The Darwin Day Lecture 2019, with Richard Dawkins
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
See also...
Richard Dawkins awarded inaugural Humanists UK Darwin Day medal
To celebrate Darwin Day on 12 February 2019, Humanists UK hosted its largest annual Darwin Day Lecture to date, given by evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins and chaired by evolutionary anthropologist Professor Alice Roberts, the President of Humanists UK.
Close to 2,000 people turned out for the sold-out show at London’s Troxy concert hall. Richard delivered a tour de force lecture covering his interests in science, the ‘humility’ of the scientific frame of mind – encouraging of doubts and sceptical of certainties – and the need, in challenging times, to speak out against ‘the hubris of faith’, where religion insists on false answers to questions that are the proper domain of the sciences. He also spoke of his fundamental optimism for the human species, celebrating our history and propensity for scientific achievement, as well as the long-term trend of improving human welfare worldwide.
In recognition of his lifetime of achievements in science and recognising his sterling work for 15 years as the regular chair of the Darwin Day Lecture, Richard Dawkins was awarded Humanists UK’s inaugural Darwin Day Medal.
The award will henceforth be presented each Darwin Day to Humanists UK’s appointed Darwin Day Lecturer, recognising outstanding contributions to furthering Darwin’s legacy and public understanding of science.
Tags
Who is online
426 visitors
This is the first long talk I've seen Dawkins give since his stroke, and he is as sharp-minded and sharp-tongued as ever. It's great to see.
He’s as uninformed and misguided in his pseudoscience as ever.
That's hilarious coming from you, especially since your understanding of science is abysmal at best and you never offer anything scientific or credible to support any of your meaningless assertions and platitudes!
I just posted a seed on the most recent Christmas Lectures from the Royal Institution. They're about biology and evolution. If anyone needs to watch them, it's you. They're aimed at children, too, so even you should be able to follow along.
An excellent speech! Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Dig.
While listening I wondered how far a non-atheist would get in this presentation before shutting down.
I think the answers to these questions will be disappointing for the critical thinking future of our nation.
On the bright side, recent advances in genomic sequencing, combined with the internet, are making vast quantities of new and very specific data readily available for future generations, and DNA is a treasure trove of information about evolutionary history.
So at least there's that.
True. But it is difficult for me to overlook the inexplicable numbers of people who simply will not even try to objectively consider contemporary findings of science. We have overwhelming evidence (in effect, the closest we can get to proof) that biochemical evolution is the mechanism for speciation and that cosmological evolution is the mechanism for creating celestial bodies (such as our solar system). Yet evolution itself is still under debate?? Largely because it does not square with an ancient book which, based on extensive scholarship, is demonstrably errant, contradictory and devoid of supporting evidence.
The fact that (albeit a tiny minority) we have individuals who actually believe the Earth is flat shows the disappointing capability of the human mind to literally believe anything.
Mr. Dawkins is not yet two minutes or so into his lecture and he has already launched into 'put downs' of God, religion, and faith. All while moderately remarking on his own hubris that science will (one day) by faith (in science?) solve the 'gap' problem for everything man can hope to ask! I take for granted Dawkins means solving for our natural order. Surely, no Christian believer has ever suggested God dwells in Dawkin's 'order' or evolved alongside natural men. I digress, nevertheless!
I had expectations of Professor Dawkins opening with many positives for naturalistic-materialism, or if not this, the positive benefits of science, not this. Afterall, it is a bit arbitrary of Dawkins to decide it proper to alienate religious believers' in this multimedia platform event first and utterly. In one sense, this "day" while maybe special is not unique; seems we have a great many "day" events as we have award shows in this country. All commonplace, indeed.
Unfortunately for me, it is late and I am only eight (or so) minutes into the lecturing and am forced to retire. I will try to listen and share again in the early A.M. I am scheduled to be away on Saturday for a good while from my computer.
It all may have to wait for my return.
His opening point is that religions declare truth whereas science is perpetually discovering the mysteries of existence. The hubris of religion is twofold:
Professor Dawkins is noting that, historically, we started out with almost exclusively religious explanations for phenomena that we could not explain and that scientific progress has demonstrably discovered explanations for most of these. The 'God did it' explanation used to apply to volcanoes, diseases, thunderstorms, floods, seizures, etc. and we all now know the natural forces at play here. In particular to Darwin, we also now know how the many, varied species of life form. There is no need for a presumptive designer God explanation. The discovery of biochemical evolution was a staggering blow to the religious practice of presuming to know - the hubris of religion (as Dawkins has described).
Why does Professor Dawkins think the bulk of believers are not 'proud' of science and its discoveries?
Religion, far and beyond dwells into the immaterial and not the material order. Science deals solely with the material. How can an atheist-materialist expertly speak to religious points of view?
Note: Surely, anyone of us can point to the 'foibles,' weaker parts of other people thinking—in religion and science. Yes, science moves to clear up many of the discrepancy/ies using critical thinking, logic, and peer-pressure of one sort or the other. We can see how this could occur, when it does occur, because we live in a naturalistic order. However, the "religionistic" or spiritual order is not so easily examined, is it? Thus, religion is home to many "mental" and mind points of view.
Professor Dawkins, atheist-materialist, can be asked one closing question as well:
From the atheist-materialist point of view, if life is simply matter and motion - WHY leave life better than you find it?
Because lack of belief in a religion does not equate to lack of knowledge about a religion.
Religion, far and beyond dwells into the immaterial order and not the material order. Science deals solely with the material. The distinction speaks for itself, no?
Does he think that?
Dawkins is dealing with the natural world. If there is a 'supernatural' then it is undetectable by human beings. Accordingly, it is not of interest to science or to Professor Dawkins.
Why would anyone believe something is true if it cannot be third party verified?
One could posit any number of things that are not so easily examined. Indeed, many have done just that for at least all of recorded history. Offering something that is falsifiable as truth is very convenient — it is also wholly unconvincing.
And the religious views contradict each other. That hints at the problem of truth by declaration rather than truth (at least approximation) based on evidence.
Human decency. Adult responsibility. Basic compassion. Why would one not care about the next generation of our species?
Trouble is, actions are taken in the material world based on beliefs of the immaterial.
Just to be quite clear, people engage in suicide bombings based, in part, on the belief that they will be martyrs and will be treated with distinction by Allah. In the material world, people are murdered. Too bad these religious views are not verified but rather are considered truth simply because another human being said so.
Religion offers explanations with no evidence of veracity for an immaterial world (multiple worlds, really - at least one for each religion) with no evidence of its existence.
One can care, not saying many can not care. Alone, an atheistic worldview does not establish any of this. Humanity at its basic level operates as the beast of the field do. It is only when humanity begins to dress itself in 'constructs' that mankind should ask where are these coming from.
This assertion has not been proven, has it? After all, we have people who report to have had encounters with God, and other beings—even high-ranking members in the scientific community. That Professor Dawkins does not recognize or accept the reasoning of other highly educated and logically trained professionals—well, someone would have to ask Professor Dawkins why not!
The supernatural order is not of interest to science because science strictly deals in natural phenomenon. There is no way around this conclusion.
Moralistically, correct for the perceived error in belief using "approved" methods. Do not dismiss or condemn the good alongside the bad.
On the other-hand, in an atheist-naturalists matter and motion world anything goes. Who can say what is right and what is wrong for another individual or group of individuals? Whose idea of a "morality" is superior?
Mathematics material or immaterial?
Atheism is simply the condition of not being convinced a god exists. Human beings have worldviews and those few who are atheists will include lack of a belief in a god as a mere part of their worldview.
Do you think that an atheist prefixes his/her thoughts with: 'Well, as an atheist I believe ....'? That is not how it works. There is no 'as an atheist I believe' baseline to correlate with the 'as a Christian I believe' baseline (or 'as a Muslim I believe' or ...). There are no rules for atheism or beliefs of atheism. Atheism is simply a condition - one that occurs when an individual is not convinced a god exists.
While I partially agree, human beings do have the ability to reason through life and some of us can do a decent job of distinguishing right from wrong. Personally, I do not need anyone to command me to not murder, rape, steal, etc. This I understand all on my own. Now, would you say the same about yourself or would you state that you do not murder, steal, etc. ONLY because your faith informs you that such acts are wrong?
Good question to ask. Best to not presume it comes from a supernatural source. Reason it out. Follow the evidence. Professor Dawkins would most definitely encourage you to apply reason and evidence to answer questions.
Have you evidence that a supernatural exists — that it has been detected?? Until someone provides evidence of the supernatural it has no more validity than the claim of intelligent life on Mars.
Personal testimony. We have people reporting alien abductions, Bigfoot (and Elvis) sightings, etc. Evidence, Cal.
Professor Dawkins (and most everyone else who find the scientific method to be an excellent means for approximating truth) would tell you that the conclusion / opinion of a person is irrelevant. It does not matter what Einstein believed — it mattered what Einstein could evidence.
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here.
Too general a comment given what I posted. Yes, in general one should not toss out the baby with the bathwater. How that applies to what I wrote is not at all clear. I was talking about unverified beliefs. The idea of taking as true that which has simply been told to you by another human being. What another human professes as truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is the human being's ability to make a good case that what s/he claims is likely true.
You clearly are entirely confused about atheism.
Best I can tell, all morality is relative. Thus no morality is objectively superior. We all think our own relative morality is correct. Same basic idea with religion. Everyone thinks their religion is THE correct religion, but there is no way to tell if that is true or (really) if any religion is correct. All religions may very well be nonsense.
Muslims who consider it a moral obligation to murder a daughter who has slept with a non Muslim no doubt believe their morality is correct and that the morality of others who would categorically condemn such an act are simply wrong.
Mathematics is part of the natural world. It exists as information. Same with engineering. Human beings discover rules and relationships and pass them on to the next generation which generally improves upon this work and passes it on again. Mathematics evolved from primitive counting and basic logic to the (awesome) means to represent the most abstract of ideas and to formally compute (derive) based upon the abstractions.
Material (concrete existence) or immaterial (abstract)?
Without a doubt, there are many real word usages for mathematics; there are many immaterial abstracts which operate in and throughout our world on a daily basis. For example: Laws of logic.
Spirituality is example of another.
I know this about atheism. It is Professor Dawkins, an atheist, naturalist, materialist, humanist, anti-theist, who is weaving these several worldviews together into a "Darwin Day Lecture 2019"! —Not me.
So what are you getting at? Are you suggesting that mathematics is supernatural? If not, then where is this going?
Take responsibility for what you write. Don't just deflect to Dawkins. You made the statement:
I responded to your statement. The notion of an 'atheistic worldview' shows confusion about atheism.
One can establish rules for himself or herself. Others can establish rules for themselves. None of these rules matters universally in a world where we live and die and there is no afterlife or God.
In the naturalistic order group choice of rules do not have to agree, or interact with each other. In which case, naturally neither set of rules are superior to the other! They are simply rules for different groups.
Professor Dawkins appears to me to be making an assertion that atheism coupled with materialism should be superior to theism. Foundationally, this makes no sense since atheism is a basically a lack of belief in God, gods and materialism is matter in motion neither forming a basis for a discussion of morality.
Professor Dawkins departs from both atheism and materialism when he incorporates a moral component to this lecture.
Did I introduce the word "supernatural" in this question, TiG? I did not. The question is self-explanatory.
Professor Dawkins is, ultimately, making a very obvious point: follow the evidence to wherever it leads. He appropriately notes that religion is the exact opposite of this approach. Religions declare truth by authority and encourage believers to trust them on faith. Religions seek to prop up their declarations (to keep the facade alive) whereas irreligious methods discover what is true (or seemingly true) by objective reasoning grounded in evidence.
Religions know truth (because they say so). Irreligious methods such as the scientific method never declare truth and readily admit 'I do not know'.
I asked where you were going. It was not unreasonable to ask that. Not going to waste my time asking 20 questions.
I am confused that you are suggesting confusion: Professor Dawkins introduces the phrase, "atheistic worldview" in this lecture above.
Self-explanatory.
I applaud thinking which follows the evidence to wherever it leads in nature. Now then, where is evidence this materialistic professor will present to establish he is qualified to make probability assertions about an immaterial order of life? Has Professor Dawkins searched all quarters of the universe and beyond to return with something of a "high probability" that the immaterial order of life does not exist? Of course not. This sounds rather arbitrary, in my opinion.
If you think all morality is relative, then there can be no superior rights or wrongs.
We are simple (or complex) animals which live and die and there is no afterlife or higher level to ascend. What we do here is of no consequence, for this world we inhabit is simply a grand construct of man-made 'smoke and mirrors.' There are no certain rights or wrongs for people to hold to.
This goes back to the burden of proof (or evidence). Professor Dawkins does not need to do an exhaustive and fruitless search for the supernatural in order to conclude that it does not exist.
Have you searched the universe for Thor? If not, why do you conclude that he does not exist?
Professor Dawkins and Einstein are seekers of evidence in the natural order. So what is your point? I do not look to either of these men to discuss the spiritual order. Who would expect them to?
As to other questionable natural phenomena or whatever, why bring that into this discussion?
Or, perhaps, we have an indicator of a prejudicial bias by materialist against an immaterial order.
Did you listen to Professor Dawkin's closing in the video above. I did. I am addressing is statements. You, in turn, are attempting to address mine. That is pointless, since I am addressing Dawkin's statements.
That's how discussions work.
You are holding Dawkins' dismissal of the existence of your God to a different standard than your presumed dismissal of the existence of other gods.
He used the term in passing and that, no doubt, will be enough to shut down any semblance of objectivity on your part. His meaning was (by context) 'non-theistic' worldview: a worldview that is not predicated on the theistic beliefs of a particular religion.
A worldview is a complex fabric of wisdom gained through experience. As I noted earlier, one's position on god is simply a part of one's worldview. Dawkins distinguished worldviews that presume a sentient power imposing control from those that (simply) do not make that presumption. In short, an 'atheist worldview' would then, in his usage, be a worldview that does not presume that a god exists.
You, in contrast, use the term 'atheist worldview' as a special type of worldview - one that has predictable morality, logic, position. This is evidenced by your presumption that an atheist has basis for determining the immorality of rape (for example). My point is that you cannot look at one aspect of a worldview and impose a stereotype. Worldviews are far more complex than that.
In short: an 'atheist worldview' is nothing more than the worldview of a person who is not convinced a god exists. Outside of that, the worldview has many degrees of freedom that defy a stereotype.
Clearly not. But now I do not care what you meant.
Dawkins has no evidence of the supernatural (assuming that is what you mean by immaterial). Thus he is on quite firm ground to not be persuaded that it exists.
Have you any third party verifiable evidence of this 'immaterial order of life' (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean)? If not, you might as well be talking about Leprechauns.
That is what I wrote. I have written that many times. If there is no objective morality then we simply have relative morality as peer systems.
Each group determines its own relative morality. If there is no objective morality (or, equivalently, if there is no way to find THE objective morality) then we have many relative moral systems. If you look around, that is what you will find.
My point is that no human being can serve as evidence. What someone claims is irrelevant. It only matters what they can demonstrate. See? I even stated that before, so my point really was self-evident but I took the time to answer your question anyway because I actually want my readers to have a clear understanding of my points.
To sum up to all that I have not read yet: Good night.
Be back tomorrow. God willing
Why? You're wasting your time.
Does that not depend on CB's objective?
Same with you, Drakk. If my objective with you is to convince you to abandon your faith then I would be wasting my time. On the other hand, if my objective with you (and anyone else) is to counter that which I consider to be wrong, then I would most definitely not be wasting my time. I would be putting forth an argument for readers to consider.
Dawkins dismisses all religions, all faiths, and all gods, in favor of humanism and materialism. I intend (hope) to stay focused on the reason we are "gathered" here: This video above.
That's because there is no evidence for any god/s. So he is correct to dismiss them on that grounds. But he has also said he is willing to reconsider his position should evidence ever be forthcoming. As it stands, there is no such evidence.
Friend Drakkonis, why not? As it stands right now, I have a plain and beautiful group, Christian State of Mind, prepared with gorgeously rendered videos and discussion settings for Christians and other guests, and its visitors are unenthusiastic about attending or staying around.
What else is keeping me from visiting other groups and "mixing" it up? After all, I am not kept occupied with faithful brethren.
Dawkins dismisses religions, religious beliefs in gods, etc. because there is no supporting evidence for the beliefs AND because there is substantial evidence backing up the scientific explanations for phenomena which prompted humans to invent gods in the first place.
He is going with the explanation that is best evidenced and plausible. Should a God-based scientific theory arrive with superior evidence to the scientific explanations, I suspect Dawkins would instantly become a theist.
All I can do is to third Gordy and TiG's statements. There is no evidence for the claims of religion. On the contrary, many of the claims of religion have been debunked by science. It is logically correct to dismiss the claims of religion on that basis.
Also, consider some of the claims made by some religions. Do you really think that the overly vigilant requirements of modesty in Islam are overridden by a woman breastfeeding a work colleague 5 times (not 4, must be 5) so that they can be alone in an office together? Or does that seem just a bit ridiculous to you?
You are wise to do so.
Or are just illogical to begin with.
"Good morning 'America' how are you?"
It is not me that is applying a stereotype or even introducing the phrase," atheistic worldview" into this discussion. Professor Dawkins has done so thrice in the video above. Once intertwining the phrase with the words, "intellectual courage," twice, with Lawrence Krauss book, "Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing," and thrice, when discussing answers to a list, "What Are The Deep Problems" he discusses.
This is not simply passing as the discussion which follows each use of the phrase explains.
It is not me who brought this phrase into this. Look to Professor Dawkins.
No argument here
You dodged the question (last night). I do not ask Dawkins to present evidence for an immaterial world or be convinced of it existence (though it clearly does) without evidence sufficient to his satisfaction. The question asked is along the lines of why does he belabor that which has no merit or basis to his own understanding or acceptance of the world? Dawkins worldview is atheist-naturalism. Thus, he lives in a world logically where there are no expectations of others outside of himself.
The rest of your comment is nonsense. For we use immaterial (abstract) numbers, symbols, laws, laws of logic, and other representations every day. God being yet another even used by some highly respected scientists.
Some scientists and laypeople arbitrarily choose to ignore certain aspects of the immaterial order when it suits their worldview.
Because of religious suicide bombers.
And simply because they claim to have the truth, but cannot support their claims with evidence.
Exactly as I predicted Cal, it is now impossible to discuss this with you since you will at every turn say 'But Dawkins said it'. I explained what I think Dawkins meant. That is as far as I will go with reference to Dawkins.
My comment, again, is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. There are no rules, no methods, no rituals, no philosophies. If you call something an atheist worldview then you are simply referencing a worldview that does not include a dimension of belief in a god. The balance of the worldview should not be stereotyped.
You are the one who is talking about it here (and elsewhere). Don't blame Dawkins.
You could at least quote the question you claim I dodged. Which question are you talking about?
Dawkins is against believing as true that which is not evidenced. It does not matter what the belief is, the method is the problem. Believing something to be true because of 'feelings' or because someone told you it is true is a lousy method.
Brilliant.
Oh, so by 'immaterial' you mean 'abstract'? Yes we use abstractions all the time. How does that make my comment nonsense? Be specific.
Darth Vader is also an abstraction. What is your point?
Provide an example.
And, atheist-naturalists can not by definition pass judgement on anyone else - for to this worldview states we are no better than other animals. We are just atoms in motion. Our brains the same (matter in motion). There is no moral code. When naturalists look for a moral system to live by they depart from naturalism into a different worldview.
Well that is prejudicial arbitrariness coming from you to decide what qualifies as reasonable evidence for the other worldviews external to your own. That is all I have to say on that.
'Better' in what way? Smarter? Yes, we are smarter than all other animals (best we can tell). Powerful? Yes, we are without a doubt the most powerful species on the planet. More Spiritual? Oh, for sure, human beings are more spiritual than animals? Food chain? Yup, we are at the top of the food chain.
What, specifically, is your complaint here?
We are (at a primitive level) just atoms in motion. But form gives meaning. A rock is atoms in motion. A flower is also atoms in motion. Do you not see the difference between those forms? Do you think atheists do not see the difference? You seem to be inventing nonsense and tossing it about as fact.
(see above)
Who said that? You are not paying attention (at all).
Who's passing judgement? And what makes theists any more qualified to pass judgement?
That's called reality.
Morality is a social construct. It is not based or dependent on religious fealty or belief.
Do you understand what constitutes or is considered valid evidence?
I agree that is what he is doing. Did you or anyone need a paid speech for a 'non-hot' topic lecture? Having listened to Professor Dawkins before, a great amount of this lecture is platitudes and from his books and videos. And I am a loose listener to the man.
