Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

God doesn't seem to exist!

Page 28 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 Jul 2015, 4:02 pm

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
God doesn't "seem" to exist only if one ignores any logical and observational evidence that says that He must.
evidence such as?
Take some lessons in reading and comprehension and look back over this thread for starters.
ah, so no evidence then.
If you discount observation of Natural Laws and logic, and the observation of extraordinary phenomena known as miracles then there is none at all other than the subjective moral perception of the existence of truth and virtue. None of which is available to anyone with their head tuck in their own black hole.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 Jul 2015, 4:10 pm

adifferentname wrote:
On the other hand it might, of course, apply to a society of atheists (but not a loose collection of atheists who happen to agree with each other). There's certainly an element of religious behaviour in, for example, Atheism+ and the "freethought" blogs - they even have a few notable apostates.
As do all the other religious groups... e.g. you even have "freethinking" or "unaffiliated" "Christians".



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

08 Jul 2015, 5:32 pm

aghogday wrote:
But yes, technically I agree; just stating 'we' have a lack of belief in GOD's or GOD is Okay; but that
can be the first step to more; in real life, it's usually off the table to discuss.


You're essentially describing my position (and presumably that of others) on the subject of the divine. I suspect this is the cause of so much confusion among the more dogmatic theists posting here. It's the same kind of rudimentary ToM flaw that believes the Big Bang Theory forms a dichotomy with their god. The two are not mutually exclusive, yet inserting your specific deity of choice into the knowledge gaps beyond physical reality does nothing to advance our species' knowledge.

Quote:
And to be clear,it is perfectly fine with me when Atheism meets that definition of religion as it once does
here, per the WP Strident Atheists, online group, of similar believing and practicing
militant atheists; freedom of expression is the biggest deal for me.


Completely agree. I personally find it distasteful when groups are formed and lines are drawn in the sand, but they most certainly have the right to do so.

And might I say, it's a genuine pleasure to actually reach an accord with you on a subject. I note that you've been making a conscious effort to communicate less... shall we say 'dynamically'? It might go unnoticed by some, but I appreciate it greatly.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,921

08 Jul 2015, 5:37 pm

adifferentname wrote:
aghogday wrote:
But yes, technically I agree; just stating 'we' have a lack of belief in GOD's or GOD is Okay; but that
can be the first step to more; in real life, it's usually off the table to discuss.


You're essentially describing my position (and presumably that of others) on the subject of the divine. I suspect this is the cause of so much confusion among the more dogmatic theists posting here. It's the same kind of rudimentary ToM flaw that believes the Big Bang Theory forms a dichotomy with their god. The two are not mutually exclusive, yet inserting your specific deity of choice into the knowledge gaps beyond physical reality does nothing to advance our species' knowledge.

Quote:
And to be clear,it is perfectly fine with me when Atheism meets that definition of religion as it once does
here, per the WP Strident Atheists, online group, of similar believing and practicing
militant atheists; freedom of expression is the biggest deal for me.


Completely agree. I personally find it distasteful when groups are formed and lines are drawn in the sand, but they most certainly have the right to do so.

And might I say, it's a genuine pleasure to actually reach an accord with you on a subject. I note that you've been making a conscious effort to communicate less... shall we say 'dynamically'? It might go unnoticed by some, but I appreciate it greatly.



You are welcome.
Trust me; there is
rhyme AND REASON
to every word I have spoken
on this Internet site; smiles..:)

It's mostly an interest in human
behavior and Anthropology for me;
as well as real life applications that
have helped me immensely; everything
I've done here, has been a little challenging, overall;
but never the less; necessary for my overall purpose..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

08 Jul 2015, 5:47 pm

aghogday wrote:
You are welcome.
Trust me; there is
rhyme AND REASON
to every word I have spoken
on this Internet site; smiles..:)

It's mostly an interest in human
behavior and Anthropology for me;
as well as real life applications that
have helped me immensely; everything
I've done here, has been a little challenging, overall;
but never the less; necessary for my overall purpose..:)


I don't doubt that every word held reason for you personally, but it would be remiss of me not to suggest that the purpose of sharing your thoughts on a forum is to demonstrate that reason to a wider audience than, well, oneself. The essence of communication is to be both understood and understanding.

I imagine that an interest in human behaviour is a necessity to be be a functioning member of society when one is on the spectrum. There are obvious limitations to how much one can observe even in a loosely-moderated, artificial section of cyberspace, but at least this site provides a place to delve deeply into subjects with peers whose thinking is functionally similar to, if not the same as our own.

To be unchallenged is to be stagnant. Without challenge, I am certain this site would be of much less value to you - and to myself too.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

08 Jul 2015, 5:52 pm

Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
okay, i'll try different phrasing. i have no belief in god because existence of such a being is highly unlikely.
Uh huh. You arbitrarily declare that the "existence of such a being is highly unlikely" and on the strength of that supposition you assume that an imaginary process called "evolution" (which is demonstrably impossible) is, therefore, "true".

Atheism is a dogmatic requirement of the more general religion called Materialism. That is the religion that Atheism subsists in... much as the Russian Orthodox religious persuasion subsists in Christianity.

Getting back to the thread title... God doesn't "seem" to exist only if one ignores any logical and observational evidence that says that He must.


if you can disprove evolution, you should write a paper on it and collect your nobel.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

08 Jul 2015, 7:58 pm

cathylynn wrote:
if you can disprove evolution, you should write a paper on it and collect your nobel.


I humbly suggest the title "Two Plus Two Equals Banana, Because God".



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 9:12 pm

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
God doesn't "seem" to exist only if one ignores any logical and observational evidence that says that He must.
evidence such as?
Take some lessons in reading and comprehension and look back over this thread for starters.
ah, so no evidence then.


