This should help, Gnostic vs. Agnostic Atheism

Why would I just make something up when God, our Creator and loving God, has explained this to us?

You are supposedly an expert on our faith, you tell us what our purpose is and why you summarily reject it?

EVolution is not design - and yes, its a totally random process in a true scientific sense. If its not an accident then there is design and intent in it. Incidentally, what you write above is called survival of the fittest - but below, you say it is no longer valid?

Well, lets look at religion from a different point of view shall we? Lets take the message of Adam and Eve. Why is man separate from God? Sin. Adam and Eve had to sin in order to separate us from God. Why? Because there are things we learn through free will, etc. that we would otherwise not be able to learn in the direct prescence and knowledge of God. Indeed, this original Sin was first committed by Eve - and Adam followed.

Now, we have something called mitochondrial Eve, her genetic material is quite literally in all of us. She was the first - and, coincidence of coincidence - she was a she. For some reason, we have this evolutionary path that is different from all other animals, we are hardly the only being with large brains - but we are the only beings that worship God, and we are told, the only beings whose bodies have souls.

Indeed, there are logical inferences made from these - including the dominion of man over nature. And in that comes the concept of stewardship, responsibility, management, cooperation, balance.

However, atheists are stuck just calling the entire thing - and accident that was not really an accident?

Its still accurate - and many biologists continue to use the phrase. The phrase never was survival of the strongest.

Once again, maybe, rather than once again pretending that people, by dint of our faith alone, are unfamiliar with evolution, you should probably realize that our school system teaches this concept to everyone regardless of their religion.

Other than repeating an elementy school lecture on the subject, and telling us that you think evolution is correct (so do I), how does this support your atheism or indicate that there is purpose or a lack of randomness without design?

Its doesn't. Its just a lecture.

Well, so do most religious people.

Only we think certain aspects of evolution were guided, designed, to help us achieve what we have today.

It cannot be both. SOmething cannot be both random and designed - but not designed.

All of this comes from ... energy. A ball of pure energy that appears and explodes for no known reason and for no known purpose. And rather than just dissipate in heat and raditaion (as most explosions of eneregy - remember, there is NO matter in the universe, which doesn't exist yet) It forms matter - lots and lots and lots of - all of which eventually starts a process that leads to us - from an explosion. And for some reason, it also forms more matter than anti-matter - lots and lots more, when that is not what should have happened.

And yet you are convinced that the entire process was just random - but not?

 

Yep, sound like ANOTHER arguement from absurdity.

Russell's tea pot is a well known arguement from absurdity, and one that, should we look at teh evidence, we would be able to make a pretty convincing case that it is indeed not there.

Unless of course, you are a whiney excuse factory of an atheist? Then you are unable to prove anything so why bother? Why bother engaging ones brain to solve when you can just through your hands up and quit? Then declare yourself right anyway.

Once atheists, we know you don;t believe in God, but when your arguementation consists of magic floating tea pots and known arguements from absurdity - all you are really doing is telling people you are a dick, not that you are intelligent, discerning, or capable.

After all I pointed at a black screen and insisted it was white - well, now you know what our friend here is doing. Nothing smart about it at all. Something very emotional about that behavior though.

 

This snippet right here is the most intelligible thing I have read on this forum yet..... And if we only were to stop there, it doesn't contradict a single aspect of what one might choose to attribute that purpose to, short of the absurd concepts of absolutism present on this forum.

When we don't place the mind within a box, it is free to travel as far as it desires to go..... What should we care what the mind finds to attribute life to as long as it is free without need to create a box to put another mind within?

Are we desiring that a mind think as we do, or is it more important to give the mind the freedom to think for itself?

 

That is a lie purely because god did not explain what life is.

creating deceptions and teaching people to mislead truth, to sustain a belief is the most horrid evidence any human being can comprehend

I reject the idea that people accept lies and allow liars to even walk the earth.

 

Wait... You don't believe in God, but you believe that a couple Vulcan's beamed some people down to Earth?

Really?

Did you JUST post this?

Aliens... which we have no evidence of... beamed down, basically Noah's Ark of life and just hyperspaced back to Seti Alpha Six...