In all of time, we have yet to have anyone make a persuasive case, based on evidence, that the Christian God (or any other god) exists. It is not just me, Cal.
If you can make the case, do so. I predict you will ultimately resort to personal feelings and experiences.
i do not defend or discuss other faiths. It is not required for me to do so.
What difference does it make?
So? He is simply promoting himself and hopefully encourages others to questions things and think logically and critically. What's the problem?
You do not hold your own to the same standards as those which you dismiss. That is intellectually dishonest, especially when you expect nonbelievers to give your faith a pass on those same standards.
As an atheist-materialist you consider that we are only matter in motion going nowhere anyway, no?
I think Sandy was trying to give you an example of unfounded belief.
Now, which would be a wiser way to operate:
[A] Accept as truth the fatwas of 'wise' old Islamic scholars that a woman should breast-feed a co-worker so as to morally work together?
or
[B] Question the fatwa and try to approximate truth based on evidence?
That is: accept what some human being claims is truth or follow the evidence to wherever it leads?
You do not listen. Why ask questions if you are going to simply ignore the answers?
Relevance?
Exactly so. As much as Calbab believes that his god is real, so does somebody else. And they think that god (Allah, they call him) has such a problem with men and women being along together (they might get up to some sexy stuff) that the solution, obviously, is for the man to feed from the woman's breasts 5 times.
And Calbab and this other person both believe it on the same basis - it's what somebody told them.
But each would claim that they are right and the other is wrong.
Nonsense. And, you can defend and "explain away" Dawkins all you wish. That's predictable. Moreover, you can arbitrarily stop talking about the video above at anytime.
Professor Dawkins thrice demonstrated (that's completeness) his use and meaning of the phrase, "atheist-worldview" in the video. He studiously prepared his lecture notes and read from them and double-downed with the use of a projection screen for emphasis at key points! This was no extemporaneous speech.
It is prejudicial arbitrariness and presuppositional for you to think you speak for Professor Dawkins. What he is saying is plain to hear (although vague and interwoven broadly) and decide by all who care to listen.
Exactly as I predicted.
Redundant. This is what can occur when you do not follow the discussion where it leads and parrying other outside matters, the comments move well 'up the chain' and become disconnected from a train of thought. Your "connection" to this comment begins higher up the list of comments. I do not feel like rereading those right now.
Ask an atheist-naturalist on this thread if man has more value than other animals. Go ahead. Better yet, go through the history of Newstalkers comments seeking each occasion where an atheist-naturalist (materialist) makes a point that humanity is simply a higher primate with a bigger brain and not an exceptional being.
Suggestion: A 'next step' for Newstalkers: Please, index the search feature on this site to locate specific phrases in comments. I have tried to use the search icon in the top left corner and the results are sub-standard. I mean that as constructive criticism so please understand that. I really would love for it to work.
That is why it is best to quote. Unless, of course, your intention is to simply make vague claims to avoid rebuttal. But you would not do that.
I won't waste time questioning your motivations.
You have several atheists engaged in this article. I gave you my answer (which you ignored). So if you think you will get the answer you desire from others then knock yourself out.
My motives for what? Answering your questions? Asking for clarity when you make vague comments? Challenging bogus claims?
My motive is always the same — to challenge that which seems (to me) wrong. To try to tease out an approximation to truth via the dialectic.
Ditto.
Being vague, posing straw-man arguments and simply declaring 'facts' accomplishes the opposite.
This comment is redundant.
Probably he is but it’s good to cause the so called self labeled pro science advocates see that things and science is not as settled as they’d demand we believe.
This is not about us, Tig.
Retorts are not appropriate arguments, Tig.
Ditto.
Correct. So playing vague games does not accomplish anything good. If you have an issue then be specific. If you think a question was not answered then deliver the question.
And, of course, if a question is answered and you disagree then write a rebuttal rather than simply ask the question again.
Or declare the answer "redundant".
Cal, repeating the same question over and over is redundant. An answer with which you disagree is not.
Where do you get your information, Sandy? Your mind alone?
Why try to pretend that your worldview is a product of private investigative research? We all turn to authorities for answers and like you, have been doing so since birth.
So predictable. Read the thread again. I do as often as I need to in order to keep up.
Science shares its methods so that all can see. Scientists do not expect to be believed just because they say so. They're willing to back up their findings.
Does religion?
Do you not see the difference between merely accepting what someone claims is true vs. being convinced, based on the evidence, that something is likely to be true?
Major difference is this:
Nobody cares what an individual scientist claims to be true. The only thing that matters is what can be demonstrated (evidenced).
All sorts of people accept as true (without challenge) what 'holy men' declare as truth.
How many times have you not defended posted comments from other atheists when it did not square with your "accepted" position, Sandy?
Does legendary atheist Antony Flew (Deceased) come to mind? I could be mistaken, but did you agree with his standard definition for the word atheism? How about the atheist host of the website Evilbible.com who stated:
Do you approve of his statement?
I expect nonbeliever to give me nothing and case in point, they do not! I simply expect that as you defend Professor Dawkins' lecture you could give some consideration of defending some other atheists and other worldviews you assent to.
Redundant. This is rehash.
Trying to hijack Dig's article to go back to your incessant attempt to define atheism as you wish it to be defined?
Professor Dawkins described why it is important to draw conclusions from solid evidence rather than simply invent an answer, declare it truth and then play endless semantic games to prop it up.
His talk is not about other atheists or people who claim to be atheists and certainly not about an obscure editorial comment in the addendum to a website.
You are misrepresenting your own claims. You claim that evolution is pseudo-science. Challenging a ridiculous claim such as yours is quite different from claiming that science is 100% settled (and I am unaware of anyone here who has made such a claim).
So predictable. You do this all the time on articles. You're simply attempting to answer for too many people. I won't bother to question your motivations.
It wouldn't be, if you weren't asking the same questions over and over, for some reason expecting a different answer.
And yet, it bears repeating. Not to mention you completely ignore it or fail to give any rebuttal. Gee, I wonder why?
Thats's the problem as far as I am concerned. Science doesnt solve mysteries, it discovers them. Yes science solves the how , but it doesn't solve the why.
In the end the why is all that matters, not the how. This is the reason that philosophy is much more useful when thinking about man's "place" in the universe than science is.
Must there be a "why"?
Predictable. Just look for an answer on the thread above, please. Time to conserve something for next time.Thank you.
I do not understand how you can come to such a position John. Science discovers explanations for mysteries.
Correct. Science does not explain why (as in some underlying purpose for this particular mechanism), for example, speciation is so brutal. It simply explains how speciation occurs via mutation, natural selection, etc.
I disagree. How things work enables engineering and all these things we take for granted. Without knowing basic principles of physics, the great pyramids could not have been built. Without learning how viruses work we would all still be suffering the effects of black plague, polio, etc. Knowing how something works has tremendous advantage.
Only if the process can approximate truth. Some 'philosophy' is nothing more than speculation. Entertaining, maybe even thought provoking, but of limited utility compared to knowledge of how things work.
What's predictable are your games and deflections, and I'm not the only one to notice it.
There really is only one ultimate question and it is a philosophical one. I have seen science attempts to explain this (Lawrence Krauss) and I consider them of not much use at all.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
And a sub question of that would be. Where did this something come from? I saw a video of Professor Krauss talking about his book "A Universe From Nothing" . He has the same problem everyone who makes his argument does. He describes the energy that existed prior to the big bang as the "nothing" that the universe came from. The problem that arises is obvious, although not really addressed by Krauss - the energy that existed before the Big Bang is NOT nothing.
I don't think we can decide whether it's a philosophical or scientific question (or one addressed by both) without knowing the answer. Frankly, if we don't know how the universe came into being, assigning a deity as the cause has no more merit than speculating that the cause was physical, or simply admitting that we don't know.
Exactly. Our universe evolved from something. Best science can tell is that the something is a net zero state, but it was indeed something. Krauss does a disservice by sensationalizing his books and talks with this 'A Universe from Nothing' slogan.
So where do we go to find out what that something really was?
I agree with the popular scientific assessment of 'we do not (yet) know'. Honesty, logic and following the evidence is IMO vastly superior to wishful thinking or wild speculation. Nobody knows. We should all be honest about that.
By definition God is a supernatural being or entity or force. As human beings in this existence (which we call nature) it is not possible for us to investigate anything outside or beyond this nature. Thus we will NEVER either prove or disprove the existence of God.
I have no problem with atheists other than they tend to try and claim the default, which is ultimately silly. The only proper default is "no one knows".
Appeals to popularity fail, Gordy.
I would agree that your evidence does disprove a literal bible or other scriptures. I think that was accomplished millions of words ago though.
Human religions are cultural expressions that developed as a response to perpetual existential anxiety. Whether God itself does or has ever taken any "interest" in it we will likely never know.
God could easily prove his existence, if he chose (and if he exists). He either does not choose, or does not exist.
Do you give equal weight to the possibility of the existence and nonexistence of other deities? By your own standards, you should.
If you're the one making the claim ("God exists"), the burden is on you to provide evidence. Most atheists are not making a positive claim that God does not exist, so they have no burden to meet.
Exactly. No one knows. That means no one can make a certain claim there is a god and no one can make a certain claim there is no god. That eliminates the gnostic extremes (gnostic theist and the gnostic atheist). What is left are the agnostic positions. The agnostic positions properly note that we do not know.
Agnostic atheists note that we do not know and due to the lack of evidence, agnostic atheists are not convinced a god exists.
Agnostic theists note that we do not know, but they still believe a god likely exists.
When we are born, are we agnostic theists in our first second of life or are we agnostic atheists? I submit that we are all born agnostic atheists. We do not know if there is a god and we certainly are not convinced there is a god.
One thing we can be sure of, is science which deals in empirical data and repeatability won't answer the question of the universe beginning for us. Science is blind to our universe beginning, because it was a single event. Christianity addresses the question from a spiritual point of view.
It is your evidence too John. We share it.
I agree. Assuming, of course, there is a god to even take an interest.
There is only one God, and it is not logically possible for there to be more than one God. That is like saying there is more than one highest floor in a building. A floor is either the highest, or it's not. Multiple Gods is a contradiction in terms.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, so there is no burden on believers to prove it.
I don't know how you think God could "prove" it's existence. Any manifestations could and would be explained as unknown natural phenomena or manifestations from other dimensions or other much more powerful intelligences from beyond earth. None of these would be necessarily seen as "God".
Now who is resorting to games? Three 'setups' in one comment. Got ahead of yourself there, Sandy! Why so impatient to get going on the well-worn (out) talking points?
That's a declaration with no support. There have been many polytheistic religions. They are all just as likely to be true as your own.
If God chose, being God, he could easily do something magnificent while we watch. Maybe build a planet from nothing and populate it inside of a week. I mean, he did it once, right? Why not again, but with witnesses this time? That would be pretty convincing evidence for his existence.
Instead, he's disappeared for thousands of years, expecting us to believe on the basis of stories told orally by people thousands of years dead, if they ever existed at all, and containing obvious contradictions both internally and with that we can learn via our own faculties.
Finally, "game time"? Soon good old Professor Dawkins will be but a faint trace memory of a video (above). Caution: Derail Ahead.
You look out in the starry host and astronomers -the authorities-inform you of a great many wonders and questions. You look into the microscope and discover wonders; convinced of a Superior Being yet? Your problem is not intellectual, its a lack of belief. . .in the spiritual.
Fortunately for you, if God desires to make 'contact' with you: it will be easy.
With all due respect Sandy, you miss the point.
Atheists love to talk about Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as if they are making some sort of "aha" point. They're wrong.
There is only one God because there can be only one God.
Christians , Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, pagans, Thor worshipers, Sun worshipers, etc, all worship the same God.
This is still just a declaration, John. There is neither empirical evidence nor logical support for it. There is no evidence either for one god, or for only one god.
Depends on how you define 'God'. I agree that there can only be one supreme entity, but history is replete with the polytheistic beliefs. Who is to say that our universe was not created by a lesser god? Nobody knows.
Agreed. The burden of proof exists when someone makes the certain claim that their god exists, not simply because they state their personal belief.
Proving God is a tough gig. Maybe we should ask the gnostic theists who claim with certainty that their god exists. If anyone has proof it would be them.
How, exactly, do you know this? Especially with the Hindus (who are polytheistic) and of course the Roman, Greek and Norse god believers. Buddhists, except for a minority, do not recognize a god (a sentient supreme entity).
How do you know?
Wash, rinse, repeat...
I don't think you understand what an appeal to popularity is.
It is you getting the 'troop' (5) votes on a comment where you write to me something silly like: "I'm not the only one to notice it."
I am least concerned about hopping on a "bandwagon," Gordy. Even less concerned about your opinion of what I understand and how I use it to get my point across. Too strong? Maybe. I hope I am clear, nevertheless.
How do you know, "nobody knows"? Are you sure "nobody knows?" This is an arbitrary and self-contradictory statement. You have not heard from "all." Or, have you in fact heard from all?
Tell me who knows how the universe came into existence.
( of course you cannot deliver even one person; do you know why you cannot answer this question? )
A person who knows (certain knowledge) how the universe came into existence would be famous since s/he would be more advanced than science itself.
( are you going to now argue that someone knows and is keeping it a secret? )
No. I will argue that you can not speak for all. Which you attempted to do @
Again, with the use of' sleigh of hand,' whereas we know the universe had a beginning (science determined) but Sandy and John Russell were NOT just discussing the universe with you were they: God 'crept' in and you repeated, @3.1.107,
"no one knows."
That is a self-contradictory statement. The issue is not telling you or anybody else "who knows."
Better you tell this room how you know for sure, "no one knows."
I did not make a claim of certainty. I made a comment that I am pretty sure everyone (including you) understood to mean:
'we know of nobody who knows how the universe came into existence'
And if by some chance you did not understand that, then now you do.
This nit-picking is pathetic. Make an argument instead of playing lame gotcha games.
What is "pathetic" (your word) is this not taking ownership of what one writes, when one tries to clarifies it later.
Quoting you and responding to it, is not "nit-picking" Tig .
Here is how honest discourse works:
What does not happen (unless Y is trolling) is for Y to pretend no explanation was given and instead continue with the original incorrect interpretation.
To be super clear, I explained to you twice that 'nobody knows' was meant as a conclusion, not a statement of certainty. I did not imagine that someone would disagree with such an obvious statement much less try to cast it into a claim of certainty with petty reasoning. But, having explained my intent twice (now three times), there is no benefit of the doubt if you continue to insist that my intent was to make a claim of certainty.
See?
Now, do you think anyone knows (certain knowledge, truth) how the universe began? If so then explain why we (worldwide) are unaware of this super intellect?
Okay, a 'trinket' of owning it has appeared.
When you next ask yourself: “Why do people avoid me?” ponder the phrase ‘dishonest juvenile tactics’.
One of my favorite Python bits.
It was a toss up between that and a great rock song.
LOL
there's a second song with a Carl Palmer drum solo at the 4:23 mark too !
And when you next start whooping it up about:
Ponder this direction you are heading down. To thine own self be true.
Ponder this ( CLICK IMAGE FOR A TREAT!):
Haven't we seen this exact same argument between you two about 50 times already?
Both of you need some new material.
There are people here who have been having the exact same arguments about atheism and God for 10 years here and on Newsvine.
JR, I have new material, but I can not get "the both of us" to discuss it. Seriously, "opposites attract" I suppose. And, "both of us" are probably both old too!
God is a big subject. It deals with THE existential question. There are many variations to the debate.
The category of theism vs. atheism is full of potential topics.
I agree, however, that the same boring points continue to eventually arise.
So let's see if you can steer the discussion into something interesting with your latest seed. Good luck.
That just means people agree with me or my statement.
Based on your posts thus far, that doesn't seem to be much, even after it's been spelled out to you multiple times now.
TiG can speak for me. I have no problem with that.
And I will keep speaking for me! Gordy. Let it go already and move on.
You go right ahead. But your "argument" that TiG does not speak for all is at the very least, flawed.
Okay Gordy wins! Let it go already and move on.
Darwin is all wrong as is Dawkins.
That's nice. Prove it!
https://www.grisda.org/darwin-devolves
A link to a book isn't proof. Can you tell us the contents without copying and pasting?
We already exhausted conversation on the actual content of that book on another seed a couple of weeks ago. Behe is right and Dawkins wrong. It is that simple. The site that reviewed the Behe book has some interesting perspectives on origins of their own.
A declaration isn't evidence.
Why? Because it "feels" that way to you? That's exactly the kind of hubris Dawkins is talking about.
By the way, Behe is currently getting his ass handed to him over that book. The following are from Richard Lenski alone (there's loads more from others out there), all within the last few weeks:
Michael Behe could be the poster child for tenured professors who have proven themselves to be unfit to teach and should therefore be returned to untenured status and promptly fired. His colleagues at Lehigh University think so little of him that they actually released a public statement calling him out by name:
Behe is a horrible, horrible scientist. He's basically a fraud. How he keeps that university job is beyond me.
As soon as I saw Michael Behe, I know this was BS! Behe is an ID proponent. So right off the bat, there is a bias and lack of credibility. Not surprising you would cite him.
Why? Because you say so? HA!
Reader reviews means nothing! It's all about the evidence, which happens to support Prof. Dawkins.
Do you have anything to offer other than a platitude?
Never
How stupid can Darwine-drunk scientists get? Ask Cyrano de Bergerac if he had better success winning his love by roaring or by serenading. To evolutionists, they justify such absurdity because of their belief that humans are mere animals. If dogs howl and sea lions say “Ork! ork!” to each other, then humans must have gained this ability because of the Stuff Happens Law, too. This is the fallacy of extrapolation: thinking that humans are nothing but evolved pandas, and so animal behavior can be extrapolated into human behavior. The illustration above says it all. Roar at a woman, and you are not likely to gain love, regardless of your upper-body strength. You are likely to get charged for harassment.
You may now LOL.
Evolutionists continue to carry out their silly game of applying natural selection to everything, including human behavior, because nobody feels safe to laugh. That must change. Go ahead: roar at an evolutionist, and explain you are just trying to win their love. Then laugh hilariously. If they get huffy about it, then engage them in a little logic. Tell them, “If human culture is nothing but evolved fruit-fly behavior, then so is the behavior of writing scientific papers. Therefore, everything you say was predetermined in your genes, and signifies nothing.” https://crev.info/2019/03/the-extrapolation-fallacy-in-evolutionary-storytelling/
Fascinating.
Why do you continue to deny scientific facts?
Why not just leave science alone and practice your faith in quiet?
Your arguments are invalid and devoid of evidence.
The 'arguments' are also simply cut & paste. The mere parroting of other people's words rather than original thought.
You calling our comments a “platitude” is irrelevant here to us.
The royal "we"? Hilarious. I realize that facts are irrelevant to you. I suppose that to a literalist, science is terrifying because if you accept that even one single word of the bible is wrong, there goes your faith.
We know actual facts is irrelevant to you. But calling your comments (or so called "arguments") a platitude is calling them for what they are. I just call them BS!
Dawkins presents another God-shit lecture, how droll. Everyone needs to understand that natural selection is a 'then a miracle occurs' argument. The claim being made is that Evolution is God. Richard Dawkins obviously believes in God and miracles. Dawkins only engages in pedantic rhetoric because faith alone is not sufficient for his belief in God.
The humanism espoused by Richard Dawkins doesn't avoid the ego trap: I think therefore I AM; I AM the source of thought therefore I AM GOD. Humanism is a circular argument no less reliant on miracles to 'fill the gaps' as Dawkins states it. Humanists lack the intellectual courage to acknowledge their own faith.
Nature is the material universe. Nature doesn't select anything. Nature is governed by deterministic regulating principles. So, how is the anomalous presence and behavior of life explained? A miracle occurred; nature selected. Who is this nature person anyway? Is nature God?
Charles Darwin attempted to treat life as though it were stone; establishing a deterministic physics for life. That would provide a compact QED explanation for the anomalous presence and behavior of life.
Richard Dawkins speaks about the God of gaps. Life, itself, exists in the gap. Life should not be present in the universe; life is contrary to regulating principles of a material universe. Charles Darwin's theory is a 'then a miracle occurred' explanation of life. Richard Dawkins only argues that Darwin's intellectual cowardice must be accepted on faith. Dawkins rejects a God of faith by advocating faith in the I AM GOD miracle.
That statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of evolution or natural selection. Neither does any scientist posit that claim as fact or as a reasonable explanation.
Demonstrably false! Prof. Dawkins has explicitly stated in his books he is an atheist. But he is also willing to reconsider his position if evidence for a god was forthcoming.
Quite the sweeping generalization. Once could also say theists lack the intellectual integrity to question or challenge their faith, especially when scientific discovery and knowledge contradicts it.
See first statement!
Some religions believe that.
