God vs Athiesm: Which Is More Rationale?

[the_human_being]

Then they were NOT teaching the Bible. I'll bet you they were a fundamentalist church.

oh, mega churches are the answer? LOL
It doesn't matter what they were teaching, though. I read the bible for myself and came to my own conclusions.

You can't even understand my simple posts. I said nothing about the size of a church. I was speaking of what a church preached and anyone who has understanding can readily ascertain that from my posts.

I said they were small, and you automatically called them fundamentalist. Make up your mind

Fundamentalist does not mean "small". Fundamentalism is the belief in certain doctrines. See my friend, ignorance continues to abound.

no shit lol. I say small and you AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME IT WAS FUNDAMENTALIST. What was I supposed to think?

Well, actually I expected you to know the difference between the two terms.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Classic straw man. You don't understand evolution so you posit an absurd test for evolution.

How well do you understand evolution?
Explain the existence of music.
Sight and hearing require three basic mechanisms to function. An exterior sensor, wiring to take that sensor signal to the brain, and the ability of the brain to decode the signal into something meaningful. Explain how all three evolved simultaneously, because if one is missing the other two are meaningless and have no purpose.

Another straw man argument. Why must all three have evolved simultaneously? There are bacteria that can sense and react to light. No brain or wiring required to "see". Such a primitive sense would have been advantageous and evolution keep refining it until we have eyes. I imagine sound being similar.

So you don't understand evolution.
In order for a genetic change to continue there should be an advantage over others without that genetic change. Eyes with no means to transmit the signal to the brain have zero advantage.

 

[the_human_being]

I see you didn't dispute what I said. If evolution can't pass the mathematical tests, then it fails.

Every single thing you said was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

 

[TNHarley]

oh, mega churches are the answer? LOL
It doesn't matter what they were teaching, though. I read the bible for myself and came to my own conclusions.

You can't even understand my simple posts. I said nothing about the size of a church. I was speaking of what a church preached and anyone who has understanding can readily ascertain that from my posts.

I said they were small, and you automatically called them fundamentalist. Make up your mind

Fundamentalist does not mean "small". Fundamentalism is the belief in certain doctrines. See my friend, ignorance continues to abound.

no shit lol. I say small and you AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME IT WAS FUNDAMENTALIST. What was I supposed to think?

Well, actually I expected you to know the difference between the two terms.

difference between small and fundamentalist? WTF are you talking about?

 

[alang1216]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

 

[alang1216]

I see you didn't dispute what I said. If evolution can't pass the mathematical tests, then it fails.

Every single thing you said was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

The math you asked for has nothing to do with evolution since it is NOT a random process.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Dr Collins went into his work on the human genome as an athiest. His discovery of the human genome got him a Nobel Prize. After seeing the details of how life works, he now says God did it.

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God

)

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

 

[Weatherman2020]

Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

I was agnostic for my first 35 years. Then I figured I better do my homework and answer the ultimate issue. Good luck.

Neither theism or atheism is fully rational. Even trying to define "God " is irrational.
Why not be HONEST?
We don't kmow.
Using a God-of-the-gaps rational to support one's beliefs is a reflection of stupid ignorance.

Smart ignorance + honesty = agnosticm. The scientific view.

You must be getting fearful in your old age!

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Correct, every athiest and religious person thinks they are right. That's why as an agnostic I studied all religions to draw my own conclusions.
The OP is merely about a creator vs an accidental something becoming life.

 

[alang1216]

Classic straw man. You don't understand evolution so you posit an absurd test for evolution.

How well do you understand evolution?
Explain the existence of music.
Sight and hearing require three basic mechanisms to function. An exterior sensor, wiring to take that sensor signal to the brain, and the ability of the brain to decode the signal into something meaningful. Explain how all three evolved simultaneously, because if one is missing the other two are meaningless and have no purpose.

Another straw man argument. Why must all three have evolved simultaneously? There are bacteria that can sense and react to light. No brain or wiring required to "see". Such a primitive sense would have been advantageous and evolution keep refining it until we have eyes. I imagine sound being similar.

So you don't understand evolution.
In order for a genetic change to continue there should be an advantage over others without that genetic change. Eyes with no means to transmit the signal to the brain have zero advantage.

There are bacteria that can sense and react to light. No brain or wiring required to "see". Such a primitive sense would have been advantageous and evolution kept refining the sense until we have our imaging eyes. Many animals can sense light but have no brain yet still get an advantage. Clams can sense approaching starfish and close. I don't believe clams have a brain.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Classic straw man. You don't understand evolution so you posit an absurd test for evolution.

How well do you understand evolution?
Explain the existence of music.
Sight and hearing require three basic mechanisms to function. An exterior sensor, wiring to take that sensor signal to the brain, and the ability of the brain to decode the signal into something meaningful. Explain how all three evolved simultaneously, because if one is missing the other two are meaningless and have no purpose.

Another straw man argument. Why must all three have evolved simultaneously? There are bacteria that can sense and react to light. No brain or wiring required to "see". Such a primitive sense would have been advantageous and evolution keep refining it until we have eyes. I imagine sound being similar.

