Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So all that "stuff" that was created out of nothingness just happened? That's like saying the egg just showed up one day.

 

If that's not magic I don't know what is. That's the scientific equivalent of alchemy. 

 

Uh, no.  Like I said, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.  Saying "I don't know, therefor some magical being did it" isn't, unless you have some evidence that a magical being did it.

 

 

Merlyn, you first say atheists do not use evolution as a reason for not believing in God, then you say human evolution is your proof there is no God

 

 

No, I'm not.  I'm saying the fossil record, DNA, etc is evidence for evolution.  I also say that the motions of the planets is evidence that gravity is at work, and not angels moving them.  Neither of these say anything about the non-existence of gods, but some people try to shoehorn in their god into them by saying they don't believe those explanations -- but that doesn't allow anyone to conclude a god exists.

 

But if I say the laws of physics explain the motions of planets, I'm not "using" that as proof that gods aren't moving the planets around.  Same goes for human evolution.

 

And how did those first constituents of life "evolve," Merlyn.?

 

To avoid accepting that many atheists and agnostics do, in fact, believe in the supernatural, you've changed the definition from "supernatural" to "magic" now, I've noticed.

 

All scientific hypotheses that I've heard of just use laws of physics and chemistry, no magic involved; and like I said, "I don't know" is a valid answer.

 

And atheists can believe in the supernatural and/or magic -- all they must lack is a belief in the existence of gods.  I don't believe in the supernatural or magic.

[Peregrinator]

Not to defend Merlyn or anything, but it can't be proven philosophically that the universe actually has a beginning. There might be overwhelming scientific evidence that it does, but that is not the same thing.

 

Of course that is distinct from the question of whether or not God exists. The Prime Mover and First Cause arguments don't depend on the universe having a beginning.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not to defend Merlyn or anything, but it can't be proven philosophically that the universe actually has a beginning. There might be overwhelming scientific evidence that it does, but that is not the same thing.

 

Of course that is distinct from the question of whether or not God exists. The Prime Mover and First Cause arguments don't depend on the universe having a beginning.

 

No, but they do depend on making a special exception for gods, which is hardly different from just assuming they exist.

 

And the big bang isn't the only game in town:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

[Stosh]

 Glad you edited that, I read it last night but it was so late my mind was gone, all I thought was "Well, if Packsaddle said..... ", Then after sleep I was thinking "Wait a minute, Packsaddle's statement with no backup makes it no better then anyone else's all over the internet.."..   Because of all these suppositions about the man, I appreciate quotes by Darwin himself..

 

Still this statement by Darwin leaves questions.. It shows he moved to this belief as he aged.. And what does he mean by "but not always" ?   Now, Stosh would say that meant on occasion he was atheist.. I on the other hand question if the "not always" points more towards wondering about the existence of God, due to what he wrote in his books, that pointed to a belief in God (unless these statements are just how everyone talked back then, or he was attempting to pacify the religious community.), and the fact he studied Theology (which some say was his father forcing him to.) Still even if it wasn't his passion, it would be difficult to believe an atheist could spend years studying a field he totally disagreed with..

 

 

Explain.. What is a good gnostic suppose to act like, that caused Darwin not to make the grade?-

 

Gnostic (Greek for one who knows or has knowledge) bases his reality on that which is known  It was the spirit of the Greek intellectual push during it's Golden Era.  It did set the stage and what they put forth philosophically has influenced the philosophical thinking of Western humanity.  It's the difference between knowing something and believing something.  The whole scientific movement is based on this acquisition of knowledge.  The rub comes in the fact that philosophy is kind of a speculative half-way point in the process.  We have something we believe to be true, put forth a philosophical theory on it and once proven then there is no need for faith, it's known.  So a religious person relies on one end of the spectrum, faith, while the non-religious person tips the scales the other way and bases their realities on that which they know or have perceived to be real.  An A-gnostic is like the A-theist.  Atheist is one without an understanding of the theos (god) and an agnostic is one without an understanding of knowlege.  Darwin was a trained theologian, but rejected or severely doubted the reality of God.  He was an avowed agnostic, meaning he neither knew or believed in the existence of God.  Kind of a philosophical no=man's land.  Kinda lost between knowing and believing.