Charles Darwin saw that life didn't appear as is spontaneously, as was a common belief at the time. He saw species evolved.
What do you base that on?
See first statement again!
Wrong again.
Dawkins doesn't believe the Bible. That's not the same thing as atheism. Unfortunately Charles Darwin lived in a society dominated by Christianity and the Bible. That conveniently limits the debate to the narrow confines of orthodox Christianity and greatly simplifies the philosophic chicanery of Biblical atheists.
The material universe destroys life. Why do you think all living things die?
So? How is that relevant to science or evolution?
Prof. Dawkins doesn't believe nor is convinced of any god/s either. That is atheism. He has even stated he is a "weak atheist."
Yep, Charles certainly challenged conventional wisdom and his own faith at the time. It seems such intellectual honesty and integrity is rather rare nowadays.
No, that simply means there is more plausible and rational scientific based explanations than empty religious declarations or dogma.
It also led to the development of life.
Genetics, environment, any number of reasons. What's your point?
Everything that exists is a form of existence. A thing (living or not) comes into existence (the form emerges) and it eventually ceases to exist (the form degenerates).
This is true for life and is true for everything else (e.g. cosmological bodies like stars).
To wit, all things 'die', not just life forms.
Richard Dawkins follows the liturgy of Biblical atheism by recitation of examples from orthodox Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). The orthodox religions are a conglomeration of philosophy about God, politics, law, and historical drama. Even Protestants declare the Pope a fraud; does that make Protestants atheists?
Gregor Mendel (the discoverer of genetics) was a Catholic Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Austria. Charles Darwin's evolution is nonsense without Mendel's discovery of genetics. It seems that genetic evolution does not justify atheism, after all. So, why all the fuss over Darwin while ignoring Mendel? Darwin promoted himself, Mendel chose humility. Hubris, it seems, is not a secular humanist characteristic.
Since when has Biblical atheism become the conventional wisdom? Richard Dawkins presents the cosmology of the material universe based upon deterministic regulating principles (what are generically called scientific laws) and then has the audacity to claim hubris to avoid confronting the contradictions involved in transforming inert matter and energy into life. The simplistic claim of 'we don't know' while declaring profound faith that science will answer the questions is a 'then a miracle occurred' argument.
Vociferous pride in the miraculous I AM is not hubris. Richard Dawkins does not provide answers or enlightenment. Dawkins only presents the liturgy and deeply held faith of the humanist belief that man is God. The answers cannot be found in the material universe; science is out of its league.
There still needs to be a God at the beginning.
Dawkins notes that when science does not have a bona fide explanation the answer is 'we do not know'. That is the honest answer. Would you prefer that science made up answers like religions?
Dawkins noted his personal confidence in the scientific method. Based on its track record, he is rather confident that (given time) human beings will (via science) continue to unlock mysteries that seem impossible to solve. That is his viewpoint.
How does the honesty of science coupled with the confidence of an individual scientist translate into 'then a miracle occurred'? Non sequitur.
Explain why. Define what you mean by 'God' and present your argument for necessity.
The future does not exist. The future is not a form of existence; the future is non-existent. In fact, the future never exists. We experience the universe on the razor edge of the present and all our knowledge is of the past.
We observe energy and light from the beginning of the universe. Energy from the Big Bang is still present in the universe. Particles of matter that condensed following the Big Bang are still present in the universe. That is only possible due to the intrinsic stability of the material universe. Matter and energy cannot change how it behaves.
The atoms that make up living tissue do not die. Life binds everything together and death allows inert matter to revert to the deterministic behavior of the material universe. If life was not contrary to the deterministic regulating principles of the material universe then all living things would not die.
... has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Need to check here. Did you or did you not comprehend my point that reality is hostile to both life and non-life? So life is treated no different than any other form.
Although irrelevant to what we are discussing, this is also merely a claim by you. Consider reading up on radioactive decay, particle decay and even an hypothesized proton decay. Bottom line, we cannot claim that anything we know today in physics is immune from decay.
he cites the flawed reasoning and assumptions associated with the Abrahamistic religions.
That makes no sense. Evolution is sound, based on observations and evidence, even if one does not take genetics into account. but genetics only reinforces evolutionary theory. It certainly doesn't advocate or support religious based assertions. And what does evolution have to do with atheism? You seem fond of non-sequiturs.
An oxymoron.
What contradictions?
"We don't know" is an honest answer. Science is the best means to finding an answer. But there is no science that declares a "miracle' as a rational or credible explanation.
He provides education and critical thinking.
You apparently do not understand humanism.
Why?
That is not what we are discussing.
What's your point?
The universe is the universe. it doesn't care if things are alive or not.
Identify the miracle. Note that natural selection is part of evolution. Evolution describes the process of mutation (ultimately observed as changes in gene frequency) that naturally occur during reproduction. Natural selection describes the process of life surviving within its changing environment long enough to reproduce and pass its genes to progeny. Evolution does not speak about the origin of life; only the origin of species.
Where is the 'miracle'?
This claim is unsupported; Dawkins made no such comment. Seems like you just infused it as a strawman.
If the food source for a species begins to disappear, the members of the species that survive are those who can adapt to alternative food sources. If no member of the species can adapt to the changing environment, the species goes extinct. This is one of many examples of what is meant by 'natural selection'. Basically, living entities best suited for survival in their environment are the ones who most likely reproduce and pass their genes to subsequent generations. Light colored bears in snowy environments are more likely to catch prey due to camouflage and thus the population will trend towards lighter (whiter) fur by natural selection.
Evolution is not about the origin of life; it is about speciation.
Might be. 'God' might be existence itself.
The argument is that a change in environment miraculously causes spontaneous mutations that are adaptable to that new environment. A flower that requires an insect with a long proboscis for pollination requires two sets of highly specific mutations to occur simultaneously among living things that have no genetic connection. Natural selection is a miraculous occurrence that fills the gap.
Evolution does not explain why highly specialized synergistic mutations occur between biological kingdoms that are not directly related genetically. Does the flower cause the insect to mutate? Or does the insect cause the flower to mutate? The interdependence of the two dissimilar life forms would suggest both would become extinct before evolution could fill the gap. Since both are present and the interdependence can be observed then obviously the miracle of natural selection is the only answer. God, God, everywhere; let's argue about the Bible to avoid the contradiction. That's a very Darwinian thing to do.
Richard Dawkins is a humanist and does not hide that belief. Man can explain all things by rational observation and clever obfuscation of miracles. I think therefore I AM. I AM the source of all thought therefore I AM GOD.
How is the origin of species different than the origin of life? There still needs to be a God in the beginning.
Origin of life = how life itself came to be; the origin of the cell. Origin of species = how a new species comes to be. Origin of life does not need a 'God' (as in sentient creator); 'God' is simply an hypothesis (which then opens the even larger question of its origin).
No, you have it backwards. Mutations are a natural occurrence. The changing environment selects (if you will) mutations. In other words (as I described in my prior post) mutations that make it easier for an organism to survive to the point of reproduction are passed to its progeny. That is how species evolve over time.
You need to think about this stuff before you cavalierly dismiss. You seem to assume that the insect and the flower are not themselves the results of evolution. Consider the more primal flower which pollinated by wind. That is not as efficient as insect pollination. Those flowers whose pollination mechanisms attached to insects were more likely to reproduce. Those whose pollen provided value to the insects were even more likely to reproduce. Insects who found value in the pollen (e.g. a better food source) increasingly gravitated to the pollen vs. other food sources. There is no magic here.
You are the only one talking about the Bible here.
The idea of spontaneous or random mutation can also explain the origin of God. Every supposition about the origin of life or the origin of species are just as applicable to God. Life and God reside in the gaps.
Nature selects; a miracle occurs. That avoids confronting the necessity of highly specialized synergistic mutations in species without a genetic relationship. Without the bacteria in the termites' gut both species go extinct. So, life is responsible for the presence of life. There still needs to be a God at the beginning.
And Richard Dawkins. Otherwise, Dawkins' lecture would not provide affirmation for atheists.
That most certainly is not the argument. Environmental changes do not 'miraculously' cause specific mutations allowing a specific species to adapt and survive. Think about it. If that were true then no species would ever go extinct.
Copy error mutations occur all the time, and at a measurable and statistically-predictable rate in different genomes (some are more error-prone than others due to things like varying chromosomal structure). You actually have some DNA in your cells right this minute that is slightly different than it was when you were born, because it was copied every time new cells were made and the replication process is not 100% error-proof. Environmental changes having to do with chemical or radiation exposure can increase the mutation rate, but there's nothing magical about it.
There's another cause of mutation that is less predictable but every bit as non-miraculous. Viruses survive by hijacking DNA and can cut genes and insert new material. Much of our own genome consists of ancient remnants of viral insertions.
Neither. The mutations are random in each. Interdependent symbiotic relationships between species' do affect the selection of mutations, though (whether the changes are harmful or beneficial). It's called coevolution. It's going on in your gut microbiota right now.
No magic, no magic, anywhere.
You don't understand the difference between the very beginning of a process and changes that occur after the fact?
The development and emergence of every new species does not require a unique accompanying biochemical genesis event. Species' emerge successively within an unbroken continuum of common but modified descent from the very first cell, which was itself a very long time in the making after the original abiogenesis event.
By that logic, the god would have needed another god who would have needed another god who would have needed another god, on and on and on. If nothing can happen or exist without a magical sky fairy to cause or create it, then the same applies to the magical sky fairy itself. Infinite regress.
At the most basic level life is a chemical reaction, molecular self-replication powered by metabolizing chemical and/or solar energy. No magic required.
I agree. A creator of the known universe could indeed exist as am emergent property of existence. That is, if the universe could emerge from existence then one must hold that a creator of same could have emerged from existence (and indeed a creator of the creator, ...). Of course, that reasoning illustrates that a sentient creator is not necessary.
We know life exists. We cannot say the same for God. Why speculate on the origin of that which is not known to exist?
Odd you call that a miracle. Is a thunderstorm a miracle? Was the erosive creation of the Grand Canyon a miracle? Are snowflakes tiny little miracles?
As noted earlier, you have to actually think about this stuff. I already explained coevolution of plants and insects. I am not going to explain every other example of coevolution. It is your turn to think about what I explained, not reject it and offer another example. Also, have you given any thought to how the eye evolved? It seems impossible, right?
May I jump in on this point?
There is no such thing as an "infinite regression," certainly not to any discussion humanity ought to be sharing between themselves. Find the "suitable" end-point we can think back to and post a reasonable stop there. God is at that point.
Also, I resent this appearance of the "magical sky fairy' bull. Whatever mechanization God (and I do believe in God) uses to manifest the universe -> the "magic" which comes to mind from television camera use of "smoke and mirrors" is not that and should not be alluded to highhandedly. Similarly, the Richard Dawkins "doctrine" of humiliating believers with talk of "flying spaghetti monsters" and other mocking images, is both maddening and disturbing. After all, at the level he professes to operate at why deploy such foolish and emotionally-charged tactics?
Does Richard Dawkins want to have a principled debate or an inefficient 'talk' where anything goes?
Why insert 'God' when we have existence itself? We know existence IS and necessarily has always BEEN. There is the end of the infinite regress. Anything that exists is (by definition) a form of the quintessential substance of existence (whatever that might be).
That ⤴ is about as abstract as one can get without making assumptions.
Ought to be sharing between themselves? What does that even mean?
No, that is simply where our knowledge ends. The Big Bang is a perfect example. We don't know what happened in the very first instant. Our knowledge (or rather, knowledge-based theory) ends there, and that's OK. There is no reason whatsoever to dream up some kind of magical actor to be inserted there.
I really don't care. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't expect others to take completely unfounded magical nonsense seriously. A magical sky fairy is exactly what the Abrahamic god hypothesis is. It can only be imagined, and that makes it... wait for it... IMAGINARY. It's right up there with gnomes, orcs, Harry Potter, and Puff the Magic Dragon. There is no trace of it to be found and observed in the real and actual universe. It only exists in people's imaginations, and if people are good at anything, it's imagining things that don't exist. We have probably always been a species of storytellers. Just think of all of the fiction that has been produced throughout history, all of the mythical beasts and hero legends. We're pretty good at it. People in the past can be excused for believing in such nonsense, if only because there was really no way for most of them to know any better, but people today no longer have that excuse.
Then stop professing belief in made up shit like ancient superstitions and magical stories from distant times when the majority of people were vastly more ignorant than they are even today (and that's really saying something).
Or better yet, just stop expecting others to take it seriously. If you don't like ridicule, then don't invite it. Don't pretend that supernatural religious mythology has any basis in fact and expect everyone else to just nod and pretend as well.
... adding on ...
To keep with the Dawkins theme, here is a younger Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye.
Hi DS, it means at some point discussion leaves the range of known-possible/probables and attempts to become one of unknown-unknowns. Try to imagine what an infinite regression (Beginning +1) can be. For it can never cease receding into itself. Who can discuss that? Yet, we all will agree that anything with a beginning, must have a starting end-point. For humanity, the scope of a starting point are the cause/s which effect we are.
World religions, inclusive, aside the Christian Faith's worldview does not believe in magic; in-spite of what this or that individual preacher might say in a recording studio. God evidently operates on a slow, methodical, "natural" curve where laws are created and allowed to remain constant and only limited use of "extraordinary" displays of power are necessary to express.
You know, I take exceptional exception to you calling a faith which you can not or will not recognize and the lives of countless peoples, in, out, and no longer in the world to be a group of dummies who can be so easily dismissed simply because science has come along. We can all agreed that moderation in what science can do for the body, and what religion can do with the spirit can be a benefit to all of mankind—working together.
However, this faux separation of scientism (that is, science as 'idol') and naturalism (that is, the material nature is all there was, is , and ever will be), so let's screw everything that professes to be anything true about this world, universe, and beyond is rank stupid in its own right. For to state that the natural man waits for "evidence" of something outside of the material order is tantamount to saying that the natural man and woman won't move his or her butt one iota to learn what is just outside of their POV. Whereas, the spiritual man can experience the natural order (flesh) and the spiritual order (spiritual).
It is worth being open to think about, even if one does not! We do have reasonable people from all walks of life (including astronauts who have been outside the Earth's sphere) who turn to and profess faith in God.
The remainder paragraph was simply just spewing rhetorical poison in all directions.
Note: I barely know your perspectives in these long running discussions. However, what you wrote comes across as 'familiar.'
Do you think atheists are people who want no god? If so, you are trying to understand atheism through religious-colored glasses.
A much better way to try to understand an atheist is to simply be skeptical. Follow the evidence to where it leads. Until the evidence leads to a god, the skeptic does not find the god hypothesis to be persuasive.
In contrast to a religious view which simply inserts the answer -god- and seeks ways to justify this answer; the skeptic lets the evidence do the talking. Believe that which is evidenced and avoid jumping to an answer based on what you wish were true.
What makes you consider it possible that, in this case, Christianity is founded on 'storytelling'? Some academics and some nonbelievers in God are not the only people who are given to clear thinking about what is true and what is fiction in this world. It is untrue and dare I say, delusional of one or another person to assume that the bible's accounts can be simply reduced to sets of book fiction. Moreover, this would imply that all we who are experiencing spiritual life in this modern era or deceivers, tricksters, delusional, or telling the truth which nonbelievers choose not to give credence.
What reason would you have to accuse all Christians (and other religions) of wanting to trick, deceive, or delude the world? What value is it in that? When, should you consider it, if it is possible to 'drop' the notion of God, we could all live versions of successful life apart from such religious paraphernalia and spiritual imagery?
It's astonishingly simple, isn't it? Anyone who's ever made and played around with a pinhole camera should have no trouble at all understanding what he's showing there.
And to think this was in 1991, and yet 10, 15, 20 years later there were (and still are I think) ID fraud peddlers trying to claim that eyes are irreducibly complex. Even with the internet! You'd think they'd have gotten the memo by now.
Dawkins is explaining how to develop an eye progressively over a long, long, period of time. He begins with a membrane designed to receive changes in light and dark. But what cells unintentionally bumped together and "willed" to see to start this long, long, journey to an eye?
As I have noted, one must actually (seriously) think about this stuff. Too many categorically dismiss select findings of science because the concept conflicts with their religious views.
Worse yet are those who cry ~~pseudoscience~~ yet demonstrably do not have clue one about that which they dismiss.
Why do you presume there was an intent (your word "willed") to detect light?
( and this is not cells bumping together, but rather mutations that wound up (unintended) serving a survival purpose )
Tig, I am using Dawkins' language in the video: "A single sensitive sheet of light sensitive cells."
Moreover, Dawkins continues on with discussion of 'seeing predators.' Creatures at this point which are blind too.
Yes ultimately we are talking about cell functionality. But DNA mutations cause new functioning cells to form. Existing cells do not 'bump together', rather new cells (with new functionality) 'grow'.
Why is that significant? The point is that seeing a predator is a survival advantage so those with the eye genes are more likely to produce progeny who will, in turn, likely evolve even better eyes.
New words introduced, "eye genes." New "functionality."
At this stage, an eye is not an advantage, because it has not come into existence. Why do cells mutate to form light sensitive cells?
Speak for yourself, please. Some of us are just fine without religion.
When are you going to give credence to the existence of Zeus? You demand credence for your god, but have an obvious double standard when it comes to other gods.
Because DNA reproduction is an error-prone process. The errors sometimes produce instructions that do nothing, sometimes produce a desirable feature and sometimes produce an undesirable feature.
There is no plan, no intent, no will. Variations simply happen. The good variations (those that aid survival) tend to be passed through generations and improved (until the improvement no longer provides a survival / reproductive advantage).
Many more do just fine with both science and religion. The natural and spiritual working together in the body. STELLAR!
If I worship Zeus, will you come alongside and become spiritual? Fair is fair. I am confident you will agree with that!
You're assuming there's a force driving the mutation. As I believe Dig explained above, mutations have no intent. There is nothing directing them. They happen, and then they either get passed along to progeny, or they don't. If they're adaptive, they're more likely to get passed along. If they're not adaptive, they're less likely to get passed along.
And many of those could do fine without religion, if they chose.
And some think they're doing fine with religion, but to the outside eye, really aren't.
I have no reason to be "spiritual". I'm the one who's not convinced that the "spiritual" world as you see it exists. You insist that it does, without evidence, but only your version, not anybody else's unevidenced version.
There's no beginning. That's what makes it infinite.
But here's the point: It is logically incorrect to look around at the universe and decide that it is too complex to have occurred naturally, and must therefore be the product of an even more complex creator. Do you not see the problem there? How does a person who is incapable of accepting the natural occurrence of a rock and all of the atoms in it (for example) turn around and imagine and accept an even more complex creator of the rock? If the former is too mind-blowing to exist without a creator, then the latter has to be even more so. Thus the latter requires a creator, who would also require a creator, who would also require a creator... ad infinitum.
That's what makes every creator-god hypothesis an infinite regress. If nature is too astonishing to exist naturally, then so must any imagined creator be. The creator-god couldn't just exist either.
Is it possible that you don't understand what the word magic means?
You can take extraordinarily exceptional exception for all I care. I already said that it is understandable how people in the past could be so easily duped, but people in the present, not so much. I'm pretty sure I didn't make this accusation, but maybe stupidity IS the answer.
I have lived around religious people my entire life, including a few relatives who are very religious, and I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the dumbest people I have ever encountered in my life are also the most religious. They constantly do and say the dumbest shit, they wholeheartedly believe the dumbest conspiracy theories, and they seem to fall for every damn scam that lands on their doorstep, even to the point of gambling themselves into bankruptcy because, you know, if they pray hard enough then God will eventually reward them with the big jackpot. Seriously.
I sat here for a good long while trying to decipher this so I could respond to it, but I failed.
I am open to anything that can be observed and described by science, which... stop the presses... amounts to an awful lot of stuff. Nature is pretty amazing after all. But anecdotes about supposedly supernatural things that can ONLY be imagined, and are often imagined differently by different people, every one of whom thinks they know the 'truth', which always seem to boil down to some kind of desire for personal salvation (which I assume comes from an overpowering fear of mortality)? Not so much.
I speak CB lingo, so I offer this translation:
Spiritual people (those who allow themselves to believe in a reality outside of that which can be evidenced) are able to understand / experience the natural world and also understand / experience the supernatural. You stubborn atheists are so smug but actually you are the ones who are ignorant of a greater reality.
Well, Richard mentions that he is "supposing." What he is supposing?
How the eye can come into existence without a need for God to start the process.
He has no empirical data for any of that demonstration. And, that is interesting coming from a man heavily possessed of the usage: "Show me evidence!"
I am confident I just answered that question (several times). Further, I am confident Professor Dawkins just provided an entire lecture answering that question.
