Atheist Manifesto

[5stringJeff]

Took the test you have linked in your tagline...Economic Left/Right: -5.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21. I'm in good company...The Dalai Lama is about the same, according to the site.

This is where I say, "We aren't that much different, you and I," except we actually are.

 

[Matrixx8]

The point of the post was not to prove God. If God could be proven, then the point of faith would be moot. It doesn't take faith to believe in gravity. It does take faith to believe in God. The point of the post was to show that the presence of evil and suffering is not a strike against the case for God's existence.

Nor did I suggest otherwise. I merely pointed out that the underlying assumption of your comments was that what you call "God" must exist. Otherwise, you could not logically comment on what such an entity or force might or might not be capable of doing, thinking, etc.

As for the Occam's Razor quote, God often simplifies things more than complicates, which is the full point of the rule.

Since you cannot show that God exists, it doesn't make sense to suggest that a belief in an entity for which there is no empirical evidence could represent a solution to anything. I could assert that the most logical explanation of life on earth is that it came from other planets. Some people believe this. But there is no evidence for such a belief. I think you will find that Occam's Razor refers exclusively to scientific theories, not supernatural speculation.

In order for God not to have existed, the events leading to the emergence of man would have to have been an astronomically long string of outrageous coincidences, starting with the fact that Earth is just barely inside the window for life to be sustainable. You may believe that God most likely doesn't exist, so you conclude that those coincidences must have happened. I, on the other hand, believe that the odds of those coincidences are so bad as to be practically impossible, making God the simpler answer. How Occam's Razor is applied to the idea of Darwinism versus ID depends on perspective.

Bear in mind that the absence of proof is not a form of proof. Just because you cannot imagine a particular event or occurrence happening does not mean that it could not have happened. There was a time, not so long ago, that the world's leading thinkers could not image that the earth revolved around the sun.

The Anthropic Principle does not necessarily explain the problem you sketch, but it is an effort to do so scientifically.

Measured by current estimates of the earth's age, humans have only been around for a relatively short time. Serious scientific investigation really only got underway in the 16th century. Even though great strides have been made in quantum physics, evolutionary biology and in other disciplines, it would be silly and arrogant to think that we have even started to unravel all the mysterious of the universe.

Nevertheless, as far as I can see, efforts to posit a "ghost in the machine" as some kind of "first cause" simply do not make scientific sense.

 

[MissileMan]

Because people still have to make the free will choice to believe. God knows the future only because God is outside of time. For example, there could be millions of people who will become Christians in teh 21st century who aren't even born yet, yet God knows they will accept Him. Thus, he is waiting for them to be born and accept.

We appear to be going in circles here. If He knows the future, he already knows who makes the right choice, even those yet to be born. Their free will has already been determined, otherwise He wouldn't know how it turns out. Any last minute changes in belief wouldn't get past his future sight either. If they could, He wouldn't be omniscient.

 

[5stringJeff]

We appear to be going in circles here. If He knows the future, he already knows who makes the right choice, even those yet to be born. Their free will has already been determined, otherwise He wouldn't know how it turns out. Any last minute changes in belief wouldn't get past his future sight either. If they could, He wouldn't be omniscient.

Indeed, God knows what those choices will be, but God is not the immediate cause of those choices. God knows what will happen because He is outside of time; God observes all points in time simultaneously. Therefore, He can know what happens in our future with absolute certainty because He observes it happenning. However, just because God knows something will happen in our future doesn't mean that He caused it to happen.

 

[Hobbit]

Since you cannot show that God exists, it doesn't make sense to suggest that a belief in an entity for which there is no empirical evidence could represent a solution to anything. I could assert that the most logical explanation of life on earth is that it came from other planets. Some people believe this. But there is no evidence for such a belief. I think you will find that Occam's Razor refers exclusively to scientific theories, not supernatural speculation.

And so what are your criteria concerning science? Must scientific theory preclude the existence of beings more powerful than ourselves? Science is the study of the universe, and if the universe did indeed have a creator, then the study of that creator is just as much science as anything else. Just because this being has been given the label of "God," does not disqualify this being from existing. Currently, many people believe that the complexity of life is too great for any explaination involving nothing but random coincidence and have been leaning towards an intelligent designer. This is science, and the theory is gaining ground in countries where the scientific community doesn't chastise and sue those who believe in it. If true, whoever designed us was quite powerful, and claiming that this being cannot possibly be this "God" of whom we speak simply because you have classified him as 'supernatural' and thus non-existant is just pretentious and without merit.

