|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Am Not An Atheist! | |||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Imagine I was a die-hard creationist and I said to you that God planted everywhere faked evidence of an old earth to test your faith in him. I am sure creationists can find a proper verse from the Bible supporting this assertion. How would you prove that they are "deeply and fatally wrong"? This is where good old common sense in the form of deductive reasoning and Occam's Razor come in to play. Deductive reasoning in that we can infer that if this were true that God faked evidence supporting evolution that: a. God is a cheat and cannot be trustedb. We cannot trust anything we see around us c. Science is completely useless Occam's Razor is an axiom which stipulates that when faced with several alternate explanations of a phenomena that the hypotheses that contain the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (things that exist) is most likely the closest one to reality. Thus the idea that an all powerful, all knowing supernatural entity would go out of his way to fake the evidence countering his own existence to one particular species among millions of species on a small insignificant planet around a hum drum star among billions of stars in a galaxy among billions of galaxies in the universe, fails Occam's Razor hands down and thus is logically, philosophically and scientifically unsound.
I believe it's an argument creationists could use against the "scientific method They can use anything they want "against the scientific method" and believe anything want. Just don't expect rational human beings to take any of this seriously or even consider these beliefs worthy of discussion or debate (and many rational human beings do not). Notice though that a belief in the supernatural or even a personal theistic God does not necessitate throwing logic and the scientific method out the window. One has to differentiate between these two diametrically opposed ideas i.e. the idea that anything that does not jive with someone's strict interpretation of religious scripture and religious worldview is evil (opposed by God) vs the idea that science is a tool to be used to discover the "mind of God" so to speak and help us understand the world around us no matter what our religious beliefs or lack thereof are; and no matter where this road leads us. BTW I and many atheists, agnostics and deists are in this second category; while many die-hard creationists (though not all theists) of the like of Ken Hovind, Gish and others are in the first category. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Because that's simply a violation of Occam's Razor. "Possible" != "supported by evidence." You'd still need to support the assertion of your trickster deity with evidence of its existence, else you're just violating parsimony again. LOL. Pinch, poke you owe me a coke. I wrote my post at the same time you wrote yours but looks like we are operating on the same wavelength. BTW. GO STEELERS! For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Something I cannot understand is how theistic evolutionists are not considered creationists, Christian evolutionists in particular. This is the crux of the issue. The problem is not between religion and atheism but with science and pseudoscience. Evolution is a fact of science accepted by atheists, agnostics, deists and theists alike. The concept that biological evolution absolutely did not and does not occur a.k.a. Creationism, vice theistic evolution (evolution is a natural process created and set in part by God) or atheistic (just remove the "God created and set in motion" part) evolution, is only accepted by a subset of theists and infintesimaly small fraction of scientists.
If they're Christian, they are Biblicalists of some sort and the Bible is most certainly creationist. This is not how creationists themselves define themselves i.e.
Center for Science & Culture (CSC) aka The Discovery Institute, harbinger and headquarters for Intelligent Design and Creationism writes: - supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;-supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design; -supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture. -encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths. These are not theistic evolutionists. They are religious "scientists" pushing a pseudoscientific concept using pseudoscientific means. If they accepted biological evolution as a reality, irregardless of religious beliefs, than there would be no dichotomy between these two incompatable ideas.
If 66% of evolutionists are theistic, that's a lot of creationists. Theist "evolutionists" (like Ken Miller and others) are not creationists according to the Discovery Institute and creationists themselves.
EvC (evolutionist vs creationists) would be a missnomer if the greater percentage of evolutionists are theistic/Christian. Again, these theist evolutionists would be on the E vice the C side of EvC. Do not automatically assume that the acceptance of biological evolution, a natural phenomena, as occurring requires someone to be an atheist, a philosophical worldview; even though both concepts are discussed here on EvC. The two concepts, biological evolution and the belief in a supernatural creator, are not mutually exclusive concepts; but theistic evolution is not creationism as defined by both the YEC themselves as well as by the theistic evolutionists. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Agobot writes: Myself writes:
It's a bit of a stretch to think that a principle that holds at our level of existence for John, Michael and Lora, should be applicable to the Biblical God. If God created occam's razor, would his ways be subject to this rule as well? Occam's Razor is an axiom which stipulates that when faced with several alternate explanations of a phenomena that the hypotheses that contain the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (things that exist) is most likely the closest one to reality. Occam's razor is a principle by which human beings use to judge the validity of alternate hypothesis of the existence of things/entities in the world around them. If we can detect the existence of John, Michael or Lora using direct or indirect observation than we do not even need to use Occam's razor to determine the possibility of their existence. It is mainly used in determining the validity of the existence of things/entities that we cannot observe or detect directly or indirectly no matter what they are, supernatural or not. So in the case of God, Occam's razor applies MORE than in the case of a human being such as John, Michael or Lora not less.
unless he wanted to test our faith in him by denouncing the Genesis in the Bible through out scientific research Sure and one can believe that there are magic dragons and purple dinasours that live in a land called honah lee across the ocean. Belief should be based on some sort of evidence and reality. Otherwise it is just wishful thinking, no matter how many people believe it. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Agobot writes: Myself writes: Occam's razor is a principle by which human beings use to judge the validity of alternate hypothesis of the existence of things/entities in the world around them. If we can detect the existence of John, Michael or Lora using direct or indirect observation than we do not even need to use Occam's razor to determine the possibility of their existence. It is mainly used in determining the validity of the existence of things/entities that we cannot observe or detect directly or indirectly no matter what they are, supernatural or not. So in the case of God, Occam's razor applies MORE than in the case of a human being such as John, Michael or Lora not less. But you are most definitely wrong that a God must follow the path of least resistance. This is most definitely not how religions portray God. God in scripture is omni-powerful DA, you should focus your attention on that. Um, I never said that the existence of God follows the path of least resistence. On the contrary I am saying that the existence of a supernatural entity unnecessarily complexifies the issue of the existence of the universe rather than simplifies it because now we have to ask "Where did God come from?" and other philosophical and moral baggage that comes with adding a supernatural intilligent agent to the "Where did the Universe come from?" argument. The belief in God just adds more layers to an already "confuscated" reality. Thus I go along with what Occalm's razor stipulates: that the simplist rational explanations usually accurately portray reality and thus removes the supernatural, and God along with it, out of the equation. I may be wrong and later proven wrong but I have yet to see anything convincing me that the existence of the supernatural much less God is real. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Simple. To a fundie/creo: X (person running for office) does not believe in Genesis creation Atheists don't believe in Genesis Creation X is an atheist Just mislogical logic. Actually it is more accurately like this: X does not believe in the same INTERPRETATION of the Genesis creation that the YEC fundie/creo does Atheists don't believe in Genesis Creation X is therefore an atheist Creationist arguments such as this are chalked full of logical fallacies i.e.: a. The false dilema fallacyb. The guilt by association fallacy c. The hasty generalization fallacy d. The strawman fallacy For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Hmm, Buzzsaw, you seem to be an anti-trinitarian and your post is diametrically opposed to the Nicene creed adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and most of Protestantism. Many main-line Christians would be hard pressed to consider you a "true" Christian as you do not support their trinitarian belief.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Are you sure the church was wrong in their geocentric view? What? You surely jest. So you advocate that the Sun is not at the center of the solar system but rather the Earth?
As I understand it without dark energy the Copernican model is falsified. The Copernican model is modifed more than it is falsified. That is certain parts are incorrect or inacurate (distances between planets, the Sun being the center of the Universe, etc) and other parts still hold true (the Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun). And what does dark energy have to do with the Copernican model??? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024