He is providing an explanation of how evolution could produce an eye. The evidence supporting this explanation (as he mentioned) is all around us. We observe eyes today at various levels of evolution. We also can see what our own eyes might have evolved to had there been a survival / reproduction advantage (e.g. the eagle eye).
What he did not do is state that this is precisely what happened. He is explaining what appears to have happened based upon all current knowledge. That, CB, is what science does.
If you want a proclamation of certainty for something you will have to turn to religion.
I took no such thing for granted! I simply asked Tig for his explanation for why some undirected cells would form light sensitivity to the world outside.
Can't profess for "anybody else" that's for 'em to do. That how it works, Sandy.
Incidentally, I performed just fine without faith in God too. But, I could not stay in that position. Life changed me. I could either accept the 'compelling,' or push against it to no avail. Now then, which of those two sound more reasonable in your opinion?
No. There is no practical application for attempting to push backwards infinitely. Infinity + 1 > Everything we understand breaks down in such an 'exercise.' We can not reasonably 'go there.'
The reason a Christian discusses God in the first place is because of a scriptural basis. But, we know there are limitations on understanding where God resides and derives.
Not so. God's make-up is/should be known to God, at least that is what, for the sake of discussion, a human will have to presuppose. We do not have any answer otherwise to ponder the matter. Infinity adding onto itself into what>>>>infinity? Senseless.
For believers, our 'stopping point' is contact with God. Beyond that no amount of conjecture has any bearings, markers, or indicators.
That was remarkable irresponsible and an overgeneralization. I am not any kin of yours. So, why throw them under the bus online? if you just want some Christians and other religious folks to bash, why didn't you simply say so plainly?
My first impression was to give more credit than looking for fhits and giggles.
Your loss? (Dryly.) It is sad but true. I can not give you a belief in God. Only God can. So in the meantime, do. . . uh, this.
Oh you! A real-life, "cb-whisperer." As I live and breathe!
I think Dig was giving us his anecdotal experiences. We are all shaped by our environment and he just shared a bit of his. You, of all people, should appreciate his candor since you constantly complain that atheists do not share their personal stories.
Now, in my experiences, most of the people I know (family and friends) are religious (mostly Catholic and Protestant like Lutheran) and are normal, responsible, intelligent people. But MoCowGirl would offer experiences that correlate well with what Dig reported.
I have no reason to doubt MoCowGirl or Dig's experiences (quite the opposite - both are very trustworthy IMO) and I certainly have met enough people in my life to put forth examples that match what they report.
Bottom line, I know and see (public figures) people who are without question highly intelligent and are also quite religious. Indeed, if religion were limited to the stupidest among us I would not be so concerned. But since religion (in general) has evolved systems so effective that it (in general) can still ensnare the minds of intelligent, modern, informed people I am motivated to continue to counter it with debate.
I wrote no question there needing any answer, Tig. So the words, "superfluous straw-man" comes to mind.
Moreover, there was no need for you to get emotional and throw 'shade' at this person of people of faith, because Dr. Dawkins wants to explain life apart from God—whether it occurred that way or not!
Are you kidding me? Everything about Christianity is founded on storytelling. The OT came from Jewish cultural storytelling (with striking similarities to the earlier cultural storytelling of other peoples, as with the Epic of Gilgamesh), and the NT came from stories written down something like a century after Jesus supposedly lived and died, by people who weren't even alive at the time. That is not what anyone should consider a good source of information.
It's all storytelling.
See previous comment.
Some ARE deceivers and tricksters. Ever notice those money grubbing televangelists? I'd say that most are delusional, though. The last option certainly isn't the case, especially considering that nobody can even to get the story straight. If they could, there wouldn't be so many different denominations and sects.
Oh, it's not my reason, but in the case of Christianity, the Bible tells followers to spread 'the faith', or 'the word', or maybe 'the Gospel'. Something like that anyway. Pretty sure the Koran tells Muslims to do so as well. And both have done it at the tip of a bloody sword.
My own reasoning for the 'why' of it all probably has more to do with tribalism than anything else. I think people largely inherit their religions from their parents and surrounding communities. I think it has more to do with sociology than anything else.
Here is your entire comment to which I responded:
I see no point where you stated 'no question' or that you indicated your question was rhetorical. Not sure what you are talking about, but your comment deserved a rebuttal and got one.
I won't dignify that canard rhetoric with anything further. It is simply a drain to keep rehashing. One thing: As for different denominations and sects, . . . there are reasons, but I won't take out discussing them with you.
He is right.
I thought that's what I said, that we can't reasonably (logically) go there. That was kind of my whole point.
I know exactly where he resides and derives... in the believer's imagination.
I answered my (own) question, Tig. See it now? I know my own intentions, Tig.
I wasn't generalizing. I was speaking specifically of my own experience. You might want to re-read the first sentence of what you quoted there.
Now your challenge is to express yourself clearly to others rather than expect us to read your mind.
By the way, your comment required a rebuttal regardless (even if you had been clear) because it still argues that God is the driving force behind the eye.
He may be, but then again this was not what this discussion between us (all) newly begin with. Moreover, I do ask you or others to defend every lame activity undertaken through the liberty/ities vested in one acting in the science field. That is, the non-conformists.
Though you will like comeback with: all scientists are free to do as they want. . .with peer review (pressure) pressing down and ever 'watchful' to keep 'em accountable.
Ditto, "Dig-whisperer." (Smile.)
Whatever. You owe me a clear explanation for why you could not see I answered my own question. The question mark singular was in the proper place, after all. No matter. Let's move on. This is how we figuratively, 'die' lost in weeds of the thread.
You stated quite a 'mouthful' and I do not choose to read it again, the 'let-down' the first time around is sufficient for now. Care to move on back to God or Richard?
Sure. Even if you think you answered your own question that does not mean you expressed that as your intent. Also, note that your comments are often vague. Thus we tend to not parse your words too deeply to try to divine a precise intent.
Further, when someone writes a comment, poses a question and then answers the question then the next step should be to delete the comment. If you are not inviting others to opine then do not publish the comment. Given you posted the comment for all to see you are inviting a response. See? Social media 101, Cal.
Cal, why would anyone take you seriously after that brush off? Most every time it is best to accept a person's correction of your misinterpretation and move on. It is bad to pretend you did not misinterpret (implicitly calling the author a liar).
Dig just showed you that he was talking about his own experience and was not stereotyping. I even explained that to you prior to his response. If you read his opening sentence (as he suggested) you would clearly see you are flat out 100% wrong:
Side question: If God in his infinite perfection created the human eye, then why are human eyes so damn faulty? For example, why do so many people, even children, need glasses? You'd think God could have done a better job.
We're dying here a slow, tedious media figurative death. (Last gasps.)
'Dying' media death Step 2! (Gasping.)
Certainly.
By the same reasoning, why not regenerate teeth? The loss of teeth (and the decay prior to loss) was a major contributor to early death. And why do men have nipples?
Easily explained if the mad scientist is an undirected process where good-enough tends to be the end result.
You might as well ask what does "infinite perfection" mean if it means what we see in this 'dingy,' bitchified world on a daily basis. Dig, this is not God's perfection. God is perfect in God-self. We are mere mortals struggling through life on one planet in a 'sea of "worlds" without end.'
Yup.
Finally. Something I can agree with.
Edit: That actually reminded me of one of the most profound things I've ever read. It's from Carl Sagan in 'Pale Blue Dot'. The quote is a bit long, but here's a link to the quote on a page from the Planetary Society that also shows the image from Voyager 1 that the quote is referring to.
Ah! Found it on YouTube, read aloud by Sagan himself:
The beauty is in the words in the first part of the package and at its end. In the third section trying to reduce everything he has prior uttered about the being called us into a 'dust bal' of no consequence falls flat. Clearly, we are the only dust ball we know of in this universe, naturally and spiritually combined which can look back and reflect upon itself! That unique. And, there is no need for one side to vainly attempt to appropriate all 'everything' unto itself.
For all we know one day the dark 'cathedral' of the universe itself may slowly turn up the lighting on the drama we with all our imperfections were permitted to put on. Take nothing for granted, my friends.
That depends on the source of the "compelling". I suspect that the source of the "compelling" is more likely to be due to one's upbringing and societal pressure than a deity actually asserting itself, but some don't find themselves capable of arriving at that conclusion.
That's intellectually lazy, and you seem to want to impose that laziness on the rest of us.
So, environmental changes have nothing to do with natural selection? Or are you claiming that genetic mutations cause the environment to adapt to the mutation? A stable unchanging environment establishes a stable unchanging biota.
Coding errors might explain species changes in viruses or single cell life forms. However, coding error mutations in complex organizations are not enlightening. Coding errors during mitosis might result in tumors but will unlikely result in speciation. For genetic mutation to result in a new species the coding errors would need to occur during meiosis of reproductive cells. The mutated reproductive cells would then need to result in a viable embryo which could only produce one mutated individual for each mutated reproductive cell.
Wouldn't a more reasonable approach be hybridization; reproduction between species that are more closely related genetically? Hybridization could produce more offspring with the same mutation across several breeding seasons. Hybridization would establish a population with the same genetic make up while random mutations would only produce a single mutated individual. (BTW, that's why new species arise within a genus and why its not possible to show that mutations in pigs would produce goats.)
Copy error mutations may occur all the time but its not likely that copy errors are the source of diversity within the plant and animal kingdoms. And copy error mutation certainly can't explain evolution of highly specialized symbiotic relationships between species that are unrelated genetically. That makes natural selection a 'then a miracle occurred' argument.
Every argument for the emergence of sentient life provides an equally applicable explanation for the emergence of God. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? There still needs to be a God at the beginning.
Not sure how you get that from what Dig wrote.
Sure, except that the emergence of something as complex as a god does not compare well with the emergence of life forms as we know them.
The egg.
Why?
Why not call quintessential existence what it really represents - God? According to that argument the presence of sentient life requires quintessential existence. There still needs to be a God at the beginning.
There isn't even agreement on how to determine what exists and what does not exist. Calling God by the name 'quintessential existence' isn't enlightening.
Define ‘God’ as you use the word. Seems to me that you equate it to first cause with no requirement for sentience (and thus no intent).
Richard Dawkins is a Biblical atheist who uses the Bible to justify his atheism. That's not the same thing as an atheist. Dawkins doesn't utilize intellectual curiosity to ask the pertinent question; what is God? Replacing the Biblical God with some other representation of God is not atheism. Skepticism is an agnostic approach to particular answers for the pertinent question of 'what is God'.
Which God? What does religion have to do with God? Why has religion played such a prominent role in human history? Why has there always been a need for a God at the beginning?
Sentience is based upon a triad or trinity of knowledge, experience, and abstraction. Sentience possesses the qualities of knowledge of the past, senses to experience the present, and abstract thinking to foresee the future. Those are anomalous qualities in a material universe governed by deterministic regulating principles. The material universe can only be what it is and cannot change how it behaves. Progressing from inert deterministic matter and energy to a sentient life form that possesses the quality of 'free will' is always going to need a God at the beginning.
I don't believe there is any such thing as an atheist. Atheists don't exist. The contradictions established by the presence of life where it should not be present requires a God at the beginning.
That is nonsense. Dawkins is an atheist because he is not convinced there is a god (a sentient creator).
Why? Define 'God'.
THAT is the pertinent question for the intellectually curious. What is God? According to Richard Dawkins that question should be approached with humility; the humble answer would be 'we don't know'. If we do not know what God is then atheists cannot exist.
Can something come from nothing? Where did good and evil come from? Has good and evil been present in the material universe from the beginning? Why isn't the material universe governed by principles of good and evil? Why isn't good and evil part of physics?
Humans are a sentient life form. Humans possess qualities that allow them to alter the future of the entire universe by opposing the deterministic regulating principles governing inert matter and energy (although they currently lack the means). Humans can influence the future to greater extent than is possible by natural progression (and humans are obtaining the means). Mankind is not governed by the laws of physics; mankind can break the rules. Where did those human qualities come from? Could those human qualities come from nothing?
Richard Dawkins ends his lecture on a note of pride for science. Science has not only provided knowledge; science has allowed mankind to break the rules governing a deterministic material universe. Knowledge, experience, and abstraction are contrary to the deterministic laws of science. Free will contradicts the laws of science. Did all of that come from nothing?
Life, itself, is a miraculous contradiction of the material universe. There always needs to be God at the beginning. But what is God?
What? I know what an atheist is - are you saying that you don't?
Could your god have come from nothing?
See above.
Humans seem to have invented vengeful gods in their various civilizations once they've reached about a million people, but not at the beginning of humanity. We seem to be hardwired to invent gods, at least until we know enough about science and the natural world to not need such things. It's also one way to get a group sense of morality (although that morality often changes as humanity matures). And, of course, it's a good method to control people. Gods weren't necessary in our hunter-gatherer stage, for example.
Did atheism come from nothing? Atheist cannot exist without God; otherwise there would nothing to disbelieve. There still needs to be a God at the beginning.
I don't know. What is existence? What is God?
If God does not exist, as atheists claim, then God must have come from nothing. Atheist claim that God is a figment of the imagination and does not exist; therefore, imagination does not exist and that also means an imaginary God came from non-existence or nothing.
Is God a thing? Is God an idea? Is God a description of regulating properties and principles? How can someone claim that existence is all that exists but that God absolutely does not exist without knowing what is God? Atheist require someone else to define God before atheist can disbelieve that definition. That is intellectual cowardice.
So, here is the question for atheists: what is not God? Atheists need to explain why God is not needed at the beginning. And atheists begin arguing the gaps like any theologian. Does that make atheism a theology?
The sun exists and humans have accepted the sun a benevolent and vengeful God; their God existed. Nature exists and humans have accepted nature as a benevolent and vengeful God; their God existed.
Throughout human history the vengeful forces of nature have been made Gods. But identifying any God as vengeful requires an understanding of good and evil. Where did good and evil come from?
Your post is a bit too non-committal for me to find much interest.
Bottom line, if you do not know what you mean by 'God' and thus are unwilling to define your meaning then do not make claims about 'God'. The claim is nonsensical. For example, take what I quoted with the meaning you have supplied for 'God' and you have:
There always needs to be 'undefined' at the beginning. But what is 'undefined'?
See if you can commit to some meaning that is somewhat relevant to the topic.
The etymological root for the word atheism is from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s).
Someone who has never considered the concept of "God" would, by the basic root of the word, be an atheist or "without God".
"Can something come from nothing?"
We don't know. If it can't, then is "God" something? If so, then how did that something come from nothing if nothing else can come from nothing? Maybe a better question would be "Is empty space really empty?".
"Where did good and evil come from?"
They did not exist as we know them until humans existed because good and evil are subjective. Social evolution has defined things that harm humans as "evil" and things that benefit humans as "good". Decapitating an innocent human: Evil. Decapitating an innocent chicken to feed a human: Good.
"Has good and evil been present in the material universe from the beginning?"
No, as I just explained. The universe doesn't care a wit about humans and will unknowingly kill us in an instant if we forget our relative place in it.
"Why isn't good and evil part of physics?"
As I said, the universe doesn't care what you put in its way, it'll crush us and recycle our energy in an instant if we're not careful.
"Humans possess qualities that allow them to alter the future of the entire universe by opposing the deterministic regulating principles governing inert matter and energy (although they currently lack the means). Humans can influence the future to greater extent than is possible by natural progression (and humans are obtaining the means)."
And yet so often I hear conservatives claiming humans are so insignificant they can't have any effect on rapid climate change... weird huh.
"Mankind is not governed by the laws of physics; mankind can break the rules."
Really? Please explain how and when man has broken the laws of physics. I was not aware we had gained magical powers or proven the divine or spiritual exists. We have discovered quantum mechanics which seem to break the laws of physics as we once knew them, but that's not humans doing it, we are merely getting a peek into that realm. If you are saying that humans can effect physics, well I assumed that was a given. We can invent ways to harness energy using physics, we can explore our environment and we keep expanding our mastery over using physics to our advantage, but as of yet I do not know of any humans who has broken the laws of the universe.
"Where did those human qualities come from? Could those human qualities come from nothing?"
Those qualities have evolved over a very long time as humans use trial and error most often to make life/survival/procreation easier for humans. From the invention of tools, farming, harnessing natural power and making it work for us starting with water mills and windmills to the modern invention of modes of mass transportation enabling large numbers of humans to migrate anywhere on the globe within hours.
What could/would you know about my 'societal pressure' which does not affect you, or my 'upbringing' which has nothing to do with returning to a life of faith. I was done and away from my past religious upbringing—much like some of your current associates on this board.
If you do not trust me to tell you the truth, why bother with me? I have no reason or agenda to show up here on a daily basis to lie to you. Moreover, I do not care if you ever become a person of faith - if you need to hear me state it.
I take exception to your calling me intellectually lazy, when I take the time to look at all sides of an issue on a recurring basis. Which you know from all the board discussions we have encountered each other on. So, that is an untrue statement.
Doesn't the claim of non-committal really mean that nothing has been provided to justify atheism? As I stated in my comment beginning this discussion I have rationally concluded there is a God. That conclusion is a prerequisite for defining God and a prerequisite for atheism. Without God atheism becomes irrelevant nonsense. There can be no atheism without God, no matter how that God is defined.
What I have asked Katrix I now ask you: what is not God? Defining what God 'is not' also provides answers for what God 'is'. That is Aristotle's logic. How can you justify the existence of atheism if there is no God? Atheism is a logical contradiction in defining God; atheists cannot define God therefore there must be no God. The conclusion is predetermined by the premise. And if the premise becomes 'we don't know' then atheists cannot exist.
Why?
Eggs were around well before the ‘first’ transitional chicken-like life form hatched from one.
Define what you mean by 'God'. Without that, anything you ask or claim in this subject matter has no meaning.
I consider single cell organisms as natures first "egg" that was both the lifeform and its progeny as it would split into a second lifeform in a process called binary fission. So the answer to that seemingly ancient puzzle would be "Egg". You know to spice things up you can always rephrase the question as "Which came first, the velociraptor or the egg?".
You wrote:
That suggests that when believers hit the 'God-point' in the regress they stop and make no attempt to even think about the remaining issues. That is equivalent to the cliche 'God works in mysterious ways' when an inexplicable question is posed.
Actually, it is equivalent to an atheist scientific profession of, "I don't know, will await new information." Don't you think so?
Moreover, the atheist thinks believers are a 'variety' of delusional as it is. Imagine if the believer began to make assertions about how Spirit came to be! We stop where the texts reasonably stops; no wild speculations running amok.
Lastly, when believers say that God works in mysterious ways, generally what is meant is something along the lines of we can not explain something which occurs in and to humanity that is inconsistent with the 'situation.' For example, floodwaters which tear through a house killing one person out of several sleeping on a bed. One could wonder why any were left alive at all. These became known as "divine mysteries."
No I do not think so. God is stated as a definitive answer. The infinite regress ends at God (in your view) and God has a meaning to you (sentient creator, etc.). That is not the same as 'I do not know' unless you are saying that whatever is the first cause you will call 'God' even if that first cause is not sentient, did not intentionally create the known universe, etc.
Now to me, I have an answer too. It is a bit of a placeholder but is also grounded in something we know. In my view existence itself is real. Everything that exists is of existence. So whether material (as we define material) or spiritual (however you wish to define that) everything that exists is by definition an emergent property of existence - a form of quintessential existence.
I can state that I do not know what the substance of quintessential existence is. Thus it is simply a placeholder.
If you can state that what you call God is entirely unknown to you and it is simply a placeholder for whatever is the first cause then that is equivalent to 'I do not know'. However, I am confident that you have quite a few attributes associated with what you call God so instead of 'I do not know' you are making a very specific, positive claim as the first cause (sentient creator with intent, etc.).
At some point, Apostle Paul realized that he was not going to be able to inform believers' answers to every question they could come up with about the "heavenly father." Even Jesus cautioned John (the Apostle) to "go your way when he asked about those others being left behind for purposes, " and Daniel (Old Testament) who kept asking was directed to, 'go your way, and you will stand in your lot at the end of days,' and Jesus state that regarding the exact end of this world's life no man (including Jesus the Incarnation) know - only God. Both Jesus and Daniel's messenger imply there are other orders of magnitude which have no bearing on our ability to be faithful stewards in/of the Earth.
Does this mean we know nothing about God as believers, of course not! It means we know what is shared from spiritual men and women of old, that we glean through revelation, and wisdom, and finally Jesus and the Spirit (which does not leave us spiritual orphans).
We, believers, are not atheists who can not know because they lack a belief in God, gods (some not all) and following that, refuse to go in search of or in a spiritually directed manner. At the point where Jesus, the prophets, the texts, and revelations stop 'talking,' we as believers ought to also. And not presume we can speak for God with something resembling (reckless) abandon.
