Upon What Basis Do Atheists Claim that Jesus is a Myth?

[Tone]

You don't say!

Well... people don't walk on water either. Or teleport around. Or rise from the dead.

But as long as you have "faith"... you don't need to see it, you just need to hope for it... and then horses do fly.

Right?

I was kinda playing with the poster, but, people actually do do those things...

*horses do fly too.

**and people did use faith and words to make it all happen...

 

[FireDragon76]

Recent studies (in Australia even), have shown EEG and fMRI of people placed under muscle relaxation, without inducing unconsciousness with Anaesthetic agents, appeared fully sedated and/or Anaesthetised as we understood it. They remained fully conscious, recalled everything afterwards, and with isolated forearm technique could even respond during it. So so far, medicine has only demonstrated a very poor correlation, if any, between consciousness and measured brain activity.

That reminds me of this:

 

[GodsGrace101]

I beg your pardon?



Your response seem highly aggravated. I do not know what I did that seems to have agitated you so. I am simply trying to point out that an atheist can believe in a historical Jesus.

You're pardoned.
I posted a link you might have found interesting...you replied that you would not even read it. I thought intelligent persons could read fast and take everything into consideration.

As to a historical Jesus,
Are you suggesting He might not even have lived?
We KNOW He lived...the question is WHO was He?

Rhetorical question, of course.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Why don't you use Scripture?

*This is your evidence.

**It's never a "waste of time" to sow seed.

Scripture is not accepted by atheists.
It's circular reasoning...you can't use the bible to prove the bible.

As to seeds...that's true and that's all we could do.
Because it's God that grows...

 

[GodsGrace101]

There you go!:

Romans 10:17
"Therefore faith is from the hearing ear, and the hearing ear is from the word of God."

LOL
Where are you sending me?
There was no "Word of God" back in the time of
Romans 1:19-20 !

 

[Freodin]

You're pardoned.
I posted a link you might have found interesting...you replied that you would not even read it. I thought intelligent persons could read fast and take everything into consideration.

It might surprise you, but a lot of us have been involved in this topic for quite some time, and have already been confronted with these arguments before, have dealt with them, and have been faced with the inevitable reaction from the apologets: "your objections are invalid, because... they just are. It cannot be what you think. Inconceivable!"

It gets tiring after a while, and we are all just humans after all.

So, I did take a look at your link, the first time you posted it. Nothing I hadn't seen before... in fact, nothing I hadn't seen thirty years ago.

There's a little problem with this argument though... and I don't mean the problems of likely fraud, as in the case of Flavius Josephus.
No, the problem is that all of these other sources do not deal with the figure of a historical Jesus... they deal with the beliefs of historical people about Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace101]

It might surprise you, but a lot of us have been involved in this topic for quite some time, and have already been confronted with these arguments before, have dealt with them, and have been faced with the inevitable reaction from the apologets: "your objections are invalid, because... they just are. It cannot be what you think. Inconceivable!"

It gets tiring after a while, and we are all just humans after all.

So, I did take a look at your link, the first time you posted it. Nothing I hadn't seen before... in fact, nothing I hadn't seen thirty years ago.

There's a little problem with this argument though... and I don't mean the problems of likely fraud, as in the case of Flavius Josephus.
No, the problem is that all of these other sources do not deal with the figure of a historical Jesus... they deal with the beliefs of historical people about Jesus.

I agree with you and never try to convince anyone of anything.

However, the other member had stated that Jesus might not even have existed except wiithin the bible (or something like that, can't remember)...
I was just supporting that He had been spoken of OUTSIDE of scripture.

I don't care to even discuss a historical Jesus...it's of no value.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm sorry. There are so many different Christians out there, and so many different view and attitudes that it is too easy to generalize.
I have seen, even here on this forum, enough Christians who discover the existence of atheists and go shouting "Monster!"
And it is not rare for unbelievers to be told how we are fools, hard-hearted, willfulling ignorant, like murderers or children of the devil.

Thank you for the time you put in to responding.

IMO anyone that calls someone a "monster" or "fool" or compares someone to murderers of children of the devil.. is not acting in a Christ like fashion.

We are all God's creation. There are many firm and solid atheists that would trump any Christian in their serving, kind and selfless ways. However, as you stated, it is not our works that saves us and these people have simply rejected Christ and are not unkind or inhumane people.. just not believers.