Do you think I should take you serious?

 

What do you want me to prove wrong? I'm up for a challenge and would love the debate.

I like your style while I have been reading... Thus far, but do not see where you have stated something that needs to be proven wrong... I'll look back and see what I can find...

 

Okay - you're talking about emotions. I really don't know your stance on emotions, it seems a little foggy.

But, I do have a couch talker friend whom I discuss things over wine often. Emotions fall under phenomenonalogy? Phenomenonogy? Something like that... I'll Google it in a minute.

Test and all kinds of stuff been done on this... What is your point and where are you going with this?

 

I have simply asked that an atheist express love as a depth of emotion and explain where it comes from and why it exists within them..... As far as proof is concerned, something that is tangible.... Well, not to difficult to quantify it or prove it.... But why don't we even attempt to do the same for something that is seemingly intangible like emotion? If we are only physical beings, certainly we should be able to quantify emotion as well.
I'm just curious if when we do so, it changes the way we think of communicating it.

 

You only ask one question above, so I will answer that with a probability as I cannot speak for others (we). Probably because of indifference or potentially because of laziness.

 

Got it... I know enough to be on either side... What side are you wanting to discuss and I will debate from the other side...

Are you suggesting that we cannot provide evidence of emotion? Per experimentation we can.. Are you suggesting that it is tangible since we are physical being?

Sorry, but I just want us to be quite specific in the beginning of the discussion with opening statements to set up, as others are reading, our beliefs...

 

Corp, that is the only question, but I don't think that is what the poster was wanting to discuss...

 

Wow, thanks for the vote of confidence, even though I think you meant it to be sarcastic.

There is no purpose but what you make it. Even if there is a God, there is no proof that he created us with a purpose. Why do we even need one?

Ok, "valid" isn't the correct word, I probably should have used "out of date". It's just that biologists don't like it because one, people misinterpret it, and two, it has been used too many times to justify social Darwinism.

Very few things in this universe are truly random, at least until you reach the quantum level. Instead what we have are events that have so many variables that they are next to impossible to predict. This is called Chaos Theory. Even a dice roll could be predicted you knew every possible variable (and a super computer the size of the earth ). Also, don't confuse order with design. Complex objects can be created with simple rules and have nothing to do with "design". Take a look at Penrose tiling, Fractals, or the "Game of Life".

One of my biggest problems with the abrahamic religions is the idea that an all powerful creator would make it a sin to eat from the tree of knowledge. Really, the gaining of knowledge is a sin? Especially the knowledge of good and evil?

Then when, predictably, they eat from the tree of knowledge, God punishes not just them and the serpent, but every generation of decedents until the ends of time. This means that my wife was punished with a painful labor because of something an ancestor did thousands of years ago and she didn't even get to exercise her free will.

We are only connected to this mitochondrial Eve because the family trees of all the other women who were alive when she was, died off. The reason it is a woman, is because mitochondrial DNA is only passed down through the mother.

That's because an accident denotes randomness, and there is very little randomness in evolution and natural selection. Maybe the birth of the universe was by accident, but everything else is just following the physical laws of the universe (with a little randomness thrown in by quantum physics).

I was just correcting some misconceptions you had.

I think that is a very admiral view point. In fact, I don't think evolution has anything to say about whether there is a God or not.

Covered this above.

There is something called the Weak Anthropomorphic Principal. It states that the reason the universe is the way it is, is because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. There could be billions of other universes but ours may be the only one that spawned a species intelligent enough to question its own existence.

Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean the explanation is necessarily God. Science does not have all the pieces and it may never will, but it doesn't mean we won't know what the big picture is.

 

That is unfortuantely just a statement of faith.

It does nothing to address the WHY all of this was created and really, it says there is no purpose other just ... whatever you want.

Do you understand why many theologians consider atheism to be self worship? Your purpose is you.

Noted - not relevant to the point of morality in evolution.

Once again, has no bearing on the origins of the Big Bang or its purposes. Has no bearing on the diffusion of matter and energy, matter over anti-matter, rather than just radiated heat. None.

Why is that a problem?

Do you understand purpose?