See this is where you go awry. You presume that atheists abruptly stop seeking truth simply because we are not persuaded by mere claims of other human beings. To me this is like a flat Earther accusing the balance of rational society of refusing to investigate 'the truth'. Flat Earthers like to exclaim that if only you people would open your eyes you would see that you are being tricked by NASA, et. al.
Most atheists were brought up religious and almost all were exposed to plenty of religion growing up. Religions offer many claims with no supporting evidence. And, much much worse, religions are replete with contradictions. You think it strange that atheists do not ignore these problems — that atheists do not blindly submit to believe without evidence — that atheists do not accept without question that which we are told. I, in contrast, find it strange that anyone (past the age of reason nowadays in modern society) buys what religions sell.
It does not surprise me that people believe in a sentient creator with intent. I get that. But they do not leave it there. Once one moves from an abstract possibility with few details (since we do not know anything) into a bunch of details that are supported only by the words of human beings, we have a problem in veracity. And if those details are contradictory, we have a logical problem that should result in lack of belief that the details are correct.
The equivalent of that would be a religious person admitting "I don't know, will await new information". Saying a Christians "stopping point" is contact with God is the opposite of that.
What they're really saying is "I don't know, and don't know how to convince you of what I can't prove, but I don't have time to await new information, I'm just going to believe it anyway and have faith I'll be proven right in the end, and you better believe too or else we will make life very difficult for you."
"We stop where the texts reasonably stops; no wild speculations running amok."
Who is this "We" you speak of? Because that's not where most religious persons that I've known, especially evangelical Christians, stop. I'd estimate a good 85% of their message is pure wild speculation based on numerous every changing flawed interpretations of the bible. It's certainly not straight out of scripture.
"when believers say that God works in mysterious ways, generally what is meant is something along the lines of we can not explain something which occurs in and to humanity that is inconsistent with the 'situation."
If a professor of mathematics asks whether every finite lattice is isomorphic to the congruence lattice of some finite algebra, proposing the finite congruence lattice problem, one of many unsolved algebra problems, and one of this students raises his hand and says "Yeah, I know this one, the answer is 42", should we believe him? The problem is unsolved thus we can't prove it's not "42". And when the teacher asks how the student came up with that answer and his reply is "Well, it's a mystery", should that satisfy the teacher? Should he call up other professors of mathematics and tell them his student may have solved one of the unsolvable problems? Of course not. Besides being laughed out of class the student will likely get a big fat "F" for wasting everyone's time.
The honest answer to something we can't explain is "I don't know". The charlatans deceitful answer to something we can't explain is "I know who knows, and am on good terms with Him, but I can't tell you, it's a mystery...".
I am not missing the mark. You are making a separate point about the natural order of life. Thus, you are missing the spiritual case I am making: Christians believe in God after this manner:
and this,
Tig! What you do not count as evidence: The Spirit, we, believers, count as evidence every day and night in our faith!
See @8. Maybe stop spinning your time? I no longer am interest in rank scoffing!
It is common knowledge that believers consider their feelings (the Spirit) to be evidence.
Claiming what you 'feel' is evidence does not make it so and certainly is not going to persuade skeptics.
In fact, because the very best 'evidence' that can be offered is nothing more than 'I just believe', that strengthens the skepticism. This is the very best evidence of the grandest possible entity? The most impressive possible claim is evidenced by 'I just believe'? Just that?
What surprises me is that you do not seem to understand why this is such a feeble case to be made for the existence of God.
DP made some excellent, insightful points. You refuse to even consider what he said and offer a pointed rebuttal. Why engage atheists -especially as aggressively as you try- if you do not want to deal with the predictable opposing perspective?
That's because it's not evidence. It's just emotional and/or anecdotal. Or even psychological. Perhaps you should learn what constitutes actual valid and credible evidence. Your so called "evidence" amounts to nothing more than "I believe" or "because I said so." But your feelings or empty declarations is hardly convincing.
What you do not understand is I am not TRYING to persuade a skeptic. For that matter, being a skeptic is NO BIG DEAL. Why not? Because a skeptic is only such a person until they are persuaded by the Spirit.
This is a really old argument that has gone on likely before and since biblical times. Skepticism is not a new thing. It is just very loud in the science age.
Why won't you respond to him on my behalf?
Whatever Gordy. *Yawn.
One would think to hear it stated by atheists that you are emotionless, spirit-less creatures. But that would be a lie straight out of hell, because you do have relationships you value based on emotions and feelings galore. Furthermore, you guys speak of 'rights and wrongs' occurring in the world irrespective of the natural state of a naturalistic world being as Tig often describes it, "undirected."
Is the world's course undirected or being guided by something/somebody?
What evidence do you have to show for each one of those relationships you build throughout life? Tell me each one of them is a (damn) simple data point! Go ahead, do it.
Skeptics are unrefined religious people?
According to the Oxford English dictionary, a skeptic is someone who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions. An atheist.
Skeptic ( per Oxford ):
Why do you offer this?
Does it not make sense that skeptics doubt the truth of religions?
Some find that to be a very rational approach. Do not believe something simply because a human being said it is truth ( especially if the claim of truth is grand ). Accept as likely true only when persuaded by good evidence and/or logic.
Thanks for posting that--some need to see it.
Are they? Why do you ask?
What in that post was new information to you?
Okay. Thanks for sharing.
You're welcome.
I am asking Cal if this is what he meant. This is something only he can answer.
I wasn't trying to answer for him.
I was trying to figure out what in his post led you to ask that.
Never mind.
Done.
Absolutely nothing---I already knew what skeptic is, which is why I didn't ask if they were unrefined religious people.
Perfect!
Because he's actually attempting to proselytize here and he sees me as a lost cause that only annoys him with bible quotes that constantly undermine his ultimate objective.
I am defending what I believe in. That you can not separate the defense of the faith from evangelism is not any problem of mine. It is not as if atheists are not here attempting to destroy world religions. It is so blatant to any one who cares to see it. Apparently, most people here do not care or simply avoid religion threads altogether because of it. Shutting down, 'Christian-speak' is a thing in the 21st century. But, I digress.
Your comments are boring, and amount to little more than seething rage, in my opinion. I don't want that in my discussions. Because,—. So I pass on them. Write something instructive, informative, explaintive, and interesting and like I do with others on NT, I will gove something in feedback. Otherwise, *yawn.
One last thing. I do not evangelize. It is my firmest belief that God can save "whomsoever God wills" and do not need any man or woman to do so. I was not evangelized into the faith, I returned to it in my own time and then I located someone in the faith and 'chatted them up' about God. As a result of how I came to faith, I do not seek out people to offer them nothing. Let them come to God as I did: My way or God's way if you will. You can take that to the bank or not if you don't care to.
Of course they do, but you claimed this: "The argument is that a change in environment miraculously causes spontaneous mutations that are adaptable to that new environment." My response was that nothing 'miraculously' causes specific mutations to occur which allow organisms to adapt to specific environmental changes. I have no idea how you took that to mean the environment has nothing to do with natural selection.
It doesn't, actually. DNA will change regardless of the environment. The environment can alter mutation rates (via certain chemicals or radiation), but mutations will still occur in a stable environment and populations will still evolve. Probably not rapidly and explosively, as if a bunch of formerly occupied niches had recently opened up due to a mass extinction or something, but mutations will still happen and accumulate over time, and populations will change.
In addition to copy errors during replication, microorganisms are also capable of something that is much harder to achieve in more complex life: horizontal gene transfer. Transposon sequences (jumping genes) can sometimes be passed directly between organisms, and that can add all kinds of new information to the genome on the receiving end. In more complex organisms like us they can cause mutations if they aren't disabled (in addition to coding errors), but I don't think they can do much jumping between organisms.
Not quite sure what you mean by 'not enlightening', but you're correct about the locations. For a mutation to become heritable in organisms that reproduce sexually it has to happen in a reproductive cell. But let's not forget about the number of cells involved. Human males, for example, produce sperm over their entire lives, hundreds of billions of them, and discharge many million at a time. Plants do the same with pollen grains, releasing enormous amounts into the air every year. That's an awful lot of replicated DNA, and plenty of potential for heritable mutations to occur.
Not only that, but when the one mutated individual reaches maturity and reproduces, there's a 50/50 chance that the mutation will not be passed on to every individual offspring. It's a hoop all mutations have to jump through several times before they can eventually become prevalent enough to be considered fixed in a population. Having lots of offspring increases the chances of transmission, though, and many species do exactly that. And so, it happens. The effects are all around us.
You're putting the cart before the horse there. You need mutations before you can have diversity to hybridize. Otherwise everything would be breeding with exact duplicates, clones to clones, and that doesn't work in organisms like humans because of problems associated with copy number variation. Too many copies of certain genes can cause genetic disorders like down syndrome. We need lots of people with lots of different gene combinations in order to maintain a healthy population.
In a way, every offspring of every higher complex organism actually is a hybrid, because no two individuals (the parents) are truly genetically identical.
New species arise from existing species. Of course the genus stays the same.
Not likely? Certain replication errors might seem small, like SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms), which only change a single base pair, but over time they add up. Other replication errors, however, can be HUGE, from deletions of several base pairs at a time to the duplication of entire sequences. Whole genomes can even be duplicated, instantly giving an organism an extra copy of everything for mutations to work on. It looks like there were at least two whole genome duplications in our own genetic history, occurring way back in the Cambrian (I think) within a worm-like ancestral population.
Sure it can. There's nothing particularly special about that. It's all the same process. Mutations lead to diversity in populations, which in turn leads to lots of individuals with slightly different attributes being naturally selected for reproductive success by circumstances in their environments.
Just think of each organism in a symbiotic relationship as being part of the other organism's environment, a part accounting for a large percentage of the selective pressure working on both.
But most of what you said was either wrong or an irrelevant judgement call (your own personal opinion).
I don't suppose you could point us to precisely where the completely naturalistic theory of evolution goes all 'supernatural' on us?
Why? Because nature is too astonishing to be natural? Wouldn't a super-complex intelligence capable of whipping up the entire universe and everything in it be even more astonishing? Why does it just get to exist without explanation (or another 'god' at its beginning), while nature (which is much simpler) doesn't?
Complete and unadulterated bullshit.
Complete and unadulterated bullshit.
Mere claims of a spiritual relationship with God coupled with often vague, deflective, non sequitur, faux obtuse responses and a predictable refusal to answer direct questions is the opposite of a defense. It illustrates that there is nothing but 'feelings' holding up the house of cards. The extraordinary claim of being in a spiritual relationship with the grandest possible entity is backed up by mere words and a directive to have faith - to believe without any supporting evidence.
Because you have no rebuttal. Demonstrably. This is almost certainly obvious to anyone reading the exchange. DP has a deeply religious past and speaks to both sides of the belief equation. DP usually expresses his positions with anecdotes, analogies, stories and, in so doing, makes them interesting. Yet you categorically dismiss his posts because they are ' boring '? A claim of ' boring ' illustrates a feeble excuse for not being able to engage DP in honest debate. To wit, I doubt anyone actually buys that your refusal to engage DP on a point-by-point basis - but rather to simply complain about his posts - is because he bores you.
Given God speaks to whomever He wishes and since God certainly knows that He created plenty of people whose minds do not accept as true that which other people merely claim is true , God apparently chooses to not try to reach skeptics. God seems to only speak with people who really want to believe. God behaves pretty much as one would expect of an entity that was invented by the human mind. No evidence - ever - of God, just words from human beings making unsupported claims and expressing certain belief that they have a personal relationship with the grandest possible entity.
To my knowledge, not once has anyone offered anything that can evidence a relationship with the grandest possible entity. You claim such a relationship yet not once have you offered anything that illustrates contact with a divine mind. And when pressed the excuse is that a supernatural entity will not provide natural evidence. Yet clearly there would be evidence at the point of interface.
No evidence whatsoever. Nothing other than what a human being could imagine. I could justify Zeus in exactly the same way.
I find it ironic, laughable even, that you care what spiritual people believe. Although, you may say your 'role' is to better society for which religion is a public enemy; that is a cover for what is actually taking place. Militant atheists are looking to 'throw-down' religion and put science utterly in it place. Full stop.
Moreover, this facade of putting up a "grand possible entity," —careful you may inadvertently spawn a new religion and be it founder! ("The GPE.")
Now look Tig, the Christian faith is older than you and I (and modern science) put together. You do not have to understand spirituality, in order to simply leave it alone. It is you and some other atheists who have aligned yourselves with "parties" attempting to push God out, because the parties have determined that God is "unfit" and spirituality is "bogus" unless you get to define it for the "modern era."
Lastly, this constant need you have to upbraid me is coming to an end. You did not give me my faith and you most definitely can not take it away. Pretend there are only data points in your existence all you wish; that's a form of delusion all it own. But, after all is said and done, all you have is your opinion about God, spirit, and you have not authority or right to try to shutdown any of it down!
You don't really want to know what you sound like here. Let's just call it biased and leave it at that. The nerve you have got to tell me who I should discuss matters with and what I should listen and accept.
You are a SKEPTIC. Hello? Since God is God, then God can find you anytime God wishes. So sit. wait. or. go. about. your. business.
You've probably heard all the "sharings" you need, so wait until God "invents" God in your mind. Best I can tell you after all that has been said to date.
How odd it is that some atheists who simply say they hold to a neutral position of lacking a belief in God, gods, have linked themselves to inquiry about God. Remember, a lack of belief, seeks nothing for itself. Not proof, not evidence, nothing. It seems some atheists have intentionally or accidentally 'boxed' themselves in seeking natural evidence where little or none shall be given them.
Above you stated: "What you do not understand is I am not TRYING to persuade a skeptic. For that matter, being a skeptic is NO BIG DEAL. Why not? Because a skeptic is only such a person until they are persuaded by the Spirit."
So if you're not trying to persuade a skeptic, who are you trying to persuade? Yourself? You say you're not trying to proselytize and are just defending what you believe in, yet you constantly seed articles that either try to throw doubt on evolution, science or atheism and essentially demand a defense from rational minds. If you really aren't trying to challenge non-believers in an attempt to convert them or share with them what you believe to be a "spiritual connection", then who are you seeding these articles for and why?
I know this wasn't your seed, so I'm not asking about this seed in particular, just the dozen or so in the last few months. In this case it was simply someone seeding an article about Richard Dawkins, a lecture and an awards ceremony. Yet from your very first comment you claimed it was an attack on your beliefs, "Mr. Dawkins is not yet two minutes or so into his lecture and he has already launched into 'put downs' of God, religion, and faith."
You then continue to claim anyone who refers to the unproven supposed invisible spirit creatures that believers claim exist without any actual evidence as "sky fairies, invisible wizards or a flying spaghetti monster" are "humiliating believers".
"Similarly, the Richard Dawkins "doctrine" of humiliating believers with talk of "flying spaghetti monsters" and other mocking images, is both maddening and disturbing.
What is both maddening and disturbing are believers who think, without ANY evidence, that their invisible spirit beings are real while other peoples invisible spirit beings aren't and claim that if you dismiss their spirit beings it's offensive and "humiliating" but when they dismiss Allah, Vishnu, Zeus or even the FSM, it's educating and helping people towards a "true" spiritual connection. There is no difference between a Christian dismissing Allah, the FSM or any other God than there is an atheist dismissing Jesus or the God of the bible.
Your 'argument' is so much nonsense. If you can not figure out what is going on after all this time in these many, many discussions maybe you should consider moving on to other issues on the site. It is not going to be my 'role' here to keep backtracking and supplying updates to atheists who 'tap-dance' in and out of discussions at will. Catch up. Keep up. Or, fall behind. It is all the same to me. No one is cutting me any 'slack' on these religion boards, and I will not be extending any slack either.
I discuss religion because I am a Christian. Your virtual 'feet' are not nailed to any article moreso than my own. Take that for what is worth. I choose to discuss religion; I like discussions of faith; I thoroughly enjoy defending my faith so, it is assuredly find that I show up on religion - especially Christian articles on NT. They are 'tailored' for people like me.
Three posts and not a single rebuttal or even direct response to my points. Just responses that go off in entirely different directions (and, of course, make it personal) as if to illustrate the point I made. Further, I see the same basic non-answer @7.2.117 in reply to DP. No attempt to rebut, just categorical declaration of 'nonsense'.
Well Tig, maybe it is reasonable to move on. You may have heard the one about the definition of insanity . . . .
I'll take your condescension and nonsensical rebuttal as a retreat from any sort of constructive debate.
"I thoroughly enjoy defending my faith"
Apparently not to me, and the reason appears to be because you feel I'm too stubborn and refuse to accept your proposals on faith. If you believe yourself so convincing as to get upset when you can't change minds, you may want to take up a different hobby.
"If you can not figure out what is going on after all this time in these many, many discussions maybe you should consider moving on to other issues on the site."
The only thing I can't figure out is what in my comments gives you the impression I don't know what's "going on" in these debates. I may add a bit of an unusual perspective due to my background, but I certainly have no trouble following the lazy attempts some make to validate something that has zero empirical evidence. This seed is about Richard Dawkins and by extension, his scientific theories on evolution. The ones hijacking the discussion and introducing a false equivalency with their own religious theory (scientific theory and religious theory are so vastly different they aren't even in the same universe of evidence) are the believers who apparently can't let facts and science go unchallenged.
"I discuss religion because I am a Christian."
And that's just fine, discuss your religion all you want. But understand that what you believe is one thing, what you claim you can prove is an entirely different beast. When you begin to tell others about the foundations of your faith, the reasons you became a believer, as a way to convince them of the veracity of your faith, then be prepared to be challenged on anything you can't actually prove. To say "I believe this thing regardless of the lack of evidence" is one thing, but to claim "I believe this thing because this and that happened and they're related and that proves my faith is real", then expect to be contradicted and challenged.
"it is assuredly find that I show up on religion - especially Christian articles on NT. They are 'tailored' for people like me."
Sounds like your saying you and other Christians flock to these types of articles in an effort to spread your message, not share in a thoughtful exchange or debate.
Please, I'm bored, not angry.
Challenged and contradicted about what exactly? That my "anecdotal" occurrence didn't happen. That the anecdotal stories in the the New Testament did not happen? Why not? Because they did not happen to and for you? That sounds 'squirmy.' Newsflash! Not all the people in the Bible era were 'fawning' believers either. Consider that to this day, not all Jews are believers in Abrahamic religions, God, and most definitely not Jesus. So what? Do we not carry the 'report' forward? Because we believe and other do not? Of course we carry it forward!
For that matter, atheist 'flount' their free-thinking to believe any thing, anecdotal or not that they wish to believe. And a word about anecdotes, they are based on truth and not lies. When something works for this one, this group, this nation, this country, and not for the "others" does it stand to reason that for the working parties they should drop it and go after other things? Where is the liberty in that?
That's your 'take' on what I wrote. I did not establish the category. If you have that kind of 'swag' you can get the category booted of NewsTalkers. Then, of course, what would that say about your desire for "thoughtful exchange or debate."
I'll take that near unintelligible word salad as an attempt to say "impasse". Consider it dropped.
And stop being so damned boring DP!
Got it. I'll try harder next time
It is surprising that Tig has not assisted you on the proper manner of declaring "Impasse." Because he pulls my chain on nearly every 'misstep' in process.
Moreover, as I stated already, none of what I think should matter to you because it is considered a free country, and free-thinkers are supposedly the free-est of all! Go be free and leave us 'tollers' alone our so-called, 'misery.'
I said that taking God as your "stopping point" with regards to creation is intellectually lazy, and it is. I referred to the action, not to you. If you don't like that I refer to intellectual laziness as such, well, tough. If that is the case, you may wish to avoid these discussions.
Complain, complain, complain. DP was not trying to call impasse. You need to read more carefully.
You came onto this (Dig's) seed by your choice. You chose to make claims, accusations and put forth a bunch of nonsense.
We're not trying to provide evidence for our lack of belief. We're asking you to produce evidence for your belief. And you have failed every single time.
Ditto, Sandy. Ditto. Ditto.
Yes, it is DS's seed and one could easily not remember this because of writing back and forth to you so regularly . You have been writing comments for nearly everybody.
I am walking away from this seed now. Nothing more on the topic to render.
Personally I am quite convinced that nobody can put forth quality evidence for the existence of a god (especially the Abrahamic god).
What I would like, however, is for someone to put forth what they think is evidence and explain why they think it is evidence.
For years individuals have claimed personal experiences that are 'real to them', and equivalent. Yet in the extremely rare cases where one offers something other than a vague reference, the details are related to seeing something while waking up or having an unspecified traumatic experience.
Feelings vs. evidence.
Tig, you are not opposed to feelings are you? Curious. I won't bother offering supporting biblical evidence, because you are compelled to ignore it anyway. Back to feelings. . . .
