Lousiana Science Books with both Evolution and creationism (1 Viewer)

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally?

We're back to Ivan's distinction. I don't think they believe God arose naturally. As it stands now, we can only test propositions that occur within what we call "time." Which, as we understand it now, goes back to as close as possible before the big bang. How we will ever be able to test propositions before that point is a problem for smarter people than me to solve. I don't think we even have the vocabulary to do so.

It's not reasonable or unreasonable to fill that gap with God, IMO, because I don't think reason has anything to do with it. I can't think of any theory or explanation that is more or less plausible than any other. I don't think that makes me an agnostic, becuase I think the observation is so trite that it doesn't really deserve a descriptor.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If I see a watch, all I can tell you is that someone made it. I may not be able to tell you a single thing about the watchmaker, except that they existed. "Well who made the watch?" Does it matter? It was made.

Ah, but you can only say this because we know watchmakers exist, and we've seen them make watches. We know that's where watches come from. We have no idea if creator-gods exist. We've certainly never seen one. Like I said, base rate fallacy.

Then when you throw in an insulting question like, "why believe in the creator of the god, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster", it just shows you have no real interest in discussing it rationally.

That's not an insulting question, it's a perfectly rational and legitimate one. There are two separate conclusions you've reached: one, that the universe requires a creator, and two, that the creator of the universe is the god of the Bible. All of the things you mentioned earlier in the thread (e.g. the order of the solar system, the complexity of DNA, etc.) helped you answer question number one. Question number two is an entirely different one, though. Even if we agree that the universe requires a creator, why do you believe it's the god of the bible? Why not the god of some other religion? Why not some god that hasn't been invented by a human religion yet? There doesn't appear to be anything you've provided that would differentiate the god you believe in from a different god that others believe in, or an infinite number of other gods that we could invent in our imaginations, pasta-based or otherwise.

There are millions of people that have seen great results from their beliefs in the God of the bible. Obviously we are moving into theology here, but the flying spaghetti monster is an internet meme. To compare the two is insulting, so we don't have to go any further along these lines, because obviously you aren't interested in understanding why people believe.

Why is it insulting to you if I propose the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe, but it's not insulting to you if I propose Brahma or Mbombo is the creator of the universe? They're all fake, right? I assure you I'm not asking this to be insulting - there's actually a point to be discussed here if you consider it and answer honestly. But if the mere appearance of the phrase "Flying Spaghetti Monster" sends you into a tizzy like this, then I'd suggest that you're actually the one that's obviously not interested in having a serious discussion.

 

[shader]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

I think you and Shader should have a dedicated, live debate. I'd watch.

it really wouldn't be much of a debate. Shader is incapable of seeing how his belief in his God and somebody else's belief in FSM are equal. to him its insulting. why? isn't it equally possible that FSM created the universe as it is his Christian God? of course it is, yet his blind spot for his religion distorts his view.

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM. No reasonable person would equate belief in the God of the bible and belief in the FSM because no one actually believes in the FSM. If you want to discuss God vs Buddha, than I'm fine with that.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

I think you and Shader should have a dedicated, live debate. I'd watch.

it really wouldn't be much of a debate. Shader is incapable of seeing how his belief in his God and somebody else's belief in FSM are equal. to him its insulting. why? isn't it equally possible that FSM created the universe as it is his Christian God? of course it is, yet his blind spot for his religion distorts his view.

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM.

That's irrelevant to the point.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

the creator of the FSM origin story did so not to explain the origin of the universe, but to prevent intelligent design from being taught in science classes. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Huh, and all this time I thought the FSM was just invented to make fun of Christians. Now I feel like a really stupid ####### for thinking that. Thanks!

 

[jomar]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

I think you and Shader should have a dedicated, live debate. I'd watch.

it really wouldn't be much of a debate. Shader is incapable of seeing how his belief in his God and somebody else's belief in FSM are equal. to him its insulting. why? isn't it equally possible that FSM created the universe as it is his Christian God? of course it is, yet his blind spot for his religion distorts his view.

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM. No reasonable person would equate belief in the God of the bible and belief in the FSM because no one actually believes in the FSM. If you want to discuss God vs Buddha, than I'm fine with that.

suppose I tell my 3 young boys all about FSM, indoctrinate them from an early age, and they grow up believing it? who are you to tell them what they believe is ridiculous and insulting to you?it seems as though what someone can and can't believe is a popularity contest. it can't be true unless enough people truly believe it? thats ridiculous...

 

[timschochet]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM. No reasonable person would equate belief in the God of the bible and belief in the FSM because no one actually believes in the FSM. If you want to discuss God vs Buddha, than I'm fine with that.

Well, then you have to kind of engage in the challenge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which is to point out the rational evidence for the Judeo Christian God that is not also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Russell's Teapot. Or perhaps some other creator God that no one believes in anymore, if you prefer. It's all the same argument.Now, if we're really confining this discussion to evidence of creation and a creator, it's a silly sidelight. On it's narrowest terms, your argument is agnostic as to whether the creator is Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[shader]

If I see a watch, all I can tell you is that someone made it. I may not be able to tell you a single thing about the watchmaker, except that they existed. "Well who made the watch?" Does it matter? It was made.

Ah, but you can only say this because we know watchmakers exist, and we've seen them make watches. We know that's where watches come from. We have no idea if creator-gods exist. We've certainly never seen one. Like I said, base rate fallacy.

Then when you throw in an insulting question like, "why believe in the creator of the god, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster", it just shows you have no real interest in discussing it rationally.

That's not an insulting question, it's a perfectly rational and legitimate one. There are two separate conclusions you've reached: one, that the universe requires a creator, and two, that the creator of the universe is the god of the Bible. All of the things you mentioned earlier in the thread (e.g. the order of the solar system, the complexity of DNA, etc.) helped you answer question number one. Question number two is an entirely different one, though. Even if we agree that the universe requires a creator, why do you believe it's the god of the bible? Why not the god of some other religion? Why not some god that hasn't been invented by a human religion yet? There doesn't appear to be anything you've provided that would differentiate the god you believe in from a different god that others believe in, or an infinite number of other gods that we could invent in our imaginations, pasta-based or otherwise.

There are millions of people that have seen great results from their beliefs in the God of the bible. Obviously we are moving into theology here, but the flying spaghetti monster is an internet meme. To compare the two is insulting, so we don't have to go any further along these lines, because obviously you aren't interested in understanding why people believe.

Why is it insulting to you if I propose the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe, but it's not insulting to you if I propose Brahma or Mbombo is the creator of the universe? They're all fake, right? I assure you I'm not asking this to be insulting - there's actually a point to be discussed here if you consider it and answer honestly. But if the mere appearance of the phrase "Flying Spaghetti Monster" sends you into a tizzy like this, then I'd suggest that you're actually the one that's obviously not interested in having a serious discussion.

Yes, we've never scientifically seen creator Gods. So don't believe in one! It's your choice. I'm not mocking you, trying to change your belief, or questioning your intelligence. I'm simply defending the rational belief in a creator of the universe. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe the universe was created by something. The reason the FSM is insulting is because you are using the FSM as a way to mock anyone's beliefs in God. It is something that no one honestly believes in, and it is used to try and make people that believe in God look dumb. We are having two discussions here. One about whether there is a creator/designer and one about which designer is the one to believe in.If you've gotten to the point where you are trying to decide whether any of the Gods that are worshipped are true, than a religious discussion can take place. If there are actually people that believe in the FSM and have reasons for believing that, I'd be happy to discuss with them our two sets of beliefs and see if we can make any headway.

 

[rascal]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

 

[shader]

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM. No reasonable person would equate belief in the God of the bible and belief in the FSM because no one actually believes in the FSM. If you want to discuss God vs Buddha, than I'm fine with that.

Well, then you have to kind of engage in the challenge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which is to point out the rational evidence for the Judeo Christian God that is not also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Russell's Teapot. Or perhaps some other creator God that no one believes in anymore, if you prefer. It's all the same argument.Now, if we're really confining this discussion to evidence of creation and a creator, it's a silly sidelight. On it's narrowest terms, your argument is agnostic as to whether the creator is Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Find me someone who believes in a teapot or the FSM and I'll discuss it with them.

 

[netnalp]

If they want to put creationism in text books then they should allow for evolution information to be inserted into their Bibles.

 

[shader]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

I think you and Shader should have a dedicated, live debate. I'd watch.

it really wouldn't be much of a debate. Shader is incapable of seeing how his belief in his God and somebody else's belief in FSM are equal. to him its insulting. why? isn't it equally possible that FSM created the universe as it is his Christian God? of course it is, yet his blind spot for his religion distorts his view.

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM. No reasonable person would equate belief in the God of the bible and belief in the FSM because no one actually believes in the FSM. If you want to discuss God vs Buddha, than I'm fine with that.

suppose I tell my 3 young boys all about FSM, indoctrinate them from an early age, and they grow up believing it? who are you to tell them what they believe is ridiculous and insulting to you?it seems as though what someone can and can't believe is a popularity contest. it can't be true unless enough people truly believe it? thats ridiculous...

Again, you indoctrinating your young kids in a cult based on an internet meme is not equivalent to someone believing in the bible and God. Your kids would have faith. But what would that faith be based on? It would quickly disintegrate once they saw the real world and learned about how the FSM got its start. If you want a discussion on why someone who believes in the God of the bible has faith, that's a different discussion.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm simply defending the rational belief in a creator of the universe. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe the universe was created by something.

These are two different statements. The second is undoubtedly correct. That doesn't make the first correct. Humans aren't robots and they aren't Vulcans. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe irrational things all the time. "DNA is evidence of a creator" is an assertion. In order to prove it's a rational argument, and not just a premise that you expect others to accept a fiori you have to explain the basis for the conclusion.

 

[shader]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

Well thats an interesting guess.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

That's just ridiculous. No one really believes in the FSM. No reasonable person would equate belief in the God of the bible and belief in the FSM because no one actually believes in the FSM. If you want to discuss God vs Buddha, than I'm fine with that.

Well, then you have to kind of engage in the challenge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which is to point out the rational evidence for the Judeo Christian God that is not also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Russell's Teapot. Or perhaps some other creator God that no one believes in anymore, if you prefer. It's all the same argument.Now, if we're really confining this discussion to evidence of creation and a creator, it's a silly sidelight. On it's narrowest terms, your argument is agnostic as to whether the creator is Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Find me someone who believes in a teapot or the FSM and I'll discuss it with them.

