RE: Challenging the Atheist belief
December 6, 2013 at 4:57 pm
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2013 at 4:59 pm by Natedeezy.)
(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...