I'm not the one whining about how I'm being treated, so there is no reason for me to avoid these discussions.
And it's pretty much always something that happened to themselves only. Not an event witnessed by others via sight, sound, smell, touch, or taste, but an experience which occurs entirely in the mind of the person relating it. It's evidence of nothing more than a vivid imagination.
You are not neutral. Evidentially, some of your are atheist activists.
Case in point, last week Perrie and I were discussing a point on Abraham and the offering up of his son Isaac to God, a possible resentment by Isaac of his father's willingness to point a knife in his direction, and how estranged this may have cause this father and son dual to become.
Anyway, Perrie made her points and I stated my points, she replied, and I deferred to her understanding of the Old Testament. Period. Full stop.
You guys are not spiritual, do not wish to be spiritual, but by your actions 'demand' to infuse all discussions on spirituality with your varying forms of skepticism. Simply put, it fails every single time!
Back from your respite. Fired up and ready to go! I see now.
Skepticism is a neutral position. It merely demands adequate evidence before one is convinced.
You are skeptic with regards to Zeus. I am skeptic with regards to all gods. You can supply no reason to lack skepticism with regards to your god, but you get angry when your double standards (and concomitant lack of neutrality) are pointed out.
This was an article about Dawkins. You are attempting to introduce spirituality, and resent that the rest of us aren't buying it.
YOU do not have the right to make such a statement as if it were fact.
YOU have the right to your OPINION, but, that does not make it a FACT.
YOU do not have the right to judge anyone else as to whether or not they are SPIRITUAL or not.
YOU appear to think too highly of yourself and your right and ability to make such a judgement of anyone else.
Especially, when YOU do not really know anything about the individual personally.
JMOO
Hi Raven Wing, I have been "in discussions" with Tig and nearly each of these individuals, since NewsVine 201—. I take no liberties with this. Ask them if they believe in spirits. I know how they answer me. It will be interesting to see how the reply to you.
Again you miss the point of even the clearest post.
Do you demand that your God (the God of the Bible) exists, that you have a spiritual connection with Him and find that those who do not hold your spiritual beliefs lack critical knowledge?
What the heaven are you writing about now? You, above anyone else, know what I write about. So don't even try it. In fact, you could have answered the question:
Do you believe in the supernatural? Spirit beings, Spirit, spirits? Or, any sentience beyond the natural world?
I phrased my comment as a question so as to be instructive. I was not asking for answers, but rather pointing you back at Raven's comment.
Riiiight. Nice. Dodge. Expected. Delivered.
You really shouldn't expect so much.
and 6 more responses since...
good job !
/s
I know, I know, I get it for 'coming and going.' /s But it is alright, and its okay, I will make it anyway.
I don't need them to reply to me. This is between YOU and me.
YOU have on many, many, many occasions made accusations and assumptions about other people's Spirituality in YOUR comments in other articles.
YOU have stated that others are not Spiritual s if it is a FACT. As if YOU and YOU alone know this for a FACT.
I am NOT a Christian, nor do I belong to any organized religion. I follow the religion of my ancient Cherokee ancestors.
I do not worship YOUR God. However, that does NOT mean that I am not Spiritual, that I have no Spirituality.
And just because others may not believe in YOUR God does not mean they have no Spirituality as YOU endlessly accuse as fact.
YOU do not know what is in another's heart, mind or Soul, although YOU like to try to make others think so.
I don't care how long you have know or engaged with TiG or anyone else now here on NT. YOU do not have the right to make false statements about them and try to make FACT when YOU actually don't really know them. Only what YOU want to believe and try to make others think.
My opinion.
Another deflection on your part. can't say i'm surprised.
Not sure where you get that from.
Are you suggesting we're under some sort of cosmic microscope?
Each one of my relationships is based on a tangible, real person. Not some imaginary friend in my head.
You can believe whatever you want. but belief does not equal fact.
And there are religions (with different god/s too) that are older than Christianity. What's your point?
Pretend that there's a god ort that you have some kind of "relationship" with it. That's a form of delusion too!
And all you have is opinion too!
How is anyone trying to do that?
And yet, here you are continuously spewing the same nonsense while ignoring any challenge or rebuttal. Oh, irony.
Amen.
EVERYTHING that happens to them is because of GOD'S PLAN if they have done something really assinine or they have been caught committing adultery or apprehended committing a felony. In those cases, they claim that Jesus forgives them and so should everyone else.
HOWEVER, if they can blame it on someone else and sue them, then it either was not GOD'S PLAN and someone has to pay...or it was GOD'S PLAN for them to suffer a loss and then be monetarily compensated.
A few years ago, a customer told me that her daughter's house had caught fire and everything burned, but GOD had woken the family and saved them. I gave her my "so why didn't your GOD keep the house from burning in the first place?" stare and offered to give her daughter a set of dishes if she wanted them.
One minute, some Christian is griping about how school systems suck and the next breath claiming that if global warming is real, then it is because we are living in the end times and GOD is destroying the Earth. In the not so distant past, I have pointed out it is probably difficult to get children enthused about education if they are expecting to either be raptured or die at any time.
Then there is usually the required comment about the evils of homosexuality even if the topic of the conversation was about the weather.
These days, I just get away from these conversations ASAP as gracefully as possible and do things that make me happy.
I am constantly seeing people on the news thanking God for looking out for them during some kind of accident or storm or something, while standing next to a pile of rubble that used to be their life.
I just don't get it.
If only a Christian were around who would honestly attempt to directly answer such questions ...
I never mentioned YOU. But, I know why you mentioned ME. And, it does not matter to me.
You are welcome to your opinions and I certainly am welcome to mine. No he is not going to answer that question about believing in spirits, and you are clearly not going to require him to either.
How nice is that?! I rest my case.
Indoctrination that it is their God's plan for their salvation from the eternal Hellfire that they really, really deserve, but because their God "loves" them, he is just testing them to make sure that they are his loyal minions.
Here's the type of indoctrination that I received as a child.
I spent decades trying to "forgive" the lowlife vermin that raped me when I was teenager. I was actually taught that his "sin" was no worse than telling a lie. If I did not "forgive" his "trespass" then I would not be forgiven by the almighty God and I would spend eternity roasting in Hell. This is 100% abusive doctrine that is used to protect rapists and pedophiles and blame/silence their victims.
No.....I am not going to require him to do so. I don't require anyone to do so. That is not my right to do. No one owes me an explanation of what they think, feel or believe. If they wish to share it that is their right, but, it is not my right to require them to do so.
YOU obviously do not have a case. YOU feel that YOU have an excuse to paint others in YOUR own view of them. But, that does not make it a FACT, merely YOUR own opinion.
I have said what I wanted to say so I will now leave this article. I am not interested in anything else you have to say.
Yup. Nothing so bad as that ever happened to me, but I spent the first 3 decades of my life believing that I deserved a painful eternal death just for the sin of existing. I'd been taught that all people deserved that, and that I deserved a fate every bit as bad as Ted Bundy or Hitler, just because I wasn't perfect. Remember that time I sassed my mom, or lost my temper with a classmate? DEATH AND HELLFIRE.
So if that tornado destroyed my home but didn't actually kill me, I should be grateful that God is testing me.
I cannot help but imagine the Christ character whom I believe myself to kinda know (from decades of sincere steadfast studious endeavor) eventually showing up on one of these interminable threads to tell CB, "For Dad's sake SHUT UP! You do not speak for Us. Hell, you do not even belong to one of Our Churchs. You do not even tithe to Us. You are merely the self-appointed Pope of a fellowship of one, yourself. Your Authority did not come from a conclave of Bishops. You were not elevated by a Worldwide Convention of Churches. We have Our Electors chosen by Our great congregations who were chosen to speak for Us on Earth. You are NOT one of them. So, PLEASE, SHUT THE HELL UP! YOU to ARE NOT HELPING"...
What I don't get is how they don't seem to realize that they're blaming God for murdering the people who didn't survive. I stopped believing in an interventionary god as soon as I realized that if he were interventionary, he'd be the biggest asshole in history.
If there were, that might be evidence of miracles.
Exactly. CB is playing yet another game of deflection. You spoke directly to him and he brings me in to try to deflect rather than stand up and deal with your comment.
Demonstrably.
You don't have to be interested in what I have to say. I did not seek you out for this or anything else, or figuratively 'gaslight' you. It is not right. In fact, you are in the wrong. If you are going to give me "what for" for asking Tig whom I have been communicating with (as I explained to you) for YEARS to come clean about a basic question we all should know the answer to based on his long track record of comments (which he dodged yet again answering), then fair-minded treatment means you give in "what for" for not answering.
Else your 'concern' is invalid.
JBB do you go to church? And, where is your defend of the faith? I would like to see it. Anybody can 'talk' for mere seconds and fire one off! And, since you went there, I can almost guarantee you that in a day, I attend more ministries and their message, articles, and videos, than you—based on your comments, that is.
Here you admit to asking a pointless question ("we all should know the answer") as a deflection. You brought me into the equation asking a pointless question when Raven directly addressed you and only you.
Question is, do you even realize the tactics you routinely employ?
Do you believe in the supernatural? Spirit beings, Spirit, spirits? Or, any sentience beyond the natural world?
Since you are constantly (daily) online doing what can be construed as deconstructing world religions and "deprogramming" peoples of faith, won't you take time out from that and answer several questions above? Directly.
Try using a larger font. Maybe that will work.
Odd that you expect people to answer your questions (especially stupid questions) given you refuse to answer direct and applicable questions.
CB, are you a biblical literalist? What is your worldview?
Just as I thought: "Odd." (Dryly.) Moving on.
You go first.
Just as I thought. You constantly badger others with the same questions over and over, even after they have been answered, while refusing to ever answer a direct question yourself. What a terrible way to behave on a blog site.
If your worldview is valid then it can withstand some scrutiny. After all, you badger Christianity and Ancient Israel "for days."
Says the person who has refused to say a word about his worldview, or even whether he takes the bible literally. We all know you do take it literally, but you got offended at the assumption - and then refused to say whether or not you do. And whether you take it literally is very relevant to these types of discussions. I've said that I don't take the bible literally but you refuse to say what your stance is. Intellectually dishonest, is what it is.
No, I debate what the bible says and the attributes it ascribes to the Abrahamic god. I discuss whether morality is absolute or subjective. I actually engage in a conversation. You should try it sometime. And if you aren't interested in a debate, why are you on a blog site in the first place?
*snort* says the person who kept reposting articles about slavery in the bible.
Are you a biblical literalist, Calbab? I'll go first. No, I am not a biblical literalist.
Did Dawkins talk about religion at all in the video above? Was he gracious to religion or ridiculing of it? Be honest.
Okay, I'm back. I’ve been dealing with the detritus from the Google Plus extinction event. It’s amazing that technophisticated dipwads living a Twitter haze of fictional virtual reality condescendingly claim that God-believers are crazy stupid. That’s enough to elevate Devil influenced original sin to a highly plausible event.
So, what do I mean by 'God'? That requires covering a lot more material than would be suitable in a discussion thread. This should be entertaining but the limited space will allow too many gaps that can be argued. There is always a God at the beginning. But let’s set that aside for the discussion and see if we can find God at the end. If there is a God at the end then there could well be a God at the beginning, is that not so? In the beginning was the void …
The material universe, comprised of matter and energy, is inert. The forms and transformations of the material universe are governed by deterministic properties and regulating principles (what we call scientific constants, laws, and established theories). All the matter and energy that exists today existed at the beginning. And the same deterministic regulation of the material universe has not changed over time. It makes no difference if the universe is expanding or contracting; all the matter and energy that was present at the beginning is all there was, is, or will be. The most notable characteristic of the material universe is that it occupies space and time; the purpose of the material universe is to exist.
Life imparts animation onto material objects that allows behavior that is internally regulated by the living organism. The material universe imposes constraints and limitations on the material objects that life occupies but not on life, itself. Toss a live fish into a pool of water and the fish will behave according to its internal regulating principles. Remove life from the fish and all that remains is the material object; a dead fish would behave the same as a lump of pumice possessing the same physical properties of mass and density. Internal independent self regulation is a supernatural quality in a material universe. The most notable characteristic of the supernatural quality of life is the ability to replicate and reproduce; the purpose of life is to perpetuate itself.
Thought (or intellect) imparts creative abilities onto life. The ability to independently interact with the material universe (life) coupled with the ability to understand causality (intellect) provides the means for manipulating the inert material universe to create material objects that would not arise naturally (hence a supernatural ability). The ability to create is a supernatural quality that allows predetermining what will exist. Intellect overcomes the deterministic constraints of natural selection. The most notable characteristic of intellect is observing and understanding causality; the purpose of intellect is to obtain knowledge.
Reason (inductive and deductive logic) imparts abstract thinking abilities onto intellect. Reason separates the intellect from the deterministic constraints of space and time. Reason coupled with intellect allows creating abstractions which cannot exist in the material universe (hence an unnatural ability). The ability to establish regulating principles for that which does not exist is an unnatural quality in a material universe. The most notable characteristic of reason is separating the independent and self regulating supernatural qualities of life from nature; the purpose of reason is to become God.
What is God? While admittedly an over simplification, the essence of God consists of life separated from the deterministic constraints of nature. Can life confined to the corporeal existence of a material universe become God? The evolution of life, itself, indicates a progression from inert material objects regulated by nature to a state of being that has developed unnatural abilities separated from nature.
What is the meaning of the universe, life, and everything? Evolution of life has been a steady progression for the development of supernatural and unnatural abilities. Perhaps life has not yet evolved sufficiently to define God. But reason compels us to have faith that the evolutionary progression of life will eventually provide an understanding of God. There will be a God at the end; therefore, there is a God.
Now I wish my impasse function would appear so I could deploy it; it doesn't. Alas thwarted again. *Snort.*
He does speak on religion, and he wasn't ridiculing believers, he was ridiculing certain beliefs that are clearly not supported by the evidence found in the natural world. I'm sure those people who believe in a flat earth are nice people, I'm sure they love their kids and want most of the same things I do like safe streets and schools and a healthy economy. But their belief that the world is flat despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just plain stupid. Again, the belief in a flat earth is stupid, not necessarily the believer, they may just be confused or have had their heads filled with nonsense by those who care little for facts or truth and are too stubborn to admit when they're wrong.
Dawkins points out the many aspects of the natural world that conflict with some religious beliefs. Does that mean he's calling all religious persons "stupid"? No. Perhaps he's calling them ignorant, but that's different. If you are ignorant you simply lack the knowledge to make an informed decision. Dawkins gives the rest of us, who don't spend our lives studying the natural world, insight and knowledge that allows us to make informed decisions and develop a deeper understanding of what the physical evidence says about our origins. If that information conflicts with your already held beliefs, then perhaps you should reexamine those beliefs instead of just attacking the messenger. If the beliefs are true and valid, then they will survive rigorous testing. If they prove flimsy and invalid when compared to facts found in the natural world, isn't it reasonable to perhaps evolve your understanding instead of simply claiming the data must be wrong? Questioning your own faith isn't going to turn you into some sort of gnostic atheist positive God doesn't exist, look at me, I'm not even a gnostic atheist. And if your faith is true then it should grow stronger when put under scrutiny. Of course, if you fear it won't stand up to the scrutiny, then I can understand wanting to avoid listening to someone like Professor Dawkins or attempting to refute his findings.
Spot on.
Huh. So you dislike being asked the same question a couple of times, when you have yet to answer it ... yet it's just fine when you ask the same question multiple times, even after it's been answered. You'd rather call an impasse than answer a direct question. Interesting.
[Discuss the topic]
I am thankful that you escaped that level of physical abuse by a family member. However, I have met few women who have not been harmed by their religious indoctrination and the harm ripples through our society because of it on a daily basis.
I know this personally because I used to be one of the minions and did not even realize it.
There are different levels of mentally and/or physically abusive behavior employed by abusers for many reasons using socially approved tools.
One of the most damaging things that can be done to a child is to teach them that abusive behavior (on any level) equals love. Next is teaching them to accept and placate abusive people in their lives as normal. In the case of the Christian religion, the abusers are in their life because it is GOD'S PLAN and the only recourse is to "love" them, not judge them (lest we be judged) and pray for THEIR salvation and deliverance from being forced to commit sins.
In my experience, the Christian religion is filled with sadists looking for properly trained masochists to torment and/or to support their heinous crimes against children and women.
I know from your past comments that your experiences with Christians has been terrible. The Christians in your life certainly are not living up to the ideals of their self-identified belief system. You have had more than your fair share of bad experiences and clearly now have control over your situation.
On the flip-side, I have been surrounded by Christians my entire life and have been quite lucky, it would seem, that most all of them were / are as normal and as screwed up as anyone else. Basically, just people who claim/think that they believe in God. Most seem to have very little understanding of their faith and are operating based on indoctrination and ritual. I suspect a good many are agnostic atheists (in reality) but most of the true believers I know seem to be agnostic theists (very few gnostic theists that I personally know).
I suspect a lot of it is culture of the geographical area in which we live.
Because logic, learning, observation and life experience are from the Devil?
So, I take it you do not go to church? Don't lecture me, JBB. When you are ready to 'talk' Jesus and Bible, let me know and we will talk. Grandstanding ain't going to cut it with me.
And for the record, the Church is people, it is not a building, building fund, or a tithe.
Yes and no. If you pay attention to the segment about breast feeding (from the Koran) Prof. Dawkins' does not mention God once. Dawkins' employs the faulty reasoning that since the laws about breast feeding are written in a book used by a religion then QED the laws represent God. There must be a God at the beginning.
There must be a God before there can be theism. And there must be theism before there can be anti-theism (atheism). Acceptance that there is a God wihtout acceptance of religion is deism. But there isn't an anti-deism (adeism); there is only atheism. That's why atheists argue about religion rather than about God. Religion is more about humans than God.
I spent 60 years out in the "Buckle Of The Bible Belt" and my personal learned experience is that there are a whole lot more "Cultural Christians" out there who self identify as Christian simply because that is part and parcel of their identity but who also privately admit they think that fundies are mostly all pathetic nutters. Many are technically members of their family faith to keep Granny happy, maintain social ties and to be included in tradional cultural festivities. You would hardly believe the number of respected church elders who have confessed to me, "Hell No I do not believe any of that dumbass fundamentalist bullshit but you cannot do business in this state if you are not publically a professing Christian". Only about 10-20% of those on most church membership rolls actually tithe and attend services regularly. For most Christians their religion is more a tribal thing than a principled thing. There are exceptions, the fire breathing fundamentalist true believers, but most normal identifying small town Cristians try to avoid them at all cost. They are bummers and bores. Even the Church Ladies hate being prosthelitized to by wide eyed maniacal Jesus Freaks...
There is a possibility that I may have listened to more of Professor Dawkins videos (and I have his book, 'The God Delusion' in my cue, right behind, 'The Atheist Delusion' and 'The Language of God.'), than some atheists. So, you do not understand me as much as you imagine.
Once again, an expectation that there must be a God at the beginning?
The evolutionary process results in a God at the end. There is a God. Science can explain the miracles found in the gaps with its own Devils.
Probably a factor in Missouri, Arkansas and several states where there are enough fundies to elect fundies to office to try to legislate according to their Biblical beliefs and treat women as objects.
Let us revisit the not so distant past at how Missouri politicians tried to deal with sexual harassment of women - a new, more conservative dress code instead of addressing the predatory behavior that young women were being subjected to at the state capital.
I suggest reading the entire article.
Hi Nerm_L, I want to point out that faith is acceptance of God in this scheme; [organized] religion is mostly about humans, I will agree. Religions are borne out of a need for connectivity. And yes, some of them can become quite exotic, mystifying, and even stupefying.
No, it doesn't. Not even a little. That is an argument from first cause fallacy. It's nothing more than a baseless assumption.
That's nice. Prove it!
Science doesn't deal with nonsense like miracles. Miracles are nothing more than fortuitous events which are not easily explained. But what "miracles" are you referring to exactly?
Your comments do not -to me- evidence an understanding of what Dawkins professes. Merely reading and observing does not necessarily translate into understanding what the man is offering. Hell anyone can observe interactions on NT to see that what is written can be entirely different from what select readers will 'understand'. And that is not even considering willful misrepresentation and other dishonest tactics. Confirmation bias, among other things, breaks down the communication process.
[Removed]
I reject that premise. This is something that needs to be established.
We do not know that there was a beginning or that it was a void (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Deterministic as best we can tell. We do not know that reality is deterministic. It seems to be deterministic. ( I think it is deterministic, but we do not know . )
At the beginning of the known universe or at the beginning of everything? Also, we do not know what existed at the beginning of our universe.
You deem a natural process to be supernatural . That is an error in definition. The word ' supernatural ' as you use it makes no sense.
