Jump to content
Science Forums

Implications Of A Thinking God


clinkernace

Recommended Posts

Atheism is a belief system, after all--- just one of thousands.

No. It is a disbelief system. There is a vast difference between the two.

 

 

 

Your diatribe on evolution and natural selection is profoundly ignorant. It would be off-topic to consider its many flaws in this thread. Perhaps you would like to begin a new thread to take up further discussion on the matter.

 

If you choose to do so don't make the same mistake with me as you just made with Moontanman. My knowledge of evolution, as does his, extends beyond high school biology. Yes, I have read Behe. And Goswami and Wells and Johnson and Meyer and other evolution deniers and have their books neatly arranged on my library shelfs sitting alongside the effective counter arguments from the likes of Coyne and Dawkins and Miller and Mayr and Scott and Perakh and others.

 

So if you do choose to discuss this topic further please do so without the arrogant attitude that you are the only poster with some depth of knowledge in the subject. I'll concede you have some knowledge - I have yet to see evidence of understanding.

 

Please note that I post this very much as a member, not as a moderator. I am sure one of my fellow mods will rightly rap my knuckles for my robust style, but frankly your persistent patronising tone is becoming tiresome. I'd ask you to turn down the volume so we can focus on facts, not fancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It is a disbelief system. There is a vast difference between the two.

Technically, that is correct. However, consider atheism from the perspective of what atheists actually believe, in contrast to theists.

 

A typical theist engages his belief system to explain the beginnings of things, his personal purpose, and perhaps his potential destiny. A God of some sort is posited as the cause of all things, including man.

 

While the average religionist probably sees God as an old man with a Gandalf-like beard and robes, or as Jesus, someone whose purpose is to take care of him after death in heaven, the occasional educated theist takes the concept a bit deeper, seeing God as a spirit-being who, by acts of will, created the universe and man. God was invented primarily to provide an answer to the questions, "why does the universe exist?" and "why do I exist?"

 

I have yet to meet an atheist who when asked these questions, raises up his hands in a gesture of dismay and declares, "I haven't the slightest clue. It is all a mystery to me!" Perhaps you know such an atheist, or one might appear on this thread. The atheists I meet all have a explanation for the beginning of the universe, Big Bang theory, which boils down to belief that our universe began with a hypothetical "physical singularity." They believe in Darwinism as the cause of life, and falsely declare that science knows exactly how to make living cells from scratch.

 

It is my well considered opinion that belief in something that cannot be proven, or has not been demonstrated,is a religion, plain and simple, whether the belief is centered in God, Satan, the Universal Oversoul, or some opinion widely held by scientists and mistakenly treated as legitimate science instead of mathematical speculation.

 

For what its worth, I put religious God-concepts into the same mental bunk pile as Big Bang theory, but I greatly favor the scientific style. I believe that science will help us find the real answers to those ancient questions, so long as it does not become fixated upon particular dogmas. Dogmas become easily rooted in the human mind, and once there, they preclude alternative ideas. I detest dogmas, finding them to be the most serious impediments to human progress.

 

Show me an atheist who does not believe in the Big Bang and Darwinism, and who holds no opinions whatsoever about his purpose and destiny, and I will concede that that person is a genuine "believer in nothing." The rest of you are all religionists, pretending to think for yourselves, while following the agreed-upon beliefs of science.with the same level of ignorant certainty that Christians follow Christ and Muslims follow Muhammed.

 

Personally, I believe that the beliefs of cosmologists about the beginnings are a hell of a lot more intelligent than those of modern Christians, but still incorrect. I'll be trying to explain that, if I'm allowed to persist on this site. I rest my case, for now, that atheism is a system of disbelief.

 

Of course we can attribute our differences to a mere semantic problem, but I do not find it honest to do so. There is a common tendency among humans to believe in some dogma or another, and in that respect I find myself sorely isolated.

 

Your diatribe on evolution and natural selection is profoundly ignorant. It would be off-topic to consider its many flaws in this thread. Perhaps you would like to begin a new thread to take up further discussion on the matter.

Isn't the phrase "profoundly ignorant" self-contradictory? I was thinking on firing up a nice, friendly anti-Darwinist thread that is sure to win more friends and high regard.

 

If you choose to do so don't make the same mistake with me as you just made with Moontanman. My knowledge of evolution, as does his, extends beyond high school biology. Yes, I have read Behe. And Goswami and Wells and Johnson and Meyer and other evolution deniers and have their books neatly arranged on my library shelfs sitting alongside the effective counter arguments from the likes of Coyne and Dawkins and Miller and Mayr and Scott and Perakh and others.

 

So if you do choose to discuss this topic further please do so without the arrogant attitude that you are the only poster with some depth of knowledge in the subject. I'll concede you have some knowledge - I have yet to see evidence of understanding.

IMO the mistake I made was in assuming him to be thoughtful and open minded, capable of participating in an honest argument. I'll not repeat that mistake. I look forward to debating with you and others who likely have read more widely on the subject than I care to.

 

Please note that I post this very much as a member, not as a moderator. I am sure one of my fellow mods will rightly rap my knuckles for my robust style, but frankly your persistent patronising tone is becoming tiresome. I'd ask you to turn down the volume so we can focus on facts, not fancy.

Surely you know that one man's facts are often another man's folly. I had hoped that Hypography would prove to be a place where alternative ideas can be freely exposed and examined, because that is my point in being here. If I err on a matter of real fact, I want to be informed. But there is a lot of theory out there that IMO needs a lot of work, and I hope that you will be defending my wish to work on it. That is how all forms of human understanding progress, is it not?

