The stumbling block for atheists.

[AV1611VET]

That whole chain of words, however, did not make sense.

Because it had the word "atheist" in it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That was a typo! Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I wasn't correcting you, Radrook.

I was educating our warden here on his religion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wasn't correcting you, Radrook.

I was educating our warden here on his religion.

No, you did nothing of the sort.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That was a typo! Sorry for the misunderstanding.

NOW that makes more sense.
And, no, you're wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately that isn't what atheist scientists do.

Yet another post devoid of any evidence.

 

[MissRowy]

Because it had the word "atheist" in it?

Not because of that. It was very vague and I actually had trouble getting anything out of it myself.

 

[Dave Watchman]

That's why we have about seven different ways we got our moon.

And science still cannot agree on exactly how the moon was made:

New theory explains how the moon got there
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-theory-moon.html

But I wonder what are the odds that something could have randomly smashed a chunk off from the Earth that created our moon to the precise specifications which enable it to do this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

(O)14(o) <------------1588------------> (O)14(o)
(O)14(o) <----------1550----------> (O)14(o)
(O)14(o) <---------1372---------> (O)14(o)
(O)14(o) <--------1209--------> (O)14(o)
(O)14(o) <------1195------> (O)14(o)


<----1260---->
<-----1290-----> 0.976744186046512
<------1335------> 0.966292134831461
<-------1372-------> 0.973032069970845

<----1260---->
0.976744186046512 <-----1290----->
0.966292134831461 <------1335------>
0.973032069970845 <-------1372------->​

Brace for proof.

No embedded age required.
​

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Radrook]

Yet another post devoid of any evidence.

Devoid of anything that you will automatically tag as non-evidence you mean.

 

[Radrook]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Yet other dimensions, multiple universes and godless abiogenesis-all things for which there is absolutely no evidence are considered possible.

 

[Speedwell]

One wonders what "godless" really means to you. Your vision of reality is so incredibly materialistic, it's no wonder you have to struggle so to find room for God in it. Look: we're Christians, we're supposed to believe in the supernatural--but I see little sign of it in your posts. Your God seems to work in the world using only the same "naturalistic" causality which science studies. What's so supernatural about that? It isn't even good theology.

 

[MissRowy]

Quit turning this personal guys. Just reminding you that there are rules here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unfortunately that isn't what atheist scientists do.

But Ken Miller and Franciss Collins aren't atheists..................................................


As you have been told SO many times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Devoid of anything that you will automatically tag as non-evidence you mean.

How would you know, if you don't try...?

Go ahead though... try. And see what happens.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Quit turning this personal guys. Just reminding you that there are rules here.

To be honest... I disagree that @Speedwell 's post was personal (as in: ad hominim).

It seems spot on to me... Indeed, for a theist, Radrook has a remarkable materialistic mindset.

Indeed, the whole idea of the "supernatural" is that it is pretty much undetectable / untestable by natural means like empiricism etc.

Yet, his entire ID thingy seems to seek to do exactly that... Making assessments of the "supernatural" through natural / empirical means.

I am an atheist, so obviously I don't have any affirmative beliefs in any deities or what-have-you...

But indeed, it seems to me that Radrook, and other cdesign proponentsists, seem to be believing in a god that is quite "ungodlike".

A god that is apparantly unable to setup processes like biological evolution. A god that apparantly has to come down from his dimension (or whatever) to come and fiddle about with matter on the molecular level to make sure that things go the way he wants them to go. Seems pretty clunky for a supernatural, all powerfull, all knowing deity.

It reminds me of a debate I once saw between a supporter of theistic evolution and a YEC.

At one point, they were talking about the grandeur of their god.
The "theistic evolutionist" (by lack of a better name) then came up with quite the argument (in the opinion of this atheist, at least). It went something like this:

Imagine 2 engineers who set out to build a machine. Both start by gathering / manufacturing the materials required.

Now, the first engineer then continues to build the various parts using the materials. After that, he assembles the machine using those parts and then turns it on. This is the YEC view of creation.

The second engineer however... Instead of building the various parts from the ground materials.... he sets up an environment with specific features. He then just scatters the materials out in that environment and then sits back. Due to the very fabric of the setup of that environment, the materials come together on their own and spontanously the machine is assembled. So this second engineer has actually created a self-assembling machine. Not only does it self-assemble however... Also included in its very nature, is a mechanism by which this machine can actually improve itself for doing the task that it is supposed to do.

Which of these two engineers is the most impressive?

Eventhough I am an atheist, I kind of liked that argument.
Indeed, the "engineer" of the YEC, is pretty puny as opposed to the "engineer" that creates a self-assembling and self-improving machine.

So I totally get what @Speedwell is saying.

 

[Radrook]

To be honest... I disagree that @Speedwell 's post was personal (as in: ad hominim).

It seems spot on to me... Indeed, for a theist, Radrook has a remarkable materialistic mindset.

Indeed, the whole idea of the "supernatural" is that it is pretty much undetectable / untestable by natural means like empiricism etc.

Yet, his entire ID thingy seems to seek to do exactly that... Making assessments of the "supernatural" through natural / empirical means.

I am an atheist, so obviously I don't have any affirmative beliefs in any deities or what-have-you...

But indeed, it seems to me that Radrook, and other cdesign proponentsists, seem to be believing in a god that is quite "ungodlike".

A god that is apparently unable to setup processes like biological evolution. A god that apparently has to come down from his dimension (or whatever) to come and fiddle about with matter on the molecular level to make sure that things go the way he wants them to go. Seems pretty clunky for a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing deity.

You seem to be ignorant of how the Bible describes the creator. The creator created nature itself and his activity or mind is evident in nature itself. That is a very basic concept and I am surprised that you find it alien to theology.

Romans 1:20 ►
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Also, I never claimed that a creator has to literally and personally leave his abode in order to affect or manipulate or create nature. That is your idea-not mine. Please stop misrepresenting my views.

Also, your concept that God or gods must remain imprisoned in some distant realm without affecting nature or creating nature or interacting outside their realm is theologically inaccurate. There is absolutely NOTHING within theology that postulates or even indicates such a required total isolation in order for the entity involved to be a god or God himself. Even a superficial familiarity with ancient Greek mythology, where gods and goddesses such as Zeus, Hera and Poseidon, routinely travel between their abode and Earth should be sufficient to dispel that notion.

 

[Speedwell]

Also, I never claimed that a creator has to literally and personally leave his abode in order to affect or manipulate or create nature. That is your idea-not mine. Please stop misrepresenting my views.

Of course you claim it. That is the central point of ID theory--that the "designer" has to physically intervene in nature periodically to help evolve such of those critical biological structures which turn out to be "irreducibly complex."

 

[Armoured]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists.

It's because they don't believe in deities. It's not that complicated.

 

[Radrook]

It's because they don't believe in deities. It's not that complicated.

True! There are far more baffling claims than just being an atheist and predictably arguing pro atheist.

 

[Armoured]

You seem to be ignorant of how the Bible describes the creator. The creator created nature itself and his activity or mind is evident in nature itself. That is a very basic concept and I am surprised that you find it alien to theology.

Romans 1:20 ►
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Also, I never claimed that a creator has to literally and personally leave his abode in order to affect or manipulate or create nature. That is your idea-not mine. Please stop misrepresenting my views.

Also, your concept that God or gods must remain imprisoned in some distant realm without affecting nature or creating nature or interacting outside their realm is theologically inaccurate. There is absolutely NOTHING within theology that postulates or even indicates such a required total isolation in order for the entity involved to be a god or God himself. Even a superficial familiarity with ancient Greek mythology, where gods and goddesses such as Zeus, Hera and Poseidon, routinely travel between their abode and Earth should be sufficient to dispel that notion.

For ID to be a scientific Theory, you need at least to be able to explain how the ID was practically applied. How does it get from the drawing board to the organism? Just saying "it's designed" is inadequate.

 

[dclements]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

(I know that I'm late to this thread but thought I might as well try and add my own two cents.)
I disagree with the OP because it assumes a position that is inaccurate of many atheist views thereby creating both a strawman fallacy (ie attacking a weaker argument instead of a persons actual argument or belief) as well as a hasty generalization fallacy (ie. assuming ALL of the people in a particular group believe the same thing).

While I labeled myself as an atheist (which is the closest thing to my actual beliefs that this forum would allow me to call myself), I'm actual closer to what can be called skepticism/nihilism then what is usually considered mere atheism itself. Skepticism/Nihilism doesn't really 'ASSUME' anything and one of the main principles of such systems of belief is any 'self evident truth'/axiom is likely to to have a fatal flaw in it (because it is a unquestioned belief) and as humans we all tend to be biased however even more so when we have too many axioms/'self evident truths' that go unquestioned.

While I'm sure that skepticism/nihilism itself has many flaws itself (such as some people imagine it to be kind of depressing for some that don't quite understand it), such beliefs already state more or less that since ALL ideologies have their own flaws, it shouldn't be too surprising that skepticism/nihilism has it own 'warts' too.