Deism vs Atheism

[Ravi]

Came across it one time while in a class. Looked it up later to verify, and found out that it is true.

That makes absolutely no sense. You'd have to determine that animals feel no pleasure and I seriously doubt that is the case. Have you ever owned a dog?

 

[Gurdari]

This thread will be a debate between Deism (belief in a God based off scientific facts) and Atheism. This means no talk of Christian Ideas AT ALL just based off of complete scientific facts.

Sounds good! Theism sounds a tough thing to argue using 'facts' though...

I would go toward Deism. There is no scientific fact that life was created by evolution. Evolution is a theory that acts on already living organisms; it does not and can not create life. Scientist have been trying for over a century to create life in a laboratory, and if they can't create life in a lab how can they expect people to believe it just happened accidentally. No where else in Science and Nature has anything happened, because of accidents. It's science's job to explain why things happen and saying it just happened is not explaining it, which is what they do with the big bang also.

Your stance is based on Evolution? Interesting, as a theory it makes sense. Adaptation makes sense to you I hope... it is a similar principle, responding in logical ways to environmental stimulus. It is not 'science's job' to do anything. That does not even make sense. Science is more of a method, or process that says don't believe things without analysis, measurement and logical thought. Which I assume Deists employ in all aspects of their lives (except when it comes to God(s)).

Also, whether or not humans can create life in a lab is not relevant to whether or not the UNIVERSE has the capability to do so...

I seen all the theories of the big bang and too me it seems completely ridiculous. To say the whole universe was created by a massive explosion that happened because four supercharged atoms that came out of nowhere collided is not explaining anything it shouldn't even be a theory. Something can't come from nothing. That is a basic law of science, and as long as scientist can't explain what was before the universe and what created it there is no proof of Atheism.

The reason behind that is due to the fact our universe is expanding, thus before now - it was more condensed than it is at the moment, ergo if you go back far enough... it would have to be VERY condense a very long time ago. Again, it is a theory based on observable data. You are not going to hell if you don't believe it - but I admire you insistence on stronger evidence - very scientific of you! However, again, like with evolution... the big bang does not = atheism.

The whole point of this thread is to prove that their is no scientific proof that Atheism is the correct belief. If someone can prove it I would like to hear it or see it. Please no Christianity in this debate. I am a Christian and I am willing to admit their is no science in it. This is purely whether you believe or don't believe in a God based off of science.

Atheism isn't to be a correct statement on what to believe.. it is about NOT believing in things that you have no reason (proof, facts, evidence, etc.) to believe in. So, again:
It is about "not being convinced" of God's existence,
it is not about convincing of God's non-existence.

So, until there is ample reason to believe - atheists will not. Just like a belief that Elvis is alive. Or the moon is made of cheese. No proof=no belief.

Make sense?

 

[N4mddissent]

I didn't say religious N4, I said "believe in some type of Higher Power".

Incidentally, Einstein DID believe in something larger than himself.

I noticed that, but a common problem in these discussions is the defining of things like "higher power" or "god". For example all elements are created through the life-cycle of stars and in terms of magnitude, the formation, burning, and final destruction of a star is definitely a "higher power" than anything on earth. But that is not the impression most would left with when talking of a "higher power". Is it supernatural? Does it have purpose, intent? consciousness? And what about the question of immortality or the soul?

As far as the Einstein quote, I was just saying that taking that one sentence out of the context of the entire passage leaves those who read it with an erroneous impression. The quote specifically uses the word religion, which may be why I took the higher power reference to be a supernatural higher power, but more importantly, Einstein was not using the word religion as it is commonly used but that is impossible to discern just based on that sentence alone. That is why I feel it misrepresents his views. As far as believing in something larger than himself, I would say that Einstein had views which we all share. I believe the universe is larger than myself, as I believe most people. But the Spinozan concept of god is very nuanced and would be foreign to common perceptions of "god" or a "higher power". I think our communication would be more clear if at times when you choose to use a special concept of "god" you would state how you are applying that concept since I don't feel it was unreasonable of me to assume the more standard concept of "god" as something that exists separate from the natural realm and at the minimum has some sort of intent or purpose.

Einstein described himself as an Agnostic and if at all religious, only perhaps relative to the Spinozan concept of "god" which is nature. Here are some quotes,

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein, March 1954

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
Albert Einstein, March 1954

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
Albert Einstein, 1941

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Albert Einstein, 1945

 

[sealybobo]

This thread will be a debate between Deism (belief in a God based off scientific facts) and Athiesm. This means no talk of Christian Ideas AT ALL just based off of complete scientific facts.