So by 'supernatural' you actually mean 'artificial' - as in the result of sentient action rather than the processes of nature. Sentient action by beings on Earth is actually all natural. I greatly dislike redefining words like supernatural. Much better to stick with the common meaning of words rather than change their meaning entirely.
Do you read a lot of Deepak Chopra?
Go ahead and say it: 'God is consciousness'.
Nerm, good grief.
I was being sarcastic...
There must be a claimed god before there can be theism.
Technically. If there were no theism then everyone would be an atheist.
Where 'God' would be an abstract notion of a sentient creator (and no more than that).
Atheism logically includes adeism in its definition. I recognize the label is not perfect but I did not invent it so ...
Atheists would be happy to debate the existence (and/or characteristics) of a god or gods sans religion. Define the god and let's engage in debate. Thing is, most theists speak in terms of their religions and that is where all the problems come from. After all, the deistic belief that a creator entity exists is possible. The only way to realistically debate a deist is if the deist claims that a sentient creator does exist with 100% certainty. I am not sure I have ever come across an irrational deist (although I am sure they exist).
More insults, belittling, and nonsense. Maybe JBB should lecture you, and speaking of confirmation bias!
Moreover, it does not matter what you "evidence" from what I read or enjoy listening to.
After all, you do in this area is attempt to deconstruct God, religion, and faith without discussing naturalism. You want to imply intellectual narrow-mindedness and self-serving you feel you encounter in others? Fair-minded thinkers do not hide their viewpoints or self-interest from discussions or debates they enter.
Yes, Check thyself!
I've known people who've used that 'just testing their faith' thing as an excuse to deny the fossil record's evidence for evolution; the old don't believe your lying eyes thing. They say either God put them there intentionally to test them, or the Devil did it to deceive them. Either way it's a test of faith. It's so damn sad.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I suspect things like that happen a lot more often than people realize. I know I've head tell of similar things more than a few times in my life, and they mostly never get prosecuted.
Thank you, I will wear whatever that is as a badge of courage. Insults are not arguments, by the way.
I am a #1 fan of the METOO movement because finally our society is forced to recognize and deal with the fact that women are not safe in our society as long as the predators have enough power to silence their victims or put the victim on trial.
In recent years, I have even read about teenage girls who have been murdered because they refused a date. I have my doubts that they would have been safe if they had accepted the date. Where, oh where, did this sense of male entitlement come from? Is it genetic or societal or is this type of male just a born predator? This is what I have been trying to understand all of my 60+ years of life.
What in the world makes you think that? Only the noble gasses are chemically inert. Everything else is reactive. Carbon happens to be very reactive and can form all of the long, complex molecules of life without any 'supernatural' assistance whatsoever. Hell, some things go beyond reactive and are downright active (radioactive, that is).
What a strange statement. Earlier you claimed humans weren't subject to the laws of physics. Where do you get this stuff? You keep basing your arguments on unfounded premeses. No wonder they're so flawed.
I can't say for sure. Not all men act like that, so I would probably guess societal. It strikes me as mostly learned behavior. Inherited social norms, so to speak. Then again some of it could be genetic. I really don't know.
A new word just dawned on me...
Sarcaustic: adjective - irony used to mock or convey contempt able to metaphorically burn or corrode organic brain tissue by comical action.
Sarcaustic.
I like it!
Here is another conference of Atheists ("free-thinkers" who SAY they do not need other's telling them what to believe. Check out:
And?
How can a result of an evolutionary process be the first cause of the process? That's an irrational argument for a man of chaff. Final result is not first cause and a strawman fallacy won't alter that.
Refute the evolutionary progression toward separating life from the deterministic constraints of a material universe.
My style is to use logic, facts and attempt to use the dialectic to tease out truth. Ridicule might be appropriate for things like flat Earth beliefs, YEC beliefs, etc. These are beliefs that are utterly stupid at face value since they contradict well-established, contemporary knowledge of reality. No reasoning with people who hold beliefs such as a 6,000 year old Earth, dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, Earth as a wafer in a geocentric model of the solar system, etc.
But one can reason with people who largely believe there is something more ... that a creator (in the abstract) is necessary because of awesome complexity, beauty, morality, etc. These can be intellectual discussions and, indeed, the believer is not necessarily wrong (a creator might indeed exist). It really depends on how many attributes the believer applies to the creator. The more attributes, the more the belief is burdened with a need to provide evidence.
Generally logic and facts work for a while until the theist side brings emotion into the equation — that almost always causes further interplay to degenerate, and in many different ways.
You wrote this earlier:
You are saying that evolution yields God at the end. Now you ask how this result could be the first cause of the process.
Given you have been extremely loose with the meaning you associate with common words, I honestly do not know what you are trying to express. But what you are saying, if we apply common meaning of the terms you use, is circular nonsense.
My recommendation is to speak in plain English with the common usage of words. If you need to express a novel concept then use adjectives and define the adjective-noun word so that we know what you are talking about. That means if you use 'God' then that typically means a sentient creator (in the abstract). If you speak of evolution then that commonly means biochemical evolution (the origin of species by variations in gene frequencies over time). If you need to define something like a non-sentient god then coin the term 'non-sentient god', define it and use it. That would help your readers immensely.
The Deepak Chopak style is not good, not good at all. I personally will try to engage it for a while and then I will shut down because chasing brilliant sounding pedantic nonsense is a waste of time.
I argue that a theist can use whatever means are necessary to make his or her points; none of us should have as a goal to pretend we are robots. With all that implies.
Besides the Christian faith is based reason and not in emotion. You see a great deal of 'relief' coming out of believers and put on display, because each believer is humbled by the grace and compassion which has been made real to him or her, individually and collectively.
Moreover, there are great writers and great reasoners/thinkers in the Christian faith. It is not acceptable to pull out the "emotion-card" and imply that it is all this great faith pulls on display to the world. Feelings are not why people stay in this faith. Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time studying and researching the Christian faith knows this. Lastly, to try and exclude the supernatural and faith from debates is a non-starter. I am not suggesting you do that, but it deserves mentioning and repeating.
Is dishonesty justified by 'whatever is necessary'?
No emotional component, eh?
Faith is more than emotion. Another major component is indoctrination. Another is societal pressure.
If you want to posit anything supernatural then you need to evidence what you posit. I could, for example, posit that the Bible is errant (and I do posit that). However, I now need to show evidence of biblical errancy. I cannot simply make the claim and drop the mic.
No, I am not suggesting dishonesty, but you know that. So why go there?
Two, I am drained right now. Long day. So I could not get that opening sentence worded better, simply tired out.
I wrote the Christian faith is NOT BASED on emotion. This faith has borne up through two-thousand years of criticism. Emotion CAN NOT keep faith alive that long.
"Indoctrination"? Yeah, I laughed when Richard Dawkins (in the video) used a term of propaganda , to suggest that believers have no right to raise the child/ren in their own based on what they belief is best for the child. Odd, because if Dawkins has children, I would wonder if he raises his children to come to one of several of these atheist conferences. In any case, I have heard that some atheists are making the case for early childhood "emancipation" even while the little one is in the family home. Sounds ridiculous to me. The saying, "send them to school - they eat the teacher!" readily comes to my mind.
The supernatural acts? To that all I can add is this: Come to understand what the Spirit is in a believer's life and acceptance of the supernatural can not be far off.
I am probably going to sign off for the night. Good night, America!
The ends justify the means eh? How exactly does someones desire to see a deceased loved one again increase the chances of heaven being real?
"It is not acceptable to pull out the "emotion-card" and imply that it is all this great faith pulls on display to the world. Feelings are not why people stay in this faith. Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time studying and researching the Christian faith knows this."
Feelings are the only reason people stay in the faith. There is no tangible difference between faiths by which a person may know one is true and another a lie, therefore they cannot be basing it on facts. Nearly everyone initially bases their faith choice on the religion in which they were born. If your parents were Christians, you're about 85% likely to claim the same religious affiliation when you become an adult. That's the emotional connection to parents and peers and the desire to please them at work, not a serious study of the bible and the Christian faith. The same is true of almost every major religion, if you were born to Muslim parents, it's almost a certainty that you will claim to be a Muslim when you reach adulthood. How someone feels about their faith, the connection they feel with their heritage, childhood, family, is exactly why so many, even true skeptics at heart, choose to stay with the religion of their birth.
We also see the emotion at play whenever rational people bring logic into the equation. To a literalist, that threatens his or her faith. Note that non-literalists rarely seem to get all emotionally worked up when debating religion, because their faith is strong enough to withstand some facts.
Sure it could.
The Abrahamic religions (et. al.) assuage the fear of death. Yes we all die but that is just the beginning of true life. We have an even better reality awaiting us where we get to see our loved ones again and be free of mortal afflictions and problems.
As long as we do what the religious authorities tell us to do.
The fear of death being the true final end of one's existence is extremely unpleasant. Religions make it all better.
As I told Tig, @7.2.11 (surely you read it and chose to ignore it, while paradoxically, walking all over it in this comment of yours):
See, this is the kind of thing which frustrates discussion. I am re-stating the obvious. I was tired when I wrote that. The edit feature ran out. I logged off and got some needed rest. I should not have to qualify exhaustion to you or anyone else. You should be able to empathize with this sensation. Why 'torture' the statement?
Am I responsible for speaking up for what you say, "85% of people decide - Christian, other faiths, or atheists, in their homes? For myself, I have been privileged to encounter several different religions and I still default to Christianity, because it is my choice of faith. By the way, that is how faith in God operates: "Choose this day, who you will serve. If God is God. . . . "
So please do not condescend to quote me 'data points' as if I, and many others, are simply some spoke in a bicycle wheel! We, do have a choice and chance in the United States to have greater religious freedom and freedoms.
(As an aside: a suggestion) Do not hit 'Post Your Comment' until you are done with it. The system grants 10 minutes to edit a response in case you see a mistake after publishing. Publishing and then editing for 10 minutes is not a good way to go.
And now instead of spending all of your time explaining how tired you were you could, fully rested, address DS's comments. Instead your entire post avoids a direct, honest response.
Christians are pragmatist, too. You can not blanket tell us what our existence is. You are not in the faith, to experience it.
You are over-analyzing. And, you have atheist authorities too, if you wan to go there. This @7.2.204 is just one example of many I am sure an atheistic 'congregation' meeting to conference and discover new ways to share the "faith." (One woman sitting at the table actually used the phrase, 'atheist faith,' or words to that effect. I don't have time to pull it up right this moment.)
Death is unpleasant. But, you should not overplay the Christian expectations concerning death - card. Plenty of Christians are pragmatist.
I have to be in your faith to understand existence and death? Why write such nonsense?
No, I do not. Again you illustrate your (I think deliberate) complete lack of understanding of atheism. An atheist is one who is not convinced a god exists.
Assuaging the fear of death is a very practical hypothesis (which is how I presented it) for why religions persist even today (when we all should know better). Wanting to believe something true can be very powerful. Lots of people want to not die. It would be very interesting to see the effect on religions if the get out of death card were eliminated and mortal life is terminal. I suspect there would be very few religious people.
Imagine, Cal, that when we die that is it. You have to make the most of your life on Earth because when you die, you atoms are re-purposed into other forms. You, as an individual, cease to exist and will never, ever return. I suspect that if you held that as your truth your life would be dramatically different. Go ahead, claim that this would not affect your faith.
I can't deal with this. Too many people 'talking' at once. Too much complaining and 'grabbing.' What I write is what I got to give. Manners matter. Sooner or later, you, me, all of us, should remember this. And for the record, if you do not want me to BEGIN making innuendos about your personal honesty. KNOCK OFF the tedious insinuations about my character. It is disrespectful and I have endured it enough.
Well, accidents do happen from time to time. And, I am well acquainted with the edit function. LOL. Although in last night's case, I was agree with the opening sentence—until I read it back. It sounded funny to me. After you mentioned it, it was confirmed that it 'missed the mark.' That is why I wrote (somewhat "apologetically" about it being time to shut down and get rest.
It happens, humans are not logic "machines." We continue onward, where rest is called for.
Faith is an interesting subject. Religious faith is claimed to be based upon spiritual awareness. But what does spiritual awareness mean? Secular faith is belief, trust, and confidence based upon abstract reasoning that may only be tenuously connected to realty. But what does reality mean?
Rational consideration leads to a conclusion that faith is not required for reality. Realty consists of what humans are aware of being present in the material universe. The material universe exists; therefore, whatever humans are aware of being present in the material universe also exists. An awareness of a God presence in the material universe that exists must; therefore, mean that God exists. A presence in reality does not require faith. But that simple logic is not informative. (This simple logic is the basis of the atheist demand for proof.)
Spiritual awareness could mean that God is a presence in reality that has not yet been identified (atheists demand proof). Spiritual awareness could also mean that God is not a presence in reality; therefore, God does not exist (and cannot intervene in reality).
IMO, religious faith based on spiritual awareness is a belief that there is a God; however, that God is not part of reality (a God that does not exist). A God that does not exist cannot directly intervene in reality; therefore, those with faith in God must intervene in reality on His behalf. But there is a dark side to faith, as well, which leads to a discussion of Satan (for another time). That's why religion is a struggle between good and evil through human intervention in reality.
Atheists claim that God does not exist. The only rational theological reply can be 'of course God does not exist, that is stating the obvious'. If God exists then faith is unnecessary. The need for faith means God cannot be present in reality, God cannot exist. But that is not the same as saying there is no God.
If you do not want people to note deflection then I suggest you not reply unless you intend to respond to the content of the comment.
You want to know what would scare me about death? If I was the only one to whom it happens. That's my philosophy on death. I am a pragmatist about my life and my death: it happens everyday, indeed all day to somebody - somewhere on the planet. WHY NOT ME? Also, I hope I don't cry a-lot when my time to die comes. I don't fret salvation, if it is to be, because I believe once saved always saved. In other words, 'no fear.'
Moreover, I began to consider an 'atheist' death of non-existence back in my youth when I was an agnostic! More-so, on Newsvine where either it was you or Gordy that first 'thrust' a Carl Sagan-styled "we are cosmos dust" video into my face. It was a chance for me to revisit seeing life and death from your perspective.
What you may not be aware of is this, Christian leaders pontificate on a lot of issues, subjects, gray areas of life, because such questions and ideas are a portion of their reality as life-long counselors and friends to families in life, crises, and death. Much is stated, opined on, and in doing so, 'baked in the cake.' It is not all, nor can be, doctrine, however.
|
I imagine my life would be different too! For one thing. I would not be writing about God, Jesus, church, religion, and a defense of faith. It would not be necessary.
After all this time, you really don't know me for the pragmatist I am. As a believer, have you noticed how I write, for instance? I champion causes most believers never entertain as an idea. Why? Because I live out a great many of the circumstances I write about. They are not academic (theory) for me. I have skin in the game or have had it in that game.
Most atheists simply state that they are not convinced a god exists. Only a small minority of atheists (the gnostic atheists) make the irrational claim that no god exists.
You are one to mention, deflection. "Mr. I don't want to be typecasted as materialist even as I expect all believers and their God/s to fit into these little tiny named boxes over yonder."
Do you believe in the supernatural? Spirit beings, Spirit, spirits? Or, any sentience beyond the natural world? Perhaps, it is a 'new day' and you will happily reply without deflecting the question. I'm waiting with bated breath.
So you can appreciate my point that the fear of death (and the assuaging of that fear by religious promises) is a significant part of the reason why people continue to hold to religious beliefs — 'truths' that are simply asserted as such by religious authorities?
Play your juvenile games with someone else. If you have a serious question ask it, but you are wasting your time if you think I am going to answer stupid questions. Try to make the question topical rather than personal.
Not to mention, you've already answered that question numerous times, while he hasn't answered the question about being a biblical literalist once.
Define God. For most of human history God was the Sun. The sun definitely exists and the sun definitely intervenes in conditions on earth. Life on earth would not be possible without the sun.
A recitation of the properties and regulating principles of the sun is not a refutation that God is the Sun. The properties and regulating principles of the sun explains what the sun is and would define God by those attributes. Doesn't it follow that whatever attributes the sun lacks to considered God will define the attributes that God must possess? Why isn't the sun God?
I hadn't actually scrolled down that far when I was replying to 7.2.209
"I was tired when I wrote that. The edit feature ran out. I logged off and got some needed rest"
Thank goodness your dog didn't eat your homework as well.
"Why 'torture' the statement?"
I don't think I tortured it, I put it to a swift painless death.
"I still default to Christianity, because it is my choice of faith."
Do you not see the incongruity in that statement?
Default: noun - 2. a preselected option adopted by a computer program or other mechanism when no alternative is specified by the user or programmer (I assume you didn't mean the other meaning - failure to fulfill an obligation, especially to repay a loan or appear in a court of law).
Choice: noun - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
"By the way, that is how faith in God operates: "Choose this day, who you will serve. If God is God. . . . "
Is it really? It is said, "faith without works is dead", so how faith "operates" is an outward display of faith, some action taken on the part of the believer, not just accepting the default faith you were raised in.
"So please do not condescend to quote me 'data points' as if I, and many others, are simply some spoke in a bicycle wheel!"
I quote "data points" aka facts because that is all we should ever actually use to support an argument. And condescending? Is there anything more condescending than a person who claims to know who the creator of the universe is, what it wants from man and how man should behave and thus demands others obey their interpretations of their imagined Gods will?
Listen, you seem like a very nice person, and you are absolutely welcome to your own beliefs. If you stated that you believe in the God of the bible and there isn't anything that will change your mind I'd say "great!" and wouldn't attempt to steer you from the path you've chosen. The conflict comes when you step outside the box of just faith and claim something in the natural world supports your God hypothesis (or something in the natural world that seems to contradict your God hypothesis somehow isn't what it seems) and you share that with others in an apparent attempt to gain consensus and validation of your faith. When you do this it opens it up to review by those listening to your claims.
Think of it this way. If you said you believe in big foot I'd say that was interesting and you're welcome to your opinion even though I do not share it. But if you present a clump of hair and claim that is evidence of big foot, well now you've got to prove it or retract your claim (or the 3rd option of ignore the critics and just let unfounded statements stand). And if the believer knows that it's bear hair and not big foot hair, they might think the ends justify the means, that if they're 100% sure big foot exists then it doesn't matter if they were lying or misrepresenting the evidence. That's why you got such a response to your claim "that a theist can use whatever means are necessary to make his or her points".
If you just stated that you believe in big foot because you want to and you feel like he must exist but accept there's no empirical physical evidence, then you wouldn't get anybody contradicting you though you might get a metaphorical poke in the ribs every now and then. The same goes for the belief in God/gods. I don't begrudge you your beliefs, I just don't think anything lacking evidence should be presented as fact to others.
Exactly, it is simply a juvenile game. Yet another tactic to pretend as though there is a thoughtful discussion / debate in process.
I have provided this countless times. My definition for God is the sentient creator for that which exists (at least the known universe). Period. No other attributes.
But it is far more important for those who claim God exists to define their terms. Why do you refuse to do so?
I would add that believing in something is personal and is certainly everyone's right. But when they claim truth, they should expect to be challenged.
Importantly, when the beliefs turn into actions we have a problem.
How can you possibly side-step the message in my comment and conclude that? Sigh. Many people can fear lots of things about the afterlife or the end of this planet, I am not going to speak for others or on their behalf.
All I can say is, it ain't me. My view of death—just let me state this. Would you like to do an article on death and we discuss it? Maybe you're not 'there' yet, Tig.
HA! Got cha. "Somebody" criticizes God, Jesus, 'holy water' and "ancient men with pens," and all the while, in plain sight, "somebody" is a 'ghost.' Well, "ancient men with pens," put ink to paper and left what they wrote for all the world to see, read, praise, scoff at—including their own peers!
Come out into the light and PLAY!
'Sunlight' will wash us clean inside!
Is that supposed to be coherent?
It is only "juvenile games" when somebody here arbitrarily decides it so? Somebody who does not believe in spirits, supernatural entities, witches, spirit gods, nature gods, and the whole spirit "mumbo-gumbo" should be clear when asked to S-P-E-L-L-O-U-T to the public. Apparently, some on NT did not get the memo - when SOMEBODY here mocks and belittles God, gods, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, witches, 'father sky,' that SOMEBODY means all of them, inclusive. To be clear, none get a pass.
Yes, Tig, it is coherent. Oh, and the one who needed to get it most got it, I'm confident.
I have not claimed that God exists. I have defined God as the essence of life separated from the deterministic constraints of nature (or objective reality).
If God is a sentient creator then God created the essence of life. Material objects in objective reality are not sentient; only life can be sentient. Life, itself, is not a material object since life can be removed from material objects. A God of life does not need to be a thing.
