The stumbling block for atheists.

[bhsmte]

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

How do you determine if a claim is baffling or not?

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Good luck.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(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.

Good answer.

 

[Radrook]

Good luck.

Maybe you should be wishing yourself good luck with your magical abiogenesis pet idea.

 

[Cearbhall]

Maybe you should be wishing yourself good luck with your magical abiogenesis pet idea.

I'd much rather acknowledge the gap in our knowledge than decide that a higher being must have poofed life into existence. Why would I settle for a band-aid solution? I'm content with knowing that we haven't figured everything out yet.

 

[Radrook]

I'd much rather acknowledge the gap in our knowledge than decide that a higher being must have poofed life into existence. Why would I settle for a band-aid solution? I'm content with knowing that we haven't figured everything out yet.

Of course you would rather. That's no secret.

BTW
The only "poof"" in this matter is in relation to your abiogenesis fantasy.

 

[Cearbhall]

The only "poof"" in this matter is in relation to your abiogenesis fantasy.

You do realize it's only named that after the book about your God doing exactly that? I didn't mean that as an insult. That's just how the story goes.

 

[Jimmy D]

Maybe you should be wishing yourself good luck with your magical abiogenesis pet idea.

It's not my idea and I wouldn't cling dogmatically to it in the face of evidence to the contrary, I believe it's the most rational explaination though.

I was wishing Armoured luck because of your reluctance to explain what you think the mechanisms of ID are, what stage these 'designs' are implemented etc.

Why is that exactly? I can only think that it's because you haven't actually got a clue as to how it works or because if you were more specific in your claims it would open up the possibility of other posters finding flaws in them.

 

[Dave RP]

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 think you completely miss the point of why atheists are atheists, I can't speak for others only for me. From my point of view there are several stumbling blocks to becoming an religious adherent. Firstly starting with God himself, I can never get past the question of "where did God come from, who or what made God". Then secondly, the possibility that a supernatural being exists, alongside a load more supernatural beings called angels, cherubim, seraphim or whatever who exist for ever in a spirit world where they exist without the need for physical sustenance and without interacting with the physical world seems to me to be beyond incredible, where is this place and how does it exist? Thirdly the idea that the chief or head of all these spirit beings is all powerful and can magic things into existence just by his own will is just too incredible for belief. Fourthly, even if I've got that wrong, and God does exist, the idea that he takes personal interest in humankind strikes me as ludicrous. Next, even if I've got all that wrong the idea that God only looks after one particular section of humanity who happen to have understood all of Gods word correctly and are therefore saved but all other sections of humanity who for whatever reason follow (worship?) another form of God are eternally damned strikes me a ridiculous. Finally, the idea that this all seeing, all powerful god wants humanity to bend it knee and worship this god is in my opinion ridiculous. The Bible was written at a time when the population was expected to prostrate themselves in front of their King, and that's why the Bible follows the same rules for a god who, in my opinion, was invented at that time. Is this all powerful all seeing "creator god" so insecure that he requires puny human beings to bend their knee and worship him? The whole idea of worship is from an antiquated society, I cna understand why it's in the bible and other religious books but it has no relevance to the current world.

I am dating a committed Christian and understand why some people are religious adherents, I understand it but I just don't get it. She hopes one day I'll change my mind, but I've told her that there are way too many obstacles and I'm happy with my choice. To be fair she worries that i'll be forever condemned, which of course if I'm wrong I will be, but that's life (or death actually!).

I'm not trying to start an argument or provoke any believers, I was just answering the post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You seem to be ignorant of how the Bible describes the creator.

Why would that matter, if the "designer" need not be your god of choice?

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.

Ken Miller and Francis Collins, who do biology for a living, don't seem to find any conflict with that and the evidence of reality.

Maybe you should think about that. For once.

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.

Isn't that the whole premise of "intelligent design"? That the designer, personally, designed/created stuff in this universe?

If it isn't, then you're going to have to explain what you really mean with "this stuff is designed" - specifically the verb "designed".

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

But it seems pretty consistent with the evidence of reality. As no god or gods seem to be manifesting anywhere in anyway.

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.

But did these gods actually do that? ;-)

 

[Radrook]

It's not my idea and I wouldn't cling dogmatically to it in the face of evidence to the contrary, I believe it's the most rational explaination though.

I was wishing Armoured luck because of your reluctance to explain what you think the mechanisms of ID are, what stage these 'designs' are implemented etc.

Why is that exactly? I can only think that it's because you haven't actually got a clue as to how it works or because if you were more specific in your claims it would open up the possibility of other posters finding flaws in them.

Attribution of mind faculties, such as self programing via coding of information to mindless chemicals is not a rational choice. As to the demands for details that you keep mentioning, they aren't addressed because they are an irrelevant and totally unnecessary distraction and not because of the peevish motives you imagine and describe.

 

[KCfromNC]

You seem to be ignorant of how the Bible describes the creator.

Why would it matter? I thought ID was scientific and not religious mythology.

 

[Jimmy D]

Attribution of mind faculties, such as self programing via coding of information to mindless chemicals is not a rational choice.

Word salad.

As to the demands for details that you keep mentioning, they aren't addressed because they are an irrelevant and totally unnecessary distraction and not because of the peevish motives you imagine and describe.

I apologise, you're quite right - we shouldn't get distracted from the fact that you have zero evidence to back up your claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

Attribution of mind faculties, such as self programing via coding of information to mindless chemicals is not a rational choice.

Yeah, that's why people who understand this stuff don't think that there's a mind which programmed information into chemicals.

 

[Radrook]

Word salad.



I apologise, you're quite right - we shouldn't get distracted from the fact that you have zero evidence to back up your claims.

If speaking plain English is a word salad to you then then you need to improve in English.
Evidence isn't the issue. The issue is demanding irrelevancies as evidence while feigning incomprehension of simple facts..

 

[bhsmte]

If speaking plain English is a word salad to you then then you need to improve in English.
Evidence isn't the issue. The issue is demanding irrelevancies as evidence while feigning incomprehension of simple facts..

Please answer my question in post 381.

 

[Speedwell]

...while feigning incomprehension...

We don't have to feign. ID really doesn't make any sense to us.

 

[Jimmy D]

If speaking plain English is a word salad to you then then you need to improve in English.

I'd hardly call it plain English but nevermind.

Evidence isn't the issue

Not for you apparently.

The issue is demanding irrelevancies as evidence while feigning incomprehension of simple facts..

It's become apparent that your 'evidence' is either purely subjective or based on spurious analogies, I'm asking how you think ID actually works, why would that be an irrelevance? It seems kind of important if you want to advance the discussion.

Rather than accusing people of dishonesty it might be a good idea to consider why your 'facts' are unconvincing.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Yet another post devoid of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

What scientific experiments should scientists be using to test your ideas?