Thread: Question for Atheists.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

God is the rational conclusion, it takes balls to believe in God though, not everyone really wants that huge responsibility.

It doesn't take balls, what you have displayed is intellectual cowardice. You have displayed the childlike inability to distinguish between what you like to be true and what you believe.

1. Someone suggested there is not god
2. I don't like this
3. Therefore there is a god

How childish can you get?

Saying "I don't yet know" takes balls. Admitting you don't have an answer for definite takes balls. Assuming one because your rampant egotism demands a purpose does not.

Some of this can all be answered in the responses above. Atheism is denying what you don't know, if you don't know there's a God than be an agnostic, or give evidence that God doesn't exist. Youve got to pick one of two irrational beliefs, that things just become purposelessly out of nothing with no intelligence behind it or things became through intelligent purpose with an eternal God being at the top of that latter. Then you have faith in that chosing. You chose the uncurious and accuse me of not being curious, you have a faith-based belief system called atheism, while I have a theistic belief system that I also have faith in. You and I differ only on what side of the God coin we flipped.

Atheism is not "denying what you don't know". How you can manage to argue on a subject when you don't even understand the basic concept is beyond me. Well actually, that's not true: you're an ignorant idiot and you're deluded. Still, it's a large club so don't feel too bad.

You also fail to understand that agnosticism is not a belief in itself, despite what the general ignorant masses believe. Agnosticism is the belief that something cannot be known for certain. It has nothing to do with the belief itself. You could be agnostic over alien life existing for instance, yet still believe there is alien life out there

By itself it means almost nothing.

Anger is a natural reaction to an assault on a long-held belief system, one that isn't without it's flaws. You could even describe yourself, which is ironic.

Don't put yourself on a pedestal, and don't mistake my hostility to your ignorance and childlike beliefs as you mounting a successful assault on my beliefs.

My hostility is towards you, your lack of curiosity, intellect, your ignorance, lack of reasoning, and the arrogance with which you assume an answer, something which does deserve contempt.

Originally Posted by Xedan

No, you're silly for putting a far more complicated idea into place where a much simpler one actually explains it a lot better. The website is called COMMON SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE.com. In fact scientist have taken molecules and put them under 'early earth' conditions, and the molecules formed amino acids, which can form life. And said molecules were created from stardust. That is, the matter flung into space after a supernova. Before a supernova occurs, the star, through the process of nuclear fusion, creates heavier and heavier elements, starting with helium. Those stars are formed from gravity pulling together particles in space, causing friction, which eventually exceeds 20,000 or so degrees and a star is born. Those particles came from matter/anti matter explosions at the time of the big bang. Any other questions about how we got from point A to point B?

I didn't deny for a second that these rudimentary building blocks can't be made, only that they would make themselves without intelligence behind it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You want irrational? Which is more likely: that molecules began bonding in new ways and forming new structures, which ultimately got together in a sort of symbiotic relationship to form the early beginnings of life, or that some divine something-or-other has always been around, outside of time, popping up from god-knows-where, and interfering only at very select times? The first one really isn't that implausible at all, while the second one is what really borders on the impossible.

If you look at life, it is little more than a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Organisms receive signals from the environment to grow and adapt, the chemical processes keep one another alive and well, and each organelle in an organism has a specific function...namely, performing some sort of chemical reaction. Life does not need a guiding hand or some form of intelligence to continue living...it just needs the right conditions. If you put an amoeba in a solution of sulfuric acid, the harsh conditions will stop crucial chemical reactions and cause the amoeba to die...end of story.

Okay first of all what's up with you guys and these girl avatars!

You skipped over the big question, the chemical processes keep one another alive and well
Why? Molecules going out of the way to help other molecules survive, chaperones folding those strands into enzymes, etc, burning ATP to run things, all this wonderful engineered purpose-driven machinery is the product of something more than chance, that's my conclusion.

Originally Posted by Hidden

Do you know how much more fun it is to say, "I used to be stardust" than "God created man"?

How about both??

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Yes, it leaves a lot of questions. That's because we aren't afraid of not knowing. That's why we rather search for truth than base the world on complete assumptions, like the one I just quoted: "you need something that is intelligent anmd beyond this physical universe and is eternal in order to justify everything else."

