Why I am not an atheist

FreedByte · Nov 2, 2014

dysert said:
Thanks, but this thread is just to explain why I am not an atheist. Why I am a Christian would be a totally different thing - but would probably be met with just as much criticism.

Right, but my point was that it doesn't explain why you're not an atheist. Most atheists are just strongly agnostic. Rarely do atheists say "it's impossible for a creator deity to exist", especially since the attributes of such a deity are not clearly defined. Evidence that there is a deity and evidence against atheism are not the same thing. Evidence that a religion is true and evidence against atheism are the same thing.

RealityCheck · Nov 2, 2014

dysert said:
Stuff exists. For stuff to exist now, it must have always existed, or it sprang from nothingness.

It cant have always existed, or it would have long ago degenerated into energy (matter is not eternal).

Something cant come from nothing.

How do you know matter is not eternal? Why would you think matter would all "degenerate" into energy?

How do you know something can't come from nothing? After all, if you add 1 and -1, you get 0. So you can get nothing from something.... why not the reverse?
Life exists. After somehow getting over the fact that stuff exists, its remarkable that life exists. According to some Big Bang proponents, what resulted from the BB was a bunch of low-numbered elements. Through natural processes (where did they come from?), these elements combined to form high-numbered elements, and eventually molecules combined to form things like rocks and other non-living things. Non-life cannot suddenly produce life, yet an atheist would have you believe that we evidently evolved from rocks.[/quote]

Nope, and that last sentence demonstrates you aren't well schooled in science.

Rest of the post can be ignored at that point unless you're willing to learn the science.

Dizredux · Nov 3, 2014

Davian

No, atheism is a theistic position, a disbelief in gods. If you were looking for a scientific opinion on the state of the science of abiogenesis, along with some good university entry-level courses, just ask.

Dysert

Thanks, but I'm not interested any more. (I used to be, but no longer.)

This is interesting. Apparently you have decided to stop learning about the world God gave us. I think you miss out on a lot but it is your choice.

Dizredux

RealityCheck · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
Thanks, but this thread is just to explain why I am not an atheist. Why I am a Christian would be a totally different thing - but would probably be met with just as much criticism.

Based on your OP, it appears that the "reason you're not an atheist" boils down to "I don't understand science and don't want to, so to explain all this stuff I don't understand I need God."

Which hardly explains why you're not an atheist, but does explain why you'd accept any easy explanation that doesn't require understanding science.

dysert · Nov 3, 2014

Dizredux said:
DavianDysert
This is interesting. Apparently you have decided to stop learning about the world God gave us. I think you miss out on a lot but it is your choice.

Dizredux

No, I'm still learning about the world. I'm just not interested in wading through papers, books, magazines, etc., to see what scientists have to say about abiogenesis. Don't worry - I'm still learning about lots of other stuff.

dysert · Nov 3, 2014

RealityCheck said:
Based on your OP, it appears that the "reason you're not an atheist" boils down to "I don't understand science and don't want to, so to explain all this stuff I don't understand I need God."

Which hardly explains why you're not an atheist, but does explain why you'd accept any easy explanation that doesn't require understanding science.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way (surprise!). I'll boil it down: the reason I'm not an atheist is because I believe in God.

selfinflikted · Nov 3, 2014

OP, so in short, because you do not know all of the answers, god. Amirite? That's a poor reason to believe in anything.

dysert · Nov 3, 2014

selfinflikted said:
OP, so in short, because you do not know all of the answers, god. Amirite? That's a poor reason to believe in anything.

No. It's because there are no naturalistic answers that can satisfactorily address the questions in the OP that drive me to the conclusion that there must be a supernatural explanation. Since I've not been biased against the supernatural it's not hard for me to accept that explanation.

selfinflikted · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
No. It's because there are no naturalistic answers that can satisfactorily address the questions in the OP that drive me to the conclusion that there must be a supernatural explanation. Since I've not been biased against the supernatural it's not hard for me to accept that explanation.

"Biased against the supernatural." That's cute. This translates to me as such: "Since science can't answer these questions, I'd rather have any explanation that satisfies my curiosity rather than take the intellectually honest position of ignorance."

So why believe in the Christian god, then, and not any of the other myriad gods or supernatural "explanations"?

Also, what would happen to your faith if/when science can explain origins?

Lord Emsworth · Nov 3, 2014

Don't hesitate to give these explanations.

But keep in mind, an explanation is some sort of positive effort, something where you do some kind of work. It's not easy, usually.

dysert · Nov 3, 2014

selfinflikted said:
"Biased against the supernatural." That's cute. This translates to me as such: "Since science can't answer these questions, I'd rather have any explanation that satisfies my curiosity rather than take the intellectually honest position of ignorance."

So why believe in the Christian god, then, and not any of the other myriad gods or supernatural "explanations"?

Also, what would happen to your faith if/when science can explain origins?

Of course you're free to translate it any way you want. And I don't agree that the naturalistic view is any more "intellectually honest" than my worldview.

Your second paragraph belongs in another thread.

Re your third paragraph, I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

selfinflikted · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
Of course you're free to translate it any way you want. And I don't agree that the naturalistic view is any more "intellectually honest" than my worldview.

How is it not? Have you something other than faith that points to the Christian god as the creator of all things?

dysert said:
Your second paragraph belongs in another thread.

You certainly don't have to answer it, if you are so inclined.

dysert said:
Re your third paragraph, I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

So then, your faith is simply a placeholder until something more concrete is presented?

com7fy8 · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
No. It's because there are no naturalistic answers that can satisfactorily address the questions in the OP that drive me to the conclusion that there must be a supernatural explanation. Since I've not been biased against the supernatural it's not hard for me to accept that explanation.