What can we learn in the prescence of God? Of seeing him and knowing that he is real, all powerful, and, as many atheists claim, coddled with no bad things or consequences from our actions?

Well, the only way that happens is if we separate from God - and what does that? Sin? So what is the tree of knowledge? It is knowing both good and evil. It is knowing consequence and man chooses to seek this knowledge and its consequences, rejecting God's wisdom - as we must to exist in this state of separation from him.

Yet you have a problem with this because all you see is someone eating fruit? Well, as a father, would you allow your children to eat posioned fruit?

Once again, your rejection of the concept is not based on the reality of the presented religious concept.

Once again, it goes to purpose.

And since you have none, consequence to you is bad?

Any other genetic mutation on any other Chromosome could have resulted in a genetic mutation and been the Eve gene.

Did they all die off? Or were their offspring simply eventually mated with this dominant gene that eventually made its way into all of their offspring?

And what caused such a specific mutation?

You derive great certainty where none is warranted.

Nor indeed do you address the point of allegorical truth behind the Biblical claim - something that happens in a LOT of ancient history.

It is.

Or are you agreeing with religiouos people that such specific genetic mutations are designed? Proof indeed of a designer - when in fact they are random.

BTW - the universe that was created by accident also created the laws of the universe that was created. A paradox for your position is it not?

And as you can see, the one holding misconceptions about a different point of view is not me.

And yet, one atheist after another uses it not to justify evolution - but atheism. Is that not what you are doing?

That once again indicates design. And the concept of the multiverse? Not sure how that helps other than to make the claim that all this, which was clearly created, was an accident of random chance - the result of billions of naturally occuring events and our JUST HAPPENS to be the one that made it.

But of course, its not random?

It doesn't mean it is something else either.

And the simple fact of the matter is that arguements from absurdity, once again, are being used by your side, not ours. We, again, use preponderance.

Science does not support atheism. A few atheists acknowledge this, and then, like you, use it inaccurately to justify their atheism anyway.

 

If I had to pick the greatest achievement of the Christian religion it would be the secular result of "we are all equal in the eyes of the lord". In the eastern religions much emphasis is put on the mandarin idea of a class society and duty to the next highest class, family to elders, elders to village elder, village elder to local mandarin and so on. While it took several hundred years, the concept of equality even through social classes brought us to where we are today. Now if we can just unburden ourselves of this antiquated view of religion itself we can advance society.

 

Wow.. well said...........

 

I am not trying to use science/evolution to disprove God. I'm just saying that none of your arguments prove there is a God.

There is no evidence that the universe was designed. That doesn't mean there can't be a God, after all an omnipotent being could very easily hide his presence. It does mean however, that there is no proof there is a God. So we are left back to square one. Those who believe that there is something more to life than the physical and those who don't. Those who don't need proof to know that God exists and those that do.

What does it matter if you believe in God and I don't? It doesn't change anything here on Earth.

 

Once again, my goal is not, because it is not possible, to definitely to the point of absurdity prove God. Its to show possibility and indeed probability - that mark has been meet and indeed we see that the alternate 'theories' simply do not hold water - or at least far less water.

The final proof is not scientific - its faith that confirms.

In sharp contrast, you are an atheist - and you are offering up what to support your conclusion?

You are wrong because .... any old excuse will do?

Surr there is.

You yourself are repeatedly saying that it is not random - if it is not random, then it was designed. Indeed, magic balls of energy that appear and explode for no reason and produce results that the nominal burn of energy most definitely DO NOT produce all indicate something more than just an accident ...

Indeed the one alternative theory you advanced was that there are billions of other universes ... but our - apparently by accident - happens to be the one that got it right?

Something cannot be both teh result of a random process and the result of an organized process. That is like saying something is both cold and hot, black and white, happy and sad, positive and negative. It just doesn't work.

Cop out.

Yes it does. It begins with purpose. Logical inferrences arise from there, and they are strakly different.

 

I'll tell you what, give me 5 of your best proofs that God is real and I'll show you how the best you can hope for is a "I don't know".

I think you missed what I was saying. It is NOT random and it is NOT designed. To think those are the only two possibilities is stepping into a false dilemma.