I just don't think it's that unknowable.

A waste of time? To waste time you first need purpose. If there is no purpose other than the one we give ourselves, then no, nobody wastes their time except the ones that see themselves as wasting time.

You are the one giving up and not caring. Most atheist, as I said, strive to find out why things are the way they are. You just say "God did it". I don't know what kind of logic you use, but the first sentence presents "caring", as in searching for truth, the second one, saying, "God did it", is giving up on the search for truth. It is quite a hallmark of humanity: Surprise, surprise... at the time when atheism is on the rise, we're seeing the greatest achievements and discoveries in history. That's called not giving up, if you actually need a translation. The extreme side of religions showed its potential in the dark ages. If we're tipping to the atheistic side of things, I think the differences are clear.

Alot of wonderful minds that contributed to science, like Mendel who layed the framework for genetics, was a believer in God...a monk in his case. The idea that denying God makes you a better scientisi isn't a fair thing to conclude. Atheism has also contributed alot of terror in the modern world, such as the Soviet Union with the killing of millions, and Nazi Germany, the killing of million also. Hitler and Stalin and Lenin, Mao, they were all atheists. Roseau, the leader of the French Revolution, was a blood thirsty butcherer also.

It's a fundemental part of the human being to accept that force that is beyond us as real, and to believe in something that's a heck of a lot better than chance, that's such an overplayed card that numbers and physics is what's behind all the stuff I keep saying.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It doesn't take balls, what you have displayed is intellectual cowardice. You have displayed the childlike inability to distinguish between what you like to be true and what you believe.

1. Someone suggested there is not god
2. I don't like this
3. Therefore there is a god

How childish can you get?

Saying "I don't yet know" takes balls. Admitting you don't have an answer for definite takes balls. Assuming one because your rampant egotism demands a purpose does not.

God is the rational conclusion, maybe there are other conclusions but in my opinion, not as rational.

Atheism is not "denying what you don't know". How you can manage to argue on a subject when you don't even understand the basic concept is beyond me. Well actually, that's not true: you're an ignorant idiot and you're deluded. Still, it's a large club so don't feel too bad.

You also fail to understand that agnosticism is not a belief in itself, despite what the general ignorant masses believe. Agnosticism is the belief that something cannot be known for certain. It has nothing to do with the belief itself. You could be agnostic over alien life existing for instance, yet still believe there is alien life out there

Man everything you say to me could describe yourself, or perhaps I'm from a different club. So can a man be both a post-enlightenment era rationalist and at that same token, believe in God. Look at our great minds like Kant, Newton, the founding fathers, etc...a proud tradition of a balance between science and God.

Don't put yourself on a pedestal, and don't mistake my hostility to your ignorance and childlike beliefs as you mounting a successful assault on my beliefs.

My hostility is towards you, your lack of curiosity, intellect, your ignorance, lack of reasoning, and the arrogance with which you assume an answer, something which does deserve contempt.

You assume an answer, there's no God, I assume an answer, there is God. Based on what though? Sometimes you can read something through it's creation, such as this wonderful thing called life, this vast ordered universe, this intelligence we have to even ask the question, to search for God. Then the whole mass experiences of the paranormal and supernatural, to dismiss it as nothing doesn't impress me as very progressive.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Alot of wonderful minds that contributed to science, like Mendel who layed the framework for genetics, was a believer in God...a monk in his case. The idea that denying God makes you a better scientisi isn't a fair thing to conclude. Atheism has also contributed alot of terror in the modern world, such as the Soviet Union with the killing of millions, and Nazi Germany, the killing of million also. Hitler and Stalin and Lenin, Mao, they were all atheists. Roseau, the leader of the French Revolution, was a blood thirsty butcherer also.

I'm not really involved here, but this stood out a little to me.

The Nazi's had the words "God is With Us" engraved on all their issued belt buckles. Hitler himself is very debated over his beliefs. HE said at certain times explicitly he was a catholic, at other times he was reported as saying Germany should be the only God. Either way It's highly unfair and against the evidence to claim him as an "atheist". The reality is much more shrouded.

