|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2018 23:31:36 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 24, 2018 0:46:55 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. Since nothing you said has any relevance to atheism, it can all be dismissed as the ramblings of a dumbass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 0:53:10 GMT
This is a recurring meme in the theist community to try and position atheists as the ones who have a lot of faith. But atheists need not commit themselves to a specific belief about how everything came to be as it is; but as a Christian you are committing yourself to a very specific story that is bolstered only by ancient texts and group consensus.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 24, 2018 0:57:33 GMT
Why not start with science without any preconceived notions, see where that takes you? Then see how it fits with religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 1:22:57 GMT
@miccee
yet most of you do. you believe the universe is a result of pure accident and random chance. by rejecting the idea of a creator, you're basically blindly accepting that nothing creates everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 2:17:53 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. No, you wouldn't actually have to believe any of that. Honestly, none of that is compulsory. None at all.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 24, 2018 2:23:49 GMT
Look even as a theist, I see how incorrect you are.
In fact as a theist I have to reconcile God with the proven laws and rules that the universe operates under, not the other way around. The hardest being of course natural evil, as a theist I have to reconcile how God would allow millions to be killed in natural disasters, if I rejected God that would be far easier to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 24, 2018 2:35:56 GMT
One does not simply...become an atheist. ::seanbeanmeme::
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 2:38:52 GMT
Look even as a theist, I see how incorrect you are. In fact as a theist I have to reconcile God with the proven laws and rules that the universe operates under, not the other way around. The hardest being of course natural evil, as a theist I have to reconcile how God would allow millions to be killed in natural disasters, if I rejected God that would be far easier to understand. Just curious, but how do you reconcile it (I mean you personally)?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 24, 2018 3:56:20 GMT
"I would need to believe that nothing produces everything"
Ans yet you don't want to apply that standard to God. Funny how that works.
"non-life produces life"
I don't know how stuff works, therefore God.
"randomness produces fine-tuning"
The universe is hardly "fine tuned" if that's what you're referring too. You're just lucky to live on the livable speck of dust in space known as "Earth". And even then I don't consider a planet full of volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes to be "fine tuned".
"chaos produces information"
I'm not sure that means, if you're referring to DNA, that's not "information". Simply because ID proponents compare it to computer programing doesn't make it so.
"unconsciousness produces consciousness"
Why not? We've seen it happen, a sperm cell is hardly "conscious".
"non-reason produces reason."
I'm not even sure what that means, I'm just gonna label it gibberish.
"Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith."
I don't think you know what faith means.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2018 4:58:16 GMT
First, as others have said, being an atheist doesn't mean believing any of that, but as for those points: 1. nothing produces everything 2. non-life produces life 3. randomness produces fine-tuning 4. chaos produces information 5. unconsciousness produces consciousness 6. and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. 1. There's already solid science that that's true. (Depending on your definition of "nothing.") 2. Life is just a complex of non-life material, which we know can combine on its own. Life from non-life is a rational extrapolation from how non-life behaves. 3.. There is no fine-tuning. The alleged fine-tuning is claimed with many baseless assumptions, many of which are almost certainly wrong, and even if correct betrays a fundamental ignorance of probability (you can't just use the odds against something as an argument that it was designed to happen that way). 4. No idea what this means. Chaos naturally produces order because of fundamental physical laws, and any "information" would just be a type of order. 5. As lowtacks said, what do you think happens from sperm cell to human? Unconsciousness to consciousness. 6. Reason is just humanity's means of organizing thinking to form accurate beliefs about reality; I don't know what you mean by non-reason producing it. Reason wasn't produced, it was labeled.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 24, 2018 5:08:47 GMT
First, as others have said, being an atheist doesn't mean believing any of that, but as for those points: 1. nothing produces everything 2. non-life produces life 3. randomness produces fine-tuning 4. chaos produces information 5. unconsciousness produces consciousness 6. and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. 1. There's already solid science that that's true. (Depending on your definition of "nothing.") 2. Life is just a complex of non-life material, which we know can combine on its own. Life from non-life is a rational extrapolation from how non-life behaves. 3.. There is no fine-tuning. The alleged fine-tuning is claimed with many baseless assumptions, many of which are almost certainly wrong, and even if correct betrays a fundamental ignorance of probability (you can't just use the odds against something as an argument that it was designed to happen that way). 4. No idea what this means. Chaos naturally produces order because of fundamental physical laws, and any "information" would just be a type of order. 5. As lowtacks said, what do you think happens from sperm cell to human? Unconsciousness to consciousness. 6. Reason is just humananity's means of organizing thinking to form accurate beliefs about reality; I don't know what you mean by non-reason producing it. Reason wasn't produced, it was labeled. "4. No idea what this means. " I think he's refering to DNA coding being comparable to computer programming, which again is just a terrible ID argument.
