Are you an Atheist? What Promted Your Choice?

[its that dude]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Well written and well supported article.

http://www.huffingtonpost...gument-for_b_831185.html

I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Again?  The same old tired argument that science hasn't explained everything yet means that God created us? really?  again?  What support did he bring to his views?  That a few scientists believe in a creator?  That's it? 

@ "well supported"

Reasonable?  Is that the best that a rabbi could come up with?  He didn't support his theory idea that a God created us with any actual evidence at all.  Now think if he brought HIS God into this?  dude would get ripped to shreds.

This is his argument:

"All evidence" obviously shows that God created us.
Science hasn't shown us enough evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion: God created us.

If science knew everything, IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED ALREADY.

 

[its that dude]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Well written and well supported article.

http://www.huffingtonpost...gument-for_b_831185.html

I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Again?  The same old tired argument that science hasn't explained everything yet means that God created us? really?  again?  What support did he bring to his views?  That a few scientists believe in a creator?  That's it? 

@ "well supported"

Reasonable?  Is that the best that a rabbi could come up with?  He didn't support his theory idea that a God created us with any actual evidence at all.  Now think if he brought HIS God into this?  dude would get ripped to shreds.

This is his argument:

"All evidence" obviously shows that God created us.
Science hasn't shown us enough evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion: God created us.

If science knew everything, IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED ALREADY.

 

[bilbo07]

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

 

[bilbo07]

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

 

[wr]

God (god)= 'Common Teutonic word for personal object of religious worship, for merely applicable to super-human beings of heaven myth; on conversion of Teutonic races to Christianity, term was applied to the Supreme Being' (Encyclopedia Americana-1945 Edition)

Druids called the sun Gott, Gud, Goth, Gudh.

It was lucifer out of jealousy that declared that his followers have no other God before him.
Science comes from the latin word scientia which means knowledge. All siceince is is a bod of knowledge, It's not complete and ever evolving yet is purely objective. Science is exactly like the judicial system and new findings set new precedents for new interpretations. 10 yrs from now, our science could and probably will do a complete 180 from what it currently says and new articles of evidence included in the body of scientific knowledge can completely make what we breath sweat and die for a comical joke. 

 

[wr]

God (god)= 'Common Teutonic word for personal object of religious worship, for merely applicable to super-human beings of heaven myth; on conversion of Teutonic races to Christianity, term was applied to the Supreme Being' (Encyclopedia Americana-1945 Edition)

Druids called the sun Gott, Gud, Goth, Gudh.

It was lucifer out of jealousy that declared that his followers have no other God before him.
Science comes from the latin word scientia which means knowledge. All siceince is is a bod of knowledge, It's not complete and ever evolving yet is purely objective. Science is exactly like the judicial system and new findings set new precedents for new interpretations. 10 yrs from now, our science could and probably will do a complete 180 from what it currently says and new articles of evidence included in the body of scientific knowledge can completely make what we breath sweat and die for a comical joke. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by bilbo07

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

shoot many religious people i know, don't even know right from wrong. figures.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by bilbo07

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

shoot many religious people i know, don't even know right from wrong. figures.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by bilbo07

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

shoot most religious people i know, don't even know right from wrong. figures.

religion is dangerous because the symbols and protocol actually substitute spirituality. most people who are religious aren't really aware of how their belief system is a strawman for what they need to be doing and living in their private personal life. not externally.  thats why they act contrary to what they say there beliefs are

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by bilbo07

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

shoot most religious people i know, don't even know right from wrong. figures.

religion is dangerous because the symbols and protocol actually substitute spirituality. most people who are religious aren't really aware of how their belief system is a strawman for what they need to be doing and living in their private personal life. not externally.  thats why they act contrary to what they say there beliefs are

 

[bilbo07]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by bilbo07

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

shoot many religious people i know, don't even know right from wrong. figures.

tell me about it. im not even going to get into the hypocrisy of it.

 

[bilbo07]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by bilbo07

i dont need religion to know whats right and wrong. if there is a heaven and i dont get in simply because i dont believe in god but was a good person anyway then honestly, i dont want to go.

shoot many religious people i know, don't even know right from wrong. figures.

tell me about it. im not even going to get into the hypocrisy of it.