The people you listed didn't commit any of their crimes because they were atheists. We could play that game all day of listing people who were christian who commited atrocities and any religion and agnostic and atheist whatever, it's pointless and has no place in an adult conversation.


Also the reason in the past scientists have often been religious is firstly because religion played a very different role in the past. It consisted of the early sciences as well as just worshipping. Also nearly everyone of high social standing and deemed worthy of an education was religious. Because it was so much more widespread and fervent than it is today OF COURSE more scientists were religious of the time. What really nails this point home is that in the past century, as science has found more and religion has dwindled, scientists have become less and less religious, to the extent that today the majority of top scientists, by many sources I can find if you want, are non religious.


Not trying to get into an argument, It's just those two statements were quite wrong.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

I didn't deny for a second that these rudimentary building blocks can't be made, only that they would make themselves without intelligence behind it.
Go down two responses for an explanation, I wrote that one first and don't want to repeat myself.



Okay first of all what's up with you guys and these girl avatars!
Mine was my dream guide, and Mario's is his favorite (or possibly second favorite) anime.


You skipped over the big question, the chemical processes keep one another alive and well
Why? Molecules going out of the way to help other molecules survive, chaperones folding those strands into enzymes, etc, burning ATP to run things, all this wonderful engineered purpose-driven machinery is the product of something more than chance, that's my conclusion.
Again, you obviously don't understand the sheer scale of the universe. Think of it this way: Millions of people play the lottery. Almost every one of them fail. But one of them is lucky enough to get the right numbers. Now, where they told the right numbers by a person on the inside, a person "intelligent", or did they just happen to be the likely statistic of someone eventually getting it right?


I just don't think it's that unknowable.
What evidence do you have? You know nothing! You GUESS! Stop taking any of what you're saying for fact. They are NOT! You do NOT call something a fact, and therefor do NOT know it to be true, unless it is extremely likely and no other possibility is available. And even those are very loose qualifications for facts. Scientists take almost nothing they do for fact. But they can provide information to back it up to within a shadow of a doubt. But said shadow is all someone needs to come up with a more likely theory.

.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Alot of wonderful minds that contributed to science, like Mendel who layed the framework for genetics, was a believer in God...a monk in his case. The idea that denying God makes you a better scientisi isn't a fair thing to conclude. Atheism has also contributed alot of terror in the modern world, such as the Soviet Union with the killing of millions, and Nazi Germany, the killing of million also. Hitler and Stalin and Lenin, Mao, they were all atheists. Roseau, the leader of the French Revolution, was a blood thirsty butcherer also.

First off, the French revolution led to liberty, equality, and brotherhood, just as was intended. It was nothing but total war. And by mentioning murder, you've forced my hand. I will now expose the Christian holy writ.



It's a fundemental part of the human being to accept that force that is beyond us as real, and to believe in something that's a heck of a lot better than chance, that's such an overplayed card that numbers and physics is what's behind all the stuff I keep saying.
For every grain of sand on every beach on Earth, there are at least a million stars in the universe. Many of these are solar systems. And many of those (many being literal, not relatively, as the numbers would be relatively few) will have planets inhabited by life. Those are the statistics, and those are chance. And lastly, those are probably understatements.



God is the rational conclusion, maybe there are other conclusions but in my opinion, not as rational.

Rationality is not an opinion, so yours has no place in this conversation



Man everything you say to me could describe yourself, or perhaps I'm from a different club. So can a man be both a post-enlightenment era rationalist and at that same token, believe in God. Look at our great minds like Kant, Newton, the founding fathers, etc...a proud tradition of a balance between science and God.
Actually, most of the founding fathers were deists. Deists hardly believe in a conventional god. They believe something set things in motion but that anything that happens to you must be earned.



You assume an answer, there's no God, I assume an answer, there is God. Based on what though? Sometimes you can read something through it's creation, such as this wonderful thing called life, this vast ordered universe, this intelligence we have to even ask the question, to search for God. Then the whole mass experiences of the paranormal and supernatural, to dismiss it as nothing doesn't impress me as very progressive.
Based on the fact that there is no evidence for god that cannot have intelligence explained away.

