Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Erinome]

We are related to cockroaches, and all of the other animals you mentioned. I read nothing that disproves the fact of evolution in both what you wrote, and the links you provided. Humans kill each other over territory too, but even more so over religion. So what's your fucking point? I would still not be ashamed to be a chimp. The reason humans share so many things with other living creatures is because we all derived from the same source- the cosmos. Thank you for elaborating my point, and in doing so, proving it definitively.

Furthermore, I think it's funny that you accuse me of only reading things that agree with what I think. I have read enough literature on so called intelligent design, thank you. It's not even considered a theory. It makes no predictions, contributions, or scientific models for review by truly educated people. It's total bullshit, and it's been proven over and over again. Just because an old earth and evolution doesn't agree with what you so fervently cling to and call real knowledge, does not mean that it isn't true, it just means that you're completely sad and delusional, and most importantly, mistaken.

[lucent]

So basically, Lucid, you are arguing that since arguments fall short for proving or disproving a god, you say that it is fine to be a theist in this situation, but atheists have to go even further to argue their postion.

I'm saying that even if atheists dismantled every argument a theist could argue, they still wouldn't be any closer to the proposition that "God does not exist". To do that, they would need to have positive arguments for their position.

That atheism is not a simple disbelief, but an active belief that a god doesnt exist.

Correct.

So, in a sense, you are arguing that belief in a god is the default position? And those who disagree have to prove beyond a doubt that a god does not exist.

I think the default position is probably "I don't know".

..and since it is impossible to confirm with 100% accuracy that a god exists or not, the atheist is doomed to fail because he cannot support his belief that a god doesnt exist.

You don't have to prove something 100 percent, you only have to present a better explanation, or prove it is logically contradictory. A scientific theory doesn't prove anything, it is just what matches the fact as best we can discern.

---------------------------------------------------

Yet, at the same time, the mention of Asatru and Thor immediately invoked a mention of "Flying spaghetti monster" from Lucid.

Apparently, according to Lucid, only HIS god is the default god, and other gods are obviously not real. Or since they are no longer popular gods (with the mention of Thor), then they are not even to be considered.

Therefore, the only God that matters is the one Lucid believes in. If, say, someone steps up and starts arguing the existence of Diana, then Lucid is well in his rights to brush that deity off as obviously not important, as Diana is not winning the popularity contest with modern earth.

Logically, if all of the Gods make contradictory claims, either one of them is true or none of them are. So, if there is a God obviously only one of the religions is true. So it is not absurd for me to think that my God is the true God.

I also think it is logical to assume that whichever God is true is going to be a God that is still relevant today. In fact, you would assume that whomever God is, He would wield the most influence. Christianity is the worlds largest religion. It is the worlds most influential religion, throughout history and today, and Jesus is the most influential being to ever live.

..but, at the same time, if Lucids arguments for his deity fall short, and in fact that ALL posible arguments for his god falls short, that in no way merits that his god may not exist, since it is impossible to prove or disprove that Lucids god exists or not.

As I said earlier, you could have a better argument, or prove it is logically contradictory.

So, arguments for Thor is not necessary and should pretty much be ignored. If they are wrong then Thor doesnt exist. If they are correct, then...possibly Satan is involved. You obviously can prove that Thor doesnt exist by saying that he is Satan, or that Thor believers are stealing arguments for Lucid's god.

I think Thor and the rest can be ignored for other reasons. For instance, in investigating the cause of the Universe, you can rule out any Gods that made no creation claims.

Arguments from atheists can not win, because you cannot prove that Lucids god does not exist. Athiets arguments are doomed to fail.

I have never heard any atheists even try to argue their position. The three debate tools of the atheist are scoffing, incredulity, and ridicule.

Lucids god is the default position (out of the thousands of sects in Christianity). If his arguments fail, that does not mean that his god does not exist. Lucid's god is mysterious, and is therefore difficult to prove or disprove. Lucid's god has a punishment set up for non-believers, so it is your best bet to believe and be wrong, as opposed to disbelieve and his god punish you if he does exist.

None of that follows from anything I have said. When I was agnostic, I explored many different belief systems, and at one point rejected all of them. All I really desired was the truth, and had no preference towards any particular belief. If anything, I was prejudiced against Christianity. The only reason I arrived there is because God led me to it.

In other words "HELL" is the biggest factor that Lucid's god is the default, as atheists take a very noticable risk of burning in Hell if they are wrong.

Am I correct Lucid?

The biggest factor is love. None of this has anything to do with evidence. It is a heart matter between you and God. No one is going to go to hell because they thought God was too implausible. The people who go to hell are unrepentant sinners who reject God and love wickedness over the truth.

[Erinome]

I love truth over wickedness!

