Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying assumptions are based on nothing at all ?
Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Are you saying assumptions are based on nothing at all ?
This is what I don't get about theists. Not to knock you on your faith, because I could care less if you're religious. I don't hold it against you, is what I'm driving at. Anyway, what I don't understand is where anyone gets the idea that the universe is too complex to have happened naturally.
On what grounds do you base that assumption? Have you seen a universe that hasn't been created by a god? Have you seen one that has? You can't answer either of those, because you don't know. You can say you believe that God created all of this, but please, and I'm really serious here, don't try to argue science, because you'll never win. Don't say that the universe is too complex to have happened naturally, because you have no frame of reference. You can't say "This one was created, this one happened on its own, see the difference?"
The most anyone can say about the ultimate creation of the universe is that they don't know. That's all there is to it. There is no other answer. If you want to believe it was created, then point to the Bible, or the Koran, or to whatever holy book gave you the idea in the first place.
Why can't you theists understand the simple definition of 'atheist'.
It's simple. Someone who doesn't believe in god. They make no claims. They just do not believe in your god.
Agnostics are atheists too, if you took a poll, and asked
"Do you believe in God'
A: Yes
B: No
C: Don't know.
Theists are people who answered 'A'. Everybody else is NOT a theist. Simple way to say that, is 'atheist'. Agnostics are atheists, it's just they are too pansy to admit it, and want to avoid conflict with theists, so apologise for their atheism by labelling themselves as agnostic.
i agree, i take atheist to mean 'not theist', i don't think it should mean 'possesses hard evidence which disproves all religion'. i think perhaps those connotations have come about by theists exaggerating the stance of non-theists, and finding reasons to vilify them. that and atheists saying that god doesn't exist.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, they don't believe in any deity. This makes them atheists (without god).
How do you know what ants believe?
And no argument at all is possible involving uncertainties, for which there is some but not adequate evidence ? Or is there some way of arguing and debating and exploring such matters that does not involve assumptions ?SAM said:
hmmmm. I wonder. They have a remarkable propensity for martyrdom, etc, and the strong sense of community and family values and so forth we are informed are the benefits of theism (such strong benefits that they actually argue for the validity of theistic belief).enmos said:
Bees were traditionally formal exemplars of Christian belief and life, until it was discovered that they were ruled by a female - let's say ants exemplify Islam: isn't a deity implied ?
Meanwhile,the point stands: ants could be either atheist or theist, without having intellectually formulated the other possibility.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am not a theist! I am AGNOSTIC; why would I be calling myself a fool?
The universe is at it is. Regardless of whether or not it is too complex to be natural, there is still the question of how it came to exist, and that is a question which is extremely difficult to answer. In this question, both the answers of natural occurence and intelligent design are equally plausable. Therefore, there is little reason to automatically assume that there is not, or that there is, a creator, when both concepts have equal weight.
The universe is at it is. Regardless of whether or not it is too complex to be natural, there is still the question of how it came to exist, and that is a question which is extremely difficult to answer. In this question, both the answers of natural occurence and intelligent design are equally plausable. Therefore, there is little reason to automatically assume that there is not, or that there is, a creator, when both concepts have equal weight.
Im an atheist because I dont believe in any earth based humanized gods. Whether there is a higher conscious power behind our creation is beyond my knowledge.
I guess im a weird agnostic.
I guess im a weird agnostic.
Wrong again. We have evidence that simple life can evolve into complex life through natural selection. We have no evidence that there was a designer. So no, both are not equally plausible. We don't know that a deity is plausible at all, because there is no evidence for one. All we know is that traditional theistic explanations, and the arguments that arise from them (life is too complex to be natural), are bogus. So far, all the evidence points to life occurring naturally.
You're about 13.7 billion years ahead of me.
Firstly, understand that by "Creator" I do not give face to the word; I am not speaking from any particular religious view, and in fact I am attempting to be as blunt and as basic as possible: an intelligent entity. Specifics out of religion are imagination.
And yes, both are equally plausable. This has nothing to do with life evolving on Earth or complex or simple or what not. It has to do with the ORIGIN of it all. Life can be natural on Earth, that isn't the point. It probably is. The point is, the entire universe and it's origins......and for this, intelligent design (of the universe) and natural occurence hold equal weight in that neither has any sort of exclusive evidence.
...we're having this debate in two threads...I just noticed that...
Ah, see, but it has everything to do with it. You're putting a supernatural start to a natural occurrence. If everything within the universe is natural, why assume that anythng outside of the universe isn't? All the evidence says that existence is natural in it's mechanics...so why would the mechanics of the BB be any different?
Ah, see, but it has everything to do with it. You're putting a supernatural start to a natural occurrence. If everything within the universe is natural, why assume that anythng outside of the universe isn't? All the evidence says that existence is natural in it's mechanics...so why would the mechanics of the BB be any different?
I'm just going to call you Troll from now on, OK? OK.
See, Troll, you say I'm taking it for granted, but I say you're delusional to believe that there even needs to be a creator. You can't argue complexity because you don't know that complexity requires design to begin with. No, the root of all of your pseudo-logic stems from the fairy tales you read in your particular Holy Book.
You're attributing to me arguments I haven't made.
I asked you a question. What is natural?
If you don't know, just say you don't know. There's no need to get childish about it.
Listen to what you're saying: it's illogical. Firstly, the big bang is the occurence, but what sparked it? That's the point where natural causes or intelligent design are both equally plausable.
Furthermore, the natural laws of the universe would likely be created along with the universe, therefore there is no guarantee that anything outside of the universe would follow the same rules. Many physicists say that time started at the creation of the universe, thus making it nonexistent outside of our universe.
It's not so much about the mechanics of the universe or even the big bang, but rather the origin of those mechanics.