.

For every grain of sand on every beach on Earth, there are at least a million stars in the universe. Many of these are solar systems. And many of those (many being literal, not relatively, as the numbers would be relatively few) will have planets inhabited by life. Those are the statistics, and those are chance. And lastly, those are probably understatements.

Just going to cite some numbers off wikipedia.

The universe is about 8,678 x 10^23 km wide (that's 867 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilometres.) (disclaimer: this number is quite uncertain. The theories about the size of the universe rages from 13,7 billion light-years to 180 billion light-years... but doesn't really matter. There still isn't an adjective strong enough to describe how big it is.)

In this space, there is about 3-7 x 10^22 stars (30-70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 / 30-70 sextillion stars), organized in about 80 000 000 000 galaxies.

Someone look at these numbers and tell me chance has nothing to do with it.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe

Originally Posted by Sound

Just going to cite some numbers off wikipedia.

The universe is about 8,678 x 10^23 km wide (that's 867 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilometres.)

In this space, there is about 3-7 x 10^22 stars (30-70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars / 30-70 sextillion stars), organized in about 80 000 000 000 galaxies.

Someone look at these numbers and tell me chance has nothing to do with it.

Spoiler for oh god:

And it's constantly expanding D:

Originally Posted by Sound

Just going to cite some numbers off wikipedia.

The universe is about 8,678 x 10^23 km wide (that's 867 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilometres.) (disclaimer: this number is quite uncertain. The theories about the size of the universe rages from 13,7 billion light-years to 180 billion light-years... but doesn't really matter. There still isn't an adjective strong enough to describe how big it is.)

In this space, there is about 3-7 x 10^22 stars (30-70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 / 30-70 sextillion stars), organized in about 80 000 000 000 galaxies.

Someone look at these numbers and tell me chance has nothing to do with it.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe

Since I can't thanks you more than once, I just had to say

Originally Posted by Xedan

Since I can't thanks you more than once, I just had to say

No problem

I'm just doing my duty to my profound distaste of flawed "logic".

...okay, I'm just going to sum up atheism very nicely here.

Spoiler for Click.:

Obviously, this is highly simplified, but yeah, that's the general gist of atheism. We aren't "giving up" or claiming to know everything; all we're saying is that we'd rather trust the dudes carrying out experiments and making observations about the universe instead of the guys interpreting a 2,000-year-old book. It is important to distinguish between rational thoughts with evidence and assertions, which thus far, hypnocella has yet to show he can do.

Okay first of all what's up with you guys and these girl avatars!

We're making the forums pretty. Sod off.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I'm not really involved here, but this stood out a little to me.

The Nazi's had the words "God is With Us" engraved on all their issued belt buckles. Hitler himself is very debated over his beliefs. HE said at certain times explicitly he was a catholic, at other times he was reported as saying Germany should be the only God. Either way It's highly unfair and against the evidence to claim him as an "atheist". The reality is much more shrouded.

The people you listed didn't commit any of their crimes because they were atheists. We could play that game all day of listing people who were christian who commited atrocities and any religion and agnostic and atheist whatever, it's pointless and has no place in an adult conversation.

Hitler eventually wanted to replace Catholicism with his rascist nationalism. Millions of Catholics died in concentration camps btw. These figures thought hey if people believe in no God, society would be better off, and didn't turn out that way. The other extreme would be free thinking into science when sciecne is considered purely unnecessary by religious authorities is also an extreme, what's ideal in society is some middle ground for everyone to breathe.

Also the reason in the past scientists have often been religious is firstly because religion played a very different role in the past. It consisted of the early sciences as well as just worshipping. Also nearly everyone of high social standing and deemed worthy of an education was religious. Because it was so much more widespread and fervent than it is today OF COURSE more scientists were religious of the time. What really nails this point home is that in the past century, as science has found more and religion has dwindled, scientists have become less and less religious, to the extent that today the majority of top scientists, by many sources I can find if you want, are non religious.


Not trying to get into an argument, It's just those two statements were quite wrong.

