Oh ye of little faith.
An Agnostic Query
- Thread starter Non-Logical-Idea-Guy
- Start date
Oh ye of little faith.
I am an agnostic i think the possibility of gods existence is still open and in the same vein nothing proves me of his non existence because i think the logic of atheists is flawed (i don't care if your'e one or not)
The issue of the probability of life on other planets is entirely separate from the question of wether life is the product of a creator.
To say that life is impossible on Mars, or impossible in alternative forms is not the position of any respectable scientist. There presence of extremophile organisms on Earth is proof that there can be systems of metabolism other than that we are familiar with on the surface.
Secondly, the idea of a creator is contrary to the idea of evolution. Evolution is a gradual process of trial and error, and all organisms known show the signs of this by virtue of our DNA. Through analysis of DNA, the intimate relationship of all organisms is revealed, and our common origins in the chemistry of early Earth is clear.
Therefore, the idea of needing a complex creator to design complex organisms is just unnecessary. DNA accumulates information (another word for complexity). Life is a stream of coded information. Non digital life is also theoretically possible, but it's uncertain how it could survive through each generation virtually unchanged, the way our kind of life does.
Thirdly, I take issue with your characterization of atheists as narrow-minded. Logic is universally applicable. If you are so "open minded" as to equate logical and illogical ideas, then no learning is possible, no advancement of our understanding can ever occur.
To say that life is impossible on Mars, or impossible in alternative forms is not the position of any respectable scientist. There presence of extremophile organisms on Earth is proof that there can be systems of metabolism other than that we are familiar with on the surface.
Secondly, the idea of a creator is contrary to the idea of evolution. Evolution is a gradual process of trial and error, and all organisms known show the signs of this by virtue of our DNA. Through analysis of DNA, the intimate relationship of all organisms is revealed, and our common origins in the chemistry of early Earth is clear.
Therefore, the idea of needing a complex creator to design complex organisms is just unnecessary. DNA accumulates information (another word for complexity). Life is a stream of coded information. Non digital life is also theoretically possible, but it's uncertain how it could survive through each generation virtually unchanged, the way our kind of life does.
Thirdly, I take issue with your characterization of atheists as narrow-minded. Logic is universally applicable. If you are so "open minded" as to equate logical and illogical ideas, then no learning is possible, no advancement of our understanding can ever occur.
*************
M*W: It's about time you got a new husband!
it isnt logical to apply logic gained from our existence on the earth throughout the universe this is my point - the whole mars thing was just an example - i didnt mean to insult atheists but I couldnt think of another way to say it.
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy - you are an atheist - pure and simple - if you do not have a belief that god exists.
Some atheists go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist - but this is a step further than necessary to be an atheist.
If you are not a theist then you are an atheist. Period.
You, as it happens, are also an agnostic - like many of the atheists on this site - myself included.
But do NOT confuse agnosticism with the "middle ground" between theism and atheism.
Theism / Atheism is your stance on belief in god (you either have it or you don't).
Agnosticism is your stance on the knowledge of God - e.g. whether it is possible to know a god or not, or whether such knowledge exists, personally or otherwise.
Some atheists go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist - but this is a step further than necessary to be an atheist.
If you are not a theist then you are an atheist. Period.
You, as it happens, are also an agnostic - like many of the atheists on this site - myself included.
But do NOT confuse agnosticism with the "middle ground" between theism and atheism.
Theism / Atheism is your stance on belief in god (you either have it or you don't).
Agnosticism is your stance on the knowledge of God - e.g. whether it is possible to know a god or not, or whether such knowledge exists, personally or otherwise.
your opening statement is poorly married to your last one, since as indicated in the OP, you have no scope for knowing god is unknowable (unless you are omniscient or something)
We should also include information we gather from beyond the Earth. On the whole, your speculation sounds like desperation. Maybe life on Earth didn't arise due to a creator, but it did somewhere else? That's possible, but until we actually see it, it's just speculation. Science is already infused with a healthy amount of scepticism. Complete scepticism means we have learned nothing. I think our knowledge is real, just incomplete.
The premise that atheists actively deny the possibility of the existence of a creator entity of some sort is flawed.
Every atheist I know subscribes to the simple fact that there is no more compelling evidence for a creator entity than there is for seven-legged, two headed, silicon-based tau cetians. Or for any of the infinity of other possible baseless speculations.
Just because an atheist allows for unforseen possibilities (no matter how unlikely) does not make him or her agnostic.
Agnostics are allowing for a high degree of likelyhood either way (50/50?) simply because they have failed to see clearly either side of the issue.
You are an "atheist" when it comes to SI based arachnid tau cetians. Or you are a fool. There is no compelling evidence for these creatures just as there is no compelling evidence for a creator entity.
But absolutely denying the possibility is not what any serious atheist is willing to do. That would be just as foolish as the continuous flood of strawman statements to the contrary made by numerous members here.
Every atheist I know subscribes to the simple fact that there is no more compelling evidence for a creator entity than there is for seven-legged, two headed, silicon-based tau cetians. Or for any of the infinity of other possible baseless speculations.
Just because an atheist allows for unforseen possibilities (no matter how unlikely) does not make him or her agnostic.
Agnostics are allowing for a high degree of likelyhood either way (50/50?) simply because they have failed to see clearly either side of the issue.
You are an "atheist" when it comes to SI based arachnid tau cetians. Or you are a fool. There is no compelling evidence for these creatures just as there is no compelling evidence for a creator entity.
But absolutely denying the possibility is not what any serious atheist is willing to do. That would be just as foolish as the continuous flood of strawman statements to the contrary made by numerous members here.
Truth? Like in the bible I gather? Or the quran? Truth based on "faith"? That miracle of blind unquestioning obeisance?
There's only one truth about that kind of degradation of the human intellect.
the problem is that with theism it is not just a claim of direct perception but a claim of direct perception coupled with a process that enables such perception - thus all the clamoring about endless speculations is just a means for the atheist to maintain a status quo with their ideologies of comfort
Ok. That's fine. Let's just assume that theists (highly trained ones) are directly percieving the true existence of god or whatever. Super.
So tell me LG. What good at all is theism if it has no relevance for actual people? What good are all of your BG quotations? If these direct perceptions can only ever result in the subjective joy of the perciever at his own coolness, what of it? What is there to distinguish them from simple daydreaming?
The highschool dropout has no reason to accept electrons. Who cares? He still plays HALO on his PC, right? Take that as a trivial example that nonetheless exemplifies the whole of science. Physics is the stuff that works whether you believe it or not (paraphrased from a Niels Bohr quote?).
So?
If it is faith that blinds, all abiding in faith, how does any see?
Though your faith be in the perpetual ignorance and/or lack of man, an another in providence; how is it that you differ in your cause for sight, are you not both blind, and in so seeing as a man?
Ummm... err... If that's scripture of some sort, yer barkin' up the wrong tree bub.
Speak clearly man. That read like jibberish to me.
not sure where you came up with the notion that theism has no relevance to actual people.
Maybe you could coin your response in a different way because I can't see why you suddenly deem something that is (theoretically) knowable as bereft of value
in the same way, one may not be conversant with the cause of all causes, yet life can continue on a contingent fashion for those who deem that as sufficient (at least until death, disease and/or old age - or more technically, the movement of the modes of material nature between sattva, rajas and tamas - comes along to change the status quo)