 

So you paint everyone in the North and the south as racist at this period in time...

 

Historically there is strong evidence that slavery was based on racism and the fact that the slave traders were able to market those who are perceived to be or even capable of being as intelligent and culturally refined as the master races.    Prejudices at this time were blatant within the culture of America at this time.  Slavery was just an economic issue, but the Irish were pretty much the scum end of white race.  And if that wasn't enough, "the only good Indian was a dead Indian."  So to think that Darwin when he chose his language for his thesis didn't have many of these dynamics playing out in his life is rather naive.

 

All of them, All of them... But, somehow Darwin should take the brunt of the blame, because...???  (guessing) he wrote a theory that OTHER people used to argue racism???.... Well then that does not bode well for the author(s) of the Bible and God himself, since the bible was used frequently to argue for slavery and racism, it showed God was all in favor of slavery.. 

 

On also has to remember the bible also is the book that is meant for sinful people.  There are poor people, handicapped people, women, children, gentile, etc. all being addressed by faith on how God deals with such.  Slavery?  Okay in that day and age, if one nation conquers another, they don't sit down and work out a compromise and everyone gets a big hug and life goes on.  No, if you were conquered, the result was one of three things.  1) you fled the reach of the conquerors, 2) were enslaved or 3) killed.  That is if the conquerors were in a good mood.  When Jerusalem fell to Rome in 64 AD, Rome landed on the coast of Israel and marched to Jerusalem and destroyed the city.  About the only thing standing at the end of the day was the base wall of the temple and a few stones that were too big to knock down.  As far as everything else in that swath, nothing but Roman soldiers were still alive.  Every man, woman, child, animal, whatever, were killed.  And that settled that.  So when the Bible talks about slavery, it''s not and isue of whether it is acceptable, just advice on how to survive in that situation.  Do what you're told or you will die.

 

It's way too deep to go into in a forum, but everything we look at in terms of religion is tainted by Greek Gnostic philosophy seeing everything as black/white, right/wrong, and  unfortunately for us, the people writing were far more ancient that the Johnny-come-lately Greeks.  Their philosophies and assumptions are far different than the Greeks and the understanding of what is written is different when viewed from their perspective.  This is why interpretations of Scripture can be seriously flawed as a result.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Gone]

Uh, no.  Like I said, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.  Saying "I don't know, therefor some magical being did it" isn't, unless you have some evidence that a magical being did it.

 

And you know for sure some magical (supernatural) being didn't? Just curious. If you don't know the answer, then saying your don't know is perfectly valid. 

[Peregrinator]

No, but they do depend on making a special exception for gods, which is hardly different from just assuming they exist.

Um, no.

[Stosh]

According to scientists they tend to agree that the universe of the natural started.  It has a beginning.  It is also limited by time and space.  Whatever it was that started it is not part, nor ever was part of this universe.  While religious people say it was this great unknown we refer to as God that started it, Atheists say, "No, there is no God and I don't know what it was that started it, but it wasn't God."

 

Isn't that like saying, "You're wrong, but I don't know what right is."?

[AZMike]

Uh, no.  Like I said, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.  Saying "I don't know, therefor some magical being did it" isn't, unless you have some evidence that a magical being did it.

 

 

 

No, I'm not.  I'm saying the fossil record, DNA, etc is evidence for evolution.  I also say that the motions of the planets is evidence that gravity is at work, and not angels moving them.  Neither of these say anything about the non-existence of gods, but some people try to shoehorn in their god into them by saying they don't believe those explanations -- but that doesn't allow anyone to conclude a god exists.

 

But if I say the laws of physics explain the motions of planets, I'm not "using" that as proof that gods aren't moving the planets around.  Same goes for human evolution.

 

 

All scientific hypotheses that I've heard of just use laws of physics and chemistry, no magic involved; and like I said, "I don't know" is a valid answer.

 

And atheists can believe in the supernatural and/or magic -- all they must lack is a belief in the existence of gods.  I don't believe in the supernatural or magic.

 

Sure. Atheists can hold all sorts of screwy beliefs, like the non-existence of God. I just hold one less screwy belief than the atheists do...

 

Some scientific hypotheses just accept views that veer towards magic, without trying to posit a reason, or trying to invoke any known laws of physics or chemistry, Merlyn.  The Copenhagen Interpretation insists that all potencies exist until the particle is actualized by measurement. The equations don't tell us how a particle’s properties "solidify" at that moment of measurement, or how reality picks which form to take. But the calculations work, so we use them.

 

"I don't know" is always a valid answer, but we should make sure that methodological bias doesn't rule out reasonable alternatives, as many atheists do. It can't be argued that belief in God isn't reasonable, as about 96% of Americans (presumably including many people who hold reasonable beliefs in all other spheres of existence) do consider a belief in God to be reasonable. Hard to argue that your 4% subculture represents the only "reasonable" views. 

[AZMike]

Not to defend Merlyn or anything, but it can't be proven philosophically that the universe actually has a beginning. There might be overwhelming scientific evidence that it does, but that is not the same thing.

 

Of course that is distinct from the question of whether or not God exists. The Prime Mover and First Cause arguments don't depend on the universe having a beginning.

 

This is true. St. Thomas Aquinas believed the universe was eternal, but was created - at a point before the existence of the universe causally, but not temporally.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And you know for sure some magical (supernatural) being didn't? Just curious. If you don't know the answer, then saying your don't know is perfectly valid. 

 

I'm saying there's no good evidence for magical beings.  You can make up any number of things, but that's no reason to think they exist.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

"I don't know" is always a valid answer, but we should make sure that methodological bias doesn't rule out reasonable alternatives, as many atheists do. It can't be argued that belief in God isn't reasonable, as about 96% of Americans (presumably including many people who hold reasonable beliefs in all other spheres of existence) do consider a belief in God to be reasonable. Hard to argue that your 4% subculture represents the only "reasonable" views. 

 

I can certainly argue that belief in gods isn't reasonable.  If you include ALL gods, and don't count e.g. the Christians god to be the same as the Muslim god, only a small fraction of people believe in the same god -- roughly 33%, if you lump all Christians together.  Not too impressive when 26% of Americans answered that the sun goes around the earth.

 

However, I wasn't even arguing that.  You brought up the term "reasonable".  I was only pointing out that evolution and orbital mechanics explain things without needing gods.

[packsaddle]

Again, I agree with you, Packsaddle, that Darwin shouldn't be blamed for the interpretation that others made of his theories. But those interpretations did give support to some of the most horrid episodes of American and European history.

 

Yes, a regrettable and flawed association. The interpretations were what gave that support, as you say, not the idea itself. Do you think perhaps that bad persons, who are already inclined to harmful actions, might look for a rationalization to provide support or to deflect responsibility? In the past I have argued that because the racists I grew up with often justified their racism on the basis of scripture, that in itself did not mean that religion or those particular scriptures were therefore to blame. To me what it means is that they were racists who wanted to justify their prejudice. Their interpretations of scripture were supportive of their racist views, not the scripture. 

Edited April 30, 2015 by packsaddle

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker, I evidently failed to answer that other question you had about Darwin's earlier life. His wife was Unitarian and he attended the Unitarian Church regularly. But I am most persuaded by the observations that are mostly presented on this website: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/what-did-darwin-believe-article

 

I believe they have a persuasive argument that Darwin's letters are more revealing than his books..about what he 'believed'. My personal opinion is that he was most certainly undecided early in his life and became less undecided with age - sound familiar? But I am not convinced that his avowed agnosticism late in life means anything more than that he remained undecided....and therefore perhaps also remained open to new evidence...like the scientist he was. 

 

Edit: Oops, that was 'wife' not 'mother'. 

Edited May 1, 2015 by packsaddle

[Gone]

I'm saying there's no good evidence for magical beings.  You can make up any number of things, but that's no reason to think they exist.

And yet POOF the universe began? Riiiight.

 

I'll take my "magical" being, thank you.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And yet POOF the universe began? Riiiight.

 

 

Create as many magical beings as you like to "explain" it; they can explain everything (not usefully, though):

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/07/bryan-fischer-what-holds-an-atoms-nucleus-together-jesus/