The point is they don't necessarily have to be conflicting, at least with those past examples. I'm sure there are some top minds today who believe in God, but understadably religion is more in the home and out of society than ever before.

Originally Posted by Xedan

For every grain of sand on every beach on Earth, there are at least a million stars in the universe. Many of these are solar systems. And many of those (many being literal, not relatively, as the numbers would be relatively few) will have planets inhabited by life. Those are the statistics, and those are chance. And lastly, those are probably understatements.

But I keep asking you about this force of life, I call it a "force" because it's a movement forward instead of fading out of the scene when those conditions change. The cell is a small self-maintaing system of extraordinary complexity and order. The cell maintains itself, creates itself, replicates itself, eats, respirates by manipulating it's environment to maintain, evolves, communicates, differentiates, forms complex organisms, this isn't the product of randomness, randomness plays a part in it, but a moment of intervention was there lik the Monolith on 2012, God....and before that the God particle The best we have been able to do is make some basic building blocks in some explosions. Hardly proof that chance did this, that's your logic, chance is behind life although you assume it can happen and have faith in that belief, ironically.

First off, the French revolution led to liberty, equality, and brotherhood, just as was intended. It was nothing but total war. And by mentioning murder, you've forced my hand. I will now expose the Christian holy writ.

Jesus said love your enemies, a utopian society is achievable in the NT teachings, it's a basic relatively flexible moral code with some things in it you'd have to believe in like any religion.

Originally Posted by Sound

Just going to cite some numbers off wikipedia.

The universe is about 8,678 x 10^23 km wide (that's 867 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilometres.) (disclaimer: this number is quite uncertain. The theories about the size of the universe rages from 13,7 billion light-years to 180 billion light-years... but doesn't really matter. There still isn't an adjective strong enough to describe how big it is.)

In this space, there is about 3-7 x 10^22 stars (30-70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 / 30-70 sextillion stars), organized in about 80 000 000 000 galaxies.

Someone look at these numbers and tell me chance has nothing to do with it.

Chance is what you replaced God with. It's just a term for random collisions of atoms. Life is all over the universe, even in a few places in our solar system. You just need some conditions for life and it's there. Building blocks of life are just that however, their relationship by themselves without intelligent design behind them are lego blocks. They have no need to work together and stay alive. I'm repeating myself here because this point is being missed.

Can you state your main argument in a simple premises-therefore-conclusion manner? It's much simpler to demonstrate its flaws that way.

Otherwise it's just tldr for me.

But I keep asking you about this force of life, I call it a "force" because it's a movement forward instead of fading out of the scene when those conditions change. The cell is a small self-maintaing system of extraordinary complexity and order. The cell maintains itself, creates itself, replicates itself, eats, respirates by manipulating it's environment to maintain, evolves, communicates, differentiates, forms complex organisms, this isn't the product of randomness, randomness plays a part in it, but a moment of intervention was there lik the Monolith on 2012, God....and before that the God particle The best we have been able to do is make some basic building blocks in some explosions. Hardly proof that chance did this, that's your logic, chance is behind life although you assume it can happen and have faith in that belief, ironically.

Science can explain each and every chemical reaction that takes place within a cell. Probability comes into play when you speculate on the odds of these chemical reactions and cellular processes coming together and "surviving" in a self-sustaining manner. What are the odds? Not fantastic, but not even close to impossible. Given an infinite amount of time, matter, and energy, everything that can happen, will. Do not forget that abiogenesis is only one possible explanation for how life arose...one of many that also don't include any sort of higher power or God. There is no "life force" behind creatures, no driving energy that keeps them going and evolving, just chemical reactions. That's it.

Chance is what you replaced God with. It's just a term for random collisions of atoms. Life is all over the universe, even in a few places in our solar system. You just need some conditions for life and it's there. Building blocks of life are just that however, their relationship by themselves without intelligent design behind them are lego blocks. They have no need to work together and stay alive. I'm repeating myself here because this point is being missed.

Luckily, the building blocks of life don't just sit there on the floor, then. They drift over primordial seas, collide, interact. Your "lego brick" analogy is as flawed as it is ridiculous. I place far more confidence in probability than I do any sort of God, which again, only raises more questions than answers.