 

Your robust style has the tone of personal honesty and passion to it, hard qualities to find. If another moderator raps your knuckles for it, please smack her one for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, that is correct. However, consider atheism from the perspective of what atheists actually believe, in contrast to theists.

 

I am an atheist, i simply lack a belief in anything supernatural, I've always thought that empirical rationalist is a better description of my own thoughts on the matter but it would be a mistake to categorize all atheists in that manner as some atheists do indeed believe in the supernatural but not gods...

 

A typical theist engages his belief system to explain the beginnings of things, his personal purpose, and perhaps his potential destiny. A God of some sort is posited as the cause of all things, including man.

 

I would tend to agree with that assessment.

 

While the average religionist probably sees God as an old man with a Gandalf-like beard and robes, or as Jesus, someone whose purpose is to take care of him after death in heaven, the occasional educated theist takes the concept a bit deeper, seeing God as a spirit-being who, by acts of will, created the universe and man. God was invented primarily to provide an answer to the questions, "why does the universe exist?" and "why do I exist?"

 

God was invented? Are you suggesting god is fictional character?

 

I have yet to meet an atheist who when asked these questions, raises up his hands in a gesture of dismay and declares, "I haven't the slightest clue. It is all a mystery to me!" Perhaps you know such an atheist, or one might appear on this thread. The atheists I meet all have a explanation for the beginning of the universe, Big Bang theory, which boils down to belief that our universe began with a hypothetical "physical singularity." They believe in Darwinism as the cause of life, and falsely declare that science knows exactly how to make living cells from scratch.

 

Again you show your own lack of knowledge, Darwin and the theory of evolution have noting to say about the origin of life. The most honest explanation I have ever heard for the origin of the universe was from science, but as scientists are not necessarily atheists it would be inaccurate of me to attribute this to atheism but the answer is "I don't know", there are hypothesis that attempt to explain the origin of the universe but so far none of them can describe events at or before T=0...

 

While the hypotheses surrounding the origin of life are not complete they are indeed extensively backed up by data and there is no reason to assume "god did it" as a explanation of anything, in fact "god did it" does nothing but add yet another layer of mystery on an unknown and does nothing to add to the body of human knowledge... In fact the idea that "god did it" has historically done nothing but hinder progress...

 

It is my well considered opinion that belief in something that cannot be proven, or has not been demonstrated,is a religion, plain and simple, whether the belief is centered in God, Satan, the Universal Oversoul, or some opinion widely held by scientists and mistakenly treated as legitimate science instead of mathematical speculation.

 

Again, you show your lack of knowledge about what science is, science does not attempt to prove anything but it does attempt to explain things with empirical evidence, something religion cannot do...

 

For what its worth, I put religious God-concepts into the same mental bunk pile as Big Bang theory, but I greatly favor the scientific style. I believe that science will help us find the real answers to those ancient questions, so long as it does not become fixated upon particular dogmas. Dogmas become easily rooted in the human mind, and once there, they preclude alternative ideas. I detest dogmas, finding them to be the most serious impediments to human progress.

 

Religion is nothing but dogma based in faith with no evidence..

 

Show me an atheist who does not believe in the Big Bang and Darwinism, and who holds no opinions whatsoever about his purpose and destiny, and I will concede that that person is a genuine "believer in nothing." The rest of you are all religionists, pretending to think for yourselves, while following the agreed-upon beliefs of science.with the same level of ignorant certainty that Christians follow Christ and Muslims follow Muhammed.

 

A great many atheists do not "believe" in the things you say, you do not know what an atheist is, i suggest you stop building strawmen and do a little bit of research...

 

Personally, I believe that the beliefs of cosmologists about the beginnings are a hell of a lot more intelligent than those of modern Christians, but still incorrect. I'll be trying to explain that, if I'm allowed to persist on this site. I rest my case, for now, that atheism is a system of disbelief.

 

You may do as you please and i will continue to point out your errors...

 

Of course we can attribute our differences to a mere semantic problem, but I do not find it honest to do so. There is a common tendency among humans to believe in some dogma or another, and in that respect I find myself sorely isolated.

 

If you believe in the christian god as you have indicated then you have nothing but dogma to support your beliefs..

 

Isn't the phrase "profoundly ignorant" self-contradictory? I was thinking on firing up a nice, friendly anti-Darwinist thread that is sure to win more friends and high regard.

 

profoundly ignorant is quite accurate in the same way that profoundly deaf describes someone who cannot hear at all... feel free to start up all threads you want, I am quite capable of supporting "darwinism" as are a great many others on this site...

 

IMO the mistake I made was in assuming him to be thoughtful and open minded, capable of participating in an honest argument. I'll not repeat that mistake. I look forward to debating with you and others who likely have read more widely on the subject than I care to.

 

Oh greylorn my friend, you will have to do quite a bit better than that to get to me, LMFAO... :rolleyes:

 

 

Surely you know that one man's facts are often another man's folly.

 

No, facts are facts, folly is something else... :blink:

 

I had hoped that Hypography would prove to be a place where alternative ideas can be freely exposed and examined, because that is my point in being here. If I err on a matter of real fact, I want to be informed. But there is a lot of theory out there that IMO needs a lot of work, and I hope that you will be defending my wish to work on it. That is how all forms of human understanding progress, is it not?

 

You have not only made a great many errors which i have been kind enough to point out, in fact you just made another one, please define what you mean by theory because so far you have yet to get it right..

 

Your robust style has the tone of personal honesty and passion to it, hard qualities to find. If another moderator raps your knuckles for it, please smack her one for me.

 

 

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...