For true science to shine through, you cannot make base assumption that what you cannot know must automatically be false. Unproven assumptions have plagued the scientific community for millenia, so how can you simply declare God non-existant and use it as a base assumption in all scientific theory when there is no emperical evidence to support that claim?

Bear in mind that the absence of proof is not a form of proof. Just because you cannot imagine a particular event or occurrence happening does not mean that it could not have happened. There was a time, not so long ago, that the world's leading thinkers could not image that the earth revolved around the sun.

We're not talking a different way of looking at the universe here. I know biology quite well. I also know how to calculate statistics. The odds of a bacteria forming randomly in an idealized environment are so astronomical that you'd be more likely to come up with blueprints for a time machine by splashing ink on a piece of paper than to see a bacteria form, and new evidence has shown that the Earth around the time scientists think this bacteria was randomly formed was incapable creating a bacteria, as the required materials just weren't there. I can imagine it, just like I can imagine a giant lizard called a dragon breathing out enough energy to power a house for weeks. However, I also know enough science to know what is required for those things to happen, and know that the existence of a dragon is probably more likely than for life as we know it to be the result of coincidence.

The Anthropic Principle does not necessarily explain the problem you sketch, but it is an effort to do so scientifically.

A small effort, but an effort. The problem is your use of the world scientifically. I once again ask why science must automtically preclude the existence of beings more powerful than ourselves simply because they cannot be observed. Nuclear theory and quantum physics both are currently unobservable by science, yet they are allowed inclusion in science. What's so special about a supreme beiing that we must always assume that He does not exist to be considered scientific?

Measured by current estimates of the earth's age, humans have only been around for a relatively short time. Serious scientific investigation really only got underway in the 16th century. Even though great strides have been made in quantum physics, evolutionary biology and in other disciplines, it would be silly and arrogant to think that we have even started to unravel all the mysterious of the universe.

Completely true, and the more complexity I see, the more I believe it indicates the design of a being far more powerful and intelligent than we are.

Nevertheless, as far as I can see, efforts to posit a "ghost in the machine" as some kind of "first cause" simply do not make scientific sense.

Every machine has a builder, so who built this wonderful machine we call 'Earth?' I see a straight line of trees, I see order that cannot feasibly come about by random chance and assume that they must have been planted that way. I see the double helix of life and see order that cannot feasibly come about by random chance and assume that it must have been designed that way. I find the notion that life could be created by random chance to be even more rediculous than the notion that a perfectly ordered orchard was the result of the trees naturally growing that way.

 

[MissileMan]

Indeed, God knows what those choices will be, but God is not the immediate cause of those choices. God knows what will happen because He is outside of time; God observes all points in time simultaneously. Therefore, He can know what happens in our future with absolute certainty because He observes it happenning. However, just because God knows something will happen in our future doesn't mean that He caused it to happen.

I'm asking, " if He knows for certain what's going to happen, does He really have to wait for it to?" It seems like the contention is that as long as there are non-Christians on the planet who have the possibility of turning to Christianity that the apocalypse is on indefinite hold.

 

[MissileMan]

And so what are your criteria concerning science? Must scientific theory preclude the existence of beings more powerful than ourselves? Science is the study of the universe, and if the universe did indeed have a creator, then the study of that creator is just as much science as anything else. Just because this being has been given the label of "God," does not disqualify this being from existing. Currently, many people believe that the complexity of life is too great for any explaination involving nothing but random coincidence and have been leaning towards an intelligent designer. This is science, and the theory is gaining ground in countries where the scientific community doesn't chastise and sue those who believe in it. If true, whoever designed us was quite powerful, and claiming that this being cannot possibly be this "God" of whom we speak simply because you have classified him as 'supernatural' and thus non-existant is just pretentious and without merit.

For true science to shine through, you cannot make base assumption that what you cannot know must automatically be false. Unproven assumptions have plagued the scientific community for millenia, so how can you simply declare God non-existant and use it as a base assumption in all scientific theory when there is no emperical evidence to support that claim?

For starters, how about the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of a god. There is no possible way to conduct any scientific experiment that might give even the slightest evidence of the existence of a god. If we were to use your approach to "true science", then every observation during every experiment would be attributed to divine interference. As a matter of fact, there would be no need for any experiments at all...you just chalk everything up to god and be done with it.

 

[nt250]

It will never cease to amaze me how so many otherwise intelligent people can believe such bullshit.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It will never cease to amaze me how so many otherwise intelligent people can believe such bullshit.

Theology is, after all, the debate of the unarguable by the otherwise unemployable.

