| Oct. 13th, 2007 @ 04:30 pm To Yon Atheists in the back row. |
|---|
You claim "insufficient proof" for the existence of God.
In light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the human race believes in some form of supreme Being, and a large percentage of that number not only consider the evidence for His existence to be overwhelmingly persuasive but openly testify to a personal encounter and experience with Him, I think that the problem here is that the body of evidence presented is only insufficient for you.
And in light of your biases, it is doubtful that anything short of the Second Coming would constitute "sufficient evidence" for you.
You have too much invested in NOT believing to ever contemplate the alternative with any seriousness.
First, your ego. Bull us no crap, but every single atheist on earth, yourself included, clings, openly or secretly, to his atheism like it was an olympic medal... proof of his or her not-so-secret superiority to the rest of us superstitious ignorants.
This isn't an "attack," it's a self-evident fact. When you think we're not paying attention we catch you out at it, too.
Some few atheists may give lip service to "respecting beliefs," but their unguarded dialogue (Yes, we read your columns and editorials from time to time. Little suggestion: Try not to act so surprised when people accuse you of believing what you write down) and visible actions make it clear that they regard deists as inferior, primitive, and even as a sort of barbarian at the gates threat to "human progress and enlightenment." They gain a sense of superiority from regarding all of us as no better than the Boonga Boonga drum-pounding tribal witch doctor. (Yes, we've seen the slogans and logos, too. Darwin fish, Flying Spaghetti Monster, "Imaginary Friends," etc. Another little suggestion: you want us to believe you respect our beliefs, try cutting back on the T-shirt and bumper sticker slogans.)
Second, your denial. Even contemplating God as a possibility puts you in the VERY unpleasant position of having to consider what, if any, relationship you have to this Supreme Being. Because even if God is nothing more than some vast, distant, uninterested entity, the very awareness of His existence would obligate you to seek him out. The same as a scientist is driven to plumb the depths of space or the inner mechanisms of the atom; the same as an abandoned, adopted child is driven to seek his birth-parents.
But you won't have that. So you fall back on the atheist catechism: "religion != science, God=religion, therefore God isn't scientific. In conclusion, that means no scientific proof of God exists...." Voila! you made all the naughty evidence go away. (And for your next trick, you'll prove black=white just in time to get trampled in a zebra stampede.)
As another Christian noted: Why is it that someone viewing the evidence and becoming an evolutionist/atheist considered proof of their intellectual superiority..... while someone else viewing all the evidence and being persuaded to believe in God is proof of their ignorance?
(answer: bias. Even if there are only a handful of avowed atheists, they are the natural symbiotic partners of those who merely believe and shun Him. They make each other more comfortable. And it isn't exactly a community of humble-faced Methodists running Hollywood and Madison Avenue, is it?) |
rhjunior
Completely agree
God |= Science argument used to try and disprove such obvious things such as gravity and evolution by some of the more idiotic of the religious sect.
I personally think that denying there is SOMETHING out there that is more powerful than us in every imaginable way..is just idiocy. We didn't just appear here, and the world just seems too perfectly suited for human life to have been a fluke. I don't think that every single word in the bible is factual history, but I do believe that man was the creation of a higher power. It..just doesn't seem to make sense any other way.
I don't see why people tend to think of themselves as superior due to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof in Atheists cases)...Oh! Wasn't the flying spaghetti monster a workings from the internet, not a creation of Atheists?
-Tk, proving that I actually agree with you on some things
Re: Completely agree
Gravity was an observed phenomenon that had a hypothesis presented, along with an objective methodology for testing it that could either prove, or disprove it. Likewise Einstein's theory of relativity--- Einstein himself proposed the experiments that could be conducted to prove ( or refute, that is key---) his theory.
Evolution, to the contrary, is a conclusion in search of a hypothesis.
And any experimentation or observation that has refuted its claims or unearthed its internal contradictions has been greeted with shouts of "MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED!"..... and further exercises in Creative Writing for Natural Historians.
That is not science. It is dogma.
Address your questions and tirades to the link; I wearied years ago of arguing with the One True Church of Darwin.
Man, I've had to deal with too many atheists in discussions online, and I wish for their sake I could say they weren't uniformly as you describe, but they are. Emphatically. Their combination of religious adherence to their beliefs and transparent arguments against religious adherence to beliefs makes them nearly impossible to take seriously. I've met men who argued logically against the existence of God, but those were men who didn't really hold to the idea; the ones who really believe froth at the mouth a little too much.
That being said, there's no definitive scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why it's called 'faith'.
Guilt! It's what's for dinner!
Re: Guilt! It's what's for dinner!
There are some on the right, though how in heaven or earth they can claim belief in conservative principles--- such as an objective and consistent moral code-- without believing in an Author of that code staggers the imagination..... It's like believing in apples but not accepting the existence of the apple tree.
Atheists are in denial, in the hope that convincing themselves God does not exist will make Him go away. Agnostics are merely crossing their fingers and fervently hoping that He won't take any notice of them. They are both bound to be disappointed.
I went to Church for the first 22years of my life before really realizing that I don't 'feel' anything that my parents do while doing such, so I turned to other contemplative ways of trying to sense a presence.
Everything from self inflicted pain, to starvation induced hallucinations, to simple things like meditation. Still nada. Still looking though! Church really isn't an option anymore, I'm not welcome at 99% of them.
Presence
Not that his (her) taste isn't horrible, sometimes....
And the sense of humor responsible for the Duckbilled Platypuss shoudld probably seek help.....
Ahhh, the Atheist
Secondly, if you pin an atheist down they will admit to looking at one of the three main world views of God. These views are A)The "Grandfather" God. (He's such a kind loving gentle old soul he would never do any harm to anyone and never turn anyone away) B)The vengful God full of nothing but wrath and anger C)the Creator, but not the sustatiner. Really pin somone down, anyone even a lot of Christians, and they'll admit to one of those three views of God. (I myself view God in his entirely, the Creator and the Sustainer of all life and this world, a God full of love mercy grace and kindness, and that same God is full of indignation and wrath at the wickedness of his creations)
Because even if God is nothing more than some vast, distant, uninterested entity, the very awareness of His existence would obligate you to seek him out
This, is not true. As stated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 starting in verse 18. God has made himseld evident in all the works of His hand. Creation itself is a testament to there being a God, but man knowing God refuses to accknowledge Him as God or give thanks to Him as God and turn their backs on Him. Professing themselves to be wise they become fools and gloryfy the creation rather than the Creator. Making for themselves images liked unto man(humanism in all it's many various forms) and the birds, the beasts, and the creeping things of the field. (Worshiping, I mean really worshiping nature. Eco-nazis and the like, folks like Al Gore. We as Christians need to be careful, in fact we should never use the term Mother Earth again, because the Earth has done no such mothering at all.)
It also comes down to rationalization. If they can not rationalize God, then he can not exist. This goes to what one poster said about there being no scientific way to prove or disprove God. But to be perfectly honest there really is nothing rational about Faith. It's a supernatural thing and can not be rationalized. Those people who don't understand Faith in God and Christ, simply can not make a rational for it, and therefore dissmiss God, and one's Faith, as utter nonsence. I had a buddy tell me one time "your to smart to have the wool pulled over your eyes(in reference to my Faith)" He couldn' rationalize God, and so therefore He, and my Faith were invaild.
And that's the Preacher's word on the matter.
Re: Ahhh, the Atheist
My point is Christians would like to say the odds are impossible, but science and maths says that it's even less probable that some form of advanced life such as ourselves wouldn't form at some point during the eternity that science assumes.
What I find even more incredible, is that science is getting to the point where if you plug numbers into the various theories, the ones that come out with the more plausible realities correlate with the Genesis account. Even to the point of animals 'evolving' by God's handiwork (ie without millions of inbetween stages) -THAT is what I find inredible. Given the Genesis account predates any of this science by what, several millenia? Exactly.
Or that an ordered Universe arose by the hand of an ordered Being.
I suppose atheism is an active denial of god while agnosticism is the incapability of making that final leap of faith. The same way atheists can ignore inconveniences, religions can turn a blind eye to fossils as evidence of the world being more than 6 thousand years old.