 

[noskey]

Not gonna bother reading this thread, I know it's going just like all other religious threads. I'll just state that nothing 'prompted' my belief that there's no God. I just kind of got here through logic.

 

[noskey]

Not gonna bother reading this thread, I know it's going just like all other religious threads. I'll just state that nothing 'prompted' my belief that there's no God. I just kind of got here through logic.

 

[larrydavidswag]

imma make a post before i read, then edit after....

alot of people on here confuse me for athiest because i clown organized religion and the overly-religious...

i think organized religion is a joke.

HOWEVER, i do believe in a "higher power".....i do have a "spirituality".....but i can't really define or describe it...

my idea is that our "higher power" is more a force, like nature, than an entity......

but that's just me, and i'd like to use this thread to clarify my belief....

 

[larrydavidswag]

imma make a post before i read, then edit after....

alot of people on here confuse me for athiest because i clown organized religion and the overly-religious...

i think organized religion is a joke.

HOWEVER, i do believe in a "higher power".....i do have a "spirituality".....but i can't really define or describe it...

my idea is that our "higher power" is more a force, like nature, than an entity......

but that's just me, and i'd like to use this thread to clarify my belief....

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Well written and well supported article.

http://www.huffingtonpost...gument-for_b_831185.html

I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Again?  The same old tired argument that science hasn't explained everything yet means that God created us? really?  again?  What support did he bring to his views?  That a few scientists believe in a creator?  That's it? 

@ "well supported"

Reasonable?  Is that the best that a rabbi could come up with?  He didn't support his theory idea that a God created us with any actual evidence at all.  Now think if he brought HIS God into this?  dude would get ripped to shreds.

This is his argument:

"All evidence" obviously shows that God created us.
Science hasn't shown us enough evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion: God created us.

If science knew everything, IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED ALREADY.

It's not so much an argument a discussion of the faith based decision even the people like Dawkins and Crick have to make.  There isn't any argument.  It all really boils down to this.

The unreasonable odds vs. God. 

He very effectively narrows the discussion down to what matters and uses reputable scholarship to back his position.  You can't discuss points specific to different religions in a broad discussion of Theism vs. Atheism. 

I'd imagine you don't have much to say about the his argument judging by the lack of any on your behalf.  But I think that's because there really isn't much to argue.  That really is what it comes down to; the odds or a higher power.

I thought even atheists would see the appeal in this article.  Not appeal in the sense that it'll change your mind, but appeal in the sense that it's a worth while read.  Sounds like you don't think so.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Well written and well supported article.

http://www.huffingtonpost...gument-for_b_831185.html

I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Again?  The same old tired argument that science hasn't explained everything yet means that God created us? really?  again?  What support did he bring to his views?  That a few scientists believe in a creator?  That's it? 

@ "well supported"

Reasonable?  Is that the best that a rabbi could come up with?  He didn't support his theory idea that a God created us with any actual evidence at all.  Now think if he brought HIS God into this?  dude would get ripped to shreds.

This is his argument:

"All evidence" obviously shows that God created us.
Science hasn't shown us enough evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion: God created us.

If science knew everything, IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED ALREADY.

It's not so much an argument a discussion of the faith based decision even the people like Dawkins and Crick have to make.  There isn't any argument.  It all really boils down to this.

The unreasonable odds vs. God. 

He very effectively narrows the discussion down to what matters and uses reputable scholarship to back his position.  You can't discuss points specific to different religions in a broad discussion of Theism vs. Atheism. 

I'd imagine you don't have much to say about the his argument judging by the lack of any on your behalf.  But I think that's because there really isn't much to argue.  That really is what it comes down to; the odds or a higher power.

I thought even atheists would see the appeal in this article.  Not appeal in the sense that it'll change your mind, but appeal in the sense that it's a worth while read.  Sounds like you don't think so.

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik


The unreasonable odds vs. God. 

wait, so you're saying its less likely that everything occured naturally, than that an unknown being physically and literally created and manages EVERYTHING in the universe?

  

 

[larrydavidswag]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik


The unreasonable odds vs. God. 

wait, so you're saying its less likely that everything occured naturally, than that an unknown being physically and literally created and manages EVERYTHING in the universe?