Ok, other than the appeal to popularity, what other logical fallacies do you insist we ignore?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The reason the FSM is insulting is because you are using the FSM as a way to mock anyone's beliefs in God. It is something that no one honestly believes in, and it is used to try and make people that believe in God look dumb.

I see you've been hanging out with Ferris. Like him, you can't seem to look past the humorous aspects of the FSM and actually address the relevant features. Ramsay Hunt Experience said it better than I could have - based on the evidence you've provided in this thread, you should really be agnostic as to whether the Christian God or the FSM created the universe. But you're obviously not. It's worth questioning why that is, but you don't seem especially willing to have that discussion.

 

[timschochet]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

http://en.wikipedia....Francis_Collins

Francis Collins became a Christian due to reasons that had nothing to do with scientific discovery. Per what you linked:Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40]as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[22]

 

[jomar]

Again, you indoctrinating your young kids in a cult based on an internet meme is not equivalent to someone believing in the bible and God. Your kids would have faith. But what would that faith be based on? It would quickly disintegrate once they saw the real world and learned about how the FSM got its start. If you want a discussion on why someone who believes in the God of the bible has faith, that's a different discussion.

if only someone had written a book on FSM a few thousand years ago, my kids would be in a religion instead of a cult? how about Zeus, can I indoctrinate them to him without being insulted with the 'cult' word?I'm sure I could do some mental gymnastics to keep my kids faith in line. maybe FSM just didn't reveal himself prior to the internet, maybe he used the internet meme route as a test to see who TRULY has faith. the possibilities are endless when you aren't bound by logic.

 

[shader]

I'm simply defending the rational belief in a creator of the universe. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe the universe was created by something.

These are two different statements. The second is undoubtedly correct. That doesn't make the first correct. Humans aren't robots and they aren't Vulcans. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe irrational things all the time. "DNA is evidence of a creator" is an assertion. In order to prove it's a rational argument, and not just a premise that you expect others to accept a fiori you have to explain the basis for the conclusion.

Don't you see your mistake? You are the one claiming that your argument is rational and that others aren't. I never set out to prove to you that my assertion was rational. It is rational to me, and it is rational to many others. It's really that simple. I don't find the atheistic argument plausible at all. But I understand the argument. I just disagree.I don't expect others to accept anything I have said. If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

 

[shader]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

http://en.wikipedia....Francis_Collins

Francis Collins became a Christian due to reasons that had nothing to do with scientific discovery. Per what you linked:Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40]as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[22]

Tim,You made an assertion that is just a guess. I've met people who claimed that the reason they believe in God is the complexity of the universe. I'm sure these are a minority in your eyes, but they do exist.

Also, I totally disagree with your statement that "nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held."

I know the people in my office pretty well. Aside from one guy, they are not all that religious at all. They don't have a deeply held faith in the bible or in God. They smoke, cuss, drink, and do all sorts of things that might make many religious people blush.

But are they atheists? Few and far between. Most people believe there is SOMETHING out there that created us. They may think that something doesn't care. Some believe in God, but aren't religious at all. I think you can extrapolate this pretty easily by looking at surveys.

In fact, the surveys pretty much reject your thesis completely.

People that are not religious, are not bound to a certain set of religious beliefs are growing very, very quickly. Yet atheism remains a set of beliefs that are only held by a small percentage of people.

So there are MILLIONS of people who believe in some type of creator, but are not justifying a deeply held faith, and they are not quite religious.

Do a survey. Start asking people who don't attend church if they believe there is some sort of god or creator. Most do.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

Many of us don't view vouchers as "taxpayer money" any more than we view Social Security checks as "taxpayer money." Confiscating somebody's wealth and then handing it back to them doesn't magically transform it, or at least it shouldn't.

I am going to guess there are a lot of people getting vouchers who don't pay thousands a year in taxes. So they are getting some of somebody else's tax money.

The same goes for people who receive Social Security, Pell grants, and other benefits.

 

[zDragon]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

Seriously? I'm a mechanical engineer and my thought process requires me to think logically about everything I dbviously I'm going to answer God. As I've stated before, God answers the questions that science/philosophy are unable to answer.

Well most scientists don't believe in God so I'll extend that to most engineers so you are probably in the minority and I'm an engineer to so I guess I have that same thought process. That said, you use the spandrel theory for belief in God. However, thousands of years ago, you would have believed in things such as a geocentric theory, that the earth was flat, and only thousands of years old. Now that we have evidence of these things being wrong, whose side are you going to believe? The side who has consistently been wrong or the side that continues to be right but needs more time? To me, it isn't a question of God answering the questions that science can't explain, it is just science is unable to explain these things at the moment. You need an explanation for these things while I have faith that I may never know but 100's of years from now, we'll know where the eye came from. And you don't think it is a sign that the scientists keep encroaching further on religious beliefs and after constant fighting, they eventually give in and start the fight on something else?

As someone said, the easiest explanation is usually the right one.