I would go toward Deism. There is no scientific fact that life was created by evolution. Evolution is a theory that acts on already living organisms; it does not and can not create life. Scientist have been trying for over a century to create life in a labratory, and if they can't create life in a lab how can they expect people to believe it just happened accidently. No where else in Science and Nature has anything happened, because of accidents. It's science's job to explain why things happen and saying it just happened is not explaining it, which is what they do with the big bang also.

I seen all the theories of the big bang and too me it seems completely ridiculous. To say the whole universe was created by a massive explosion that happened because four supercharged atoms that came out of nowhere collided is not explaining anything it shouldn't even be a theory. Something can't come from nothing. That is a basic law of science, and as long as scientist can't explain what was before the universe and what created it there is no proof of Atheism.

The whole point of this thread is to prove that their is no scientific proof that Atheism is the correct belief. If someone can prove it I would like to hear it or see it. Please no Christianity in this debate. I am a Christian and I am willing to admit their is no science in it. This is purely wether you believe or don't believe in a God based off of science.

I knock organized religion because it has been twisted. People take stories literally when they should just focus on the message. No there isn't proof there in no god, just like we can't prove there is a god, or that he favors us over muslims or jews. I think some athiests will go to heaven and some christians will go to hell. Actually, I don't even think we should take hell literally. We have no idea what heaven or hell is.

But I don't like to bash religious people. After all, where are the athiest soup kithens or missionaries? They don't exist. Religion, however corrupt, is at the core good.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Atheists are incapable of reason... that's why they're atheists. Reason comes at the foot of the Father; God being infinite reason... Thus atheism exists outside of reason.

What you need to understand is that atheism is nothing more than secular humanism... it's evil's rationalization which serves to obfuscate final judgment. If there is no God, then there will be no final judgment; thus 'everything is relative' and one can do as one pleases without concern for whether or not what ever it is, is morally right; this because while secular humanism likes to refer to morality and the idiocy that one can be moral and not 'religious,' they can never seem to explain how that might work... this is very simply because IT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED...

Try this sometime: Try to get one of the Europeans (they're hands DOWN the most fun, because they are the TRUE believers man... dumber than a bag of hammers...) to explain how in the absence of God that human rights can exist... It is an absolute HOOT!

HEY! Better yet, I'll open a new thread to that effect... come on by and enjoy the intellectual train-wrecks.

You don’t really have a clue do you? Secular humanism is a philosophy that doesn’t require gods. Secular humanism is entirely rational and without superstition. Secular humanists can develop good principles for life without requiring the supervision of a god invented by other humans for their own ends.

Ok... I can work with that. Secular Humanism is a philosophy which is founded upon a desperate rationalization which serves to reject thefinal accounting. It advances the idiocy of relativism which serves to muddy moral judgment and on the whole the entire exercise is a function of the atheists being incapable of reason... they're people whose spirit lives in darkness; they've sheilded their heart from the light of the Father, which serves as the source of all reason.

Secular Humanism is a lie... the humanists themselves the deceived and their function on earth is to advance spiritual death as the organ of the deceiver.

There is not a single principle within the scope of Secular Humanism which rests upon sound reasoning... Now towards supporting that I would hereby openly challenge all humanists to list for the board's consideration any and all Humanist principles which they feel exemplifies sound reasoning; and where no such example comes forth I will submit the failed submissions as such evidence.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The standard scientific reply would be that this is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Nonsense... The individual has advanced an opinion... not an argument. They've stated that they do not understand how four atoms materialized and produced all of the material of which the Universe is comprised... in point of fact, that's a fairly strong and perfectly valid basis in reasoning for their DOUBT.

Specifically, because you don't understand how it could have happened doesn't make it inaccurate.

Interesting... Because that is precisely the argument I've made to contest your position that God does not exist... Only this member did not declare an opposing hypothesis, they merely stated that they found the premise of the BB as it THEY UNDERSTAND IT...

Then we could go on and talk about life at the basic level is composed of amino acids and how amino acids from spontaneouly when energy is applied to certain simulated atmospheres but it will quickly submerge this discussion into a technical tempest with likely no satisfactory outcome.

Yes we could... and there is no evidence that you or anyone else on the planet can bring which can definitively state that any PORTION of science contests the existence of God... The aA do not form spontaneously... per se, they're a result of the electrical current interacting with the atoms that make up the gasses of that atmosphere is comprised... your description may lead some to believe that you're providing an example of nature producing 'something from nothing' and that is absolutely a misrepresentation of the cause and effect of that which you've come dangerously close to misrepresenting.

I'm a little bit uncertain about your big bang comment. I've heard some of the more outstanding theories, bubble universes, collapse of the wave-function (one Hawking worked on), etc.. but I'm not sure where the 4 supercharged atoms theory comes from? As far as the laws of physics go, the problem with discussing the precise moment of the big bang is similar to the problem of black holes- to wit, within a singularity, the laws of physics break down.

As for the general premise of the thread, I personally consider myself an atheist, but find the deist position to the most reasonable theistic position. After all, by saying that there is a force that started it all and nothing further, you are making a statement that essentially falls into a broad agnosticism. It must be admitted that in such a case, the existence or non-existence is really a subjective, unprovable matter but has no practical effect upon one's life. There is no moral code, no dogma, no intercession by the diety, no ritual, etc...

LOL... The common thread with which all humanism is woven and it represents it's nefarious purpose... it's function on the whole.

I personally don't ascribe to it simply on the basis that I don't feel it is reasonable to accept the existence of such a complex and powerful force without evidence (especially if it refers to a conscious force).

Uh OH!... So you're saying that your conclusion is founded upon the absence of evidence... or... ignorance. Man I DO love a sweet irony...

Tell me good sir... what percentage of all knowledge throughout the scope of time and space would you say that you possess?

I'll assume that you will cop to possessing a infinitesimal fraction of such knowledge... and what's hilarious ot me is how you take great pride in your perception that you're a very intelligent person of vast scientific aptitude and yet you assert by default... the conclusion the "THERE IS NO GOD." With this resting on nothing more than you can find no evidence that there is; this from a mind which freely admits that it is grossly deficient in terms of the necessary knowledge that would be required to even BEGIN to Scientifically TEST for the existence of God.

ROFL... You people crack me up.

Even if there are mysteries unsolved about the universe (and there are), I think the deity hypothesis to explain them is a bit of an unwarranted leap. Beyond that, I see no reason that deism is not an acceptable solution for those who wish to believe it.

When religions claim specifics about a diety, it becomes much less reasonable in my opinion.

In other words, you religious people are entitled to believe what ya like, but when you start talking about moral code and using the principles on which your superstitions are founded on GOVERNMENT... you should keep it to yourselves as government is the domain of SCIENCE... (Social Science that is...)

You can rest assured that this member holds absolutely NO such reservations about that which they feel represents "SCIENCE"... and you can also rest assured that science is a religion to this member and I expect that they're never too far away from an Algore video of some desperate polar bear trotting along on the melting ice cap... and would not think TWICE about any legislation which promises to save us all from anthropological GLOBAL WARMING!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Logically speaking, atheists aren't claiming anything. You are.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

Atheists are overtly stating, that as a matter of incontrovertible FACT: THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

This, they base upon the absence of emperical evidence of such an existence.

So the burden of proof lies on those who are making the claim, not the other way around.

"Believers"... state that we BELIEVE that God exists and we believe this based upon our instinct and our observations which bear out that instinct... It's a rare believer that argues that they have evidence of God's existence, as that person would be departing fellowship with the FAITHFUL and starting a brand new group... 'The KNOWFUL'

Now we provide proof of our faith on a farly regular basis... that you seem unimpressed is irrelevant to our faith and to the existence of God.

So instead of telling us why you disagree with atheistic ideas, why not explain why you feel your views are correct?

Oh that's easy... because the existence of God is self evident.

For instance: The Universe exists... Now I can't really prove that, but I am pretty sure of it; anywho... the universe exists and I believe that it exists because it was created and that which created is what I call God. So... because I exist, I know that God exists...

Now what more DO YOU THINK, that I should know, to be sure?

 

[LOki]

Ok... I can work with that. Secular Humanism is a philosophy which is founded upon a desperate rationalization which serves to reject thefinal accounting.

What final accounting?

It advances the idiocy of relativism which serves to muddy moral judgment and on the whole the entire exercise is a function of the atheists being incapable of reason...

The superstitious, like yourself, are the apex of moral relativism ,with your moral judgment muddied by the whimsical declarations of your witch-doctors claiming to present the unquestionable will of their personal super-pixie.

. . . they're people whose spirit lives in darkness; . . .

But they're not obligated to sacrifice their reason to a superstition.

. . . they've sheilded their heart from the light of the Father, . . .

What Father?

. . . which serves as the source of all reason.

You mean to say that this Father that demands his devotionals to abandon reason is the source of all reason?

Secular Humanism is a lie... the humanists themselves the deceived and their function on earth is to advance spiritual death as the organ of the deceiver.

Uh, ok. LOLz.

. . . There is not a single principle within the scope of Secular Humanism which rests upon sound reasoning...

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by Secular Humanism; but you've asserted that I'm a Humanist, and I think that the notion that the existence of reality is independent of consciousness of it is a principle founded upon some pretty sound reasoning--certainly much sounder reasoning than the "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" that God exists.

Now towards supporting that I would hereby openly challenge all humanists to list for the board's consideration any and all Humanist principles which they feel exemplifies sound reasoning; . . .

I think i just did that for you.

. . . and where no such example comes forth I will submit the failed submissions as such evidence.

It's rather ironic, isn't it Sis, that in this instance you consider absence of evidence to be proof of absence.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

Atheists are overtly stating, that as a matter of incontrovertible FACT: THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

I'm certain that your strawman atheists certainly make such claims, but most atheists (outside of your imagination) simply claim that there is no objective reason to believe that God exists.

This, they base upon the absence of emperical evidence of such an existence.

You simply do not tire of being wrong, do you Sis?

The fact of the matter is that although the absence of evidence for the existence of a thing is not proof of the absense of that thing, absence of evidence for the existence of a thing is certainly evidence of the absense of that thing.

Sorry about your stupid luck.

"Believers"... state that we BELIEVE that God exists and we believe this based upon our instinct and our observations which bear out that instinct... It's a rare believer that argues that they have evidence of God's existence, as that person would be departing fellowship with the FAITHFUL and starting a brand new group... 'The KNOWFUL'

Now we provide proof of our faith on a farly regular basis... that you seem unimpressed is irrelevant to our faith and to the existence of God.

I'm just unimpressed with your "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" as proof for the existence of God.

Oh that's easy... because the existence of God is self evident.

For instance: The Universe exists... Now I can't really prove that, but I am pretty sure of it; anywho... the universe exists and I believe that it exists because it was created and that which created is what I call God. So... because I exist, I know that God exists...

Now what more DO YOU THINK, that I should know, to be sure?

I think you should know that the existence of God is not as self-evident as you'd like to assert; particularly since the validity of your arguemnt was wholly and utterly incontestably refuted right here-->CLICKY!

 

[Gurdari]

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

Atheists are overtly stating, that as a matter of incontrovertible FACT: THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

This, they base upon the absence of emperical evidence of such an existence.

not exactly...

Well, truthfully most Atheists do not believe a God exists, it's not that they believe NO god exists. Those that consider their analyitcal approach to be scientific, would never rule anything out. It would be a smaller sub-section of Atheists that actually claim that no god can exist.
To which any scientist would ask: 'What evidence has lead to this conclusion?"

So, essentially it is a situation of refuting a claim (God exists) based on lack of evidence.
It is not making a claim (God does not exist) as there is no reason to assume he/she exists or does not exist. Like I could never proove Star Wars is fictitious, I mean it could have happened. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Though, at the present I have no belief that it did.

 

[N4mddissent]

Nonsense... The individual has advanced an opinion... not an argument. They've stated that they do not understand how four atoms materialized and produced all of the material of which the Universe is comprised... in point of fact, that's a fairly strong and perfectly valid basis in reasoning for their DOUBT.

The argument from ignorance fallacy is common in theological debates and is often referred to as the "god of the gaps" position. It occurs when someone assumes a divine action or presence on the basis that a natural mechanism is not understood. The author of the post was clearly saying that he does not understand the "Big Bang" theory and therefore assumes divine intervention of some sort. That is absolutely consistent with the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Interesting... Because that is precisely the argument I've made to contest your position that God does not exist... Only this member did not declare an opposing hypothesis, they merely stated that they found the premise of the BB as it THEY UNDERSTAND IT...

I have not stated unequivocably that no deity exists. I simply stated I have no reason to believe it does. I don't know if you truncated the last sentence, because it is incoherent.

Yes we could... and there is no evidence that you or anyone else on the planet can bring which can definitively state that any PORTION of science contests the existence of God... The aA do not form spontaneously... per se, they're a result of the electrical current interacting with the atoms that make up the gasses of that atmosphere is comprised... your description may lead some to believe that you're providing an example of nature producing 'something from nothing' and that is absolutely a misrepresentation of the cause and effect of that which you've come dangerously close to misrepresenting.

First, you will not be able to find any statement on my part indicating that science contests the existence of god. Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic explanations and the common concept of "god" is supernatural, therefore science does not address the issue directly.