Okay I want to mention one more thing, then later get back to all that, but all the supernatural and paranormal things out there, atheism prevents you from both taking that seriously and forming theories and ideas about them. Because what happens when something isn't supposed to exist but does!

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Okay I want to mention one more thing, then later get back to all that, but all the supernatural and paranormal things out there, atheism prevents you from both taking that seriously and forming theories and ideas about them. Because what happens when something isn't supposed to exist but does!

Oh, you've got to be friggin' kidding me. Dude, you are so beyond misinformed at this point. Basically, atheists demand evidence. That's it. They do not immediately dismiss paranormal activity...they search for a legitimate cause. You're actually being skeptical of skepticism. If you had seen the video I posted, you would understand this. Demanding evidence does not make you close-minded. Scientists actively search for causes of paranormal activity, but failing a legitimate explanation, it does not make any sense at all to go "well, it must have been a ghost or God or Satan" or anything of the nature. An unexplained event is just that; unexplained. As our knowledge of how the universe operates grows, we may be able to explain such event at a later date, but to attribute it to God in the mean time is just ridiculous, and can actually prevent the growth of knowledge.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

But I keep asking you about this force of life, I call it a "force" because it's a movement forward instead of fading out of the scene when those conditions change. The cell is a small self-maintaing system of extraordinary complexity and order. The cell maintains itself, creates itself, replicates itself, eats, respirates by manipulating it's environment to maintain, evolves, communicates, differentiates, forms complex organisms, this isn't the product of randomness, randomness plays a part in it, but a moment of intervention was there lik the Monolith on 2012, God....and before that the God particle The best we have been able to do is make some basic building blocks in some explosions. Hardly proof that chance did this, that's your logic, chance is behind life although you assume it can happen and have faith in that belief, ironically.

Why must life have a force behind it? Can life not be the force that imposes structure and meaning onto this void?

How do you know there was a moment of intervention?

You are confusing your own lack of understanding with randomness.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Okay I want to mention one more thing, then later get back to all that, but all the supernatural and paranormal things out there, atheism prevents you from both taking that seriously and forming theories and ideas about them. Because what happens when something isn't supposed to exist but does!

No it doesn't. If your saying that it prevents you from coming to the conclusion that God did it, then yes it does, but that's not the same thing. Not believing in something doesn't prevent you from doing anything other than making assumptions based on that belief.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Okay I want to mention one more thing, then later get back to all that, but all the supernatural and paranormal things out there, atheism prevents you from both taking that seriously and forming theories and ideas about them. Because what happens when something isn't supposed to exist but does!

What on earth are you talking about?!

I can be an atheist and believe in ghosts, werewolves, psychics, telekinesis even fucking bigfoot.


Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. I can still believe any supernatural and paranormal things.

Atheism is NOT lack of belief in anything unproven by science. There is a tendency of atheists to lack belief in things unproven by science however, but that is NOT a neccessary condition of being an atheist.

Atheism doesn't "prevent" you from believing ANYTHING EXCEPT GOD.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

They have no need to work together and stay alive. I'm repeating myself here because this point is being missed.

Your point has been adressed a number of times.

Atoms don't need to work together for things to happen. That's what the laws of nature do - make them "work together". You don't need spirits to play legos, these legos build themselves. That's what makes them amazing. But you keep telling us how somebody must be playing with them because... well, because you think you know so.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Chance is what you replaced God with. It's just a term for random collisions of atoms. Life is all over the universe, even in a few places in our solar system. You just need some conditions for life and it's there. Building blocks of life are just that however, their relationship by themselves without intelligent design behind them are lego blocks. They have no need to work together and stay alive. I'm repeating myself here because this point is being missed.

I don't know why atoms originally came together to form cells, but it just doesn't make sense to say "I don't know why this happened, therefore God did it." It's like saying that if no one knows where lightning comes from, the logical conclusion is that Zeus makes it.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Hitler eventually wanted to replace Catholicism with his rascist nationalism. Millions of Catholics died in concentration camps btw. These figures thought hey if people believe in no God, society would be better off, and didn't turn out that way. The other extreme would be free thinking into science when sciecne is considered purely unnecessary by religious authorities is also an extreme, what's ideal in society is some middle ground for everyone to breathe.