Oh, and on Einstein. The speed of light has been shown to be unchanging regardless of relative speed, indicating that time is the flexible factor for light. Two very accurate clocks were flown around the world in opposite directions and when compared, were slightly off. That's the observations and some evidence to support the theory of relativity.
The turtles of Galapagos are, I think, the mascot for Darwin. There has been evidence to support the theory of evolution in the short term as a survival trait, but what stops me from finding any real belief there is that science cannot create life from a simulated soup. The day a simple organism is created from protein strands will be both a blasphemy and a triumph, if it's possible.
And on that note
Re: A pie from the back row. Part One
And if you want to take the humans lie, humans are delusional etc line of reasoning, then noone can 'prove' anything, nor observe it, in the first place, such that any discussion of anything is useless. If the experience 'is' verifiable, those that verify it could also be lying and delusional, and so on and so on.
Re: Part Two, of two.
Have YOU ever observed an electron? Because if not, I wouldn't go near the computer again, if I were you, it doesn't exist or function as you thought it did when you typed this. Because electrons don't exist, nor photons through your fiberoptics, which I daresay you haven't seen either. Is the moon really there? Or is it a projected image. Have YOU observed it directly, or believe in it's existence just on hearsay? Does the earth revolve in relation to the stars? Or is it all clever projections and flashing lights?
I think I've made my point. You believe things you haven't observed everytime you hear sports results. People win money on horses they've never seen, but accept your winnings nonetheless.
We will observe it, or not, when we die. By which time whether you are proven right or wrong, it'll be a tad late for either of us to gloat.
"Can you catch the wind?
See a breeze?
Its presence is revealed by
The leaves on the trees
An image of my faith in the unseen"
It's simple, but potent.
1. All matter (and energy, if you want to quibble) has existed for all time.
2. All matter (ditto) was created at some point.
Now, the second has no valid scientific backing; anyone who advocates that the Big Bang simply created matter either hasn’t thought it through or is basing their belief on several unproven (and frankly, illogical) assumptions. Some think it was some sort of “pre matter” energy, in which case I ask “why did it not collapse into matter before, and why is there no such phenomena nowadays?” Others think that matter was somehow squeezed from another dimension, though this idea is nothing more than untested and unproven hypothesis.
The first is foiled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the idea that, while the level of energy/mass in the universe remains constant, the amount of free energy (energy available for work) will go down, until the universe suffers a “heat death”. Obviously, if the universe has been around forever, it cannot be like it is right now; there should be no free energy left.
Summary: Anyone believing that there is no power that is beyond science is taking that based on the faith that someone will discover a reason that goes contrary to all science. Ie, it's a *faith*.
1. All matter (and energy, if you want to quibble) has existed for all time.
2. All matter (ditto) was created at some point.
Now, the second has no valid scientific backing; anyone who advocates that the Big Bang simply created matter either hasn’t thought it through or is basing their belief on several unproven (and frankly, illogical) assumptions. Some think it was some sort of “pre matter” energy, in which case I ask “why did it not collapse into matter before, and why is there no such phenomena nowadays?” Others think that matter was somehow squeezed from another dimension, though this idea is nothing more than untested and unproven hypothesis.”
So, I have to bring up-
1. Is it logical to assume that just because there holes in scientific understanding, they all must be, naturally, filled by god, and will never be solved? I mean, it took centuries for us to realize that germs caused disease. Do you think that our holes in understanding are any different than that? It is illogical to assume that just because an answer isn’t currently known, it must be filled with god.
2. Do you realize that “god” is another hypothesis, just like the Hartle-Hawking Boundary condition? Except, of course, that the God Hypothesis makes no empirical predictions and just works off hopeful voodoo, rather than observations and theories working around our observations.
3. Did you know that Brane cosmology and chaotic inflation both theorize that our universe is the result of an endless chain of universes?
4. What created your creator? It is illogical to assume that something came from nothing, since you like to bandy around logic so much.
5. Oh, and the Big Bang hasn’t happened again because at the beginning of time, all mass and energy was condensed into a singularity of ungodly proportions, if you’ll forgive the pun. Our universe is no longer a singularity, but expanding outwards.
