How do I turn the table on atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imago_Dei3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
emisher said:
Oh, they make sense to me too. I don’t why they don’t hold much weight among the modern atheists, except to say that they allow for a lot of murky philosophical meanderings in which the very basic questions can be avoided–such as if a speck of dust can explode into a universe according to science, maybe there really isn’t anything that should be written off as impossible.
Click to expand...
So go on, how do you explain the red shift without the Big Bang?
 
tonyrey said:
It’s significant that your challenge remains unaccepted! 🙂
Click to expand...
:Originally Posted by Patty23
'Isn’t the problem of good harder to comprehend than the problem of evil?

I mean why do good? What’s the reason if there are no objective and a priori good? One can say to avoid pain, are we saying therefore that pleasure is higher than good? Since we do the good only to obtain pleasure? But not all that are pleasurable are morally good, say prostitution maybe, or what if you’re a psycho killer and killing is pleasurable to you. Then what is THE good and if there’s such a thing why choose it?’

Nonsense man! (or woman)

Good is anything not bad that people like, or gain satisfaction from, or which increases their wellbeing.

Why do good? We like to! We are taught to, moved by it, appreciate it…

I also do not think there is a Platonic The Good, or that it is necessary that One Thing is The Good. Asking what is THE good assumes justification for the idea which is not given.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
atheistgirl

**Never once have I stated there is no God. My position is there is not sufficient evidence to believe in one. I have never once stated, implied or asserted there is no God. I currently have no way to know this, so I can not state it. **

She’s gone, but her comment seems worth a comment. 😉

Atheism and agnosticism are, to all intents and purposes, the same. I have never known an agnostic who did not live his or her life as though God might exist. Every agnostic writer I have read has concocted as many arguments against religion as he could, and none in its favor. The view of the agnostic therefore is not neutral; it is negative toward God.

The self-styled agnostic Bertrand Russell refused to call himself an atheist, yet he did everything he could to demolish all arguments for the existence of God. He did, so far as I know, nothing to advance arguments for the existence of God. As many of his admirers would admit, he was really an atheist at heart.

Agnosticism is just a timid brand of atheism.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. Agnostics could be people who are really atheistic but who prefer the word agnostic, but that is not the real meaning of the term. You say atheism and agnosticism are the same in intents/purposes/way of life, yet this is no way to judge the thought behind the positions. There are similarities in the behaviour and purposes of Green activists, Christians, political socialists and others, but their thinking is very different.

To be precise, agnosticism says that none of us are in a position to rationally believe that a deity exists, because of problems with evidence. There may be a god, there may not be, but we do not have enough to strongly direct us either way. If you couldn’t know whether you had won the lottery, how would you act? You’d act as if you didn’t believe that you’d won the lottery, but how superficial that is!
 
Hi, Bobber90,

There is nothing inherently incomptable with the belief in God and also believing in the Big Bang, Red (or even Blue) Shifts and any other explanation that science may propose for how we got here. Catholic belief simply states that God created everything out of nothing. HOW he did it is His business and until He reveals the mechanics He used to bring it all together - we can speculate until the next Big Bang! 😃

God bless
Bobber90 said:
So go on, how do you explain the red shift without the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Bobber90,

There is nothing inherently incomptable with the belief in God and also believing in the Big Bang, Red (or even Blue) Shifts and any other explanation that science may propose for how we got here. Catholic belief simply states that God created everything out of nothing. HOW he did it is His business and until He reveals the mechanics He used to bring it all together - we can speculate until the next Big Bang! 😃

God bless
Click to expand...
Yup, the galaxy redshift, nucleosynthesis ratios (creation of elements) within the first 17 minutes of the universe, and the background microwave radiation, these three pieces of evidence combined cannot be explained in another fashion than with the Big Bang. Any other explanation has failed so far – quite miserably, I might add.

There is nothing to ‘believe’ about the Big Bang, there is only the scientific evidence to accept. God created via the Big Bang – what more elegant and artistic way would there be?
 
Bobber

You are an agnostic. Do you worship? Neither does the atheist.

If there are differences between the atheist and the agnostic, this is certainly not one of them.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yup, the galaxy redshift, nucleosynthesis ratios (creation of elements) within the first 17 minutes of the universe, and the background microwave radiation, these three pieces of evidence combined cannot be explained in another fashion than with the Big Bang. Any other explanation has failed so far – quite miserably, I might add.

There is nothing to ‘believe’ about the Big Bang, there is only the scientific evidence to accept. God created via the Big Bang – what more elegant and artistic way would there be?
Click to expand...
A ready-made universe is implied to be “superior” 😉 by those who believe the development of life has been excessively prolix…
 
Bobber90 said:
'Isn’t the problem of good harder to comprehend than the problem of evil?
Click to expand...
“well-being” begs the question!

People often like, or gain satisfaction from, things which decrease their well-being…
Why do good? We like to!
Click to expand...
We often dislike doing something but we know it is right.
We are taught to, moved by it, appreciate it…
Click to expand...
“it” is not something we grasp with our senses but with our intellect.
I also do not think there is a Platonic The Good, or that it is necessary that One Thing is The Good. Asking what is THE good assumes justification for the idea which is not given.
Click to expand...
Many things are good but goodness is real, intangible and indivisible. We recognise it but we cannot observe it…
Click to expand...
 
Bobber90 said:
There may be a god, there may not be, but we do not have enough to strongly direct us either way. If you couldn’t know whether you had won the lottery, how would you act? You’d act as if you didn’t believe that you’d won the lottery, but how superficial that is!
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t. I would do my utmost to find out the truth! 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
Many thanks for that breath-taking reductio ad absurdum of the purposeless universe!
:clapping:
Click to expand...
I see the problem.

He’s a mathematician, not an evolutionary biologist 😃

As someone commented on the video:
Become a biologist and you’ll find out the answers to all of those questions. I wonder how would he react to a biologist saying that nondeterministic finite automata are beyond human ken and therefore divine. Or the same thing about multidimensional functions.
Click to expand...
Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
I see the problem.

He’s a mathematician, not an evolutionary biologist

As someone commented on the video:
Click to expand...
**All **scientific explanations are subject to mathematical probability. That is one of the main criteria of their plausibility…
 
Bobber90 said:
Good is anything not bad that people like, or gain satisfaction from, or which increases their wellbeing.
Click to expand...
I like sex. It makes me feel good. I like that girl in Accounting. She’s nice to look at. It would make me feel very good to have sex with her. That must be good!!

(Though my wife might beg to differ)
 
tonyrey said:
**All **scientific explanations are subject to mathematical probability. That is one of the main criteria of their plausibility…
Click to expand...
I was being a little bit ‘‘tongue in cheek’’ 😃

Never mind …

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
I see the problem.

He’s a mathematician, not an evolutionary biologist 😃

As someone commented on the video:
Become a biologist and you’ll find out the answers to all of those questions. I wonder how would he react to a biologist saying that nondeterministic finite automata are beyond human ken and therefore divine. Or the same thing about multidimensional functions.
Click to expand...
I saw the video and I agree with you. All this complexity and its development can be explained through evolutionary mechanisms that follow the laws of nature. The issue if these laws themselves are simply accidental or are here for a purpose is another matter.
Click to expand...
 
What an interesting thread!
To the OP.

Nothing direct but for a starter two questions to ask.
  1. What is a chance that matter transforms itself into a beautiful Porsche*?
    A human being/body is much more complicated, so what is a chance that matter transforms itself into a human body? How it happens?
  • insert here your favorite car. 🙂
  1. Where does self sacrifice come from? How come that human beings can override self-preservation instinct?
 
tonyrey said:
**All **scientific explanations are subject to mathematical probability. That is one of the main criteria of their plausibility…
Click to expand...
Yes, but you cannot assign mathematical probabilities to the development of the human body if you do not understand evolution, biochemistry and biology. So this guy may be out of his depth on this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top