Your opinion.Also, thousands of years ago, scientists pretty much all thought that the earth was flat and that the sun moved around the earth. I don't think the bible was the cause of that. There are no statements in the bible that contradict that. If the church acted reprehensibly in the middle ages, than that is of no concern to me. The churches in the middle ages burned people for owning the bible, killed people left and right, and pretty much made a mockery of the bible and God.

What is my opinion? That scientists don't believe in God? Fact. That engineers are scientists? That if you had to pick a field closest to engineering, you'd come up with science. Religion might not have thought the Earth was flat but the Earth being the center of the universe was tantamount to their argument b/c it showed God created the Earth and we were so important he made everything revolve around us. But alas, that tricky God created us and made us so important but threw us a curve ball by having us revolve around a dying star.

Scientist don't believe in God? I thought the guy who discovered quantum physics believed in God. I could understand if you said 30%, 90% whatever but the flat statement is just wrong in my opinion. Can you point to something solid that show Scientist as a whole do not believe in God?Edit: Did a quick search and of the polls I saw is seemed that 30-40% of scientist believed in God.

 

[jomar]

If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

is this purposely vague? first of all, there is NO hard evidence for a creator. none. everything you listed in your prior post is not evidence.secondly, there IS hard evidence for the Big Bang, but I see you qualified that by saying there is 'not a lot', and you don't define what you would consider a lot. thirdly, you don't flat out assert that there was no Big Bang, just that you don't think it 'just happened'. so any evidence for the Big Bang means nothing if you can still say that a creator created the Big Bang. so your entire statement is a bunch of words that, in the end, say nothing. however, when you try to insinuate that your beliefs are on par with the theories of the scientific community with a statement like 'not a lot of hard evidence either way', you cross the line from rational to irrational. if you want to claim that you are a rational person, then you need to act in a rational way, and not just in all areas except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

 

[shader]

If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

is this purposely vague? first of all, there is NO hard evidence for a creator. none. everything you listed in your prior post is not evidence.secondly, there IS hard evidence for the Big Bang, but I see you qualified that by saying there is 'not a lot', and you don't define what you would consider a lot. thirdly, you don't flat out assert that there was no Big Bang, just that you don't think it 'just happened'. so any evidence for the Big Bang means nothing if you can still say that a creator created the Big Bang. so your entire statement is a bunch of words that, in the end, say nothing. however, when you try to insinuate that your beliefs are on par with the theories of the scientific community with a statement like 'not a lot of hard evidence either way', you cross the line from rational to irrational. if you want to claim that you are a rational person, then you need to act in a rational way, and not just in all areas except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

I never said the Big Bang just happened. I guess I didn't clarify. I meant atheists are going to have trouble convincing me that the Big Bang happened for no reason and without any intelligent thought behind it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

is this purposely vague? first of all, there is NO hard evidence for a creator. none. everything you listed in your prior post is not evidence.secondly, there IS hard evidence for the Big Bang, but I see you qualified that by saying there is 'not a lot', and you don't define what you would consider a lot. thirdly, you don't flat out assert that there was no Big Bang, just that you don't think it 'just happened'. so any evidence for the Big Bang means nothing if you can still say that a creator created the Big Bang. so your entire statement is a bunch of words that, in the end, say nothing. however, when you try to insinuate that your beliefs are on par with the theories of the scientific community with a statement like 'not a lot of hard evidence either way', you cross the line from rational to irrational. if you want to claim that you are a rational person, then you need to act in a rational way, and not just in all areas except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

I never said the Big Bang just happened. I guess I didn't clarify. I meant atheists are going to have trouble convincing me that the Big Bang happened for no reason and without any intelligent thought behind it.

The omnipotent god is such a simplified copout. Maybe there is another dimension that we as humans do not comprehend that has impacted the universe as we know it, but to just say it's some god that did it at his own behest rather than exploring and questioning further until we gather more and more information and answers is just intellectually lazy.

 

[shader]

Jomar, to take it a step further, I'll entertain the Big Bang for a second.

The Big Bang is a widely accepted scientific theory. Analyzing WHAT happened is fine. That is scientific.

The WHY is where all the controversy comes in. Religious people like to say that God did it. Atheists are still trying to figure out the why, and have no reason to inlude a God in the conversation.

In my opinion, the universe is evidence for a powerful and intelligent being. You may not agree.

Is this evidence the same type of evidence as 1+1=2. Obviously not. Perhaps I did overstate that earlier in the thread. In MY estimation it is just as rational, but I understand others may not share that viewpoint and my intention is not to try and convince you of that belief. You are going to believe what you believe.

 

[shader]

If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

is this purposely vague?

first of all, there is NO hard evidence for a creator. none. everything you listed in your prior post is not evidence.

secondly, there IS hard evidence for the Big Bang, but I see you qualified that by saying there is 'not a lot', and you don't define what you would consider a lot.

thirdly, you don't flat out assert that there was no Big Bang, just that you don't think it 'just happened'. so any evidence for the Big Bang means nothing if you can still say that a creator created the Big Bang.

so your entire statement is a bunch of words that, in the end, say nothing. however, when you try to insinuate that your beliefs are on par with the theories of the scientific community with a statement like 'not a lot of hard evidence either way', you cross the line from rational to irrational. if you want to claim that you are a rational person, then you need to act in a rational way, and not just in all areas except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

I never said the Big Bang just happened. I guess I didn't clarify. I meant atheists are going to have trouble convincing me that the Big Bang happened for no reason and without any intelligent thought behind it.

The omnipotent god is such a simplified copout. Maybe there is another dimension that we as humans do not comprehend that has impacted the universe as we know it, but to just say it's some god that did it at his own behest rather than exploring and questioning further until we gather more and more information and answers is just intellectually lazy.

Have fun with your beliefs. This type of attitude is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. The "my opinion is intellectually superior" attitude.

 

[jomar]

If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

is this purposely vague? first of all, there is NO hard evidence for a creator. none. everything you listed in your prior post is not evidence.secondly, there IS hard evidence for the Big Bang, but I see you qualified that by saying there is 'not a lot', and you don't define what you would consider a lot. thirdly, you don't flat out assert that there was no Big Bang, just that you don't think it 'just happened'. so any evidence for the Big Bang means nothing if you can still say that a creator created the Big Bang. so your entire statement is a bunch of words that, in the end, say nothing. however, when you try to insinuate that your beliefs are on par with the theories of the scientific community with a statement like 'not a lot of hard evidence either way', you cross the line from rational to irrational. if you want to claim that you are a rational person, then you need to act in a rational way, and not just in all areas except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

I never said the Big Bang just happened. I guess I didn't clarify. I meant atheists are going to have trouble convincing me that the Big Bang happened for no reason and without any intelligent thought behind it.

thats what I said. my point was that you (and other religious types like you) will say things like 'there is not a lot of hard evidence either way', as if your beliefs are on par with science. that could not be further from the truth. everything the scientific community believes DOES have hard evidence behind it, while your religious beliefs have ZERO hard evidence behind it. to say there is no hard evidence either way is disingenuous or worse. Science doesn't say that there is no God, just that there is no evidence for a God. I don't see the need for religious people to attack science and say things like you said. you can have faith in your God but don't try to say you have evidence or that science does not.

 

[shader]

If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

is this purposely vague? first of all, there is NO hard evidence for a creator. none. everything you listed in your prior post is not evidence.secondly, there IS hard evidence for the Big Bang, but I see you qualified that by saying there is 'not a lot', and you don't define what you would consider a lot. thirdly, you don't flat out assert that there was no Big Bang, just that you don't think it 'just happened'. so any evidence for the Big Bang means nothing if you can still say that a creator created the Big Bang. so your entire statement is a bunch of words that, in the end, say nothing. however, when you try to insinuate that your beliefs are on par with the theories of the scientific community with a statement like 'not a lot of hard evidence either way', you cross the line from rational to irrational. if you want to claim that you are a rational person, then you need to act in a rational way, and not just in all areas except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

I never said the Big Bang just happened. I guess I didn't clarify. I meant atheists are going to have trouble convincing me that the Big Bang happened for no reason and without any intelligent thought behind it.

thats what I said. my point was that you (and other religious types like you) will say things like 'there is not a lot of hard evidence either way', as if your beliefs are on par with science. that could not be further from the truth. everything the scientific community believes DOES have hard evidence behind it, while your religious beliefs have ZERO hard evidence behind it. to say there is no hard evidence either way is disingenuous or worse. Science doesn't say that there is no God, just that there is no evidence for a God. I don't see the need for religious people to attack science and say things like you said. you can have faith in your God but don't try to say you have evidence or that science does not.

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine. I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain. Also, I don't recall attacking science. Carry on with your attacks though.

 

[jomar]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine. I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know. you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

 

[NCCommish]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

Many of us don't view vouchers as "taxpayer money" any more than we view Social Security checks as "taxpayer money." Confiscating somebody's wealth and then handing it back to them doesn't magically transform it, or at least it shouldn't.

I am going to guess there are a lot of people getting vouchers who don't pay thousands a year in taxes. So they are getting some of somebody else's tax money.

The same goes for people who receive Social Security, Pell grants, and other benefits.

And? Are we using Social Security to fund religious indoctrination?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I guess I don't see what's so nation destroyingly bad. The book clearly outlines both sides of the arguement and lets the kids decide which they want to believe. At least it's balanced.

They should be given a choice between 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 87. There's no right or wrong answer when it comes to science and math. Not only should everyone be given a choice, schools should encourage this out of the box line of thinking.

 

[Run It Up]

Have fun with your beliefs. This type of attitude is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. The "my opinion is intellectually superior" attitude.

By definition it is.Also to anyone who thinks this is no big deal, I agree that it isn't going to destroy our country - I don't agree that religion has any business in public education, at all.

Secularism, HO!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

Many of us don't view vouchers as "taxpayer money" any more than we view Social Security checks as "taxpayer money." Confiscating somebody's wealth and then handing it back to them doesn't magically transform it, or at least it shouldn't.

I am going to guess there are a lot of people getting vouchers who don't pay thousands a year in taxes. So they are getting some of somebody else's tax money.

The same goes for people who receive Social Security, Pell grants, and other benefits.

And? Are we using Social Security to fund religious indoctrination?

I'm sure some people donate part or all of their Social Security payments to their church, so yes, we do.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

You guys obviously don't watch Cajun Pawn Stars.

 

[shader]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine.

I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know.

you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

One side is atheism and one side is religion. Get it straight.

 

[CBusAlex]

Seems like the whole "well, it's my opinion and I'm never going to convince you so I won't bother explaining why" bit is something people resort to a lot when faced with a question they can't answer.

 

[shader]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine.

I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know.

you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

So when it all comes down to it, what you are really doing is ridiculing people for believing in something. You want us to be more like you. Leeroy Jenkins earlier posted " Maybe there is another dimension that we as humans do not comprehend that has impacted the universe as we know it".

So obviously he is completely fine with complete speculation as to a hypothesized dimension that we can't comprehend that impacts our universe in ways we can't comprehend.

But if we dare to say "I actually believe in a God that impacted the universe in ways I can't quite explain, we are laughed off the board and called yahoos...

I am COMPLETELY fine with saying I don't know exactly how it happened. But you act as if we should ditch our faith in God just because we have no scientific proof. You try and minimize faith by comparing faith in God to faith in an internet creation, which is the height of absurdity and shows that you have absolutely zero respect for the beliefs of others. The many reasons I (and millions of others) have for believing in the God of the bible apparently are all completely insignificant.

Again..intellectual superiority. Arrogance. It's pretty despicable.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Don't you see your mistake? You are the one claiming that your argument is rational and that others aren't. I never set out to prove to you that my assertion was rational. It is rational to me, and it is rational to many others. It's really that simple. I don't find the atheistic argument plausible at all. But I understand the argument. I just disagree.I don't expect others to accept anything I have said. If you believe that the universe popped into existence without the benefit of any sort of creator, than go for it. Just as I am not going to be able to convince you that a God created it....atheists are going to have a ton of trouble convincing me that the Big Bang just happened. Not a lot of hard evidence either way, and that which one side thinks is evidence, the other side rejects.

It's not my mistake. The words "rational" and "evidence" aren't like the word "beauty." They are meant to imply concepts that operate universally, not concepts that have meanings that are idiosyncratic to you and me. Evidence is something that makes a given statement more or less likely as a matter of probability. Rational argument is argument that is supported by fact or logic. Here is a statement. "Human beings are innately good." You may feel that it is a reasonable statement. You may feel that it is a unreasonable statement. But it is not a rational argument because it's just something I have asserted without offering any evidence.

 

[timschochet]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

http://en.wikipedia....Francis_Collins

Francis Collins became a Christian due to reasons that had nothing to do with scientific discovery. Per what you linked:Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40]as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[22]

Tim,You made an assertion that is just a guess. I've met people who claimed that the reason they believe in God is the complexity of the universe. I'm sure these are a minority in your eyes, but they do exist.

Also, I totally disagree with your statement that "nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held."

I know the people in my office pretty well. Aside from one guy, they are not all that religious at all. They don't have a deeply held faith in the bible or in God. They smoke, cuss, drink, and do all sorts of things that might make many religious people blush.

But are they atheists? Few and far between. Most people believe there is SOMETHING out there that created us. They may think that something doesn't care. Some believe in God, but aren't religious at all. I think you can extrapolate this pretty easily by looking at surveys.

In fact, the surveys pretty much reject your thesis completely.

People that are not religious, are not bound to a certain set of religious beliefs are growing very, very quickly. Yet atheism remains a set of beliefs that are only held by a small percentage of people.

So there are MILLIONS of people who believe in some type of creator, but are not justifying a deeply held faith, and they are not quite religious.

Do a survey. Start asking people who don't attend church if they believe there is some sort of god or creator. Most do.

You completely missed my point. I wasn't referring to the fact that most people, including a majority of those who are not religious, believe in some sort of creator. I know they do.I was specifically referring to those who make the "watchmaker" argument- basically your argument about DNA- that because you've seen it, you assume that it's designed. This sort of argument is not made by non-religious people who generally believe in God. It's not made by non-believers whom, upon accepting this "evidence", become theists. It's only made by religious people.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That being said, there is one thing about most atheists that always frustrates me. Although I find myself agreeing with you guys in a lot of areas, due to the ridiculous teachings and beliefs of most religions, there is one thing that really bothers me.

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

I happen to disagree, as do hundreds of millions of others. Now some possibly are brain-washed, some possibly are not intelligent, and some try to intentionally distort and hide facts. But not all.

People like to think that their own beliefs are better justified than the contrary beliefs of others. It's human nature. People on both sides of the God debate do it.Many atheists convince themselves that only beliefs based on evidence are justified, and then trumpet the lack of evidence for any gods as proof that all forms of theism are unjustifiable. It can be annoying, particularly when a given atheist becomes smug about it, because plenty of perfectly good beliefs — beliefs that even atheists commonly embrace — are unsupported by evidence. (Most atheists, for example, believe that Last Thursdayism is false, even though there is no evidence of its falsity.)

But if many atheists are overly concerned with evidence, so are many theists. Theists should be quite comfortable admitting to themselves that their religious beliefs are held on faith rather than evidence; but — presumably to feel more justified in those beliefs — they often convince themselves that their religious beliefs are in fact supported by evidence. In doing so, they nearly always use double standards, special pleading, and other logical missteps.