Religion is only necessary in society to prove what cannot be explained. When a man who lived isolated in a desert for 40 years writes down a moral epiphany, it holds absolutely no authority over plausible, tested, and proven conclusions.




The point is they don't necessarily have to be conflicting, at least with those past examples. I'm sure there are some top minds today who believe in God, but understadably religion is more in the home and out of society than ever before.
Yeah, there's a reason for that. I'll let you think for a minute.



But I keep asking you about this force of life, I call it a "force" because it's a movement forward instead of fading out of the scene when those conditions change. The cell is a small self-maintaing system of extraordinary complexity and order. The cell maintains itself, creates itself, replicates itself, eats, respirates by manipulating it's environment to maintain, evolves, communicates, differentiates, forms complex organisms, this isn't the product of randomness, randomness plays a part in it, but a moment of intervention was there lik the Monolith on 2012, God....and before that the God particle The best we have been able to do is make some basic building blocks in some explosions. Hardly proof that chance did this, that's your logic, chance is behind life although you assume it can happen and have faith in that belief, ironically.
Please tell me you don't actually think the God particle has any religious meaning. There is nothing supernatural about it. It's called the Higgs Boson (possibly spelled wrong) and is the theoretical particle that gives things mass. It hasn't been proven and is far from the only possibility.

Also, like I said, organisms achieve better survival when they evolve. The entire world is covered in bacteria, a creature so small it cannot be seen by the naked eye. Needless to say there are a lot. This again shows that chance is easily the best reason.


Jesus said love your enemies, a utopian society is achievable in the NT teachings, it's a basic relatively flexible moral code with some things in it you'd have to believe in like any religion.

You can't expect me to believe you actually watched those videos. Otherwise you would know god contradicted all of Jesus's teachings in the old testament.

Chance is what you replaced God with. It's just a term for random collisions of atoms. Life is all over the universe, even in a few places in our solar system. You just need some conditions for life and it's there. Building blocks of life are just that however, their relationship by themselves without intelligent design behind them are lego blocks. They have no need to work together and stay alive. I'm repeating myself here because this point is being missed.
Except you fail to realize that when they work together they achive something greater for every cell's survival. If there was intelligence behind life and the universe, why is it so uncommon. It couldn't be that it's uncommon because it has a low chance of happening on any given planet, is it?

.

Originally Posted by Xedan

Also, like I said, organisms achieve better survival when they evolve. The entire world is covered in bacteria, a creature so small it cannot be seen by the naked eye. Needless to say there are a lot. This again shows that chance is easily the best reason.

How is that related to what you just said??

You can't expect me to believe you actually watched those videos. Otherwise you would know god contradicted all of Jesus's teachings in the old testament.

A seperate thread's worth of talking I'm sure, Jesus fulfilled OT scripture and prophecies and suceeded the OT.

Except you fail to realize that when they work together they achive something greater for every cell's survival.

And why would they work together for every cell's survival?

[/quote]If there was intelligence behind life and the universe, why is it so uncommon. [/quote]
Is it, or does it seem that way if you don't believe in it.

It couldn't be that it's uncommon because it has a low chance of happening on any given planet, is it?

I do believe it's on other planets, even in our solar system, our grandchildren will prove that, NASA needs to find cost effective ways to do this.

Originally Posted by Carousoul

What on earth are you talking about?!

I can be an atheist and believe in ghosts, werewolves, psychics, telekinesis even fucking bigfoot.


Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. I can still believe any supernatural and paranormal things.

Atheism is NOT lack of belief in anything unproven by science. There is a tendency of atheists to lack belief in things unproven by science however, but that is NOT a neccessary condition of being an atheist.

Atheism doesn't "prevent" you from believing ANYTHING EXCEPT GOD.

Some of those other beliefs help strengthen the concept of God. Angels for instance, lead directly to God.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why must life have a force behind it? Can life not be the force that imposes structure and meaning onto this void?