IMO the first statement in the Bible should be 'in the beginning there was no life'. From a theological standpoint the material universe should be irrelevant; all living things die; therefore, why covet what one cannot keep?
I can accept that a sentient God created life. But to me claiming that a sentient God created the universe would be pointless. I don't need faith to believe in objective realty. Explaining where the material universe came from really has no value; the thing (whatever that may be) that was the source of the universe would obviously be as inert as our objective reality.
You conclude there is a God and express it as a claim:
HA! "Swam" by the Fish!
I do not accept your definition of existence.
Then I have no interest in this discussion. If every word -even the word existence- is up for debate, then the entire exchange is meaningless.
I do not believe in God's or fairies or ghosts. I do not believe in Santa Clause or the divine right of kings or the communion of saints. I do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. I do not believe in Isis or Osirus or Zeus. To be clear, I do not believe in any magical mythical characters od fiction and unless you can present credible evidence of such magical beings I will continue to not believe in them.
It is entirely possible though to follow a godly philosophy sans belief in implausible magical people and powers. Christ said to love our others and treat them how we would like to be treated and that is good enough for me. I do believe it is important that we try to improve life for everyone and maybe leave the world a better place. The main thing I do believe is that time spent worrying about some magical after life 8n another realm is without a doubt a total waste when as far as any of us really know this is our one ride...
None of the things we worry about matter at all in the Big scheme of things.
Thank you for acknowledging the "seemingly nice person" that I am. That's, . . .nice.
There is a fundamental miscommunication between me, you, and maybe the others. Why it is I don't know. Listen, it has been years discussing this with those others to know suitable avail. So, that is the way that stands. The basis misunderstanding is this: I share my faith on NTs, because some people opening criticize Christianity with the articles they put up; some people mock others in the Christian faith; and, as Apostle Paul states, 'I am not ashamed of the Gospel.' I state I ain't ashamed and I example it too. Mostly without thinking about it in these inward looking terms.
What I am not doing here is proselytizing. Or inversely, trying to 'reprogram' atheists or gone astray believers. I don't have time, anyway. On the otherhand, whatever people do with my articles, blogs, and other items of interest is strictly up to them. I am not adverse to it.
Yeah, "default" may have been a trigger word, it context of your comment, but again I am not adverse to its usage this way. DP, I did not leave my organized church because I wanted to, because of my lifestyle we simply grew apart. It being a spiritual assembly and I being a young man intent on looking at the world. Therefore, never being one to play games that people sometimes play (to straddle a situation) - I took both feet out. My explanation for doing so: If God wants me God can find me. Twenty years later God did and after the "reunion" I was ready, not God, to reconnect to my faith spiritually.
And that is it. There is no other agenda for me on Newtalkers. I am not a standing member in a Church these days. I answer to no church leadership. I am me - with my bible, study tools, library of Christian subject matters, (and atheist subject matter too) plus, I can 'join' any church service in the world online where available (or in a physical visitation when I am interested). I have come to understand that much of church (the physical apparatus) is socializing depending on the Pastor there. I am not interested in socializing at this stage of my spiritual development. No, not at all.
Although, I do stay 'in-touch' with other believers accordingly.
Lastly, I do not present my faith as fact. It is 'branded' as a faith walk from Jesus' day to Paul's to the Present. If it confuses outsiders as to why Christians do not speak in halting words and phrases, it is because our 'books' instruct us to walk 'boldly' and to 'trust in God,' and to have 'confidence in knowing' and if those are not enough. . . we have all these amazing and awesome 'spirit-lifting' hymns borne out of the depths of believers' souls.
I could go on, but a stopping point is in order here.
I can agree with you on that. If you interested in my view on life beyond this world. It will take care of itself. I only share what I 'know' from my spiritual books and experiences. Other than that I am not 'pinin' away about what comes next. I figure I will see it all one way or the other when the time comes.
However, and this seems to be the 'sticking point' in these discussions for some who assemble here. For my part, I am not locked into an "old-timey" religious version of Christianity. What I am is free with liberty to have a spiritual 'calling' and having that liberty; it grants me something I did not choose to have before, a spirit of "settling down."
Upon reflection, much goes into that last sentence which I shall not get into now.
I will take a go at both of these with you!
Spiritual awareness for the Christian:
and this:
Plenty will contend that you can do all these things without spiritual awareness, however apart from the Spirit one can argue there is little to no "compelling" or aid to draw any of these out of an individual (to a high measure).
|
For the secular world, if I remember it correctly, secular faith i s in the world they can touch with their physical senses. Hope that helps!
Now let me continue reading your comment. . . .
One question which comes to mind, and it is mere speculation on my part is, Can God quantifiably fit inside our universe? God does exist for the believer in the Gospel, because Jesus is quoted as addressing his Father—and, he gets a reply. As regarding faith, for the believer faith exist because we have not seen the promised "end of all things". There are still more mysteries in this universe to be borne out—in my opinion.
Is God a part of reality? I certainly think so. Lives are changed all over the world ever day to a belief in God by the Spirit. That being sad, I have not expectation that God is in an evidential flesh and bone body, where humanity can gaze upon and identify God, per se.
See? How hard was that, just state your opinion and don't try to defend it with any claims that can't be proved.
"Lives are changed all over the world ever day to a belief in God by the Spirit."
Doh! I spoke too soon. There is zero evidence of any changes are being made by any spirit anywhere.
"That being sad, I have not expectation that God is in an evidential flesh and bone body, where humanity can gaze upon and identify God, per se."
Yes, it is sad. It's sad that you have yet to grasp the crux of the issue. You may have "no expectation" but when you make a claim like "Lives are changed all over the world ever day to a belief in God by the Spirit" some of us still expect you to be able to back up your claim. I know, I know, I should expect the same answer Inigo Montoya got when he asked of the man in black, "Who are you? I must know..." which was "Get used to disappointment", but I had to ask.
That's nice, prove it. Because believers will tell you differently as their lives outcomes are evidence of the Spirit. "Mockers mock." T'is true.
How do you define 'spirit'? If 'spirit' is simply a feeling then I would say there is good evidence that it changes lives. For example, a person in despair who has 'found Jesus' (so to speak) and is now comforted by the belief is evidence of a change in a person brought on by a feeling. They feel better due to renewed hope, comfort, etc.
That part could be evidenced.
What cannot be evidenced, thus far, is your claim (no doubt) that this is the work of a spiritual (supernatural) entity. And, really, that is always the problem. Religious people attribute certain phenomena to their god yet never (to my knowledge) has this ever been shown to actually be the result of a sentient supernatural entity.
Tig, I don't know what to tell you beyond the fact that no one runs their individual life, let along, two-thousand plus years of myriad people's lives on a feeling. But you are free to think anything you wish about faith, and may be if and when you become like Paul and his Damascus Road experience or any of a host of other spiritual confessioners—then, you will understand that life won't allow you live it on feelings alone.
But, I don't want you to belabor this point with me, because I see another "set-up" to a long, tedious discussion where ultimately you tell me you understand me (and my faith) better than I can live it!
You need to stop creating allegations out of thin air. Never have I even suggested that I understand you (or anyone else) better than you understand yourself. This is the kind of nonsense that turns people off.
Thanks for sharing. . . . /s
You're the one implying that god must be the first cause or responsible for evolution (or anything else like the universe) at the beginning. Now you're saying god is the end result of evolution? Is that correct?
How about addressing my challenge rather than deflecting from it!
"Secular faith" is an oxymoron.
Why would faith be required for reality? Requiring or needing faith for reality is akin to wishful thinking.
Except there is no evidence of any god existing in the universe. So there is no true awareness of a god. Only what one wants to or is led to believe. But belief does not equal fact!
Vague and anecdotal.
Until there is evidence or proof, there is no reason to assume or believe any god exists. Any claims for the existence of a god is baseless.
You seem to be rather loose and fast with your definitions. Define "spiritual awareness."
A belief is all it is. As I said, belief does not equal fact!
So how do they know that a supposed god wants them to interfere or how to interfere? Seems rather inefficient for an omnipotent deity to go through a middle man like that.
What has Satan done that is so bad, especially compared to the evils god has done?
Not quite. Atheists are simply not convinced of claims for a god. "God does not exist" is a way of saying that one is not convinced there is a god. But most atheists are probably open to any evidence for a god and are willing to reconsider their position should evidence for a god be forthcoming.
You first! you seem to invoke god as necessary for certain natural phenomenon.
Yes, you have. You explicitly stated in your post 7.2.187, "There is a God," to which I challenged you to prove it and which you deflected from!
Then it seems you are not interested in any meaningful discussion, at least not outside your own beliefs.
And Dawkins thinks that UK citizens supporting Brexit and USA citizens supporting Trump are nationalists and to be compared with Adolf Hitler. He hates religion and yet defends abusive catholic priests because diddling little girls isn’t that bad, at least not as bad as aspects of Christian theology. What a guy!
You realize that Catholics are Christian don't you KAG?
Most all of the Christian religions have pedophiles in their clergy...
You really are going down the wrong street with that comment.
I know that they are a form of Christianity. Of course, even if the last 500 years we’ve been working away from that and back toward the pre Constantine version of the church. I’m aware of the issue of pedophilia as well. It was Dawkins who referenced it regarding the Catholic Church defending or minimizing it, while hating most else about it, targeting those who confront it. He said it was better for a young girl to be sexually molested by a man than to be exposed to Christian doctrines such as Hell. I was simply exposing this pro science man for the scum that he actually is as a person.
Much like the pedophiles in the clergy in all the Christian religions...It's seems that little boys are the target for most of the clergy predators.
There was a bit more to what he said than that. He wasn't defending it. He was a victim of it himself. He was saying that there are different degrees of it, and that, from his own experience and from what he's been told by others, the trauma of the lesser degree stuff is easier to get past than the trauma of certain religious teachings on a young mind... like the little girl who was told that her friend who died went to hell because she was a different religion. That was something someone actually told him. He was relating that account. She said she was also touched inappropriately (not raped, though), and that she got over it faster and easier than the thought of her best friend being tortured in hell for eternity (because she really did believe it at the time).
Stop bearing false witness, or repeating the false witness of others, usually from propaganda sites whose entire purpose is to lie and obfuscate for the sake of politics, ideology, or religion. You do it constantly.
They are most certainly not the original Christians despite their claims. They were the definition of what happens when church and state unite with the church in control once the Roman Empire fell. They coerced the conversion of or destruction of all the other forms of Christianity that they could reach or get to. Even they are not proud of their history from the fall of the secular Roman Empire to the French Revolution.
Irony.
What a smokescreen of yours, as that didn't address anything I said or challenged you on. Care to try again!
No, you're simply engaging in selective hearing and not understanding the context. Dignitatem (and others) certainly seemed to get it and was kind of enough to explain it to you.
I see that a few other members have called you out on that BS statement. It is BS, plain and simple.
Lol, he walked right into that one.
Not to mention it's intellectual dishonesty. Not the first time either and unfortunately I doubt it will be the last.
You have been basing your arguments on humanist and romantic philosophy that was prominent from the 16th through the 19th centuries. Those philosophies are predicated on man's dominion over nature (to use the colloquialism of the time). The natural philosophers separated humans from nature; often by some sort of divine design. Everything in the material universe is nature except humans. Humanists separated God from religion and called God the Deity as if that distinction changed everything. Charles Darwin challenged orthodox religion, he did not challenge Deism. Evolution is consistent with the tenets of Deism and a non-interventionist God.
Secular humanism has a God or Deity at the beginning. But the humanist Deity created the universe solely for humans and then gave that universe to humans. Secularized philosophy separated God from religion but did not separate humans from God. Evolution justifies human dominion over nature as endowed by the creator of the universe. The philosophic basis for your arguments have been that human rights and human dominion over nature were baked into the universe when the Deity created the universe,
My contention is not based on first cause; your attempted rebuttal has God at the beginning. The philosophic foundation of your argument is really that God created nature; therefore, natural selection is some sort of divine choice. As I pointed out, nature doesn't select anything. Mendel's genetics explains the rise of species; Darwin's natural selection is a mystical expression of faith in God the creator. Nature selects and that is as the Deity intended when the universe was created. Genetics explains the diversity of living organism and the rise of species, not DNA.
Every Cell in Your Body Has the Same DNA. Except It Doesn’t.
Dreams exist. Does what is experienced in a dream exist? The art of M. C. Escher exists. Does what Escher's art depict exist? Fiction exists. Do fictional characters exist?
The romanticists of the 18th and 19th centuries answered those questions by constructing a philosophy of extended reality that was separate from objective reality. The romanticists transformed spiritual awareness in objective reality into awareness of spirits in extended reality. (That's the starting point for psychology.)
God exists but in what reality?
Quintessential existence comprises objective reality and extended reality. Anything that can be imagined exists on some plane of quintessential existence. When demanding proof that God exists it is necessary to explain what is meant by 'exists'. God can definitely exist in extended reality for those aware of God.
Atheists are anti-theists. Most of theism (particularly Christian theism) is based upon a God that directly interacts and intervenes in objective reality. Atheists reject the notion that a God exists in objective reality; that's all atheism really means.
Atheists don't want a God to interfere in human affairs. Other than that atheists don't really care if a God exists or not.
This is the silliness that goes nowhere. Basically you deem anything that is even merely imagined as existing. Imagining a sentient creator is not the same as a sentient entity that has acted to create the known universe.
No, they're simply not theists.
Yes, your point?
Because atheists are not convinced of such a thing, especially since there is no evidence to support that position. That's all atheism really means.
Atheists are not convinced there is a god to begin with. So the notion of a god's interference is irrelevant.
Again, they're simply not convinced there's a god.
Dreams is just a function of the brain, like imagination. Does an imaginary creature actually exist?
If it's not in this reality, then it's irrelevant.
Sounds like a delusion.
Something that is merely imagined doesn't actually exist in reality. Just because I can imagine an invisible pink unicorn doesn't mean that is actually exists. your argument has crossed into the absurd.
Humans are a pat of nature, just like any other organism.
Sounds like humanists kept it real. You simply assume there is some divine connection with humans, based on nothing more than your own belief.
Darwin simply challenged the common beliefs of the time regarding how various organisms came to be.
No, it doesn't.
Your understanding of evolution is just as flawed as your understanding of atheist and humanist is!
I have not invoked god at the beginning of anything. Just the opposite.
I wasn't arguing philosophically. I was arguing logically, and you clearly did not get it.
And you are wrong, as has been pointed out!
That is arguably your most absurd and flawed statement yet! TiG is right, this is silliness!
Are you restricting existence to objective reality? IMO God cannot exist in objective reality. What would be the point?
An understanding of causality (physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, stellar mechanics, etc.) is omnipotent and omnipresent knowledge. The deterministic properties and regulating principles of objective science operate the same everywhere in the material universe. Natural philosophers approached the question of God by assuming that understanding nature provided an insight for God. But that relegates God to the role of creator and nothing more. A God that directly interferes with causality means science would be a farce.
If God does exist in objective reality then that existence would be where direct interference with causality in the material universe does occur. Life directly interferes with deterministic causality. But life is overlaid on material objects in objective reality and the price of interference in deterministic causality is death. A God that exists in objective reality as a living organism would be mortal.
Humans are frequently confronted by states of being that do not exist in the material universe. Humans experience dreams, as an example, and those experiences do not exist in objective reality. The experiences in dreams are a state of being outside and beyond objective reality. So, it is quite possible (and plausible) that a God would be a state of being outside and beyond objective reality. But that would mean there is a God that does not exist in objective reality.
IMO the rational conclusion is that there is a God that does not exist in objective reality.
On what grounds do you conclude a god (undefined by you) exists in any form other than imagination?
Define what you mean by ‘God’ and deliver evidence of same or admit that your claim is mere speculation.
That is correct; something imagined does not exist in objective reality. But what has been imagined can provide motivation to directly interfere with deterministic causality and create objective reality that would not arise naturally. Humans cannot fly yet they do. Humans cannot live under the oceans or in space yet they do.
Creation brings the imagined into existence. A blueprint is an expression of the imagined that does not exist in objective reality. A trash container cannot exist until it has been imagined and created. Dreams, imagination, and ideas are prerequisites for creation. And what is dreamed and imagined does not exist in objective reality.
What do you mean by exists in any form other than imagination? What is imagined does not and cannot be present in objective reality. Does what is imagined exist or not? You tell me.
Humans are frequently confronted by what is imagined. One of the warnings from climate change has been that glaciers will melt, sea levels will rise, and coastal cities will be flooded. But flooded coastal cities are not present in objective reality. Flooded coastal cities are strictly imagined. But that doesn't mean humans can ignore what has been imagined.
Define what you mean by existence. If that definition is anything other than presence in objective reality then anything imagined can exist.
I already have. Ignoring what I stated won't change its meaning.
This?:
or this?:
or this?:
These three excerpts offer, respectively:
Maybe you can avoid all this pedantic nonsense and state:
I believe God is that which enabled life. I believe God is supernatural (not part of objective reality). I do not really know what God is, but I know that God exists (per my definition) because life exists.
That would be a rational conclusion arrived at through logical consideration of what is known. But being a rational conclusion means the definition is somewhat more than belief.
A rational conclusion about your beliefs, or a rational conclusion about reality?
I am not going to regurgitate what I have already written. My definition of God is a rational conclusion logically derived from the presence of life in a deterministic material universe.
I agree that if you wish to define 'God' as that which enables life then that is fine. You should not, however, just use the term 'God' without making it clear to your readers that you have that definition. Note how I upfront defined God (in my view) as sentient creator of the known universe. I did that for clarity.
Your definition of God is indeed based on evidence. Life clearly exists so there is something that enabled life. To you 'God' is that which enabled life. So, to you, 'God' exists by definition.
Now, take your definition to CB and see if it is in any way relevant given his (far more common, biblical) definition of 'God'. Or take your definition to any of the agnostic-atheists participating here and see if they find it interesting in any way.
To me, what you have stated is that 'life exists so there must be a cause; and I believe the cause is not bound by the laws of physics but do not know if the cause is sentient or not'. Okay. Sure. Nothing wrong with that.
IMO, it renders the definition of God so broad as to be more or less meaningless.
To me, if one is to use the label 'God' I expect sentience to be an attribute. Without sentience we are just talking about undirected dynamics - what I call quintessential existence.
Yes. "God" becomes merely chance - the right molecules happening to come in near enough proximity to each under under the right conditions.
I do not understand how the New Testament can be the literal word of God. I do not understand how Jesus could be God since Jesus died.
My understanding of the New Testament must be based on belief since much of the philosophy is not presented in a logical manner. I do not see an inconsistency or contradiction between my rational definition of God and New Testament philosophy; however, my interpretation of the New Testament may be flawed, so I need belief and faith in my interpretation of the New Testament.
You have introduced the term 'sentient'. I have not reached a conclusion about what sentience means for a state of being outside and beyond objective reality. The basic definition of sentient is to posses the quality of perceiving and feeling things. However, I have concluded that God does not directly interact or intervene with objective reality; perceiving and experiencing objective reality as a measure of sentience may not be applicable.
What attributes of God might be considered sentience? Self awareness. Self regulation. Ability to communicate. Ability to understand causality. Ability to create. Based on available knowledge of various human state of being not present in objective reality, it is very plausible (and highly likely) that my defined God possesses the quality of sentience.
More energy wasted on a trip going nowhere new...
Well we were on the topic until the need to explain everything emerged.
[delete]
In 7 days God created heaven and earth. In 4 weeks this debate went nowhere...
One could have fed the hungry, nursed the sick, clothed the naked and visited jail.
Who said we didn’t do those things?
Rinse, lather, rinse, repeat.
Somewhere nearby,
there's another 500+ seed defending the Bible's defense of slavery,
because "times were different" and God really didn't approve of slavery.....but, but, but...
WHAT IS IT WITH CRITICIZING SEED COUNTS? I simply don't get it. If people like what they read and want to write to it and if the subject matter is interestingly strong enough to 'draw' —what the,. . . heaven. . . is the complaint about counts or subject matter?! After all, there are new members adding to this 500 plus seed after a month! DS's discussion has done gone 'viral'! (Smile.)
I know. It is almost like someone has forced them to participate.
SMH
( carrying over from Nerm @7.2.286 so that the thread can be closed for performance reasons )
I am the last person to try to explain how anyone can take the Bible as divine (OT or NT).
The NT has all sorts of details which attribute God. You define God as that which enabled life. Every attribute of Jesus, every story of a miracle, every claim of everlasting life, etc. goes well beyond your definition. If you do not see that as an inconsistency then you must also hold that Zeus is consistent with your view of God.
That is correct. You have include sentient in your definition of God. Sentience is included in almost every definition of God. That is why its absence in your definition is noteworthy and thus why I noted it.