  

 

[daytona 5000]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

imma make a post before i read, then edit after....

alot of people on here confuse me for athiest because i clown organized religion and the overly-religious...

i think organized religion is a joke.

HOWEVER, i do believe in a "higher power".....i do have a "spirituality".....but i can't really define or describe it...

my idea is that our "higher power" is more a force, like nature, than an entity......

but that's just me, and i'd like to use this thread to clarify my belief....

My man

 

[daytona 5000]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

imma make a post before i read, then edit after....

alot of people on here confuse me for athiest because i clown organized religion and the overly-religious...

i think organized religion is a joke.

HOWEVER, i do believe in a "higher power".....i do have a "spirituality".....but i can't really define or describe it...

my idea is that our "higher power" is more a force, like nature, than an entity......

but that's just me, and i'd like to use this thread to clarify my belief....

My man

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Originally Posted by Mo Matik


The unreasonable odds vs. God. 

wait, so you're saying its less likely that everything occured naturally, than that an unknown being physically and literally created and manages EVERYTHING in the universe?

The odds speak for themselves.

To quote from the article:

"Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the Earth." (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University)

The most relaxed scientific journals will only accept a minimum  of a 90% confidence interval.  Most will only accept 95% or higher.  This means that the researcher is 95% confident that if the experiment is replicated, the results will fall within the upper and lower limits of that interval.  EDIT: this refers to studies that have statistical analysis.  A confidence interval is a statistical value not an estimate on part of the researcher.

The odds of life starting by chance are exponentially lower than this. 

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by LarryDavidSwag

Originally Posted by Mo Matik


The unreasonable odds vs. God. 

wait, so you're saying its less likely that everything occured naturally, than that an unknown being physically and literally created and manages EVERYTHING in the universe?

The odds speak for themselves.

To quote from the article:

"Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the Earth." (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University)

The most relaxed scientific journals will only accept a minimum  of a 90% confidence interval.  Most will only accept 95% or higher.  This means that the researcher is 95% confident that if the experiment is replicated, the results will fall within the upper and lower limits of that interval.  EDIT: this refers to studies that have statistical analysis.  A confidence interval is a statistical value not an estimate on part of the researcher.

The odds of life starting by chance are exponentially lower than this. 

 

[larrydavidswag]

regardless of how UNLIKELY life on this planet is, ITS HERE....

so to say "its just so unlikely, it's more likely a make-believe god physically and literally made everything" is ridiculous....because unlikely or not, it happened....

you're saying if we tried to "replicate" the "expirament" we would 'fail"....

lets replicate the experiment of god....opps. can't do that, cause its god....so there isnt even a likelyhood, there's absolutely ZERO chance of discovering or "copying" god, right?

right.

now we're arguing the likelyhood of two very ridiculously unlikely things...replicating life on a planet other than earth

in fact, we're arguing which is MORE unlikely, reality, which is, reality....or a secondary reality where some unknown being created everything....

there's actually more evidence that it's random, than that it was created.

but cute, tho.

(if everything was created with intelligent design why are things born ******ed and deformed? why are there collisions in space which destroy things? lemme guess, "only god knows that answer", right?)



"check it, i cant dunk, but its more likely than you jumping 400 feet in the air, off vertical, tho..."

both have zero percent chance in happening....god creating everything is just as unlikely as everything beign an accident....thing is, it happened....you belive in SOMETHING, that god did it, which we both LOGICALLY agree has a zero chance to "reoccur" or "be duplicated"....athiests believe in "i really dont know", or "nothing", which is open to accept the possibilities of a wide-range of things that are all very unlikely...however, they don't commit to ONE "end-all-be-all" explaination.....for the most part, athiests admit they don't really know....they're just sure that they dont believe in something that has absolutely NO EVIDENCE of existing....

put it like this, saying that "random chance" is less likely than intelligent design is silly, to me....

because "random chance" included an infinite amount of varibles and different explainations....literally an infinite amount of factors could or couldnt be included in "random chance" or "nature" scenario....for example, coulda been asteroids which gave us water, coulda been aliens, coulda been a BILLION scenarios.....but it's still 'random nature", whereas, you think that a SPECIFIC scenario where a being, without any shread of evidence this being exists, literally created everything is MORE LIKELY than the INFINITE possibilities of "nature"?

alright.

that's called faith.

you haz it.

i do not.