You made me laugh with the part about magic balls of energy. Somehow, I highly doubt that cosmologists think that magic created the universe since science doesn't deal with magic. The Bible on the other hand...

Actually, cosmologists know quite a bit about the first few seconds after the Big Bang. If you want, I can supply some links so you can read for yourself.

I wasn't trying to cop out. I was just trying to find some middle ground. Does my disbelief in your God affect you in any way? I know that your belief in your God doesn't affect me in any way.

So we're back to purpose. Ok, I'm game. If God gave you a purpose, what is your purpose?

 

I think you have not understood my position very well.
My position is that it would be rather ludicrous to describe Dawkins as an agnostic atheist - even though judging by his work on the topic he's certainly an agnostic in the very literal sense of the word when it comes to matters of religion.
As Terry Eagleton has rightly written in his review of "The God Delusion":

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

Dawkins recycling of Russels teapot - which would have some allegorical merit if most religious people believed in a God in the shape of an old man with a long beard sitting on some cloud - goes to show that he estimates the possibility of the existence of what is commonly called God to be verging against zero.

And just like you Dawkins is either not aware or not willing to mention the existence of quite friendly interfaith dialogues between religions exchanging their views on their respective "teapots", or to employ an analogy that I prefer: "parts of the elephant". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Of course not: it's somehow ironic how Dawkins one-sided observations on religion misrepresent reality.

Judging by the bestseller that made him a rich man, Dawkins is far from being an "Agnostic Atheist". He is a populist demagogue.
Thus Joachim Kahl - an atheist, who contrary to Dawkins is actually in his field of expertise when he talks about God and religion - has rightfully described him as "anti-theist" rather than an "atheist". http://www.kahl-marburg.privat.t-online.de/Dawkinskritik.pdf (sorry, couldn't find it in English)

 

agree.

Dawkins can certainly be criticised because of his lack of knowledge on theology, this detracts from his arguments agaisnt religion.

he almost appears to think all christians are new earth creationists, and takes an extremely limited understanding of theology at all.

He can be really good in terms of his investigative work, I saw a docco where he investigated mediums and a couple of similar "manifestations" and his scientific appraoch was sound.

if he employed the same approach to religion, and bothered to find out a bit more about it rather than making blanket statements, he would have alot more to contribute to the discussion.

 

That you say, and even continue to say, that it is ludicrous to describe a person as an agnostic atheist when that person does not have theistic faith and does not claim any knowledge as to the existences of deities is the very reason I say you have not understood Dawkins' position very well, don't you think?

I also happen to think that Dawkins sucks on theology. He is brilliant, though, when it comes to discussing the vessel of all things theological, the human mind.

Discussing possibilites of such entities does not amount to 'gnosis', Junobet. Other than that I'm not sure what your contention is in this paragraph.

I myself am an agnostic as I claim no knowledge whatsoever of the existence of deities. But I also think the possibilities are so ludicrously infinitesimal small that they're not even worth considering. In fact, this is quite similar to why thousands of deities are not worth considering for a theist, isn't it?

I'm quite sure that Dawkins mentions in abundance how the religious mindset will cling to the idea that its truth is the largest truth there is and deny all other ideas of truth.

Again, as far as what I have heard him say and what I have ever read of him, Dawkins is an agnostic. He also doesn't have theistic faith, which of course makes him an atheist.

I will agree that he certainly also appears to be anti-theistic. If you ask him, I'm even sure he will agree to it.

So now we have an agnostic, atheistic anti-theist. Good thing that none of those labels are mutually exclusive, eh?

 

First of all: sorry for the late answer. I had a rather busy week. *sigh*

I think you've been misled. When Dawkins heads one of his chapters "Why there almost certainly is no God" this doesn't express any option that there still might be, but employs the kind of rhethoric that translates into " there isn't and that's that." Rhetorical figleafs like that are not even meant to really hide ones private parts.

Actually he sucks on the human mind as well, because he limits it to biological explanations that he trys to make out as all-explanatory. Nothing wrong with biological research on the human mind, but should I ever develop problems with my mind I shall still rather seek out the help of a psychologist than that of a biologist. And if I want to find out how societies/cultures work I will find better explanations in the fields of anthropology and sociology than in Dawkins theory of memetics - ironically a concept that lacks the backing of any kind of empirical evidence and has thus been scolded as pseudoscientific by quite a lot of his colleagues.