|
|
|
Post by sublime92 on Jan 24, 2018 6:14:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 24, 2018 9:46:08 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. No, you wouldn't actually have to believe any of that. Honestly, none of that is compulsory. None at all. You wouldn't have to believe any of that if you chose not to look for any answers. That would be what was known as the "agnostic" point of view back when definitions meant anything and where they still mean anything. If however you choose to explain anything and choose to explain it without a god then yes you absolutely must believe those things. There has been a sinister "waffling" between the atheist belief that there is no god and the agnostic lack of belief and a sinister mangling of definitions. There is an amusing "new" set of definitions that includes both a "gnostic theist" and a "gnostic atheist" that appears impossible in any rigorous set of standards. The waffling is the result of atheists wanting to seem open minded like agnostics and at the same time wanting to announce their final decision that there is no god. If you choose not to search for answers then you must leave open the possibility that there is a god, and that has not been the definition of an atheist in the best schools.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 10:14:34 GMT
lowtacks86 The reason we don't apply that standard to God is because the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. The key word is material. God is not a material effect, God is not made of matter. God is a spirit. Abiogenesis is impossible. I know that much. The universe has physical laws and constants inexplicably just right to support life. To say the universe is "hardly fine tuned" is a statement of igorance my friend. When even scientists agree that "the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life"."DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid ) carries design information between generations, and thus accounts for inherited biological traits (phenotypes )." www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/genetics-and-genetic-engineering/dnaAnd where does the sperm cell proceed from? That's right a conscious human being. I'd say you're being very unreasonable. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 24, 2018 10:51:46 GMT
Sounds like a lot of hassle to become an atheist. I used a different a method:
Step 1: stop believing in God/gods
There is no second step.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 10:55:57 GMT
No, you wouldn't actually have to believe any of that. Honestly, none of that is compulsory. None at all. You wouldn't have to believe any of that if you chose not to look for any answers. That's one reason an atheist wouldn't have to believe any of that. He or she also wouldn't have to believe any of it if they chose to look for answers, either, though. Are you going to have another little cry because the words "atheist" and "agnostic" don't mean what you want them to? Go on, you know how emotional it makes you. Nope. For example, an atheist might believe that some iteration of nature has always existed. And therefore such a person would have no need at all to believe that "nothing produces everything". An atheist might reject the notion of "fine tuning", and thus have no need to believe that "randomness produces fine tuning". Unlikely, since most atheists do not have the positive belief that there is no god. The fact that you emotionally reject a thing because you don't like it does not make it impossible. No, it's a result of atheists desiring accuracy. This is something that you do not understand. Many - or even most - atheists are perfectly fine with the possibility that there is a god. They simply require some kind of evidence or compelling reason to believe it. It's hardly their fault if believers cannot supply such a reason. Except that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 11:36:46 GMT
Sounds like a lot of hassle to become an atheist. I used a different a method: Step 1: stop believing in God/gods There is no second step. Believing all those things is a prerequisite to stop believing in God. Unless you choose to disbelieve just for the sake of it. In that case that would make you ignorant.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Jan 24, 2018 12:13:08 GMT
Sounds like a lot of hassle to become an atheist. I used a different a method: Step 1: stop believing in God/gods There is no second step. Believing all those things is a prerequisite to stop believing in God. Unless you choose to disbelieve just for the sake of it. In that case that would make you ignorant. Not at all. You dont need to know where the universe came from to not believe in god. You just need to see no good evidence of any god. Saying I dont know is ok for us.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 24, 2018 12:20:14 GMT
Sounds like a lot of hassle to become an atheist. I used a different a method: Step 1: stop believing in God/gods There is no second step. Believing all those things is a prerequisite to stop believing in God. Unless you choose to disbelieve just for the sake of it. In that case that would make you ignorant. The only prerequisite that I need is the lack of evidence for the existence of god. I don't think there is enough evidence to convince me to believe in God/gods. As for the other things, I accept that I don't know.
|
|