Truth being actual truth, and wickedness being the belief in a shit head, ego maniac, who supposedly created humans, and yet can't stand it when they act human. That's not fucking love at all. That's just stupid.

[lucent]

We are related to cockroaches, and all of the other animals you mentioned. I read nothing that disproves the fact of evolution in both what you wrote, and the links you provided. Humans kill each other over territory too, but even more so over religion. So what's your fucking point? I would still not be ashamed to be a chimp. The reason humans share so many things with other living creatures is because we all derived from the same source- the cosmos. Thank you for elaborating my point, and in doing so, proving it definitively.

Again, common genetics indicates common design. And what disproves it is that there is no evidence for macroevolution. It has never been observed once, and the "innumerable" transitional fossils predicted are not in the fossil record. You've swallowed nothing but smoke. This is why people like Dawkins are now saying that you don't need the fossil record to prove evolution.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

Furthermore, I think it's funny that you accuse me of only reading things that agree with what I think. I have read enough literature on so called intelligent design, thank you. It's not even considered a theory. It makes no predictions, contributions, or scientific models for review by truly educated people. It's total bullshit, and it's been proven over and over again. Just because an old earth and evolution doesn't agree with what you so fervently cling to and call real knowledge, does not mean that it isn't true, it just means that you're completely sad and delusional, and most importantly, mistaken.

Intelligent design is a superior explanation for the information in DNA. It also demonstrates irreducible complexity. Radiometric dating, when used on things we do know the ages for, returns the wrong dates. It has returned ages of millions and billions of years for things we know are only a few hundred years old.

http://www.icr.org/rate/

Mt St helens explosion proved rapid deposit of layers and rapid erosion (forming a canyon within weeks)

http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

You also should consider the soft tissue found in t-rex bones containing blood cells..if it is 65 million years old, it could not survive. DNA has a maximum shelf life of thousands of years, not millions. They also have found hadrosaur bone cells, 10 million year old frog DNA, etc.

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin

harvard professor of zoology and biology

[Erinome]

Again, I am not going to consider any xtian sources for real knowledge. Find me one secular science organization, unbiased by religions, and I will possibly consider it. Otherwise it's just comical, and I can't even hold a straight face while reading it.

Lucent, I am dying to hear what you think motivates these scientists to lie about all of these discoveries and advancements, rather than just nod their heads in agreement with the mental gymnastics that is ID. What is it that motivates them to lead good people astray with their evidences of evolution and old earth? Are they possessed by demons or something?

[lucent]

I love truth over wickedness!

Truth being actual truth, and wickedness being the belief in a shit head, ego maniac, who supposedly created humans, and yet can't stand it when they act human. That's not fucking love at all. That's just stupid.

Mocking God is wicked.

[frankiej]

Wicked, as in awesome

[lucent]

Again, I am not going to consider any xtian sources for real knowledge. Find me one secular science organization, unbiased by religions, and I will possibly consider it. Otherwise it's just comical, and I can't even hold a straight face while reading it.

Lucent, I am dying to hear what you think motivates these scientists to lie about all of these discoveries and advancements, rather than just nod their heads in agreement with the mental gymnastics that is ID. What is it that motivates them to lead good people astray with their evidences of evolution and old earth? Are they possessed by demons or something?

They're committed to their worldview. We're all looking at the same evidence, but they interpret it different. The evidence is staring them right in the face:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

And not all scientists share their narrow view, but you don't hear about them:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

[Erinome]

Which god?

Your god is just about as wicked as it fucking gets. So how could mocking god be wicked? Killing babies is wicked, murdering towns full of people because they don't even want to believe in you is wicked. Allowing evil to persist on the earth you created, among the people you created, when it's in your power to end it is wicked. Telling a man to murder his own child just to see how wrapped you've got him is wicked. Sending people who have never heard of Jesus, or whom worship the god(s) that they were taught to worship to an eternity of torture in a lake of fire is wicked.

So if mocking god is wicked, then what should we call god? Good, loving, and just? Give me a fucking break.

---

PS-

SCIENCE is not up for interpretation.

[lucent]

Which god?

Your god is just about as wicked as it fucking gets. So how could mocking god be wicked? Killing babies is wicked, murdering towns full of people because they don't even want to believe in you is wicked. Allowing evil to persist on the earth you created, among the people you created, when it's in your power to end it is wicked. Telling a man to murder his own child just to see how wrapped you've got him is wicked. Sending people who have never heard of Jesus, or whom worship the god(s) that they were taught to worship to an eternity of torture in a lake of fire is wicked.

So if mocking god is wicked, then what should we call god? Good, loving, and just? Give me a fucking break.

---

PS-

SCIENCE is not up for interpretation.

You know that God exists, and you know who He is. You're rejecting Him now.