A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Status
Not open for further replies.
leopold said:
if life was created at the same instant and by the same cause as the universe then this cause would be (or could be) "god".

lack of a better term.
Click to expand...

Yes that's the central fallacy of Creationism which folks used to call 'special creation' which was obsoleted with the 19 c. discoveries of the fossil record.
 
Aqueous Id said:
leopold said:
if life was created at the same instant and by the same cause as the universe then this cause would be (or could be) "god".

lack of a better term.
Click to expand...
Yes that's the central fallacy of Creationism which folks used to call 'special creation' which was obsoleted with the 19 c. discoveries of the fossil record.
Click to expand...

If a god does not supernaturally intervene in nature beyond the act of creation (which we might generously assume to be what leopold means by "created at the same instance") then it does follow that the ultimate origin for life was indeed created in that "same instance".
 
Syne said:
If a god does not supernaturally intervene in nature beyond the act of creation (which we might generously assume to be what leopold means by "created at the same instance") then it does follow that the ultimate origin for life was indeed created in that "same instance".
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that 'god' didn't create man in his own image via the garden of eden or any other scenario, but just planted the initial seed of life which kicked everything off? That is something that would be more palatable to atheists, since all the opposition to the theory of evolution goes out of the window along with creationism and intelligent design, and we would at least be at one with the facts as they are known. A non-interfering god, no prophets or messiahs... we're definately making progress here. The only question that remains is whether the Big Bang (or Big Bounce) was kick-started by god or not.
 
Sorcerer said:
So what you are saying is that 'god' didn't create man in his own image via the garden of eden or any other scenario, but just planted the initial seed of life which kicked everything off? That is something that would be more palatable to atheists, since all the opposition to the theory of evolution goes out of the window along with creationism and intelligent design, and we would at least be at one with the facts as they are known. A non-interfering god, no prophets or messiahs... we're definately making progress here. The only question that remains is whether the Big Bang (or Big Bounce) was kick-started by god or not.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Yes, deism has always been more palatable for atheists.
Though deists rejected atheism, they often were called "atheists" by more traditional theists. There were a number of different forms in the 17th and 18th century. In England, deism included a range of people from anti-Christian to un-Christian theists.

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Overview​

While deists and atheists should be able to find common ground in a mutual dislike of organized religion, more often than not deists are just lumped in with every other variety of theism.

The "image of God" is generally considered a reference to the characteristics of reason and will. As such, even a deist could consider the actions of men as an extension of the will of god, including prophets or messiahs (albeit without revelation). Both non-supernatural and intervening.

No, deism does not strictly preclude some forms of argument from design, as the laws could have been designed to accomplish all that literalists assume god had a direct hand in. But yes, deism does generally agree with evolution and against young-earth creationism.
 
leopold said:
i would say life and conscience are "outside" of nature.
science has shown me NOTHING that would lead me to believe "dirt" could EVER become aware of itself or give an opinion on an abstract piece of art.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea what your body is made of? It's the same stuff that's in dirt!
 
Syne said:
Yes and no. Yes, deism has always been more palatable for atheists.
Though deists rejected atheism, they often were called "atheists" by more traditional theists. There were a number of different forms in the 17th and 18th century. In England, deism included a range of people from anti-Christian to un-Christian theists.

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Overview​

While deists and atheists should be able to find common ground in a mutual dislike of organized religion, more often than not deists are just lumped in with every other variety of theism.

The "image of God" is generally considered a reference to the characteristics of reason and will. As such, even a deist could consider the actions of men as an extension of the will of god, including prophets or messiahs (albeit without revelation). Both non-supernatural and intervening.

No, deism does not strictly preclude some forms of argument from design, as the laws could have been designed to accomplish all that literalists assume god had a direct hand in. But yes, deism does generally agree with evolution and against young-earth creationism.
Click to expand...

I really don't have any issue with people seeking evidence for a god in the form that you suggest. As I said, did god create the Big Bang? Interesting question that science may be able to answer one day.
 
Interesting... I joined an atheist group on google some time back. I quickly became annoyed and stopped participating when it became painfully clear that their attention was primarily devoted to the topic of religion.
 
Bowser said:
Interesting... I joined an atheist group on google some time back. I quickly became annoyed and stopped participating when it became painfully clear that their attention was primarily devoted to the topic of religion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, duh.
 
Bowser said:
It is a popular group, even though there are more like it on google+. They're as absorbed by religion as are the religious.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's popular, therefore it represents us all. Of course. Rock-solid logic there, Bowser.

It would make sense that a group of atheists who went to the bother of forming a group at all--since atheism has no doctrine or binding belief other than unbelief--would be concerned with religion.

Is it too much to expect that you'd know the difference?
 
Bowser said:
Atheist have nothing more to offer other than simply a denial of religion?
Click to expand...
Atheism. Atheists themselves might have more to offer in terms of promoting skepticism, science, reason, separation of church and state, women and gay rights, fighting the teaching of creationism in public schools, fighting quack medicine like homeopathy, and fighting vaccine denial. And it's mostly just theistic religion they tend to oppose.
 
Bowser said:
It is a popular group, even though there are more like it on google+. They're as absorbed by religion as are the religious.
Click to expand...

So what? It's a big issue, especially in the US, where atheists often face harassment and intimidation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top