Even you... you claim to not "treat anyone any different on what they believe"... are here and say that "atheists have more faith than Christians"... and somehow I don't think you mean that as praise of the excellence of our faith, but in the meaning of "gullible and credulous".

I don't mean it as any praise or condescension. I simply believe that, when boiled down.. it takes more faith to believe that everything arrived from nothing.... than to believe that everything is here due to an intelligent designer and supernatural creator.

Then maybe you should listen to people other than creationist apologets. They are known to misrepresent what other say.

From what I have seen, there is "misrepresentation" of what people say from all sides of the arguments surrounding this subject.

Would be beyond the scope of this thread. But if you are really interested, I can go and look for some older posts of mine where I details my views. Might take a while though... I'd have to dig through a number of posts.
Still... if you really want to know, just say the word.

I don't really need you to rummage through old posts.

I apologize for assuming that something that is this foundational in your belief would be simple to put into words and describe the basic view.

I'm not looking for an essay, just the basic idea. If everything did not come from a big bang and then a primordial pool of water, DNA forming and then a spark of a single life form....then what is your view.

And that is what I meant with "creationists are known to misrepresent other people".
I have no idea if Richard Dawson ever said that... though I don't know why the opinion of actors or soccer players has any relevance here.

LOL, yes... Richard Dawkins... however, being British, he too probably played "football" LOL.

But I guess you mean to talk about Dr. Richard DawKINS, the biologist and atheist author. In that case, this is a misrepresenation of his words. He never stated that we must have come from some sort of other intelligent designer.

In that case, this misrepresentation comes from an interview with Ben Stein from his hit-piece movie "Expelled", where Dawkins talked about the possibility of us being created by an "intelligent creator"... and clarified it by pointing out that in such a case, this "intelligent creator" would then have to come into existence by "...by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process..."

Even Ben Stein didn't go so far as to state that Dawkins said that "we must come from an intelligent designer". He spun it in the way of "Dawkins isn't opposed to intelligent design... he is just against God". Which is dishonest enough.

But that's the way it goes. You "hear" something, you interprete it in the way you like it, you continue to tell it in this new way... another one hears your words and repeats the same process... and in the end we get to stuff like "Dawkins believes in God but hates him!"

So, what you said there - that Dawkins stateed we must have come from an intelligent designer - is false.
I hope now that you know that, you won't make such a statement again.


Which is again is misrepresentation of what other people say... in this case not so much in words as in meaning.
"Determining what is right and wrong for our self" is what makes us human. We all do it. We cannot not do it.
But what you "hear" when people try to tell you is "right and wrong is just a whim". And that is not what people tell you.

I watched that interview, in it's entirety. IMO it is a cop out to say that he was lead or coerced.

He is an intelligent man, he knew he was being interviewed, he has been interviewed and publicly debated hundreds of times.

He is well aware that anything that he says will be critiqued and analyzed by the creationists.

What he stated is pretty simple and the questions were not complicated or misleading.

To claim that his words were misrepresented, IMO, is what happens after a good interviewer has asked proper questions and the interviewee answers them... exposing holes in their own view.

Then, they simply go on record as saying they were taken out of context..

I don't buy it.

Again, moral philosophy is quite beyond the scope of this thread. This discussion could go on for ages... well, it has gone on for ages.
Let's just say for now: the idea that "morals" are some arbitrary set of rules that are enacted because someone/something has the "right" or "power" to enact them... that's a very simplistic view.

Thank you for your view. As you can see, moral philosophy is not beyond the scope of this thread... It is something that atheists, IMO cannot explain... so they present it as some huge complicated philosophical concept.

The problem with morals being a "set of rules enacted because of someone or something has the "right" or "power" to enact them".. is false.

Proof of this is the fact that every culture has a core and basic moral foundation that is common throughout each one, regardless of any connection or non connection of these cultures. Nobody and nothing influenced all cultures to influence the facts that stealing is wrong, killing another human is wrong, respecting your parents is right, in most.... humans are monogamous or a man has several wives that no other man can touch. Basically.... the premise of the 10 commandments...

These basic concepts were not enforced by anyone. They are, in fact written in the DNA of every human by the creator.

This was done by God so that nobody will have any excuse when they are judged at the end of their lives. God put these basic morals on each humans heart.

Even if they never hear of Christ, or the gospel, God will judge on whether they followed the basic moral blueprint that was evident to them from birth.

