What variety of atheist are you?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2011, 03:07 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
@sy2502 I don't know that no one here has concidered it and honestly I'm certain many have, but it still does seem like no one here has considered it separately. As LilithPride told me here, you don't have to accept all of something. You can take parts without accepting the whole. I didn't present creationism here. I'm not even certain it was intelligent design, though that's probably the best equivalent. You're minimizing my arguments to make them seem stupid and you're tacking on other steryotypical things to what I'm actually saying. No one in this thread specifically said those things, but their actions speak clearly enough. I read between the lines. I know what people on this site (generally) think of me. It was offensive, yes, but it also wasn't because they didn't agree but because they weren't listening.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 03:40 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(23-08-2011 03:07 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @sy2502 I don't know that no one here has concidered it and honestly I'm certain many have, but it still does seem like no one here has considered it separately. As LilithPride told me here, you don't have to accept all of something. You can take parts without accepting the whole. I didn't present creationism here. I'm not even certain it was intelligent design, though that's probably the best equivalent. You're minimizing my arguments to make them seem stupid and you're tacking on other steryotypical things to what I'm actually saying. No one in this thread specifically said those things, but their actions speak clearly enough. I read between the lines. I know what people on this site (generally) think of me. It was offensive, yes, but it also wasn't because they didn't agree but because they weren't listening.

This is an atheist forum. First of all, many of us atheists here actually grew up in religious homes, maybe were religious themselves for a while. In my experience, atheists actually know the Bible as much if not better than Christians. Moreover, forums like this get threads about the existence of god, creation, etc all the time, and each time the believer presents his/her arguments, which unfortunately tend to be always variations of the same. So people here have heard all these same arguments more than once and found them unconvincing. Do you have new arguments or new evidence to present?
Since I didn't want to be guilty of just dismissing you, I went back to your posts, and here's what I found:

I see no way we weren't created.
Creation is the most probable naturalist explanation for the origins of life on Earth.
The incredible improbability and likely impossibility of life forming as well as evolving.
There's plenty of evidence for at least a creator there (in the context of abiogenesis)

The above are, as much as you don't like to be told so, versions of the argument from ignorance. We don't know or see how something happened, therefore there must have been a creator to make it happen. You also invoke probability without actually knowing how probable or improbable life is. Using probability in this case is incorrect because we have only one population sample, that is life on earth. We don't know what goes on in the rest of the universe, for all we know it could be empty or it could be full of life. Until we know that, we can't make any statement about how probable or improbable the emergence of life is.
Again as I stated before, I grant to you we do have a puzzle: how did life start on Earth? But the problem in itself is evidence of absolutely nothing other than the fact we don't know. You seem to think the very existence of the puzzle is in and of itself evidence of creation, but that's a faulty argument. Let me illustrate:
I can't find my pen.
You tell me my pen was taken by the elves.
I ask you how do you know elves even exist?
You answer: because your pen was here and now it isn't.

Can you see why this is a faulty argument? The fact I am missing the pen alone is NOT an argument for the existence of elves. The problem is still there: where the heck DID my pen go? But just inventing a solution (elves) and then saying "well, how else would you explain the missing pen?" isn't an acceptable answer.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sy2502's post
23-08-2011, 04:46 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
@sy2502 You must realize that it's not solely an argument from ignorance, though it is often that way. You must also notice that evidence against life forming naturally is also evidence for a creator (which is the same as unnatural). Therefore when you take into consideration the factors necessary for life on earth to exist, you set a fairly good probability of life like ours forming naturally. When you also take into consideration the factors that would be involved in creating life like ours you set the bar even higher by finding out just how improbable the process happening naturally is. With all factors considered, I don't see a possibility that life formed naturally. Thus there must have been a creator involved. There I go again with the pointless debates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 05:21 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
The only reason the debate is pointless is because you can't backup your claims with any evidence.

"You must also notice that evidence against life forming naturally is also evidence for a creator" <- Why?
The only 'evidence' I've seen you present is irreducible complexity, and probabilities: "It seems unlikely that life formed by a natural process so a creator makes more sense to me"

Still an argument from ignorance since you don't really know and can't provide any evidence.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 05:40 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(23-08-2011 04:46 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @sy2502 You must realize that it's not solely an argument from ignorance, though it is often that way. You must also notice that evidence against life forming naturally is also evidence for a creator (which is the same as unnatural). Therefore when you take into consideration the factors necessary for life on earth to exist, you set a fairly good probability of life like ours forming naturally. When you also take into consideration the factors that would be involved in creating life like ours you set the bar even higher by finding out just how improbable the process happening naturally is. With all factors considered, I don't see a possibility that life formed naturally. Thus there must have been a creator involved. There I go again with the pointless debates.

I agree with you that if it can be shown that chemicals cannot, possibly, come together through natural means to form life, and yet there is life, then life must have a supernatural cause. Nevertheless it is not true that it is contrary to the laws of physics and chemistry for chemicals to come together to form life. You haven't provided any evidence that this is the case. On the other hand, we do have evidence that amino acids can and do form spontaneously in nature. You have expressed problems with the Miller-Urey experiment, but amino acids have been found in comets, we don't actually need to make lab experiments. In general, every molecule, including those that make up life, are natural and obey the natural laws. Natural laws don't need to be suspended for atoms to join into molecules, and for molecules to form more complex substances. Therefore I don't really see on what you base your objection.
To clarify, if you showed me a single quark, that would be a "supernatural" event for the simple fact that the laws of physics (specifically the strong force) don't allow one quark to exist on its own. But this is not such case.
You also continue to mention probability. I still maintain neither of us actually has enough data to calculate the probability of life on this planet, but even if it was very low, so what? Try to calculate the probability that YOU were born. Start with how many million spermatozoa had to compete for the same egg, then multiply that number for all your ancestors. Now multiply that number for all the various accidents and events of life that could have influenced the 2 people meeting, when they had sex, how they could have died before reproducing, etc etc. It's a staggering number isn't it? And yet, here you are!!! Improbable is far far far different from impossible, as my existence and yours clearly demonstrates.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 05:53 PM
 
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(23-08-2011 04:46 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  You must also notice that evidence against life forming naturally is also evidence for a creator
The book "Creator" by Jeremy Leven is one of the funniest books I have ever read. The movie, starring Peter O'Tool is even funnier. This world of ours seems to be full of creators. Creators, creating creations -- WOW!!!

Who needs one more?
Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 06:02 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(22-08-2011 09:56 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  I'm done with debates here.

Pussy.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 06:47 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
Was I called out in a bad way? I know I was born on the year of the pig but come on >.> I'm a cat

The most convincing idea for abiogenesis to me so far was the combination of gases to create RNA which could then create everything else. abiogenesis at best proves that there can be a progenitor, but a progenitor has no expectations of the future.

Contrary to your statement I do listen and then when I present a counter-argument to your claim I await your explanation. This is called disbelief and the correct response to disbelief is evidence. I'm telling you I can't see your opinion being correct, so you then need to give me reason to see it's not simply your opinion.

Generally I only dismiss people when they down play life on the planet (which happens a lot). I'll listen to most crazy ideas as long as people don't have this weird separatist superiority complex with life.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 08:15 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
@LilithPride You're not really one of the people here I've had problems with. I've actually gotten some great insight from you. You might have noticed my reference to you earlier. I'm interested in that reaction that could make RNA. However, once you've created RNA, in practice it doesn't work well for self-duplication. It naturally curls, so most strands wouldn't be able to copy themselves to another inverse copy. And if the inverse does form successfully it will then curl so it won't be able to copy again. The original strand would need high concentrations of cytosene(if I'm not mistaken and that's the right word). In any case, this inability to copy would mean there wouldn't be the potential to reproduce and evolve as is nessecary. I'm grateful for your input, so thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 08:59 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(23-08-2011 08:59 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @Mark Fulton I know what you mean with the situation you're describing and believe me, this is different. I'm being deliberately ignored when I present rational arguments.
@angry_liberal Thanks for the input. It's good to know a back-story as well as your current beliefs. Big Grin

Hi blackeyedghost, thanks for not pulling out of the conversation. If you think I am ignoring you, well I don't believe I am, and i would invite you to reread sy2502's comment in post 70 as he has exactly expressed how I feel about creationism. Please feel free to talk around this, that is your right, particularly if you happen to have something new to add. I know you have your fingers in a lot of pies, but if you are to avoid ignoring me, I would like to hear about archaelogical evidence for the stories in the gospels, which you have claimed you know about. I have been studying the gospels for a long time and have never come across any such evidence, so am interested in what it may be. Thanks, Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: