Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[Agonaces of Susa]

Dr. from Flanders was a crank

I guess that's why the U.S. Naval Observatory paid his bills.

 

[USincognito]

I guess that's why the U.S. Naval Observatory paid his bills.

Ever hear of Dr. John Mack? Even cranks need jobs.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Ever hear of Dr. John Mack? Even cranks need jobs.

I guess that explains how Darwin was gainfully employed.

 

[Quasarsphere]

Sounds like you guys are trying to convince yourselves that you're right.

Bwaaa...

Even your fearless leader Dawkins admits that there is prolly ID involved---> As long as it came from outer space. Some other Gods. Just not our God.

He's bending (cracking) to the truth as well. Don't believe me? Iscool, that makes my day.

BwaaaaHaHaaaaaaaa.....

Well, that is rubbish. He has very clearly said that ANY intelligent design is extremely improbable.

 

[USincognito]

I guess that explains how Darwin was gainfully employed.

Keep this page handy before replying in the future.

 

[Quasarsphere]

You mean the grim look on the photo that you'll see if you follow the first link (link)?

I suppose in Victorian England photography was serious business.

For one thing, you had to sit absolutely still for several minutes that must have felt like several hours.

 

[sfs]

This is what you're comparing, using your own words and edited a little:

"A space-time filled with mass-energy obeying physical laws."

versus

"A space-time filled with mass-energy obeying physical laws."
PLUS
"a self-existent, uncaused creative agent"

You tell me which claim is more complex.

Thank you, but I already used the words I wanted to, and already expressed my opinion as to what we could say about which is more complex.

No reasonable person needs a reminder that our knowledge, senses, and sources are finite.

In my experience, then, there are many unreasonable people, including many scientists. Because I'm saying not just that our knowledge is finite, but that we know exactly nothing about foundational questions.

And within our finite knowledge, it's pointless to add an extra layer of 'goddidit' when explaining ANYTHING. If you want to, be my guest. However, I just don't see what's gained from such act.

Exactly as much as adding the layer, "Nature did it."

 

[Archer93]

It is possible that sentient life exists on one or more other planets, but we currently have no solid evidence of any contact by them.

If the universe was created by totally natural processes, which we may one day fully understand, then the processes that lead to life on this planet could well have happened on another planet as well- or maybe slightly differently, so that, say, the metal in blood is copper rather than iron. Cf. Vulcans!

If the universe was created by divine fiat at the start, which involved natural processes after the creation event, the same thing could happen and again we have 'it's life, Jim, but not as we know it!'.

If a creator God created this world and the life on it specifically, as suggested in the Genesis stories, then there is nothing to say that this God did not do this more than once.

I find it rather amusing to think that, maybe somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy, say, there is a planet of intelligent beings who are also sitting at their computers wondering about the possibility of life on other planets.

 

[sfs]

So we have a choice.

A choice for what? What are you describing here?

Natural occurrence or magic.

What is a natural occurrence?

 

[JusSumguy]

I guess that explains how Darwin was gainfully employed.

Hahahahaha....

Well, that is rubbish. He has very clearly said that ANY intelligent design is extremely improbable.

So we have a choice. Natural occurrence or magic.

Anything that infers magic loses in my opinion. As magic simply doesn't and cannot be explained in any rational way. That includes gods and aliens as aliens would then still have to be created in some way.

And the real beauty of this reasoning is that we don't have to face the death of our soul. Pretty tidy huh?

It's good to be off the hook.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And the real beauty of this reasoning is that we don't have to face the death of our soul. Pretty tidy huh?

It's good to be off the hook.

That works both ways, you know -- you choose to believe in creationism only because there's something in it for you.

Alas, reality doesn't bend to self-interest.

 

[TerranceL]

I don't need peer-review because I have physical evidence.

"It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

Peer-review this:

"The case in point is the origin of the human race. By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's, Occam's Razor argues that the single hypothesis of earlier alien contact with extraterrestrials to explain the wonders of the ancient world and the remarkable agreement among ancient texts in speaking of visitation by "the gods" should be prefered to the multitude of separate and ad hoc explanations others have offered. If mainstream science were not so preoccupied with avoiding extraordinary hypotheses, it would surely be agreed by most parties that the evidence, severely lacking though it is, mildly favors the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis over most others. However, it cannot be argued that the evidence is anything approaching compelling, especially since it is all indirect (i.e., no definite extraterrestrial artifacts have been found). And since the hypothesis is certainly extraordinary, science prefers to reject it until and unless some extraordinary proof comes along. But what if the hypothesis were true, but most of the evidence has been destroyed?" -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

"... in a universe in which life is also possible at many levels in an infinite range of scale too, life elsewhere becomes a certainty. It is therefore of interest to speculate about why we are not in obvious communication with extraterrestrials, rather than about whether or not such beings exist." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

"To me the most exciting speculation is the idea that extraterrestrials have indeed visited this planet in the past, which is what deductive logic would dictate." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1995

So you are now sourcing people who think that human life on the planet earth was created by aliens for use as slaves...

 

[TerranceL]

And the real beauty of this reasoning is that we don't have to face the death of our soul. Pretty tidy huh?

It's good to be off the hook.

Off the hook for what?

 

[Mobiosity]

That works both ways, you know -- you choose to believe in creationism only because there's something in it for you.

Alas, reality doesn't bend to self-interest.

What does he get from believing in creationism?

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
Thread is closed for staff review

Mod hat off
​

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on

This thread went through a major clean-up and a lot of posts were deleted. I want to remind you that this is not a General Apologetics topic. If this thread turns into that topic again it will be permanently closed.

Refrain from flaming each other and discussing about God in a derogatory manner or all posts will be actioned. Blasphemy against God will not be tolerated!!
This thread is now open
Mod hat off
​

 

[MoonLancer]

What does he get from believing in creationism?

He does not have to revise the view of a literal bible. Ultimatly people who believe in creationism do so through ignorance and if one accepts that evolution and geology are true, that leaves very little room for a fundamentalist god.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

That works both ways, you know -- you choose to believe in creationism only because there's something in it for you.

Alas, reality doesn't bend to self-interest.

An interesting faith-based atheist myth about the afterlife is that's impossible to be dead.

"It's impossible to be dead. Because to be is quite the opposite of death. But it's not important. If one lives or dies there is no meaning either way. One always does die. Whatever is alive has to die. Maybe that's the meaning of life. The meaning of life is inevitable death. You may regret the idea of dying. You probably wish that you could go on and see what happens tomorrow. But that's impossible. It's written that you should die today and that's that." -- Paul Bowles, author, 1998

If I was afraid of death and afraid to face the truth, I would probably be an atheist.

People choose to believe in atheism because there is something in it for them.

Of course, and alas, reality doesn't bend to self-interest.

 

[CoderHead]

If I was afraid of death and afraid to face the truth, I would probably be an atheist.

You really have no clue, do you? If I were afraid of death, I'd imagine up a shiny, happy afterlife where I get a big reward for being good and the evil people get punished forever. If I were afraid of death, I wouldn't have come to terms with the fact that when I die, that's it. Instead, I'd try to believe that there's something better after this life is over. I'd probably believe in a god or a handful of gods.

But I'm OK with dying some day, and I don't believe in gods. So your argument fails on several levels.

 

[MoonLancer]

If I was afraid of death and afraid to face the truth, I would probably be an atheist.

People choose to believe in atheism because there is something in it for them.

Of course, and alas, reality doesn't bend to self-interest.

So I suppose you can show evidence of the after life?
Of course, and alas, reality doesn't bend to self-interest.