Jesus paid the price for your sins, did he not?

Yes he did.

To go back to my first statement in this post: I am aware that there is a multitude of different conflicting Christian doctrines out there, which makes it difficult for an outsider to find the correct arguments

Absolutely. This is an issue for those who are not familiar with the biblical concepts... so much in-fighting and conflicting micro issues that don't concern an unbeliever who must drink the "milk" of the biblical concepts before they get into the "meat" as it were.

... but this one is one of the core positions of especially protestant/lutheran doctrine: what "saves" is not something you do. You cannot ever do anything to save you. What "saves" is God's grace and God's grace alone.

Yep, absolutely... There is nothing that we can do to save ourselves... What essentially damns us is our pride.. Pride that we can actually do something to save ourselves.

What saves us is humbling ourselves to our creator. Ditching pride and accepting that payment for our sin is death... no way around it.. we are toast, done, destine for spiritual death.

Simply admitting this and turning from relying on ourselves to relying on Christ... saves us.

So, no, you don't have to "pay for your sins". That is the "Good News". Jesus has already saved you, if you just believe in him.

You got it. But, if you love your ways and your view and your control and your ideals... it's impossible to see the truth.

It is turning from these selfish ways and yielding to God's way, that is already written in your heart... that He is looking for.

 

[Freodin]

Thank you for the time you put in to responding.

IMO anyone that calls someone a "monster" or "fool" or compares someone to murderers of children of the devil.. is not acting in a Christ like fashion.

We are all God's creation. There are many firm and solid atheists that would trump any Christian in their serving, kind and selfless ways. However, as you stated, it is not our works that saves us and these people have simply rejected Christ and are not unkind or inhumane people.. just not believers.

Well, a lot of Christians disagree with you here... and I am definitly not the arbiter to decide which one of you is a "True Christian".

I don't mean it as any praise or condescension. I simply believe that, when boiled down.. it takes more faith to believe that everything arrived from nothing.... than to believe that everything is here due to an intelligent designer and supernatural creator.

If you were able to quantify the amount of "faith" that is needed in either case...
Well, I disagree. The existience of an intelligent designer and supernatural creator does require more different and more complex assumptions that the "arrival from nothing".

From what I have seen, there is "misrepresentation" of what people say from all sides of the arguments surrounding this subject.

There is. It's just that creationist make an art from it.

I don't really need you to rummage through old posts.

I apologize for assuming that something that is this foundational in your belief would be simple to put into words and describe the basic view.

I'm not looking for an essay, just the basic idea. If everything did not come from a big bang and then a primordial pool of water, DNA forming and then a spark of a single life form....then what is your view.

Ok, a quick summary.
The formation of what we see is based on the inherent attributes of "stuff".
It is should be quite obvious, especially for a believer in on omnipotent, benevolent creator, that not all things are hand-made by this creator. Else he would be rather incompetent. At best, it is kind of an indirect, second-hand approach at "creation", which relies on, well, the inherent attributes of "stuff".

So the counter-argument for an atheistic version of this "creation" is usually: "Aha, but how did stuff get these inherent attributes? It must have been created by God!"

That would be incorrect, because stuff having inherent attributes - any inherent attributes - is a necessity. There is no way that stuff can be without inherent attributes.

The last resort is "Why is there something instead of nothing? It must have been created by God!" Which, if you look carefully, doesn't say anything other than "There is something, because there is something (else)."

In a way, I agree with that. The very concept of "Nothing" is ultimately meaningless, if not self-contradicting.
So a very very simplified version of my idea - not a "belief" or "faith", just an idea - is that "nothing" is "something". A completely different, undescribable, undefinable something, beyond any possible human understanding. In reference to some ancient greek mythology, I call it "Primal Chaos".

I watched that interview, in it's entirety. IMO it is a cop out to say that he was lead or coerced.

Which I didn't say. Do you really go to misrepresent what I said in a discussion about misrepresentation? That's... meta-irony.

He is an intelligent man, he knew he was being interviewed, he has been interviewed and publicly debated hundreds of times.

He is well aware that anything that he says will be critiqued and analyzed by the creationists.

What he stated is pretty simple and the questions were not complicated or misleading.

To claim that his words were misrepresented, IMO, is what happens after a good interviewer has asked proper questions and the interviewee answers them... exposing holes in their own view.

Then, they simply go on record as saying they were taken out of context..

I don't buy it.