Fugu, don't be so quick to dismiss. Many have argued that the following is such evidence, although of course you can dispute it if you want to.

Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics -

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-math

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/Hamming.unreasonable.html

https://plus.maths.org/content/god-mathematician

The Anthropic Principle (i.e. 'fine-tuning') -

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/prep ... d/god.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

https://www.isgodrealorunreal.com/the-a ... ciple.html

There are even many who go further than this, and argue that the prevalence within nature of the Golden Ratio (i.e. 1:1.6180339...) is further evidence, but I'm not so sure it is. Maybe.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 9:17 pm

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.


This is the Richard Dawkins approach to the problem. He also seems to believe that God could have done a much better job when it came to designing nature. That, of course, doesn't either demonstrate or prove anything apart from how arrogant some people can be.

Besides, it isn't biological evolution that is the issue here, but the universe as a whole, why it exists in the first place, and why it is the way it is.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

08 Jul 2015, 9:22 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.


This is the Richard Dawkins approach to the problem. He also seems to believe that God could have done a much better job when it came to designing nature. That, of course, doesn't either demonstrate or prove anything apart from how arrogant some people can be.

Besides, it isn't biological evolution that is the issue here, but the universe as a whole, why it exists in the first place, and why it is the way it is.

and because we don't know, of course it's the god your parents indoctrinated you with.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 9:25 pm

cathylynn wrote:
just because we don't know exactly how things started, doesn't mean god did it. we know more things every day. the reasons to use god as an explanation are getting to be fewer and fewer. used to be folks thought illness was a sign of god's displeasure. now we know about bacteria and mutations.


Yes, but you're assuming that every question that one could possibly ask either has, or will have, an explanation that can be addressed by science, but this simply isn't the case (ex. it cannot address issues of meaning, which is why so many atheistic scientists just dismiss the concept out of hand, an example of this being R. Dawkins bizarre assertion that "why questions are meaningless" and are actually "how questions in disguise"). It cannot explain qualia, aesthetic appreciation, and other purely philosophical issues for which it simply was not designed to address in the first place.

Your faith in the power of science is touching, but there are other things in life as well you know. Not everything can be reduced to atoms and fields.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 9:28 pm

cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.


This is the Richard Dawkins approach to the problem. He also seems to believe that God could have done a much better job when it came to designing nature. That, of course, doesn't either demonstrate or prove anything apart from how arrogant some people can be.

Besides, it isn't biological evolution that is the issue here, but the universe as a whole, why it exists in the first place, and why it is the way it is.


and because we don't know, of course it's the god your parents indoctrinated you with.


I was never indoctrinated. Both of my parents were indifferent to theological ideas, and I myself used to be one of the most rabid atheists imaginable. I used to make fun of people who claimed to believe in God, calling them "idiots", "stupid", "morons" and so on, but then I entered adolescence and realised how narrow-minded I had been.

Don't make this personal. You know nothing about me. Don't assume anything either.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

08 Jul 2015, 9:48 pm

Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.


This is the Richard Dawkins approach to the problem. He also seems to believe that God could have done a much better job when it came to designing nature. That, of course, doesn't either demonstrate or prove anything apart from how arrogant some people can be.

Besides, it isn't biological evolution that is the issue here, but the universe as a whole, why it exists in the first place, and why it is the way it is.


and because we don't know, of course it's the god your parents indoctrinated you with.


I was never indoctrinated. Both of my parents were indifferent to theological ideas, and I myself used to be one of the most rabid atheists imaginable. I used to make fun of people who claimed to believe in God, calling them "idiots", "stupid", "morons" and so on, but then I entered adolescence and realised how narrow-minded I had been.

Don't make this personal. You know nothing about me. Don't assume anything either.


and i suppose your religion is unpopular in your geographical area also?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 10:01 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.


This is the Richard Dawkins approach to the problem. He also seems to believe that God could have done a much better job when it came to designing nature. That, of course, doesn't either demonstrate or prove anything apart from how arrogant some people can be.
yah, it demonstrates a lot actually. if god was so powerful that he could create universes, why does cancer exist? why does the human body have a mostly useless organ if it was engineered by god? similarly, what kind of deity would seriously consider engineering a body that is mostly a fragile support system for the brain with very little in the way of redundancy?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 10:02 pm

Lintar wrote:
I used to make fun of people who claimed to believe in God, calling them "idiots", "stupid", "morons" and so on, but then I entered adolescence and realised how narrow-minded I had been.
so you pretty much started believing in god to rebel against your parents. woo, good thing you're taking a reasoned position instead of an emotional one eh?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 10:04 pm

cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.


This is the Richard Dawkins approach to the problem. He also seems to believe that God could have done a much better job when it came to designing nature. That, of course, doesn't either demonstrate or prove anything apart from how arrogant some people can be.

Besides, it isn't biological evolution that is the issue here, but the universe as a whole, why it exists in the first place, and why it is the way it is.


and because we don't know, of course it's the god your parents indoctrinated you with.


I was never indoctrinated. Both of my parents were indifferent to theological ideas, and I myself used to be one of the most rabid atheists imaginable. I used to make fun of people who claimed to believe in God, calling them "idiots", "stupid", "morons" and so on, but then I entered adolescence and realised how narrow-minded I had been.

Don't make this personal. You know nothing about me. Don't assume anything either.


and i suppose your religion is unpopular in your geographical area also?


You're assuming again. I am NOT religious, I don't have a religion, and I don't care about religion except to the extent that it makes the lives of those of us who are not religious miserable (ex. stupid 'blasphemy laws' in some of the more primitive parts of the globe).