How do you know there was a moment of intervention?

You are confusing your own lack of understanding with randomness.

A force is kicked into motion by something beyond it. Once life became it grew and evolved. It's not a very solid strong statment to say, I don't understand this it must be purposeless and chance is the cause of this. You're assuming that chance is the cause of this and what evidence is there for that? If an alien probe entered our world, we could look at it and say, what is this thing, the universe must have formed it by chance. No, it's obviously an alien-made probe, that's what it is. There's no time will forge this thing eventually, it was set up, maybe it can run independantly and seemlessly but it's not a random thing, how else can I put it.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

How is that related to what you just said??

Because having more tiny organisms increases the chance that they will come together to form more complex beings.

I do believe it's on other planets, even in our solar system, our grandchildren will prove that, NASA needs to find cost effective ways to do this.

Cost effective ways? I'd be glad if they could come up with ANY way to find aliens. Never mind the price if it actually works.

Some of those other beliefs help strengthen the concept of God. Angels for instance, lead directly to God.

Your point being...? Yes, certain supernatural beliefs other than believing in God go hand-in-hand with religion, but that doesn't change the definition of an atheist.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

A force is kicked into motion by something beyond it.

The big bang set all particles and energy in motion. These have continued on their predetermined paths since that time, more or less.

Once life became it grew and evolved. It's not a very solid strong statment to say, I don't understand this it must be purposeless and chance is the cause of this. You're assuming that chance is the cause of this and what evidence is there for that?

It's even more ludicrous to state, "I don't understand this, so I'm going to disregard every other possibility and attribute it to some sort of higher power that I have absolutely no evidence for its existence." Yeah, because that makes so much more sense.

If an alien probe entered our world, we could look at it and say, what is this thing, the universe must have formed it by chance. No, it's obviously an alien-made probe, that's what it is. There's no time will forge this thing eventually, it was set up, maybe it can run independantly and seemlessly but it's not a random thing, how else can I put it.

More faulty analogies. Look at that.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

A seperate thread's worth of talking I'm sure, Jesus fulfilled OT scripture and prophecies and suceeded the OT.
Um, what? I'm not quite sure what you're saying there. Elaborate please.




And why would they work together for every cell's survival?
Because every cell benefits. If you were put in the jungle along with 50 other city-slickers, you would team together, wouldn't you? Such an act is not of compassion for the others, but of survival. You will no doubt survive longer if you work together.

If there was intelligence behind life and the universe, why is it so uncommon.

Is it, or does it seem that way if you don't believe in it.
The "it" I was referring to was life. I think I meant to say in the universe, not and the universe, by the way.


I do believe it's on other planets, even in our solar system, our grandchildren will prove that, NASA needs to find cost effective ways to do this.
We are already 99% sure that, other than Mars, no other planet in our solar system could harbor life as me know it. And even mars is a stretch.



Some of those other beliefs help strengthen the concept of God. Angels for instance, lead directly to God.
Hidden already spoke on this


A force is kicked into motion by something beyond it. Once life became it grew and evolved. It's not a very solid strong statment to say, I don't understand this it must be purposeless and chance is the cause of this. You're assuming that chance is the cause of this and what evidence is there for that? If an alien probe entered our world, we could look at it and say, what is this thing, the universe must have formed it by chance. No, it's obviously an alien-made probe, that's what it is. There's no time will forge this thing eventually, it was set up, maybe it can run independantly and seemlessly but it's not a random thing, how else can I put it.

Chance is extremely likely. It does make sense, even if you can't wrap your pea sized brain around it. Do you seriously still not get it even after the lottery analogy? It is extremely solid and can be backed up by mountains of data and logic.

And who the fuck would find a mechanical probe and say "it must have been created by chance"? You don't know very much about science do you? That isn't exactly what people jump to first. And it isn't open and shut after that is said, either. Nothing the size of a probe would even be able to hit the earth by chance without sustaining significant, if not total, damage. And nothing would by chance get through our atmosphere and land without significant impact. There is a scientific method in place. It has not been abandoned, and is working against you're claims.