“The first is foiled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the idea that, while the level of energy/mass in the universe remains constant, the amount of free energy (energy available for work) will go down, until the universe suffers a “heat death”. Obviously, if the universe has been around forever, it cannot be like it is right now; there should be no free energy left.
Summary: Anyone believing that there is no power that is beyond science is taking that based on the faith that someone will discover a reason that goes contrary to all science. Ie, it's a *faith*.”
Your god violates the laws of conservation of mass and energy if he creates the universe from nihil. Besides, the idea that the universe is perpetual is silly- we can observe the universe expanding from a single point. At one time, the universe was a singularity, at which there was no time, and no “before.” Then you have to go back to my previous points above.
Because if you didn't have the wits to apply Occam's razor to your silly theory of *super potent magic foreign body makes the tides*, then there's no hope for you. See, Occam's razor slices away the unneccesary parts of theories, and posits that hypotheses should be as simple as they can possibly be, while retaining logic. A super-gravatational material like the one you posit would have other effects on the universe (of which, we have never observed). That theory requires that you induct too much, and cannot be empirically repeated, while the theory of gravity neatly and concisely explains that the moon's mass and location create the tides, and can be repeated with other gravitational experiments.
Occam's razor can be applied to god in the same way. You say "God created the universe." God, by his definition, requires a hang-up of the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and he cannot be observed, directly or by proxy. The other theory is that "the universe is the result of natural forces." That theory works plausibly within the laws of conservation and thermodynamics. Why add the unneccesarily-complex god to the theory?
No, Occam's razor does not apply to God, because God is not a (materialistic) scientific hypothesis. I am not aware of any God Equations that "multiply things unnecessarily". Besides, it's simpler to believe that a multibillion-character database of information was created by directed processes rather than random processes in a notoriously information-hostile universe. If you've ever had a floppy disk break down on you, you'll know what I mean by that. You may protest, and rightly so... because "simplicity" isn't such a simple concept.
Atheists never go after, say, deists, or even Buddhists or pagans, because while they may believe unscientific things they don't engage in the sort of fanatical kookery that some Christian groups do.
The issue is that all deism, magic, and magical thinking, all of them are illogical and subjective ways to interpret the universe- they all start with an a priori assumption (god, magic, et cetera), and bend their theories to work within that pre-constructed framework.
Re: To the religious in the front row
Response, part 1
If I may, I wish to contradict you here.
According to all the various religious people I have discussed the matter with, priests and pastors, rabbis and rabble, all, except for members of one particular religious group - those who self-claim to be right-wing Christians (and usually fundamentalist ones) - they say that belief in God is a matter of personal revelation and/or faith, rather than any externally verifiable scientific evidence.
The difference between their viewpoint, and the one I propose above as the Most Dangerous Idea, is that they are willing to /accept/ such subjective faith as something to base their worldview and actions upon.
Actually, that depends on which versions of the prophecies are fulfilled, and how many miracles are involved. For example, the literal vanishing of millions of people straight out of their clothes, would be rather strong evidence that /something/ supernatural is occurring (if not necessarily the precise Rapture that many expect). However, as all the evidence I have seen points to the conclusion that there is no supernatural at all, I strongly doubt that any such supernatural events would occur.
If I may make a counter-proposal, if the Coming of the Mahdi happened, as several Islamic sub-groups prophesize, would you be willing to admit that the evidence is in favor of Islam rather than Christianity?
I disagree. I listen to the evidence, and go where it leads me, whether I like the conclusion or not.
You say that like there's something wrong with that.
I never claimed it was an 'attack'.
What makes you think any of this is being done secretly, rather than as openly as possible, so that the entire world can offer as much evidence as possible?
If I may hold up a mirror to a non-atheist worldview, the advice is to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'; contrariwise, for someone whose intellectual standpoint one disagrees with, it would seem to be a good idea to 'debate the irrational belief but respect the believer'.
I disagree with you on certain points, but I still respect you. You're a heckuva good webcomic artist, among other things. :) Even there, I may disagree with some of your choices, such as rebooting 'Under the Lemon Tree' in such a way that my favorite storyline, from late 2002 with the Old Nature clown and the dive through the Tabula Rasa showing the constellation of souls in endless blue, seems unlikely to be used again without major re-tooling... but I still come back here to read what you write.
Response, part 2
Actually, I have a strong respect for Deists. Many of the Founding Fathers of your country were Deists, including one of my personal heroes, Jefferson. However, Deists are not Christians, and Jefferson himself published a revised version of the Bible in which all the supernatural elements had been removed.
However, I suspect that that was not the group you meant to refer to; assuming that you were using 'deists' to mean 'theists', my response is that there are a number of examples of those people who attempt to use their beliefs to override scientific findings in public policy. For example, many oil and mineral companies employ geologists who, using the theory that the Earth is billions of years old, have made those companies billions of dollars; and yet, certain groups attempt to have it taught in science classes that the Earth is somewhere about six thousand years old; students who espouse that belief have a very poor track record at predicting where continental drift will have piled up ore deposits.
I think you are missing the point of such rhetorical devices; to take the FSM, they are attempting to draw parallels to certain claims made by theists, which, put into this new context, are obviously silly, but are made with a straight face about the original subject. Silliness is the method, not necessarily the intended end result.
As for bumper sticker slogans... do I even need to bring up all the religious ones, such as 'In case of Rapture, this car will be unmanned'?
Er, you seem to be under a false impression. I have considered the possibility of God, many times. Previously, I believed in His existence. Then I grew up (literally, that's not meant as a rhetorical insult), and learned more about logic and the available evidence, and for a while, had to grapple with both the idea that God exists and, as you put it, my relationship to Him was, and the idea that God does /not/ exist and my relationship to a universe where He does not. I have seeked, and found a big empty spot on the form of life, the universe, and everything, under the heading 'Created By...'.
Here is where I disagree with your position most strongly. You have at least my own experience exactly backwards. I looked at the evidence, and made up my mind based on that evidence, not the other way around.
If you have any such objective evidence that I have failed to consider, I would welcome it if you offered it. However, until then, all I can do is do the best I can with what I have already experienced and learned about the universe.
Atheists...
Re: Atheists...
1)I am an atheist, I believe in the laws and facts of science and physics. I believe the Universe is ordered, rational and comprehensible, and structured according to predictable and understandable physical Laws.
2)I am an atheist. I believe that this ordered, rational and comprehensible Universe arose spontaneously, through random reactions, from chaos... in violation of the known laws of physics and all the observed operations over all human history of order and entropy.
C.S. Lewis was right
Re: C.S. Lewis was right
erm...
When you write thus, about the faith... It's not that you're in error but... do you think that posts like this one do any good? Mightn't they merely enrage, rather than enlighten? Ought you make them--?
Perhaps I worry too much, and you've already considered this (It's something I wrestle with, so it may be too-much in the forefront of my own mind)
My worldview stems mostly from ideals that encourage personal discovery and exploration, and an understanding that in the end the individual is merely a flickering mote on the vast roiling expanse of time. My idea is one in many, and isn't always the correct one by that standing. I do my best to learn from the mistakes, and successes, of others.
I think that doing what you can to make yourself as best a person as you can is the point, at least for myself. Be a good example. Show love and understanding to those you care about, and to be just and fair with those who are outside your favor.
It's like camping. You leave things at least as well off as you found them, and don't forget that you're supposed to find the experience enriching.
I don't care if there's an afterlife. I've got a life here already.
You do know that for the last 50+ years, the Vatican has held that evolution is compatible with the bible, and in 1996, Pope John Paul II effectively declared evolution as fact. Why is evolution considered opposite of religion? Don't you see how ID distracts the issues, and is as dangerous to religion as holding onto geocentrism, denying Galileo his observations?
Ego: I openly admit that I consider myself intellectually superior to anyone who believes in God. Yes, I consider you a threat to progress and enlightenment. I respect and will defend to the death your right to believe and say whatever you want, but you'd better believe I'm going to exercise the same rights to influence you and your children. I'm not going to burn your churches or throw you in concentration camps, but I make no secret of my intent to wipe you out generationally.
Evidence Bias: If I ever see a single piece of evidence for the existence of God that can pass Occam's Razor, I'll eat my Bible.