(It is very common, by the way, for us humans to be mistaken about why we believe what we believe. Our subconscious is a master at rationalization. This is evident in numerous fascinating experiments of the sort described in this book. We fool ourselves all the time, making decisions or forming beliefs and then, only afterwards, forming rationalizations that we consciously — but falsely — believe to to have driven those decisions or beliefs.)

We've seen examples of these kinds of double standards in this thread. For example:

Some of us see unbelievable precision and are astounded. ... New scientific discoveries have only strengthened the views of many, due to the fact that the cell and DNA ALWAYS get MORE complex as our powers of observation increase. In the 1800's, it might have seem reasonable to assume that life would just pop out of nothing, as we didn't really understand the building blocks of life. ... Perhaps your worldview is that science will eventually explain how a cell could form or possibly even replicate conditions in a way that allow it to form. I don't believe that will occur or can occur naturally.

It seems you're arguing that since we can't explain exactly how life could arise from non-life without divine intervention, that's evidence for divine intervention. That's a double-standard, and here's why. We also can't explain exactly how life could have arisen from non-life with divine intervention. What's the mechanism? How does divine intervention work, exactly?If not knowing all the details involving exactly how something can occur naturally is evidence that it instead occurred supernaturally, then not knowing all the details involving exactly how something could occur supernaturally would equally be evidence that it occurred naturally. But fallacious theistic arguments embrace only the first part while disregarding the second. That's a double standard.

(We saw the same thing earlier in the thread, when rascal indicated that his problem with atheism was that it couldn't explain where all of the universe's mass and energy came from, but then expressed no problem with theism's similar inability to explain where God came from. Again, a double standard. I'm not suggesting that he must know where God came from in order to justify his theism; I'm suggesting that our ignorance of where everything came from isn't really his problem with atheism. I suspect that his real problem with atheism is simply that it goes against his faith.)

I'm not going to try to argue anybody out of believing that a loving God exists. There may be perfectly good faith-based reasons for holding that belief; and for all I know, the belief may even be true. What I would like to see, though, is greater self-awareness among theists regarding why they hold their beliefs. A belief in a transcendent God must necessarily be a matter of faith. That faith can be affirmed in appreciating the beauty and complexity of a cell; but that doesn't make the complexity of a cell evidence in support of that faith. (After all, if it turned out that cells weren't so very complicated after all, would you consider that to be evidence against God's existence? X can't be evidence for Y if not-X wouldn't be evidence for not-Y.)

Evidence-based arguments for supernatural gods are always, so far as I can tell, fallacious. That doesn't mean that no such gods exist. It certainly doesn't mean that believing in such gods is unwise or harmful. But it does suggest that the true reason that so many people believe in supernatural gods has more to do with faith than with evidence-based arguments.

I think both atheists and theists should learn to be okay with that. Atheists should stop challenging theists to support all of their religious beliefs with evidence, as if evidence is the only thing that matters; and theists should stop trying to meet such an ill-posed challenge. It's pointless and is doomed to fail.

(To be sure, I do think there are certain contexts in which it is morally irresponsible to hold beliefs unsupported by evidence; but I don't think beliefs regarding the origin or meaning of the universe fit into that category.)

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Again, you indoctrinating your young kids in a cult based on an internet meme is not equivalent to someone believing in the bible and God. Your kids would have faith. But what would that faith be based on? It would quickly disintegrate once they saw the real world and learned about how the FSM got its start. If you want a discussion on why someone who believes in the God of the bible has faith, that's a different discussion.

if only someone had written a book on FSM a few thousand years ago, my kids would be in a religion instead of a cult? how about Zeus, can I indoctrinate them to him without being insulted with the 'cult' word?I'm sure I could do some mental gymnastics to keep my kids faith in line. maybe FSM just didn't reveal himself prior to the internet, maybe he used the internet meme route as a test to see who TRULY has faith. the possibilities are endless when you aren't bound by logic.

The FSM actually posts on this board. Take that! You don't see Jesus or Zeus around here. Pretty convincing evidence, IMO.

 

[17seconds]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine.

I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know.

you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

One side is atheism and one side is religion. Get it straight.

Atheism isn't a "side". Religion is a "side" and atheism is just not taking that "side".If I tell you that a tennis ball is an omnipotent god and you don't think that makes sense, can I say you are on the side fervently against the magical power of tennis balls? No. You just don't accept it or care.

 

[17seconds]

That being said, there is one thing about most atheists that always frustrates me. Although I find myself agreeing with you guys in a lot of areas, due to the ridiculous teachings and beliefs of most religions, there is one thing that really bothers me. It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

Yeah, because I don't really care. It bothers you that I don't care?If the world is 5 billion years old, a million years old, or 6,000 years old I really don't care. Science tells us it is billions of years old, so I believe that. But I don't really care deeply about it.Any discoveries going back to the origin of earth or our species is as interesting to me as any other subject of a documentary. If we find out that aliens created us, the exact god of the christian bible created us, or nothing created us... None of it affects my life. It's interesting information, yeah, but I don't put any real value in it.I'm not searching for the meaning of it all.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Perhaps your worldview is that science will eventually explain how a cell could form or possibly even replicate conditions in a way that allow it to form. I don't believe that will occur or can occur naturally.

