't. All you can do is spout off about ancient superstition. I was raised with all sorts of hokum about your bullshit god, rejected it, and have never looked back.

(August 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:i can help you out.

No, you can't. All you can do is spout off about ancient superstition. I was raised with all sorts of hokum about your bullshit god, rejected it, and have never looked back.

if so, you should have no problem , to answer my question above, isnt it ?

No, I'm not an astrophysicist.

However, I do know that were I to work up the energy to attend a reputable university and seek a degree in that field I might learn enough to fully understand Neil De Grasse Tyson when he explains these things. I also know that were to waste my time studying your ancient book of bullshit I would learn nothing useful about the beginning of time beyond the useless suppositions of iron age goat herders.

Does that help?

(August 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm)solja247 Wrote: Firstly the crusades were used by the pope to do his dirty work. If one was to go on a crusade, 'it was get into heaven card'. I Dont really think you can blame Christianity, you can blame a corrupt pope. Killing local Jews was everywhere in Europe, they were an easy scape goat. We still have a scape goat, they are called terroists.

I've studied the Crusades, and that doesn't seem accurate. There were certainly some political reasons for the crusade leaders (one was the reunification of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, following a religious schism), but the Crusades couldn't have happened if not for the religiosity of their participants. Also, it seems likely that people like King Richard were partly motivated by religion. Certainly Louis VII and Conrad III of the Second Crusade had religious concerns. As for the Jews, part of the reason that they were an easy scapegoat was the Christian teaching that the Jews killed Jesus.

Quote:Since, I myself am a Jewish Christian. I would of been persecuted as well. (The spanish inquistion was against Judaizers)

So? Is this an answer to the charge that Christianity caused it?

Quote:Religion was used a tool. Pagan Europe and Christian Europe wasnt much different. Instead of druids, they had preists. Instead of gods to pray too, they had saints.

Yes. All religion is essentially the same; I'll agree with that. There must have been some Inquisitors driven by religious fervour, though, even if some used it as a tool. It stretches credulity to say that, in such a religious period, they were all cynical sadists.

Quote:The only reason why so many evangelicals believe YEC is because Dawkins and creation scientists say there is a battle, between evolution and creation. That you cant be a Christian and believe in evolution. If Atheists stopped using that card, more people would accept evolution.

To be honest, I don't think that many people listen to what Dawkins says. They just can't reconcile evolution with their beliefs, so they reject evolution.

Quote:Stem cell is a very controversial issue.

Only for religious people.

Quote:You do know that Deism was a big thing in the 18th and 19th century? A lot of people were Deists (The founders of the USA were). If my understanding of Deists are correct they dont believe in special revelation from God, thus the Bible is just another holy book. I can gurantee to you that if atheists were back then, they would also of had slaves.

Probably, but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity was used as justification.

---

(August 19, 2010 at 3:12 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote:

(August 18, 2010 at 7:29 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Most atheists simply lack a belief of God. We have considered the claims of theists and whatever flimsy evidence they have and not accepted it.

then i guess you have a better explanation for our existence. what is it ?
if you answer : i don't know, i can help you out.

you have exactly more two options.

Wheter the universe has existed eternally, without a beginning, in some form, or it had a beginning with the Big bang, but without any cause. The Big Bang simply happended, out of absolutely nothing.

which one of the two do you prefere, and why ? and why do you prefere it over God as best explanation ?

It's a false dichotomy, as there could be an infinite series of universes. Nevertheless, these two are possibilities. My inclination is probably the latter: it happened out of nothing. But we don't know, and any intellectually honest person has to admit that, rather than filling the gap with whatever the hell they want.

Also, I am a positive atheist, but an agnostic atheist. I make the claim, 'God probably doesn't exist'. That's because a disembodied mind with the attributes assigned to most deities, existing timelessly and eternally, is so far from our experience as to be more improbable than probable, epistemically. Also, the problem of evil and so forth count against the existence of a loving god.

(August 19, 2010 at 4:53 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: It's a false dichotomy, as there could be an infinite series of universes.

how would you deal with the second law of thermodynamics ?
and : potentially a infinite number of events is possible, but not adding one event after the other, from a starting point. Then the number of events will be always finite. you can count forever, but from the startingpoint to the point you are, 1, a million , a billion, it will always be a finite number. Looking backwards, is the same. There cannot exist a infinite number of past events. They will always be finite in number. therefore, a infinite number of universes are not possible.

maibe you visit this webpage, to have it better explained :

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231

Quote:Nevertheless, these two are possibilities. My inclination is probably the latter: it happened out of nothing.

How does this make sense to you ? from absolutely nothing, nothing derives, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing.....

Quote:But we don't know, and any intellectually honest person has to admit that, rather than filling the gap with whatever the hell they want.

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.
2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.
3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.
Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible. Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

(August 19, 2010 at 3:12 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: then i guess you have a better explanation for our existence. what is it ?
if you answer : i don't know, i can help you out.

No, you really can't. I don't believe things on faith. I don't believe something because I don't have an answer. I don't need an answer. I'm perfectly comfortable with saying I don't know because you know what? No one knows.

Science has a good idea how the universe, life, species, etc... came to be. Evolution is a fact. Big Bang is a fact. I don't have to take an extra step and imagine a creator god to accept those. Besides, for all the things science doesn't know, such as what existed before Planck time, (The time before the Big Bang) I'm not going to assume I know. I'm going to reserve judgement until there's actually evidence.

Quote:you have exactly more two options.

Wheter the universe has existed eternally, without a beginning, in some form, or it had a beginning with the Big bang, but without any cause. The Big Bang simply happended, out of absolutely nothing.

which one of the two do you prefere, and why ? and why do you prefere it over God as best explanation ?

No. The Big Bang theory did not simply "Happen out of nothing". That shows your supreme misunderstanding of what it actually is. The Big Bang was a singularity that expanded outward. To the best of science's knowledge, this was rather simple stuff that eventually expanded to create the universe. However, the important thing to note is that the Big Bang has nothing to say about what happened before the big bang. So you don't know that there was nothing.

Which is easier to believe? That this simple stuff always existed, or that a supreme creator caused the big bang billions of years ago and through billions of years of the universe forming, and then life evolving, he finally gets around to us and gives a shitty Bible and sends down his son as a blood sacrifice.

The former is far easier for me to believe. Especially when theists argue that God always had to existed, why not remove that extra unnecessary step and accept that maybe the universe always existed in one form or another?

Secondly, you have not given me any evidence with which to believe a God HAD to create the universe. All you did was construct one great big horribly worded argument from ignorance. You cannot imagine that the world got here without a god. You assert God did it because you cannot accept another way. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

I believe things on evidence. You cannot claim that what science doesn't know is God. It's a God of gaps argument, which I ain't buying. You actually have to meet a burden of proof before I will accept anything you say. Asking me "which sounds better" does not meet that burden.

Essentially, assertions are not proof, they are just that...assertions. I instead take the appropriately skeptical viewpoint and not accept your claim.

Yes, yes, we all have heard those arguments before, here it goes:

NoGodaloud ? Wrote:1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.

How do you get from "The Universe had a beginning..." to "That cause must be blabla...", On what do you base this bare assertion? And in this assertion where is the necessity of being just the god of the bible, and none of the others that people pray to? How do you know this?

Quote:2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

You are disregarding the ton of proof on evolution, and using probabilities, something that isn't probable is not impossible. You know nothing about evolution, what about all the species that became extinct before us? Were they fine tuned to become extinct? And what about the asteroids that may hit the earth from time to time? Were they finely tuned to hit the Earth and probably whipe us out? Are you sure there isn't other life out there? And again, I ask for a proof of that designer, and why must he be the one in the bible.

Quote:3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.
Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible. Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

Abiogenesis may not explain well the origin of life yet, but that is where the evidence points and alot of knowledge has been got from that, and science is working on that. However you make bold assertions, without proving anything, just reading from some apologetics site. I am sorry but this even isn't funny, because you are not thinking by yourself, just almost cutting-pasting stuff from another website. If I quote you assertion by assertion, you will fail miserably.

Please define god and give me positive evidence of its existence.

Lordy, at least you bulleted the points;

1. The universe had a beginning:

ummmm, why? Time and space are one, constructed out of the same stuff, that's pretty well known. So if we want to follow the theory of conservation of mass and energy there are a few theories about massless universes that exploded into mass, releasing stored potential energy, as it may have done countless times before. The visible universe we commonly refer to as the universe is not the whole picture.

The word universe encompasses everything that exists, if God exists then he is within the universe, that's just a definition though. So by every law of physics we know there is every reason to suspect that either we have a misunderstanding of the nature of time and therefore the universe, in a way such that time is a perceptive issue rather than a physical paradox (Holograph theory and some others use this idea) or that time is infinite and its the presence of matter that fluctuates. Man I wish they would finish developing the GUT so we could finally shut down this damned argument, we have so much evidence but the universe is a complex place to explain in a single equation.

2. WRONG wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Life is fine tuned to exist on this planet, and anywhere else that life exists. Life is developed to survive in the conditions present. Thinking the universe exists to support life is ridiculous and completely irrational. Best explained by design? A creator that can develop a universe that is so complex as to satisfy your wrongly associated permutation argument would by necessity need to be more complex! We have perfectly acceptable, if not finished, validated theories on development of complexity from simplicity, and yet THAT one is the argument you have a problem with?

3. Science cannot explain life on Earth? Arg, is this what students learn these days too? Scientists cannot replicate the first examples of self-reorganization yet, true. But there are scientists working methodically and devotedly to empirically getting closer and closer to this achievement. The origin of life is a great mystery, its wondrous to think about and to try to replicate, but again all you argue for is to fill in your own knowledge gap with God. Cells are not irreducibly complex, to name an easy example mitochondrial cells actually used to exist in symbiotic relationship with a separate organism that eventually was adapted and replicated with cells automatically. Also, genetic and biochemical research has revealed so many of the steps and processes that refute your argument that "all parts must be in place".....that's not true! There's no supporting evidence, there is nothing that has been found that is irreducibly complex, even the human eye, once a cornerstone of this argument, has been broken down successfully.

Add all of this BS together and you have a nice case for converting uneducated and gullible people to your point, which is shameless.