 

[Matrixx8]

And so what are your criteria concerning science? Must scientific theory preclude the existence of beings more powerful than ourselves? Science is the study of the universe, and if the universe did indeed have a creator, then the study of that creator is just as much science as anything else. Just because this being has been given the label of "God," does not disqualify this being from existing. Currently, many people believe that the complexity of life is too great for any explaination involving nothing but random coincidence and have been leaning towards an intelligent designer. This is science, and the theory is gaining ground in countries where the scientific community doesn't chastise and sue those who believe in it. If true, whoever designed us was quite powerful, and claiming that this being cannot possibly be this "God" of whom we speak simply because you have classified him as 'supernatural' and thus non-existant is just pretentious and without merit.

The word "science" comes from the Latin "scire", meaning "to know". Science is a method, an epistemology. It seeks to explain observable facts. Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any kind of "creator", speculation about such is not in the province of science.

Complexity as such does not require a supernatural explanation. As Stuart Koffman argues, animate matter seems to be guided by a self-organizing principle on many levels. The purpose of scientific study is to explore and discover the underlying principles of such complexity. As, I believe, Stephen Hawking has pointed out, the universe does not require a supernatural being to make it work.

A scientific theory rests on several criteria. It makes no assumptions that are not observable (at least the effects of); it requires data that supports the theory; it must be capable of predicting results based on the theory; and it must be falsifiable -- i.e. capable of being disproven.

That is not the case with Intelligent Design. It is not a scientific theory by any measure, since it rests on an unprovable assumption -- a "designer" -- for which there is no evidence. In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins goes into considerable detail to explain how evolution could have accounted for such complex phenomena as "eyes". As I said before, the absence of "proof" is not proof of anything.

For true science to shine through, you cannot make base assumption that what you cannot know must automatically be false. Unproven assumptions have plagued the scientific community for millenia, so how can you simply declare God non-existant and use it as a base assumption in all scientific theory when there is no emperical evidence to support that claim?

You seem to be arguing against atheism here, not science. Since science by defintion is the search for explanations to observable phenomena, it does not autmatically exclude anything but the implausible and illogical. Given the unlikelihood and total absence of biological evidence that unicorns exist, for example, it would be absurd to believe otherwise. Why waste one's time when so many serious subjects are waiting to be explored?

We're not talking a different way of looking at the universe here. I know biology quite well. I also know how to calculate statistics. The odds of a bacteria forming randomly in an idealized environment are so astronomical that you'd be more likely to come up with blueprints for a time machine by splashing ink on a piece of paper than to see a bacteria form, and new evidence has shown that the Earth around the time scientists think this bacteria was randomly formed was incapable creating a bacteria, as the required materials just weren't there. I can imagine it, just like I can imagine a giant lizard called a dragon breathing out enough energy to power a house for weeks. However, I also know enough science to know what is required for those things to happen, and know that the existence of a dragon is probably more likely than for life as we know it to be the result of coincidence.

All you are doing is speculating. Reduced to its simplist terms, your logic is that because science has not explained some observable fact, it cannot be explained by science.

A small effort, but an effort. The problem is your use of the world scientifically. I once again ask why science must automtically preclude the existence of beings more powerful than ourselves simply because they cannot be observed. Nuclear theory and quantum physics both are currently unobservable by science, yet they are allowed inclusion in science. What's so special about a supreme beiing that we must always assume that He does not exist to be considered scientific?

As I understand them, nuclear physics and quantum theory are theoretical attempts to explain certain aspects of the universe. These aspects have been observed, measured or are assumed because their existence is consistent with other observed phenomena. As far as I know, there is no speculation in either discipline about supernatural explanations.

Completely true, and the more complexity I see, the more I believe it indicates the design of a being far more powerful and intelligent than we are.

Since I have no evidence of such a "being", it is of no more importance to me than the existence of unicorns.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Bear in mind that the absence of proof is not a form of proof. Just because you cannot imagine a particular event or occurrence happening does not mean that it could not have happened. There was a time, not so long ago, that the world's leading thinkers could not image that the earth revolved around the sun.

Which is really quite irrelevant. It is true that SOMETIMES a lack of proof does and doesnt prove something. Your example illustrates both. Previously, a lack of information didnt prove or disprove the revolution of the planets. Yet some hundreds of years later, with the further information we obtained, proof was indeed shown. Now, once we were able to view the planets from an "outer space" point of view, if no evidence were obtained to show the planets circling around the sun, one would rightly conclude that they dont. (this is assuming the hypothetical that in this particular scenario, the planets in fact DONT revolve around the sun.)