It is quite easy: he did not say what you claimed he said. If you read the interview, and still think that, it only shows that you did not understand what he was saying.

Let's look closely at the text:

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: (voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.
Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

(My emphasis)

So what Dawkins said was that there is the possibility of an intelligent designer... but in the ultimate case, this designer itself must have come by an "explicable process".

The existence of an intelligent designer is an option... the origination by an explicable process is a must.

In contrast to that, your version of Dawkins has him saying that the existence of an intelligent designer is a must.

I hope you can see the difference, and why your version misrepresents what he said.

Thank you for your view. As you can see, moral philosophy is not beyond the scope of this thread... It is something that atheists, IMO cannot explain... so they present it as some huge complicated philosophical concept.

The problem with morals being a "set of rules enacted because of someone or something has the "right" or "power" to enact them".. is false.

Proof of this is the fact that every culture has a core and basic moral foundation that is common throughout each one, regardless of any connection or non connection of these cultures. Nobody and nothing influenced all cultures to influence the facts that stealing is wrong, killing another human is wrong, respecting your parents is right, in most.... humans are monogamous or a man has several wives that no other man can touch. Basically.... the premise of the 10 commandments...

There is a necessary "connection", a commonality between all socities, all cultures in all of human history that this approach misses: we are all humans.

These basic concepts were not enforced by anyone. They are, in fact written in the DNA of every human by the creator.

This was done by God so that nobody will have any excuse when they are judged at the end of their lives. God put these basic morals on each humans heart.

Even if they never hear of Christ, or the gospel, God will judge on whether they followed the basic moral blueprint that was evident to them from birth.

That view has a major flaw... similar to the main flaw of the "intelligent creation" idea. It assumes that if something does not possess a certain attribute - in this case, a certain set of moral rules - it would have NO attributes.

This flaw is evidenced by the counterargument of the "morals are from God" apologets against the atheists... that without a "God given moral code", everyone would behave arbitrary, randomly, on a whim.
But that would go against the very basics of existence.

So the existence of "morals" as emergent behaviour from basic structures is a valid position.

Yes he did.

Absolutely. This is an issue for those who are not familiar with the biblical concepts... so much in-fighting and conflicting micro issues that don't concern an unbeliever who must drink the "milk" of the biblical concepts before they get into the "meat" as it were.

Yep, absolutely... There is nothing that we can do to save ourselves... What essentially damns us is our pride.. Pride that we can actually do something to save ourselves.

What saves us is humbling ourselves to our creator. Ditching pride and accepting that payment for our sin is death... no way around it.. we are toast, done, destine for spiritual death.

Simply admitting this and turning from relying on ourselves to relying on Christ... saves us.

You got it. But, if you love your ways and your view and your control and your ideals... it's impossible to see the truth.

It is turning from these selfish ways and yielding to God's way, that is already written in your heart... that He is looking for.

This gets a little preachy now. I understand that you might believe that, but you should consider that it comes over as a tiny bit arrogant if you start with the assumption that your opposite already agrees with you and is just denying it because of "pride".

 

[Belk]

You're pardoned.
I posted a link you might have found interesting...you replied that you would not even read it. I thought intelligent persons could read fast and take everything into consideration.

Why am I required to read your link on a subject I have expressed no opinion on?

As to a historical Jesus,
Are you suggesting He might not even have lived?
We KNOW He lived...the question is WHO was He?

Rhetorical question, of course.

No, I'm suggesting that atheists can believe in the historical Jesus. That is the sum total of my post.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, a lot of Christians disagree with you here... and I am definitly not the arbiter to decide which one of you is a "True Christian".

If you ask around, there would be a plethora of views on what a "true" Christian is.

This point is not in regards to what a "true" Christian is. It's simply the varying views on how one should treat another in any disagreement on any view.

Christian or not, insults, condescension, name calling and such is never proper.

If you were able to quantify the amount of "faith" that is needed in either case...
Well, I disagree. The existience of an intelligent designer and supernatural creator does require more different and more complex assumptions that the "arrival from nothing".

Well, I will have to agree to disagree.

Everything coming from nothing... IMO takes far greater faith than the belief that it came from a creator that lives outside of the universe.

Kinda like saying that belief that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo takes more faith than stating that it arrived all on it's own.

There is. It's just that creationist make an art from it.

Again, I must disagree. Creationists merely take the biblical text as literal. That is not misrepresentation...
Taking text, words, scripture and saying that it "didn't mean that" is more miss-representative.

Ok, a quick summary.
The formation of what we see is based on the inherent attributes of "stuff".
It is should be quite obvious, especially for a believer in on omnipotent, benevolent creator, that not all things are hand-made by this creator. Else he would be rather incompetent. At best, it is kind of an indirect, second-hand approach at "creation", which relies on, well, the inherent attributes of "stuff".

Sorry, I am not getting what you are saying. I don't know what you mean by "not all things are "hand made" by this creator".

Everything that is made and ever was made was made by Christ.

Man may take these things and, using physical laws and material characteristics, form many other things..

But, in the most basic form God only made one thing with His hands.. that was Adam. Everything else... He spoke into existence.

So the counter-argument for an atheistic version of this "creation" is usually: "Aha, but how did stuff get these inherent attributes? It must have been created by God!"

I don't know if I would even go that far.. certainly not an "Aha".

I would simply say, even if all of this "stuff" was here... where did all these proteins, which are very complex on their own, come from. Then, how did they arrange themselves into DNA which is a material that holds a phenomenal amount of information about the organism it is within....(by the way, this is like saying that the blue prints for a complex project, which is what DNA is... just happened to come from the paper and ink getting together, somehow. )

That would be incorrect, because stuff having inherent attributes - any inherent attributes - is a necessity. There is no way that stuff can be without inherent attributes.

Interesting concept... Why, however, is there different stuff? Not only are you saying that "stuff" formed out of nothing.. but that many kinds of "stuff" formed.
Unless I am not understanding you.

The last resort is "Why is there something instead of nothing? It must have been created by God!" Which, if you look carefully, doesn't say anything other than "There is something, because there is something (else)."

OK, I see what you are saying....

In a way, I agree with that. The very concept of "Nothing" is ultimately meaningless, if not self-contradicting.
So a very very simplified version of my idea - not a "belief" or "faith", just an idea - is that "nothing" is "something". A completely different, undescribable, undefinable something, beyond any possible human understanding. In reference to some ancient greek mythology, I call it "Primal Chaos".

OK. Nothing is something. Just not the way we see it.

Which I didn't say. Do you really go to misrepresent what I said in a discussion about misrepresentation? That's... meta-irony.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you said it. I have heard all the critiques of this interview and this is what I hear supporters of Dawkins saying..

What you said is " He spun it in the way of "Dawkins isn't opposed to intelligent design... he is just against God". Which is dishonest enough."

I just disagree that Stein "spun" anything. Dawkins is right there using his own words stating what he stated.... it's quite obvious. Not "spun".

It is quite easy: he did not say what you claimed he said. If you read the interview, and still think that, it only shows that you did not understand what he was saying.

I watched the interview. I heard what he said. It was not misrepresented, IMO.

There is a necessary "connection", a commonality between all socities, all cultures in all of human history that this approach misses: we are all humans.

Yes, duly noted.

That view has a major flaw... similar to the main flaw of the "intelligent creation" idea. It assumes that if something does not possess a certain attribute - in this case, a certain set of moral rules - it would have NO attributes.

This flaw is evidenced by the counterargument of the "morals are from God" apologets against the atheists... that without a "God given moral code", everyone would behave arbitrary, randomly, on a whim.
But that would go against the very basics of existence.

Your kinda losing me here..

Let me give you my view:

If we all came out of random chance.... evolved from some random one cell organism... which replicated and changed over and over again...

What is there to tell me that I cannot just go and take your car... your money? What is there to tell me that I should be nice, good, kind? What is there to tell me that I shouldn't do whatever I want?

If we are here by chance and this is all there is.. and when I die,,, that's the end... what benefit is there to me, what concept is there for me to follow, other than do what it takes to keep myself alive and procreate?

Everything that I do would be for one thing... me and my offspring to live on. There would be no wrong. There is no foundation for it.

The other thing is emotions... where would they fit.. they would just impede my ability to self preservation... they would get in my way.. cause me to do things that would harm myself to save or keep another safe...

That is counter to the survival of the fittest..

So the existence of "morals" as emergent behaviour from basic structures is a valid position.

Morals are counter to survival. The most ruthless organism will out survive any organism that has morals, love and caring for others.

This gets a little preachy now. I understand that you might believe that, but you should consider that it comes over as a tiny bit arrogant if you start with the assumption that your opposite already agrees with you and is just denying it because of "pride".

It's not arrogant to say that every human has only one thing to over come if it is to gain eternal life from it's creator... when that one thing is "pride".

Boiled down... a being with too much pride to admit that it was created... is the one who is arrogant.

 

[Tone]

There was no "Word of God" back in the time of
Romans 1:19-20 !

What in the world...

*How you believe on the Bible, reflects in the way you treat others...this is observable evidence.

**How did Yahshua believe in Scripture and what it said concerning Himself, and how did His laying down His life for us reflect that?

 

[ananda]

Correct.

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

What is not seen?

Osiris is not seen, therefore faith in him is substantial evidence for him?

 

[Tone]

Osiris is not seen, therefore faith in him is substantial evidence for him?

Who? What? Whence? Whither?

 

[ananda]

Who? What? Whence? Whither?

If faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ... then no questions are needed!

 

[Tone]

Osiris is not seen, therefore faith in him is substantial evidence for him?

Then why did you ask? (yet another question)...

*I dunno

 

[Freodin]

Well, I will have to agree to disagree.

Everything coming from nothing... IMO takes far greater faith than the belief that it came from a creator that lives outside of the universe.

Kinda like saying that belief that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo takes more faith than stating that it arrived all on it's own.

If you have just a basic concept of how particles of paint can get arranged in a certain pattern, then it is one - very complex - claim more to state that there just was a guy called Leonardo who arranged particles of paint in a certain pattern.

Simple mathematics.

Again, I must disagree. Creationists merely take the biblical text as literal. That is not misrepresentation...
Taking text, words, scripture and saying that it "didn't mean that" is more miss-representative.

Well... creationists - most biblical literalists - take these parts of the biblical texts literally that they like... and ignore or reinterprete those they don't like. That's nothing new.

But here I didn't refer to the Bible. Creationists are masters in misrepresenting what other humans say, especially if they can misinterprete in it ways that seems to support them.

Sorry, I am not getting what you are saying. I don't know what you mean by "not all things are "hand made" by this creator".

Everything that is made and ever was made was made by Christ.

Not directly. You really wouldn't like the theological consequences from such an assertion. But then, maybe you wouldn't care. I don't expect theological arguments to be consistent.

Man may take these things and, using physical laws and material characteristics, form many other things..

But, in the most basic form God only made one thing with His hands.. that was Adam. Everything else... He spoke into existence.

And again I have to refer to the problem of too many different Christian views. Perhaps you are one of those who believe in a completely sovereign God... but in any other case, I am sure you have very limited ideas about what your God created and what he didn't.
As I said, the theological consequences are... weird.

I don't know if I would even go that far.. certainly not an "Aha".

Sorry, "Aha" is a german term / sound / exclamation that represents "realization". I don't know what English speakers use in such a situation.

I would simply say, even if all of this "stuff" was here... where did all these proteins, which are very complex on their own, come from. Then, how did they arrange themselves into DNA which is a material that holds a phenomenal amount of information about the organism it is within....(by the way, this is like saying that the blue prints for a complex project, which is what DNA is... just happened to come from the paper and ink getting together, somehow. )

That's chemistry and biology. You might not agree with it... but it it provides basic mechanisms for these concepts. Which is also a reason why the analogies of Mona Lisa or blue prints are not very good... because they don't provide basic mechanisms for these concepts.

Interesting concept... Why, however, is there different stuff? Not only are you saying that "stuff" formed out of nothing.. but that many kinds of "stuff" formed.
Unless I am not understanding you.

I know that this is a little difficult to understand. It is quite difficult to phrase, especially if one is required to make it short. "Stuff" is... everything. It's just a term I use here for, well, "everything". If you can name it... it is "stuff". It it not meant to refer to matter, or energy, or physicality or any other specific instance. It is EVERYTHING.

"Different stuff" exists because everything exists. You might call it "potentiality".
And it is not that "stuff" formed out of nothing. That again is showing your preconceived notion that this my idea is different from.
As I said: the very concept of "nothing" is ultimately meaningless and potentially self-contradicting. "Nothing" does not exist. It is not imaginable, quantifiable, determinable... even definable. You can only point to "something" and say that this specific something does not exist.
You can go on and on and "remove" in this way everything you can think of. At some point, you might say, "Now we have 'nothing'."

But there's a problem: how do you know that? Why do you think you can say that?
And you will find that you still have "something". Definitions. Logic. Rules. For example, a rule that says: "If I get completely rid of X, then X does not exist." Or a rule that says: "X exists and X does not exist is contradictory and false."

You don't have "nothing". You have to get rid of all these rules as well.
Then you will have reached "nothing". And "everything". And "heck I don't have any idea of how to decribe it, because any description of it would be completely wrong." And "it doesn't matter how I describe it, because every description would fit perfectly."

Sounds crazy? Welcome to how unbelievers see religion!

OK. Nothing is something. Just not the way we see it.

Not only that. Nothing is a very special something. It is everything. And so it is not that "stuff formed from nothing". It is just the part of "nothing" that we can understand.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you said it. I have heard all the critiques of this interview and this is what I hear supporters of Dawkins saying..

What you said is " He spun it in the way of "Dawkins isn't opposed to intelligent design... he is just against God". Which is dishonest enough."

I just disagree that Stein "spun" anything. Dawkins is right there using his own words stating what he stated.... it's quite obvious. Not "spun".

Ben Stein: "So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers, such as God."
Which is not what Dawkins said. Nor implied in that form. I can read as well. This is how Ben Stein "spun" it... in movie that is one of the worst and most biased anti-scientific hit-pieces ever created.

I watched the interview. I heard what he said. It was not misrepresented, IMO.

I don't know how I can make it clearer.
What Dawkins said: "It is possible." (paraphrased)
What you said Dawkins said: "It must be so." (paraphrased)

If you really cannot see the difference... sorry, I don't know what I should make of that, and I don't want to crash this thread by speculating.

Yes, duly noted.

If you make shoes... they have to fit human beings.
If you make morals... they have to fit human natures.

Your kinda losing me here..

Let me give you my view:

If we all came out of random chance.... evolved from some random one cell organism... which replicated and changed over and over again...

What is there to tell me that I cannot just go and take your car... your money? What is there to tell me that I should be nice, good, kind? What is there to tell me that I shouldn't do whatever I want?

See... this is why atheists are so worried about the Christian view of morality... and justifiably so IMO. The idea that you don't steal, rape, kill, be a jerk... because someone tells you not to.

If we are here by chance and this is all there is.. and when I die,,, that's the end... what benefit is there to me, what concept is there for me to follow, other than do what it takes to keep myself alive and procreate?

Everything that I do would be for one thing... me and my offspring to live on. There would be no wrong. There is no foundation for it.

This is not completely correct. There IS a foundation for it. Why don't you do everything it take to keep yourself alive and procreate, you ask? Well, you do! This IS what humans do to keep themselves alive and procreate.

This caricature of "evolution", of "survival of the fittest"... that everyone runs around and tries to kill and rape and plunder... this is false. This is not what this idea is all about. It is a strawman argument, created by those who do not understand it. Both by those who reject it, and by those who "embrace" it for their personal gain.

The other thing is emotions... where would they fit.. they would just impede my ability to self preservation... they would get in my way.. cause me to do things that would harm myself to save or keep another safe...

That is counter to the survival of the fittest..

Morals are counter to survival. The most ruthless organism will out survive any organism that has morals, love and caring for others.

That is not true. This is impossible to be true. It simply would not work. Even in the most perfect conditions where it could work... entropy would prevent it.

Morals is part of the human species. You could say that "morals" is part of every complex organism... behavioural rules. It is part of these species, and it is part of what keeps this system going. It is a self-supporting system.

Of course, it is not a "perfect" system. It does not work always, in every instance and eternally. That's a basic rule of the system: it works to propagate itself, up to a point where it no longer can.

It's not arrogant to say that every human has only one thing to over come if it is to gain eternal life from it's creator... when that one thing is "pride".

Boiled down... a being with too much pride to admit that it was created... is the one who is arrogant.

Christians are so funny sometimes.
Someone who thinks that they are born, live and will die... these are arrogant.
Someone who thinks they are specifically created by an omnipotent deity for the sole purpose of having a personal relationship with this creator and will exist in all eternity... these are humble.

We seem to have very very different definitions of these terms.

 

[ananda]

Then why did you ask? (yet another question)...

*I dunno

Because I don't believe that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

 

[Tone]

Because I don't believe that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

So your unbelief has led to questioning...

*Do you believe anything about faith?

 

[Tone]

@ananda...Do you believe you could fly?