Oh, theists did and do consider loads of deities and the theological wisdom that might be held by the cultures from which the ideas on such deities/the divine stem. Only fundamentalists don't, but unlike what Dawkins may want it seem to appear, most theists are not fundamentalists.

I'm not a fundamentalist either and thus I respect your opinion on the existence of what is commonly called God, while I do not share it. The possibilities of you, me and the whole universe existing are infinitesimal small. Yet we do exist. We may have just won the infinite lottery, but the whole concept of infinity brings us back to an idea that is generally associated with the divine.

That the Pope embraces evolution while Dawkins desperately clings to a false dichotomy between religion and science and to see how Dawkins slanders colleagues who beg to differ with his views on religion makes me think that it's actually Dawkins who thinks that his truth is the largest truth there is. It's rather worrisome how he abandons one of the greatest achievements of enlightenment, freedom of religion, and naively asks for its abandonment.

I'm also sure he will. After all he's altready openly admitted to be a "fundamentalist atheist".

Of course they are mutually exclusive. To be wildly "anti" any idea I have to have a pretty strong opinion on it rather than just being in a state of agnosticism. Or else I may just put on a good show to sell more books.

Whichever it is: in his missionay zeal Dawkins certainly makes for a good example for the kind of atheism that itself is a religious/ideological conviction of the fundamentalist kind.

What's tragic about his popularity is that it actually plays into the hands of the fundamentalists on the other side of the spectrum. Apparently William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) already went as far as calling Dawkins a "gift of God" asking him to "keep at it". http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jan/07/raceandreligion.comment
And sensible agnostic atheists like Michael Ruse see the "New Atheists" as a "bloody disaster". http://blog.beliefnet.com/sciencean...k-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html

 

No, the best you would come back with it, "Well, those are all compelling but to conclusive to the point of beynd absurdity, therefore I am still certain that atheists are correct .... for no reason whatsoever."

And we call that line of reasoning - agnostic atheism.

I think you are missing the point that somethng cannot be an inherent contradiction. It is EITHER random or it is designed. It CANNOT be both.

Oh, a ball of pur eneregy appears for no known reason and explodes creating a universe in a process that takes place no where else in the natural world ... but if you call that magic - well, NOW its disqualified?

Science deals with magic all the time - and it tries to explain it. And when it can't? Well, there are loads of things, like miracles, that science can document but cannot explain.

This is just another excuse to avoid evidence.

So do I - what does that have to about the appearence of this ball of energy? We also know that these first few second are mostly educated guesses right now - with one of the biggest puzzels being why there was more matter than anti-matter created in a process that should have - using statiscal data and probaility - been equal resulting in exactly .... nothing.

You are in a debate forum. And yes, when atheists sue the crap out of us,raise fund to block our expression, and claim that we are war mongering rapists? Yes, that effects us.

To learn and grow closer to God - to have the real desires of y heart examined and judged. To serve others - becoming more God like.

What is yours? No idea? Well, that is better.

 

The problem is that they are not compelling. Not compelling enough to become dedicated Christians, is all.

 

So you say, but our side is the only side that produces compelling preponderance of eth evidence cases.

Atheists are as certain as the most fundamentalist Christians - and why? Well, we have flimsy excuses to deny is all.

Again, the evidential record is non-conclusive - but strongly suggestive. I hear atheists scream the loudest about the need for objectivity, but I see the least amount of it on the atheist side.

Indeed, the best any atheist can say is, "We respectfully disagree, but acknoweldge that there is a legimate reason to believe."

Instead, we get things like this all too often:

"American Atheists is not afraid to point out that which is true: religion is ridiculous. Mythology and religion are synonymous, and none is better than another. Religion is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.

You probably knew that already.

We're respectful of the American people's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

That is what you preach, but when pressed to back it up? All you have is opinions. So why the need for such continuous rudeness?

Its not reasoning that drives atheism - not one bit.