Also, dont conclude that because you dont KNOW something exists, that others must not also. Columbus had discovered American, but upon returning, many if not most, didnt believe he had. Yet Columbus at a point in time, KNEW for a fact he had reached land going west. There are some of us who have experienced God in a way that there is no other explanation.

And regarding the idea that life on earth came from another planet,, your proof? And even if it were true, that only moves the problem from one place to another, it doesnt solve the problem that the single cell is simply wayyyyyy tooo complicated to have evolved on its own, much less to have created DNA so that it could replicate itself. Self replication is in fact contrary to survival of the fittest. A self replicating species would fall prey to a non self replicating species.
For example, if two completing species of humans evolved at the same time (unlikely, but I will use it as an obvious example of how it works, and this example would be plugged into some earlier time frame of the supposed evolution of life) and one was self replicating, via having women get pregnant, and the other was only males. Lets say the two groups each had four people. Now, since men are bigger and stronger than women, when the two groups would clash, the non replicating species would overpower and eliminate the self replicating species.
Self replicating always detracts from an INDIVIDUALS ability to survive. Self replicating only helps a group, a species to survive. Survival of the fittest applies only to individuals, since it is a non thinking, non planning theory. In order for an event or ability to promote something in the future, another generation, it must have been planned. Just as many animals dont gather any food or water for droughts, because their conception of the future is limited or completely nil. Only those animals that are pre programmed by God can do that, what atheists call instincts, like birds flying south for the winter, they have no idea why they do it, its just an automatic activity they do, just like the salmon who swim upstream), and species that are intelligent enough can do it also. Planning ahead requires intellligence, either by an outside entity that programs it into the brain, or by the entity itself. Either way, DNA had to be a plan of an intelligent creature.

 

[MissileMan]

It is true that SOMETIMES a lack of proof does and doesnt prove something.

A lack of proof can never prove anything.

 

[MissileMan]

For example, if two completing species of humans evolved at the same time (unlikely, but I will use it as an obvious example of how it works, and this example would be plugged into some earlier time frame of the supposed evolution of life) and one was self replicating, via having women get pregnant, and the other was only males. Lets say the two groups each had four people. Now, since men are bigger and stronger than women, when the two groups would clash, the non replicating species would overpower and eliminate the self replicating species.

This has to be one of the most convoluted arguments I've ever read. You made it self-fulfilling, and therefore meaningless. I could just as easily add into your argument, that the self-replicating group was also armed with sub-machine guns and when the non-self-replicating group of males came to "clash", the self-replicating group blew the non-self-replicating group to smithereens, and this "proves" that non-self-replicating species fall prey to self-replicating ones.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A lack of proof can never prove anything.

Sure, its proof that you have a lack of proof. At least at that very moment.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This has to be one of the most convoluted arguments I've ever read. You made it self-fulfilling, and therefore meaningless. I could just as easily add into your argument, that the self-replicating group was also armed with sub-machine guns and when the non-self-replicating group of males came to "clash", the self-replicating group blew the non-self-replicating group to smithereens, and this "proves" that non-self-replicating species fall prey to self-replicating ones.

Nice standard, speaking gobbilty gook automatically negates anothers point of view eh? Is that scientific also?

 

[Dr Grump]

it doesnt solve the problem that the single cell is simply wayyyyyy tooo complicated to have evolved on its own.

Says who?

 

[MissileMan]

Nice standard, speaking gobbilty gook automatically negates anothers point of view eh? Is that scientific also?

I was, after all, YOUR totally-ridiculous argument that I quoted. It's a shame you didn't recognize it as gobbledy gook before YOU posted it.

 

[MissileMan]

Sure, its proof that you have a lack of proof. At least at that very moment.

You might argue that it's EVIDENCE for a lack of proof, however, evidence and proof are two different things.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Says who?

ANY open minded fairly intelligent human being.

I guess if we were walking in a forest and we saw a three story house complete with windows and opening doors fabricated out of sticks and twine and it even had a set of crude, but obvious blue prints drawn on a piece of paper and stuffed inside, you wouldnt be able to realize it couldnt have occured by accident on its own? Its simple basic deduction, deduction has been used by the scientific community for centuries, but suddenly the evolutionists want to dismiss it as a scientific tool.


Its ok, there is a new pile of sand over to your right to stick your head into.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I was, after all, YOUR totally-ridiculous argument that I quoted. It's a shame you didn't recognize it as gobbledy gook before YOU posted it.

Because you say so? Oh, ok, I get it.