So you don't understand evolution.
In order for a genetic change to continue there should be an advantage over others without that genetic change. Eyes with no means to transmit the signal to the brain have zero advantage.

There are bacteria that can sense and react to light. No brain or wiring required to "see". Such a primitive sense would have been advantageous and evolution kept refining the sense until we have our imaging eyes. Many animals can sense light but have no brain yet still get an advantage. Clams can sense approaching starfish and close. I don't believe clams have a brain.

Because the bacteria requires photosynthesis. Clams use change of pressure like an ear and require the three basic mechanisms also.

Read what Dr Collins says.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1...iveASIN=1581345615&linkCode=as2&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[PK1]

Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

I was agnostic for my first 35 years. Then I figured I better do my homework and answer the ultimate issue. Good luck.

Neither theism or atheism is fully rational. Even trying to define "God " is irrational.
Why not be HONEST?
We don't kmow.
Using a God-of-the-gaps rational to support one's beliefs is a reflection of stupid ignorance.

Smart ignorance + honesty = agnosticm. The scientific view.

You must be getting fearful in your old age!

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Because I know all the details I need to know.
And yes, evidence of God is all around us. Look at your hand. That's one.

Yes, you know all the "details" you need to convince your emotions, not intellect.
The hand can have multiple alternative explanations ...

If not biological evolution (self-organization & emergent properties), then perhaps gods from another part of space planted bio "seeds" ...
Be open-minded!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

I was agnostic for my first 35 years. Then I figured I better do my homework and answer the ultimate issue. Good luck.

Neither theism or atheism is fully rational. Even trying to define "God " is irrational.
Why not be HONEST?
We don't kmow.
Using a God-of-the-gaps rational to support one's beliefs is a reflection of stupid ignorance.

Smart ignorance + honesty = agnosticm. The scientific view.

You must be getting fearful in your old age!

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Because I know all the details I need to know.
And yes, evidence of God is all around us. Look at your hand. That's one.

Yes, you know all the "details" you need to convince your emotions, not intellect.
The hand can have multiple alternative explanations ...

If not biological evolution (self-organization & emergent properties), then perhaps gods from another part of space planted bio "seeds" ...
Be open-minded!

The OP is not about which religion is right, it's about God vs Athiesm. If you think all the evidence available leads you to believe in Hinduism or Greek Gods, that's your call.

 

[PK1]

Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

I was agnostic for my first 35 years. Then I figured I better do my homework and answer the ultimate issue. Good luck.

Neither theism or atheism is fully rational. Even trying to define "God " is irrational.
Why not be HONEST?
We don't kmow.
Using a God-of-the-gaps rational to support one's beliefs is a reflection of stupid ignorance.

Smart ignorance + honesty = agnosticm. The scientific view.

You must be getting fearful in your old age!

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Correct, every athiest and religious person thinks they are right. That's why as an agnostic I studied all religions to draw my own conclusions.
The OP is merely about a creator vs an accidental something becoming life.

What about "creators" (plural)?
We don't know, right?

 

[PK1]

Read what Dr Collins says.

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?
.

 

[the_human_being]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

 

[PK1]

Neither theism or atheism is fully rational. Even trying to define "God " is irrational.
Why not be HONEST?
We don't kmow.
Using a God-of-the-gaps rational to support one's beliefs is a reflection of stupid ignorance.

Smart ignorance + honesty = agnosticm. The scientific view.

You must be getting fearful in your old age!

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Because I know all the details I need to know.
And yes, evidence of God is all around us. Look at your hand. That's one.

Yes, you know all the "details" you need to convince your emotions, not intellect.
The hand can have multiple alternative explanations ...

If not biological evolution (self-organization & emergent properties), then perhaps gods from another part of space planted bio "seeds" ...
Be open-minded!

The OP is not about which religion is right, it's about God vs Athiesm. If you think all the evidence available leads you to believe in Hinduism or Greek Gods, that's your call.

All the evidence, so far, leads to agnosticism.
If you or Collins go beyond that without sufficient evidence, you are dealing with emotional issues.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Read what Dr Collins says.

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?
.

Irrelevant to the OP. Collins rejects Athiesm because of his work on the human genome is the issue.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Because I know all the details I need to know.
And yes, evidence of God is all around us. Look at your hand. That's one.

Yes, you know all the "details" you need to convince your emotions, not intellect.
The hand can have multiple alternative explanations ...

If not biological evolution (self-organization & emergent properties), then perhaps gods from another part of space planted bio "seeds" ...
Be open-minded!

The OP is not about which religion is right, it's about God vs Athiesm. If you think all the evidence available leads you to believe in Hinduism or Greek Gods, that's your call.

All the evidence, so far, leads to agnosticism.
If you or Collins go beyond that without sufficient evidence, you are dealing with emotional issues.
.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorance.
I don't believe the ultimate issue is addressed by becoming ignorant.

 

[the_human_being]

I see you didn't dispute what I said. If evolution can't pass the mathematical tests, then it fails.

Every single thing you said was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

The math you asked for has nothing to do with evolution since it is NOT a random process.

Hossfly, I can measure radiation emissions from a radioactive source which is a totally random emission rate. I can even measure the background decay of radiation which is also a random decay. Do you actually know anything about science or mathematics?