And my description of amino acid formation clearly states that energy is applied. In any case, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part to say that my argument in any way was an attempt to show something coming from nothing. I believe I mentioned the atmosphere. That is something. One would have to be profoundly incompetent to misconstrue in any way my description as being related to something coming from nothing. If I wanted to put forth such an example, I would be much more likely to use virtual particles.

LOL... The common thread with which all humanism is woven and it represents it's nefarious purpose... it's function on the whole.

I thought the context made it clear that I was referring to the absence of a moral code stemming directly from a deity. If that escaped you, then I hope I have now clarified it for you.

Uh OH!... So you're saying that your conclusion is founded upon the absence of evidence... or... ignorance. Man I DO love a sweet irony...

Tell me good sir... what percentage of all knowledge throughout the scope of time and space would you say that you possess?

I'll assume that you will cop to possessing a infinitesimal fraction of such knowledge... and what's hilarious ot me is how you take great pride in your perception that you're a very intelligent person of vast scientific aptitude and yet you assert by default... the conclusion the "THERE IS NO GOD." With this resting on nothing more than you can find no evidence that there is; this from a mind which freely admits that it is grossly deficient in terms of the necessary knowledge that would be required to even BEGIN to Scientifically TEST for the existence of God.

ROFL... You people crack me up.

Perhaps someday you will choose to actually debate my arguments rather than your own misinterpretations and straw men. In the absence of evidence, the logical position is uncertainty. Now the degree of the uncertainty may be subject to debate, but taking an absolutist position without evidence is irrational. Thus, in the original post, if the author had stated that he does not know how the universe began, or even if he went further and said he has serious doubts about the big bang, then he is taking a perfectly rational position. Going further and proposing a hypothesis based on divine intervention is where the fallacy comes into play. My position is not an absolutist position, but is one which you disingenuously continue to mischaracterize. I have stated multiple times that I have no absolute certainty about the existence or non-existence of god. This is common among atheists. Even the despised Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" states there is no absolute certainty. So I approach the position from an agnostic stance. I have used my own rational thinking to reach what I believe is the more likely conclusion, but never will I say it is absolutely certain. From the neutral position, to give either conclusion more credence (considering it more likely) I have to consider the evidence and arguments for each conclusion. I have found the evidence and arguments for the existence of a deity to be insufficient for me to reasonably accept a deity's existence, and have found some of the arguments against the existence of a deity more convincing. I always remain open to new evidence that could cause me to either move toward the existence conclusion or become more confident in the non-existence position.

In other words, you religious people are entitled to believe what ya like, but when you start talking about moral code and using the principles on which your superstitions are founded on GOVERNMENT... you should keep it to yourselves as government is the domain of SCIENCE... (Social Science that is...)

You can rest assured that this member holds absolutely NO such reservations about that which they feel represents "SCIENCE"... and you can also rest assured that science is a religion to this member and I expect that they're never too far away from an Algore video of some desperate polar bear trotting along on the melting ice cap... and would not think TWICE about any legislation which promises to save us all from anthropological GLOBAL WARMING

You may call science a religion if you so choose. If so, it is the greatest ever. What theological "prophecies" have the accuracy and precision of astronomical and quantum predictions? Centuries of rituals, prayers, and rites did nothing for our life expectency, but scientific medicine has more than doubled it in just over a century. Religion gave us chariots and angels moving the sun and moon around the earth- science gave us a heliocentric view and then expanded our sight into our galaxy and even other galaxies beyond anything the people of the ancient world could imagine. Religion divides us without tolerance, while science gives us the tools for communication and transportation that can allow us to be closer. But in the end, it's not a relgion. There are no sacred cows. What made Einstein so famous? He overturned Newton's understanding of gravity. And if one wants to consider science a religion, then Newton was definitely a holy figure. There are not multiple sciences. Science is simply understanding the natural world using man's rational faculties. Two people may disgree in their understanding, but both be using science. Additionally, the biggest "sin" in science is absolute certainty in what you believe. One must always be open to having your hypothesis or theory disproved. Contrast that with major religions who declare that it is desirable if not necessary to have absolute certainty about one's beliefs.

 

[N4mddissent]

we BELIEVE that God exists and we believe this based upon our instinct and our observations which bear out that instinct

Observations, eh?

It's a rare believer that argues that they have evidence of God's existence

Wait...didn't you just say you have observations that support your instinct? Observation is a form of evidence. If it can be observed, it can be measured. You must be one of those rare believers who does not have faith, because you have evidence.