By the way, we understand quite well how cells form: meiosis, mitosis.I'm not simply being a smart aleck.

I'm sure you meant that we don't know how the first cell formed. But that's a meaningless question, akin to asking how the first rabbit formed. The first rabbit was formed pretty much the same way that all other rabbits are formed: they're born of parents very similar to themselves. When you trace rabbit ancestry back far enough, you'll eventually reach mammals that were decidedly non-rabbits. But the exact dividing line between non-rabbits and rabbits — as if we could identify any such thing as the "first" rabbit — is a matter of subjective taste. It's a matter of semantics, not biology.

The exact same thing is almost certainly as true of cells as it is of rabbits. There was very likely no such thing as the "first" cell, any more than there was such a thing as the "first" rabbit. Cells, like rabbits, are the product of evolution, each generation only slightly different from the last.

How any given cell was made, like how any given rabbit was made, is not difficult to fathom.

I'm simply pushing the question back, of course. Before rabbits there were mammalian non-rabbits, and before mammalian non-rabbits there were cells, and before cells there were other various packets of metabolic replicators, and before them there were likely ametabolic replicators, and before them there was dirt. (I almost said "clay" instead of dirt; but actually, clay crystals can self-replicate.)

I'm saying all of this only because, if you're looking for a god-of-the-gaps argument to make, I don't think you should use the cell. I'm not sure what you should use. Maybe something between clay and RNA? But there's got to be a step somewhere between dirt and rabbits that is currently harder to explain — that constitutes a wider gap — than the transition from protocells to cells.

 

[shader]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

http://en.wikipedia....Francis_Collins

Francis Collins became a Christian due to reasons that had nothing to do with scientific discovery. Per what you linked:Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40]as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[22]

Tim,You made an assertion that is just a guess. I've met people who claimed that the reason they believe in God is the complexity of the universe. I'm sure these are a minority in your eyes, but they do exist.

Also, I totally disagree with your statement that "nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held."

I know the people in my office pretty well. Aside from one guy, they are not all that religious at all. They don't have a deeply held faith in the bible or in God. They smoke, cuss, drink, and do all sorts of things that might make many religious people blush.

But are they atheists? Few and far between. Most people believe there is SOMETHING out there that created us. They may think that something doesn't care. Some believe in God, but aren't religious at all. I think you can extrapolate this pretty easily by looking at surveys.

In fact, the surveys pretty much reject your thesis completely.

People that are not religious, are not bound to a certain set of religious beliefs are growing very, very quickly. Yet atheism remains a set of beliefs that are only held by a small percentage of people.

So there are MILLIONS of people who believe in some type of creator, but are not justifying a deeply held faith, and they are not quite religious.

Do a survey. Start asking people who don't attend church if they believe there is some sort of god or creator. Most do.

You completely missed my point. I wasn't referring to the fact that most people, including a majority of those who are not religious, believe in some sort of creator. I know they do.I was specifically referring to those who make the "watchmaker" argument- basically your argument about DNA- that because you've seen it, you assume that it's designed. This sort of argument is not made by non-religious people who generally believe in God. It's not made by non-believers whom, upon accepting this "evidence", become theists. It's only made by religious people.

I completely disagree.

 

[shader]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine.

I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know.

you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

One side is atheism and one side is religion. Get it straight.

Atheism isn't a "side". Religion is a "side" and atheism is just not taking that "side".If I tell you that a tennis ball is an omnipotent god and you don't think that makes sense, can I say you are on the side fervently against the magical power of tennis balls? No. You just don't accept it or care.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It hardly seems to matter whether smart people or dumb people or religious people or secular people believe the watchmaker argument. The argument must stand or fall on its own.

So let's look at the argument as a logical proof (and please correct me if I'm getting it wrong).

Premise: Watches are complex.

Premise: Watches are designed by creators.

Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.

Conclusion: DNA is made by an intelligent creator.

Now here's another logical proof.

Premise: Watches are complex.

Premise: Watches are designed by humans.

Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.

Concusion: DNA is designed by humans.

In each case, I'd assume everyone on this board agrees with the three premises. But as the second proof illustrates, the premises don't lead to the conclusions.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

On my phone so hard to quote what I need, but I wanted to touch on something I think Maurile referenced above, and it's why I think it's important to recognize the two separate parts of the discussion, namely: was there a creator, and if so, who was the creator?

The former is a fascinating philosophical question. It's fun to debate, but ultimately I don't really care if you think DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer. None of us knows and almost certainly never will, so it's fun to talk about but ultimately not very important.

The latter, though, has real implications. Once you make the leap from "I believe the universe must have had a creator" to "I believe the god of the bible created the universe" now you're taking a much stronger stance, and that's when we start getting into the problems atheists legitimately have with religion, e.g. gay marriage rights, stem cell research funding, science education in public schools, etc.

So I know you don't have any evidence that the universe had a creator. I don't have any evidence that it didn't. That's fine. But once you put a name to it, and it comes with a book full of rules you believe we should follow, that's when I have to start demanding evidence. It's why I made that distinction earlier and have since tried to steer the discussion in that direction. I don't especially care why you believe in a creator. I do care why you believe in the Bible.