I find it "interesting" how the human body can function at such a high level, yet a human oneself does not. The atoms and molecules and their scientific principles seem to work more intelligently than the human does. So, from this I can see it is reasonable that there is "something" supernatural acting in the mind and heart of the human (Ephesians 2:2) who can be anti-intelligent > I mean how the created body can work better than a human, even in spite of how a human abuses his or her body.

And I experience God giving me love better than any human has and better than I ever have tried to get. And His love is strong enough to keep me stable and more and more strong against arguing and hurts and unforgiveness and trying to use and control people. And He satisfies me so I am not depending on pleasure to fulfill me and make me feel good. He does me more good than I have ever tried to do for myself. But He is all-loving; so He has us seek His good for and have this hope for any and all others, also. So, He has been "still" correcting me, better than I have tried to straighten myself out. So, God has been the best proof

bhsmte · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
Of course you're free to translate it any way you want. And I don't agree that the naturalistic view is any more "intellectually honest" than my worldview.

Your second paragraph belongs in another thread.

Re your third paragraph, I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

Judging by your posts, you seem to be somewhat intimidated by natural explanations from science. Is this because these explanations go against a tightly held faith belief, or is it because of the education and work required to understand them?

Keep in mind, natural explanations of our universe from science are going to keep coming, as they have for centuries. Science has never had to adapt in their work because of religion, but religion has had to adapt to science.

dysert · Nov 3, 2014

selfinflikted said:
How is it not? Have you something other than faith that points to the Christian god as the creator of all things?

Lol. Is there some Grand Poobah that has a scale of what things are more intellectually honest than others?

You certainly don't have to answer it, if you are so inclined.

I'm familiar with the goading technique and choose not to play.

So then, your faith is simply a placeholder until something more concrete is presented?

That's not what I said.

dysert · Nov 3, 2014

bhsmte said:
Judging by your posts, you seem to be somewhat intimidated by natural explanations from science. Is this because these explanations go against a tightly held faith belief, or is it because of the education and work required to understand them?

Keep in mind, natural explanations of our universe from science are going to keep coming, as they have for centuries. Science has never had to adapt in their work because of religion, but religion has had to adapt to science.

I believe your judgment is incorrect. I'm not intimidated by natural explanations. I'm not afraid of what science will uncover next. Assuming that it reflects what's true, it will not conflict with what the Bible said thousands of years ago.

I can't speak to "religion" of the past. My worldview is based on the Bible, and it [the Bible] doesn't change. Therefore, I don't anticipate my worldview changing based upon any new scientific discoveries.

bhsmte · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
I believe your judgment is incorrect. I'm not intimidated by natural explanations. I'm not afraid of what science will uncover next. Assuming that it reflects what's true, it will not conflict with what the Bible said thousands of years ago.

I can't speak to "religion" of the past. My worldview is based on the Bible, and it [the Bible] doesn't change. Therefore, I don't anticipate my worldview changing based upon any new scientific discoveries.

Science, already conflicts with what the bible states.

selfinflikted · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
Lol. Is there some Grand Poobah that has a scale of what things are more intellectually honest than others?

Of course not. But any rational person would recognize "I don't know" as a more intellectually honest answer to the question of origins rather than "I believe god did it, but I have no evidence."

dysert said:
I'm familiar with the goading technique and choose not to play.

Whatever floats your boat.

dysert said:
That's not what I said.

Then perhaps you could elaborate a bit? Because at face value, that's more or less exactly what you said.

RealityCheck · Nov 3, 2014

dysert said:
I believe your judgment is incorrect. I'm not intimidated by natural explanations. I'm not afraid of what science will uncover next. Assuming that it reflects what's true, it will not conflict with what the Bible said thousands of years ago.

I can't speak to "religion" of the past. My worldview is based on the Bible, and it [the Bible] doesn't change. Therefore, I don't anticipate my worldview changing based upon any new scientific discoveries.

Except science has already contradicted the Bible. Numerous times.

And now youre saying that even if science continues to contradict thw Bible and demonstrate that the Bible is wrong, you will continue to believe the Bible and ignore the science.

Why?

Michael · Nov 3, 2014

selfinflikted said:
How is it not? Have you something other than faith that points to the Christian god as the creator of all things?

That's ultimately a "belief system" that you hold in terms of there being a "Christian god", or a "Muslim god". Monotheism recognizes that there is only one God, and many various religions, including various Christian sects.

There's only one God in monotheism, and many 'religions'.

So then, your faith is simply a placeholder until something more concrete is presented?

Even if that's the case, how is that any fundamentally different with how so called 'science' works? Even the Higgs Boson, one of the most amazing and elusive "discoveries" of our time, wasn't discovered empirically until just recently. Terms like 'dark energy', 'dark matter', 'inflation' ect, are still routinely used as a placeholder term until something more concrete is presented. In biology, they are constantly learning new things and more details about how genetics works and how the body works. Until they 'understand' something, they usually have a "less concrete" way of describing a process.

What is 'awareness' in your opinion for instance, and how do even single celled organisms figure out how to eat a balanced diet, and "predict" hot and cold cycles (slime molds)?

Of course not. But any rational person would recognize "I don't know" as a more intellectually honest answer to the question of origins rather than "I believe god did it, but I have no evidence."

Are "scientists" being more "intellectually honest' in your opinion when they claim that "Inflation/dark energy/dark matter did it", and do you personally believe that they have 'evidence' to support such claims? Are they "intellectually honest' in terms of presenting all cause effect relationships, and leaving no placeholder terms until something more concrete is presented?

You're using *far* more stringent standards with respect to God than anything used in "science" today.

Why I am not an atheist

.

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Member

Member

Under Deck

Member

Under Deck

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Member

Under Deck

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Member

Member

Newbie

Under Deck

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads