Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2016, 01:07 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 08:55 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Well, others have already done a fine job of this, but since I enjoy replying to bad questions about evolution and theism, I'll just jump right in.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Happily! Welcome to TTA. Smile

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

As others have cautioned you, there's really no such thing as "most atheists", since really the only thing we agree on is that the concept of a God, as explained thus far by our fellow human beings, is unlikely to be more than fantasy.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

So we're talking about science, now? I'm not sure what you think that has to do with atheism. You do realize that a huge number of evolutionary biologists are Christians, right? That the guys who came up with the Big Bang Theory and the classification system for the evolutionary "tree of life" still in (slightly modified) use today were both highly religious Christians?

But you're right. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. That's because evolution only works on replicating beings, or as Darwin called it, "descent with modification". So the origin of life is literally outside the question of the Theory of Evolution, which is itself one of the most well-demonstrated ideas in all of science.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

Who told you this? Seriously, take about six minutes of your life and Google "the evolution of the eye". A couple of really good websites have already been recommended to you.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What's with the quotation marks? An indication of ironic use?

Mammals are descended from one of the sub-groups of reptiles that have existed since before the time of the dinosaurs, known as the Synapsids.

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, which I recommend you read,

The evolution of mammals has passed through many stages since the first appearance of their synapsid ancestors in the late Carboniferous period. The most ancestral forms in the class Mammalia are the egg-laying mammals in the subclass Prototheria.

And if you think the idea of egg-laying mammals are crazy, I would point out that their still-egg-laying descendants (called Monotremes) exist today, in Australia and New Zealand, where they were not out-competed by their placental cousins. Examples include the platypus and the echidna.

[Image: echidna2.jpg]

Evolution is about branching off from ancestral groups, not necessarily replacing what already works.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened.

Biological entities don't "change into something different", in the sense that you seem to mean it, here. A population will have variations within it, and when there are sub-groups that do not exchange genes with the general population, they can develop new traits that in time cause them to diverge enough from their original planform (usually based on conditions in new environment, but also from the randomness of mutations that crop up in the isolated group and are not shared among the larger group) that the two can no longer interbreed. This process continues with the next species group, and the next, and the next... each level being a "branch" of diversity.

Imagine a tree trunk that branches, and then branches, and then branches again. All lead back to the same trunk, if you trace them back in time. All of them grew millimeter by millimeter along their various paths. It's easy to show you the connections on the branch near us, but harder to show you without climbing back down the tree that the two branches connect, way back. What you're essentially doing is demanding to be shown how to leap from one branch to the other, and denying that the branch we're standing on also leads back to the same trunk that another branch diverges from.

There is no need for a "mechanism" other than the one I described, above. Populations diverge and change with time, often due to the pressures of the environment that make some of them more- or less-likely to survive to pass on offspring. This process is ongoing and everywhere, and there's no magic line at the Genus level that stops the process. The Genus level is a classification we have arbitrarily assigned to groups based on shared characteristics, after the fact.

The "breach" to which you refer is not a thing. We are descended from one type of reptile, and you can look at why we know it's our ancestor on the Berkeley website or any number of actual science websites that cover the subject. Birds are descended from another (the same type as the dinosaurs). The types of reptiles alive today are either from the same group as the dinos or are from an entirely different, third group-- like turtles. It's pretty fascinating stuff, if you look it up.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

Everything is transitional. Every population is having sub-groups that develop new traits which don't get shared with the main group. Every fossil was transitional between what came before and what came after. Every animal alive today (including us) is transitional between what came before and what will come after.

Again, what you're doing is pointing to a far leaf at the end of a distant branch and demanding to show you how to leap from here to that branch. It doesn't work that way.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

"Like begets like" is what evolution says. Your DNA is copied into the next generation. Except they're not exactly like you. Every person has a few unique mutations. Most do nothing to change our phenotype, but occasionally there are negative or positive outcomes from new mutations. Those will change the odds of surviving to pass that gene on into the next generation, so it will either become more common in the gene pool... or less.

If you're curious, there was something that many people believed in the scientific community (and long before), prior to the discovery of genetics, called Lamarckian inheritance, in which they believed that a creature's environment directly influenced that creature to change and thus produce descendants that were also adapted to the environment. This idea has since been totally debunked by genetics. However, the authors of the Bible though that it was true: you can read in Genesis 30 how Jacob (before he was called "Israel") was very clever in putting sticks with color-stripes cut into them in front of his boss Laban's sheep, since he was paid by being allowed to keep any multicolored sheep that was born in the flock, and thereby Jacob became rich enough to become a patriarch of the Israelites. That's a nice story, but it's actually not at all how things work.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

It seems that you are willing to remain ignorant (I do not mean offense by this term... it simply means you do not know something) about the actual claims of science, in order to justify your preconceptions to yourself.

This is especially odd in the case of your remarks about evolution, because so many Christians are evolutionary biologists who have no issues with the things we also accept from our scientific understanding of how life on earth operates, in that you clearly consider it "an atheism thing". It's not, and the fact that you think it is tells us how hard you are trying to maintain your magical thinking over testable reality.

I grew up as a Creationist and I became an evolutionary biologist. I was amazed at how much the Creationist organizations outright lie about the claims of science and the statements of scientists. My wife is a Christian but not a Creationist, and is also an evolutionary biologist. If you would like to learn the materials to which we have already pointed you, I would very much enjoy helping you to understand the subject better.

You do your God no favors by deliberately and willfully misunderstanding what we know about the universe. Clinging to the Genesis account as a literal one, as a science book, certainly does the God of Creation no favors, since it ignores the best way to know the handiwork: look at it, and don't lie about it.

Evangelical Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project (and currently in charge of the National Insitutes of Health, one of the largest publishers of scientific literature on the subject of evolution, as well as abiogenesis research) Dr. Francis Collins wrote an excellent book on why we know evolution is true, from DNA alone, and why it does not serve God to deny the truth of the creation. It's called The Language of God. You may find it helpful.

If you don't like to read, I highly recommend the YouTube series "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science" by Tony Reed, to which I will link you the first of the videos in the series, below:





(Skip the awful intro graphic... he admits it's terrible and drops it from subsequent videos, after the first few.)

Mate. IMO you are overestimating your readership.

Edit your posts by 1/4.

I don't even get through them. And I read Being and nothingness. Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 01:17 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Go fuck yourself.

Short enough for you?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 02:02 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
G'day mate, and welcome. Smile

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Too easy: Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural or paranormal.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

There is NO empirical evidence that supports the existence of God or gods. So... to support your above claim, you need to cite this evidence. Thus far, nobody in two millennia has been able to do so, and I doubt that you can. But please feel free to try.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
29-12-2016, 02:29 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

It's really simple, friend. All you have to do, is show good evidence for the existence of your god, and most of us will believe you.

What's good evidence for god? I have no idea. You should ask your god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xieulong's post
29-12-2016, 02:41 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(29-12-2016 02:29 AM)xieulong Wrote:  What's good evidence for god? I have no idea. You should ask your god.

I'd amend that to something that didn't require distinguishing between your subconscious and a supposed deity.

A universe creating being would know what sort of evidence it could present to a skeptic to convince them, if it cared to. One needs to explain how the evident silence of such a supposed being is more likely due to an inept or uncaring universe creator, over the more simple explanation of nonexistence; that burden is bore by anyone putting forth god claims.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 03:29 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(29-12-2016 02:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(29-12-2016 02:29 AM)xieulong Wrote:  What's good evidence for god? I have no idea. You should ask your god.
A universe creating being would know what sort of evidence it could present to a skeptic to convince them,

This is what I was going for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 06:25 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

This isn't all that complicated, when you pick up a book and it makes ridiculous claims such as:

1. Talking animals
2. World wide floods
3. Humans that lived for extremely long times

You know it can't be true, there can be no doubt that The Epic of Gilgamesh is a made up story:






What? You thought I was talking about some other book?

Interesting..... Consider

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
29-12-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
OP - you are terribly misinformed.

I cannot correct that in a single post.
I suggest several university classes in biology.
Perhaps some logic classes, astronomy, chemistry.

Put that ONE book down and open up MANY others.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
29-12-2016, 06:41 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 07:12 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Reading OP made me feel dumb.

Reading the OP made me feel smart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
29-12-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Imagine after conception, if you had a picture of yourself each and every day from a few cells to a baby being born to a small child learning to walk to a toddler, a young child running around, a teenager, your 20's, 40's, 60's, 80's.

Now imagine each picture is a new species from the same ancestral line. Minor changes happen each day. Each new species looks very much like the previous species. It's hard to tell them apart but there are differences.

From a few cells your body does slowly form an eye. It doesn't happen in a day or an instant. It's gradual. The same way it happens in populations over time.

Babies don't instantly become old adults.
If you are looking for that kind of dramatic change in the animal kingdom, you won't find it.

Small changes over a long period of time can take the small cells of your conception into an 80 year old person.

Small changes over a billion years can take a few million replicating molecules in the water and change them into the vast diversity of life on the planet.

We are all connected by our genetic ancestry.
And we can prove that.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: