Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[bwinwright]

:D:) I once heard Neal Boortz, the Atlanta based radio talk show geek say, "Atheism is absolutely false. Anyone trying to sell atheism is simply insane."

Now, I agree that organized religion has proven itself to be so ugly and destructive for so long, I can thoroughly understand why one would resort to calling them self an atheist rather than having anyone suspect them of being a part of some religion. I get it!

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right? Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?
The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

[Hokulele]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?


(Bolding mine.) Entropy always increases.

[bwinwright]

I surely don't understand how that comment makes any sense.

[quixotecoyote]

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

You almost get it here...


Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

But then you lose it again.

[paximperium]

Yawn...a pseudo philosopher at work...
:D:)
But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.
Sure you have, so why is your entire essay one big strawman?


Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.
What a nice and completely useless definition but whatever makes you happy.


Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?
No.


If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right? Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?
No. Nice blatant Non-sequitur. You make a useless definition of "god" and them jump to giving this useless "all universe" some characteristic that can never be proven. Nice philosophical juggling.


But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".
Wow, what a nice bit of Creationism/ID apolegetic Straw man and Argument from Incredulity you have there. "bwinwight doesn't get it therefore it cannot be true"


Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?

False.


The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.
False again. Crystals, planets, stars and even ice are examples of organizing order that does not require intelligence. You need to read up on more current ID apolegetics, yours is rather lame and outdated.


Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?
Yup...oh you didn't some relevant comeback?

[/quote]
Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? [/quote]
Still irrelevant. You mean, how scientists keep changing how long a year actually is every few years? Yeah, precise. Pssst..why don't you look up what arbitrary system we use to keep time. Keep trying.


Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?
Unlikely but not absolutely impossible. More likely the cosmos will end before that happens...what was your point again?


You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!
You had some point?
ONE BIG FLAW, Mr. amateur philosopher wannabee in your entire argument.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is nothing more than a response to theism. Nothing you have attempted to amateurishly tried to state is even relevant to your claims.

[bwinwright]

(Bolding mine.) Entropy always increases.

Hokulele, I don't understand what you mean.

[quixotecoyote]

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Billions upon billions of conditional probabilities all building on each other. It had to happen somehow and if it had resulted in some other intelligence, that three eyed monster might make the same observation as you as to how incredibly unlikely he is.

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?

Assumes the conclusion.

[Piscivore]

I surely don't understand how that comment makes any sense.

If this "organising intelligence" exists it is failing spectacularly at keeping things organised.

[Twiler]

Isn't it meaningless to talk about an 'organising intelligence of which everything consists'? If it is everything, what is it organising?

Also, the universe only appears orderly to us, because we are products of the order. The apparent symmetries are the results of universal rules. The movements of astral bodies are determined by physics, not divine geometry.

[jj]

Disorder, over the entire universe, is always increasing. The quote out of the OP is, simply put, factually incorrect.

All the rest of the smokescreen arises from a false premise.

Right behind the glass
Is a little blade of grass
Be careful as you pass
Move along, move along!

[The Drain]

I've never, ever, heard an athiest or anyone say anything like "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." Sounds like a strawman argument to me.

Most sensible folk that I know are wowed by the abundance and complexity of the natural world - both here on Earth and what we can see of the bigger Universe. I know that I am.

But just because something is complicated or awe-inspiring does not mean that it was deliberately made or designed by an outside agency. Why do you think that "common sense" tells you otherwise?

[paximperium]

I've never, ever, heard an athiest or anyone say anything like "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." Sounds like a strawman argument to me.

Most sensible folk that I know are wowed by the abundance and complexity of the natural world - both here on Earth and what we can see of the bigger Universe. I know that I am.

But just because something is complicated or awe-inspiring does not mean that it was deliberately made or designed by an outside agency. Why do you think that "common sense" tells you otherwise?

The entire post is a strawman and a regurgitation of ID/Creationist Apolegetics.

It is getting boring because it is the same arguments again and again and again and again which never changes despite having these lies dismantled.

[bwinwright]

:cool:Paxim, you sure "seem" to be saying a lot, but nothing seems to make any sense, at all..maybe you're just an illusion..like your atheistic philosophy. You must enjoy your arrogance, pretending to have something of substance to say, but actually saying nothing of SUBSTANCE.

PAXIPAD, why don't you swallow that gigantic ego and try to explain WHY YOU BELIEVE ORDER DOESN'T REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I knew my "arrogance" charge would hit your hot button. This really hurts, doesn't it?

I'm calling you out. Convince me. Tell me why something can come from nothing and order doesn't require intelligent direction.

If you can, you'll be the first in history.

You're like the guy who says to the insurance man, ""I don't need any life insurance because I'm not going to die." Yeah, Mr. smarty-pants. You'll be the first!


I dare you to stop being so cute and make a serious attempt to be wise. You "appear" to be so intelligent, but you don't have the argument to Convince me. You can't, can you?

Teach me please!

It is incivil to edit a username in order to insult. Please refrain from this in the future.

[godless dave]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

Unified, maybe. Intelligent, no.

[Robin]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist.
Have you ever happened across a little tome called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? He spends a good deal of time deriving a definition which he believes is a fair representation of the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

The definition of God is a popular and recurring subject among atheists here.
The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right?
Ah yes, the old theist tactic. Redefine God to mean the underlying order of the universe and - hey presto - God exists because order exists.

I would have thought, at a minimum, we would have to be talking about a purposeful intelligence for something that we could meaningfully call God.
The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.
Hmm. Are you saying that intelligent direction does not require order?
Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature."
Please cite any atheist saying anything remotely like this.
You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!
Have you ever heard the expression "people in glass houses..."?

[Jeff Corey]

[QUOTE=bwinwright;4067834...Teach me please![/QUOTE]

Some people just don't want to be taught. Apparently you are one of them.

[Robin]

Tell me why something can come from nothing and order doesn't require intelligent direction.
No, you tell us why intelligent direction does not require order.

[six7s]

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. Please cite ONE scientifically-reached 'conclusion' that posits the existence of any god

I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.You might have been listening, but you didn't hear

Atheism is the absence of theism; nothing more, nothing less


Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. Similarly, aUnicornists and aLeprechaunists are equally silent on the details of their respective non-beliefs

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".Why?

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?Wrong

The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.Again... wrong

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? Maybe... so?

Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence? Please, stop arguing from incredulity! Instead, do some research and realise how your ignorance is blinding you from the 'magic' that is reality

mcAq9bmCeR0
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)


In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically.

The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity.

Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design (you can tell this because every simulation ends with a differently constructed clock). And it works. Clocks evolve through a series of transitional forms: Pendulum, Proto-clock, 1-handed Clock, 2-handed Clock, 3-handed Clock, and 4-handed Clock. Gradually the complexity is built up.

These labels I have assigned to the transitional forms have nothing to do with the simulation itself. They are names I assigned so that we could analyze what the population was doing. The clocks are just clocks, living in their world, trying to tell time as accurately as possible.

One thing I wanted to address but didn't have time in the video is how rapid the transitional period can be. In some simulations the population goes from pendulums to 3-handed Clocks in a hundred or so generations. And the transitions between the transitional forms are even more rapid, happening in about ten generations. Chances are none or a very limited representation of that transition will be preserved in the fossil record.

One thing I should add. The program does not draw the clocks. It maintains, mates, and simulates them, but the drawing must be done manually from the genome matrix.

The program is written in MatLab.

The hand rotations that begin with 86 are 86,000 not 86.000. When YouTube compressed the video it becam hard to tell a comma from a period.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9e1zz000mq7

To download the program go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1umdtnwayyp

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)


You atheists need to stop the madness

Unfortunately, in real life and on this forum, there is nothing to prevent the promotion of 'madness', as your posts illustrate

the arrogance gone wild!This is your problem. The solution lies with you

[bokonon]

PAXIPAD, why don't you swallow that gigantic ego and try to explain WHY YOU BELIEVE ORDER DOESN'T REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I knew my "arrogance" charge would hit your hot button. This really hurts, doesn't it?
For some people, watching someone like you talking smack from a position of intractable ignorance may be painful, but for me, it's just mildly amusing.

Look, you used the orbit of the earth around the sun as an example of order that requires intelligent direction, so maybe you could defend that position for starters. Do you think God is constantly remembering how strong to make the gravity so the earth doesn't go flying away? Maybe if he gets distracted by all the prayers over hurricane Ike, and "thinks" it a little stronger, we'll start spiraling into the sun tomorrow.

From my perspective, gravity is a force of nature. It's predictable. It doesn't require intelligence. No one has to remember to turn it off in the morning, or dust it twice a year. It just works. If you think God is steering the planets around the solar system, do you think he steered the asteroid that smashed into the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago?

And, for the record, "convincing you" is not a goal. I'd sooner try to explain algebra to a slug.

[Robin]

It is a fairly simple argument bwinwright.

Either there is a God or there is not.

If there is not then order does not require intelligent direction.

If there is, then God is an example of order that does not require intelligent direction. Nobody created God and he did not create himself.

Therefore the one thing that we can be most sure about is that order does not require intelligent direction.

[paximperium]

:cool:Paxim, you sure "seem" to be saying a lot, but nothing seems to make any sense, at all..maybe you're just an illusion..like your atheistic philosophy. You must enjoy your arrogance, pretending to have something of substance to say, but actually saying nothing of SUBSTANCE.
An entire paragraph of an Ad Hominem with no substance. Never once have you refuted anything in my original post.


PAXIPAD, why don't you swallow that gigantic ego and try to explain WHY YOU BELIEVE ORDER DOESN'T REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
Snort...amusing. YOU made the claim that order requires intelligent direction.

Didn't you make the claim? Why don't you tell me how this "intelligence" directs the formation of stars and crystals.


I knew my "arrogance" charge would hit your hot button. This really hurts, doesn't it?
Yawn...I AM ARROGANT, so? How does that prove me wrong and your inane argument right?

I'm not the one making answers up with no evidence by using inane logic and philosophical juggling from lame apolegetics.


I'm calling you out. Convince me.
Calling me out? What for a smackdown? What are you? Twelve?

I'm not interested. You are not interested in learning anything. You are here to preach and no one here is interested in your BS.


Tell me why something can come from nothing and order doesn't require intelligent direction.
NO, you dishonest amateur wannabee philospher. I'm not playing your dishonest little game.

Why don't you explain where your "intelligence" comes from and how it creates order? Come back when you have an answer.


If you can, you'll be the first in history.
Don't have to. I don't know. Unlike you, I don't make up ******** answers with no evidence. I await new knowledge while you delude yourself by making things up. Your belief retards exploration and knowledge.


You're like the guy who says to the insurance man, ""I don't need any life insurance because I'm not going to die." Yeah, Mr. smarty-pants. You'll be the first!
Ooooooh...a threat. Wow. I await the hellfire threat as well.


I dare you to stop being so cute and make a serious attempt to be wise. You "appear" to be so intelligent, but you don't have the argument to Convince me. You can't, can you?

Teach me please!
Not interested. You can wallow in your deluded little world for all I care.

Your reply shows the level of your intellectual interest in a discussion. Why don't you go post in a little apologetic website and get a pat on the back like you usually do. Your argument is just inane.

[ravdin]

In all fairness, it's true that many atheists are quite arrogant. But to claim that the creator of the universe is speaking especially to you, implanting special insights into your mind as how best to behave (and tell everyone else to behave), may bend or break the laws of nature on your behalf if you ask enough times, and will allow your ego to survive long after your physical body has disintegrated into dust?

Not even I am arrogant enough to make claims like that.

[six7s]

Therefore the one thing that we can be most sure about is that order does not require intelligent direction.Ain't it cool that thinking (cf believing) can (and does!) help us understand reality :)

Thanks Robin!

[Pardalis]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.

What a crummy definition.

[PitPat]

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

Then you never really listened; even if you don't believe in atheists' explanations, most are still quite reasonable. You're attempting to turn many atheists' main argument against them (science and common sense), as so many have tried to do before, usually in an attempt to be clever. And like them, fail.


Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?
The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

No, common sense does not tell me that. Even if it did, science and logic often holds common sense in contempt. This is just another argument along the lines of "life, universe and the natural world is just so big and complicated, my head hurts, easier just to hang it on a deity."


Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made?
So the 'common sense' answer is that an invisible being outside of our plane of existence is responsible for it?

Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

It won't self-assemble, well done. But I have no idea how that supports your assertion. Maybe god prefers Timex?

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

Careful, your anger is showing. A couple of smileys to open the post won't negate it.

[six7s]

In all fairness, it's true that many atheists are quite arrogant.So? If you are intentionally implying that atheism is a/the causation of arrogance, please don't... cos its WRONG

[triadboy]

The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.

To clarify your god belief - you DO NOT believe in the OT Yahweh, correct? You agree the OT/NT god is a complete idiot and that the bible would be an insult to a god - if He existed?
Additionally, you DO NOT believe that Jesus is the 'son of god'. Or that he performed miracles.

Can we agree on this?

[Ladewig]

The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right?

No. God could be a one-trick pony that has the power to create universes but do nothing else. There is no reason to believe that a Creator must be omnipotent.

Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

I'll agree with you here. The previous definition might get us as far as deism, but does not carry over to the type of personal God described in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam..

[The Drain]

In all fairness, it's true that many atheists are quite arrogant. But to claim that the creator of the universe is speaking especially to you, implanting special insights into your mind as how best to behave (and tell everyone else to behave), may bend or break the laws of nature on your behalf if you ask enough times, and will allow your ego to survive long after your physical body has disintegrated into dust?

Not even I am arrogant enough to make claims like that.

Ravdin, that's very well put! Especially the bit about the big bearded fellow bending or even breaking the laws of nature if you ask enough times.

That is something I will defintely remember next time I'm being harrassed by a biblical eejit - thank you!

[Tubbythin]

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made?

Erm, NO! For a start there is different types of years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#Astronomical_years

and then there is atomic clocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clocks

Also, the Sun's orbital speed changes throughout the year in accordance with Kepler's 2nd law. And the Earth has been orbiting the Sun for billions of years.

[Tubbythin]

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?


Well, no. But supposing the answer was yes common sense would also tell you that the organizing intelligence must be complex and therefore require an organizing intelligence. And the organizing intelligence that produced the organizing intelligence must also be complex and, therefore, require an organizing intelligence. And the organizing intelligence that produced...

[Tubbythin]

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".



Nobody is claiming eagles were created in one act of extreme randomness. Or oak trees for that matter.

[slingblade]

If the choice were between arrogance and ignorance, you bet I'd take arrogant, every time.

Those who would not...never needed to make the choice.

[Zarathustra]

Richard Feynman was reported to once have said :
"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!!"

I always liked that joke.
If you don't get it, I invite you to read more of his works.


But all told, at the end of the day, the Universe is simply a vastly enormous place.
So vast an enormous in fact, that our status here as organisms is fairly next to nothing in comparison.
To think otherwise is perhaps the ultimate arrogance.
What are our petty trifles when compared with a sun somewhere that goes Super nova, obliterating everthing for 50 lights years in circumference?
We are, simply put, a natural processes of this planet's activity, barely cognizant in terms of understanding, doubtfully self-aware in the true sense of the word, and gloriously autonomous in our function.

When you die, you're dead, and that's it.

We know this, primarily because of the billions upon billions of people whom have died in the past, none or them have come back to tell the tale of otherwise.

And if it turns out that this life is some sort of grand galactic hoax at my expense, well then God and I shall laugh about it over beers.

Unless he's a Jackass and a dull conversationalist, in which case he can just piss off, as I've no time for those sorts.

[rocketdodger]

lol

[ravdin]

So? If you are intentionally implying that atheism is a/the causation of arrogance, please don't... cos its WRONG

I can only guess from your comments that you stopped reading after the first sentence of my post, because it made you too irate to read the rest.

[six7s]

I can only guess from your comments that you stopped reading after the first sentence of my post, because it made you too irate to read the rest.No... I did read the whole post... maybe (ok, obviously) I didn't understand... the immediately following bits read, to me, as a non-sequitur...

Anyhoo... I ain't afraid to admit my errors, esp when they're pointed out politely

So...

Sorry

:)

[cannotthinkofaname]

:D:)
Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

Mate your just being arrogant yourself, oh and that bit about the F-22 being more sophisticated than anything capable of flight in nature look into the common house fly and how sophisticated their wings are, that come from nature and I once heard that engineers are are trying to duplicate it in some way.

Furthermore people like yourself make the rest of us who also believe in God look like twits mate if you want to be taken seriously try not to look down on people you know "do unto others as you others to do unto you" oh and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" understand what I mean here mate.

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right? Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?
The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.


. . .and if everything requires a sophisticated designer, why doesn't God?

Consider the snowflake, it is a highly organized and distinctly complex object made up of simple parts and all that forms it is the hydrogen bonding of water molecules and the process of freezing.

Any given object is improbable, yet the genius of the idea of natural selection is that not only is it capable of explaining the diversity of life, it's capable of making predictions which could be easily proven false, but never have. God gets away with wriggling out of any scientific scrutiny.

Unguided processes give rise to complexity all around you. I have in my kitchen a clear glass pepper mill. Inside it are a mix of uncrushed and wrinkly peppercorns, peppercorns broken into bits of various sizes, and some fine peppercorn dust. I am going to perform an experiment to see if a simple process can give rise to a complex arrangement in this system - I'm going to gently shake it for a minute. Try it yourself. As I shake the pepper mill, something quite amazing happens. All the mixed stuff inside the pepper mill sorts itself fairly neatly with the big things on top, and the smallest, finest dust on the bottom. If you placed all the stuff inside at random, you'd be extremely unlikely to see such a tidy assortment, but simple physics tells you that as you shake the system the smallest bits fall into the interstitial spaces between the largest pieces, and as you repeat the process over and over what would appear to be a highly improbable arrangement occurs through natural forces.

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

Machines require an intelligent designer precisely because they don't reproduce. Living things, however, do. They reproduce without perfect fidelity, and live in various environment that work selectively on the traits that arise. The only difference between how an antibiotic resistant strain of infectious bacteria arises and how a finch arises is the time scale. There is no difference in the mechanism.

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

What about it? The habitable zone around our star actually stretches almost all the way out to Mars, and the day's length is slowly increasing in duration, so there's hardly anything special about that.

[Silentknight]

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?
The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

Okay, let's pretend for the sake of argument that the universe was designed. So what? Your God still doesn't exist.


Next.

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, I don't understand what you mean.


Although Piscivore and jj have already adressed this adequately, read up on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and see how that applies to your argument, especially the bit I highlighted.

[Robin]

Ravdin, that's very well put! Especially the bit about the big bearded fellow bending or even breaking the laws of nature if you ask enough times.

That is something I will defintely remember next time I'm being harrassed by a biblical eejit - thank you!
It is amazing isn't it?

Christians believe the Universe designed with them in mind, and that the designer maintains a strong personal interest in them and wants to provide them with a blissful eternity.

And they call this humility and self-negation.

Atheists believe they are an accidental and vanishingly inconsequential blip on the face of existence, soon to wink into oblivion.

And the Christians call this over-weaning arrogance and the glorification of self.

And none of them notice the absurdity in this position.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Projection is a truly ugly habit.

[Tricky]

My favorite clear-cut example of how order appears without intelligent direction is (big surprise) geological.


Take a bag of mud sand and gravel all stirred up and mixed in a disordered fashion.
Pour that bag into a tall container, like a graduated cylinder.
As you will quickly see, the gravel falls first, followed by the sand and finally the mud settles out.
When all of the sediment has settled, you will have several well-ordered layers of sediment. You have done nothing to put them in order. It was done by natural processes.
We see exactly this same process occurring in nature. Sediment sizes tell us a lot about how they were deposited.
None of this requires any sort of intervention.
This is a simple example that can be easily demonstrated. There are countless more complex examples that can be demonstrated with a little (or a lot) more effort.

Now if you want to discover how things can become ordered in a closed system while the disorder (entropy) of the universe is increasing overall, that will require some study of physics. But as an analogy, think of how you can increase the warmth in closed systems, like houses, by lighting a fire, even if the temperature outside is dropping.

[Hokulele]

But as an analogy, think of how you can increase the warmth in closed systems, like houses, by lighting a fire, even if the temperature outside is dropping.


That's arson, not entropy.


[Aside]

*Looks at the thread Tags.*

What the heck is with some people and that word? It is spelled "ridiculous". No "e", damn it!

[fishbob]

Warning signs of a fallacious rant:

. . . . Of course . . .
. . . . quantum . . . .
right? . . .
right? . . .
right? . . .

When you see these, don't even bother.

[bokonon]

My favorite clear-cut example of how order appears without intelligent direction is (big surprise) geological.


Take a bag of mud sand and gravel all stirred up and mixed in a disordered fashion.
Pour that bag into a tall container, like a graduated cylinder.
As you will quickly see, the gravel falls first, followed by the sand and finally the mud settles out.
When all of the sediment has settled, you will have several well-ordered layers of sediment. You have done nothing to put them in order. It was done by natural processes.
We see exactly this same process occurring in nature. Sediment sizes tell us a lot about how they were deposited.
None of this requires any sort of intervention.
This is a simple example that can be easily demonstrated. There are countless more complex examples that can be demonstrated with a little (or a lot) more effort.
Wow, I'd heard of "Intelligent Falling," but I thought it was supposed to be a joke. I think I'm having a paradigm shift...

[Nyarlathotep]

Golly, reading the OP I don't know which I find more surprising. A talk radio blowhard referring to any line of thought that doesn't exactly match with his own "Insanity" and "arrogance" or religious nutcases hanging on to the old discredited "But God HAS to exist because the 2nd law of thermodynamics says so" argument which they seem to love so much despite it being refuted roughly a kajillion times.

:rolleyes:

[six7s]

...the old discredited "But God HAS to exist because the 2nd law of thermodynamics says so" argument which they seem to love so much despite it being refuted roughly a kajillion timesIf only there was some easy way to find those refutations

ETA: Hey wow! Look what I found!

Results 1 - 10 of about 617,000 for creationism second law thermodynamics. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=creationism+second+law+thermodynamics&spell=1)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability
Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? Creationists say yes. This article describes in detail why the creationists are wrong. ...
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html) - 11k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

My o my! ain't that handy!

[Moochie]

<snip>

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!


Please, can you not see how your entire diatribe could be considered extremely arrogant?

I don't like labels and do not refer to myself as an atheist, although I hold no beliefs in any "super creature" that is somehow responsible for all that we experience. The reason for this is simple: no evidence. To simply state that "there must have been a creator" for something so magnificent as the universe and everything in it does not make it so. That is merely your belief and you are entitled to it, but if you wish to convince others of this you had better bring along some evidence next time.


M.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I once heard Neal Boortz...

There's nothing wrong with listening to him, but it's a mistake to take anything he says seriously.

[arthwollipot]

:popcorn1

[timhau]

*Looks at the thread Tags.*

What the heck is with some people and that word? It is spelled "ridiculous". No "e", damn it!

Hey, if one diculous isn't enough, you got to get rediculous.

[Kopji]

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?


I for one, am amazed at how they fit those great big trees into those little tiny seeds.

[Egg]

It is amazing isn't it?

Christians believe the Universe designed with them in mind, and that the designer maintains a strong personal interest in them and wants to provide them with a blissful eternity.

And they call this humility and self-negation.

Atheists believe they are an accidental and vanishingly inconsequential blip on the face of existence, soon to wink into oblivion.

And the Christians call this over-weaning arrogance and the glorification of self.

And none of them notice the absurdity in this position.

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.

The kind of anti-theist, confrontational atheists who are sure they're right can certainly come across as pretty arrogant. It's not uncommon to see arguments suggesting that they hold a more intellectual position than theists.

That said, bwinwright's posts are hardly the best example of humility :).

[I less than three logic]

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.
I don't know, it still kind of strikes me as a little arrogant for someone to think that the whole universe was created for him/her and his/her neighbors. Even if you include all 6.7 billion neighbors. :)

[Darat]

My favorite clear-cut example of how order appears without intelligent direction is (big surprise) geological.


Take a bag of mud sand and gravel all stirred up and mixed in a disordered fashion.
Pour that bag into a tall container, like a graduated cylinder.
As you will quickly see, the gravel falls first, followed by the sand and finally the mud settles out.
When all of the sediment has settled, you will have several well-ordered layers of sediment. You have done nothing to put them in order. It was done by natural processes.
We see exactly this same process occurring in nature. Sediment sizes tell us a lot about how they were deposited.
None of this requires any sort of intervention.
This is a simple example that can be easily demonstrated. There are countless more complex examples that can be demonstrated with a little (or a lot) more effort.

Now if you want to discover how things can become ordered in a closed system while the disorder (entropy) of the universe is increasing overall, that will require some study of physics. But as an analogy, think of how you can increase the warmth in closed systems, like houses, by lighting a fire, even if the temperature outside is dropping.


What a load of dragon-poo.

[Hokulele]

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.


A cat would find that merely presumptuous.

[paximperium]

A cat would find that merely presumptuous.

A Dog looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and takes me on walks; she must be God."
A Cat looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and brushes my fur; I must be God"

[six7s]

Hi Egg,

As this thread is likely to go nowhere fast, hopefully you won't mind me playing devils avocado with your post above

If you do, skip this post :)

The kind of anti-theist, confrontational atheists who are sure they're right Right about what? Right about thinking that theism is a load of superstitious, nonsensical, ridiculous old smeg held together by circular reasoning and wishful thinking?

It's not uncommon to see arguments suggesting that they hold a more intellectual position than theists.Find me a theologian that makes a conscious effort to view theism objectively and, I wager, I'll be able to show you an agnostic

[Darat]

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.

The kind of anti-theist, confrontational atheists who are sure they're right can certainly come across as pretty arrogant. It's not uncommon to see arguments suggesting that they hold a more intellectual position than theists.

That said, bwinwright's posts are hardly the best example of humility :).

As you say arrogance is generally a relative thing however I do find it hard to understand how a position that denies over 5 billion people "salvation" because they do not (in part) accept the religious authority of one entirely human being can be described as anything but arrogant?

[Diamond]

I'm personally baffled at the idea that atheism is such an all-encompassing philosophy that includes evolution, cosmological origins and the universal laws of nature, when it does none of those things.

Atheism is simply a statement that there is no god or gods and no organizing, invisible intelligence. Nothing more. The evidence is lacking, and therefore it is legitimate to suspend or withhold belief in such a concept until that evidence presents itself.

Atheism, in and of itself, says nothing about evolution or cosmology or the veracity of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection or why the cosmological constants appear to be so tuned that life on Earth is possible.

Its not surprising therefore that none of the board atheists is impressed by the OP at all.

[bellonax]

Well, I rather enjoyed this thread. I'm assuming it's over now, as you guys seem to have scared off the OP?

[Robin]

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.

The kind of anti-theist, confrontational atheists who are sure they're right can certainly come across as pretty arrogant. It's not uncommon to see arguments suggesting that they hold a more intellectual position than theists.

That said, bwinwright's posts are hardly the best example of humility :).
Let me stipulate that just about every Christian I know is egalitarian, inclusive and has an attitude of gentle self-deprecation, I never intended to suggest they are arrogant, beyond the Falwell style nut-jobs.

[lionking]

Well, I rather enjoyed this thread. I'm assuming it's over now, as you guys seem to have scared off the OP?

Yup, I think this is the last thing we will hear from bwinwright here.

[Darat]

I do wonder if what is often labelled "arrogance" is in fact confidence, so a confident religious person extolling their faith may be labelled arrogant by someone who doesn't share that particular faith, and the converse for confident non-faith holders.

[paximperium]

Yup, I think this is the last thing we will hear from bwinwright here.

...or he will show up, post once about how closed minded and mean all the atheist are and claim some sort of moral victory.

[Jeff Corey]

In post #13, he asked, "Teach me. please."
Maybe we did.


























































Naaaaah.

[gentlehorse]

A Dog looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and takes me on walks; she must be God."
A Cat looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and brushes my fur; I must be God"

A cat looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and brushes my fur. If she were smaller I would eat her."

[Tricky]

I do wonder if what is often labelled "arrogance" is in fact confidence, so a confident religious person extolling their faith may be labelled arrogant by someone who doesn't share that particular faith, and the converse for confident non-faith holders.
What is arrogance is to assume that there is a power that has the responsibility of controlling the universe, but that He listens to your every prayer.

"Yeah, well I was talking with God the other day and I told him, 'Hey Big G, those atheiests sure are arrogant, ain't they?' and God says like, 'Yeah, I'm gonna smite 'em big time.'"

[Safe-Keeper]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. Oh? Dawkins certainly does.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

And I kinda thought He didn't need further definition, as the Bible portrays Him quite clearly.

:)

[bokonon]

Yup, I think this is the last thing we will hear from bwinwright here.
Hmmmm, joined Jan 2008, 49 posts. I haven't had a look at the others to see if he's a wham-bam-go-on-the-lam troll, but I suspect he'll be back.

ETA: Just had a look at a line or two of his first 50 posts. He's a twoofer with an interest in Jesuits, Freemasons, and Illuminati, who gave kudos to Mayday. He took a long break in posting between January and September. Maybe he only has access to a computer when he visits his mom. He'll be back...

[technoextreme]

Hmmmm, joined Jan 2008, 49 posts. I haven't had a look at the others to see if he's a wham-bam-go-on-the-lam troll, but I suspect he'll be back.

ETA: Just had a look at a line or two of his first 50 posts. He's a twoofer with an interest in Jesuits, Freemasons, and Illuminati, who gave kudos to Mayday. He took a long break in posting between January and September. Maybe he only has access to a computer when he visits his mom. He'll be back...
He's back and basically saying the same exact drivel.:)

[Beerina]

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

The default position for those making a claim is to prove their claim. It is on the shoulders of those claiming a god exists to make that claim.

None has ever done so. Therefore it is improper to conclude a god exists.

Yes, it really is that simple.


Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.

When a god has omnipotence, to claim everything is part of it or not becomes academic, as it could switch the state of everything back and forth at will, and connect them to each other and itself in any way it wants, at will.

Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

Yes. But here you start to make an error. That something is connected in some way, and your theory that God and stuff are connected in some way, does not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that is the same connection.

The religious hate the Finite Spaghetti Monster because they see it as mocking their religion. But it's really a philosophical tool. Here's how it works:

I could just as easily claim the Finite Spaghetti Monster uses his magical noodley appendages to connect everything to everything else. And quantum mechanics show everything is connected.

"Right?"

You see where your argument goes?


If, in fact, everything is one

...because of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with any proposed god...

then in addition to this omnipresence

Quantum mechanics is not a godly omnipresence.

this stuff, let's call it God

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's call quantum mechanics "God".

must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right?

No. Quantum mechanics, sorry, "God", is well defined scientifically. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence.

Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

Quantum mechanics is neither omnipotent nor all-powerful nor all-knowing nor omniscient.

You're now piling additional properties onto quantum mechanics based on previous properties you've claimed for it, and none have anything to do with quantum mechanics just because quantum mechanics suggests many things are connected.

And that's only for entangled particles, anyway.


But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture

So far...

just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

I have a serious question for you. When, not if, humans can create their own organisms by custom-designing DNA, and even later, not using DNA at all, your argument will thus fall apart. At that point, you must reject religion.

I hypothesize you, or your descendents, will not, and instead move the goalposts and claim something like, "Well, humans can't create atoms, yet."

Which they have. They've even created artificial atoms called "quantum dots", where they trap an electron in a very tiny space, similar to the tiny space of an atomic orbit, and it is forced, by quantum mechanics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, to adopt energy level-like behavior. Modern cheap laser pointers use this.

So what's your fallback position after that?



Please respond and don't just be a driveby poster.

[bwinwright]

Isn't it meaningless to talk about an 'organising intelligence of which everything consists'? If it is everything, what is it organising?

Also, the universe only appears orderly to us, because we are products of the order. The apparent symmetries are the results of universal rules. The movements of astral bodies are determined by physics, not divine geometry.


:cool:Universal rules? Doesn't it require intelligence to make rules? Just how do you know physics isn't divine? You sound crazy to me.

[paximperium]

Universal rules? Doesn't it require intelligence to make rules?
As per our arbitrary and incomplete understanding of the universe, yes there are the laws of nature. That's all they are INCOMPLETE MAN-MADE LAWS that good old humans develop..you know by studying and exploring instead of "god did it" as a useless answer.


Just how do you know physics isn't divine?
Why don't you prove it? You're the one claiming it.


You sound crazy to me.
Substanceless post and he finishes it off with an ad hominem. Pathetic.

You will of course notice how he cherry picks only the posts he feels like answering. A coward as well.

[bwinwright]

Isn't it meaningless to talk about an 'organising intelligence of which everything consists'? If it is everything, what is it organising?

Also, the universe only appears orderly to us, because we are products of the order. The apparent symmetries are the results of universal rules. The movements of astral bodies are determined by physics, not divine geometry.

The default position for those making a claim is to prove their claim. It is on the shoulders of those claiming a god exists to make that claim.

None has ever done so. Therefore it is improper to conclude a god exists.

Yes, it really is that simple.




When a god has omnipotence, to claim everything is part of it or not becomes academic, as it could switch the state of everything back and forth at will, and connect them to each other and itself in any way it wants, at will.



Yes. But here you start to make an error. That something is connected in some way, and your theory that God and stuff are connected in some way, does not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that is the same connection.

The religious hate the Finite Spaghetti Monster because they see it as mocking their religion. But it's really a philosophical tool. Here's how it works:

I could just as easily claim the Finite Spaghetti Monster uses his magical noodley appendages to connect everything to everything else. And quantum mechanics show everything is connected.

"Right?"

You see where your argument goes?




...because of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with any proposed god...



Quantum mechanics is not a godly omnipresence.



Ok, for the sake of argument, let's call quantum mechanics "God".



No. Quantum mechanics, sorry, "God", is well defined scientifically. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence.



Quantum mechanics is neither omnipotent nor all-powerful nor all-knowing nor omniscient.

You're now piling additional properties onto quantum mechanics based on previous properties you've claimed for it, and none have anything to do with quantum mechanics just because quantum mechanics suggests many things are connected.

And that's only for entangled particles, anyway.




So far...



I have a serious question for you. When, not if, humans can create their own organisms by custom-designing DNA, and even later, not using DNA at all, your argument will thus fall apart. At that point, you must reject religion.

I hypothesize you, or your descendents, will not, and instead move the goalposts and claim something like, "Well, humans can't create atoms, yet."

Which they have. They've even created artificial atoms called "quantum dots", where they trap an electron in a very tiny space, similar to the tiny space of an atomic orbit, and it is forced, by quantum mechanics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, to adopt energy level-like behavior. Modern cheap laser pointers use this.

So what's your fallback position after that?



Please respond and don't just be a driveby poster.

:cool:I appreciate what you are saying but how can you be so sure quantum physics isn't intelligent? How can you make such positive statements about things you can't possibly know. I am simply speculating that since everything is connected, per Albert Einstein and the TOE folks, why can't it all be super-intelligent?

I mean why is everyone arguing about this? You say Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence? Well, does it have anything to do with omnipresence? Of course it does. How can you separate any of it when its all one?

Just think about it...Just suppose ALL "IS" ONE, then what? Not only will you be denying the existence of an omnipresent and omnipotent oneness, but you will be denying your own existence, because you consist of this oneness, 100%, right?

[Mashuna]

:cool:I appreciate what you are saying but how can you be so sure quantum physics isn't intelligent? How can you make such positive statements about things you can't possibly know. I am simply speculating that since everything is connected, per Albert Einstein and the TOE folks, why can't it all be super-intelligent?

You're not simply speculating though, are you? You're saying you're right, and that people who disagree with you are mentally ill.

:
I mean why is everyone arguing about this? You say Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence? Well, does it have anything to do with omnipresence? Of course it does. How can you separate any of it when its all one?

Well, we're mainly arguing over it because it's gibberish.

How can we separate omnipresence from omnipotence? Very easily, as they're entirely different. How can you conflate them?


Just think about it...Just suppose ALL "IS" ONE, then what? Not only will you be denying the existence of an omnipresent and omnipotent oneness, but you will be denying your own existence, because you consist of this oneness, 100%, right?

No.

[bwinwright]

As per our arbitrary and incomplete understanding of the universe, yes there are the laws of nature. That's all they are INCOMPLETE MAN-MADE LAWS that good old humans develop..you know by studying and exploring instead of "god did it" as a useless answer.


Why don't you prove it? You're the one claiming it.


Substanceless post and he finishes it off with an ad hominem. Pathetic.

You will of course notice how he cherry picks only the posts he feels like answering. A coward as well.

:cool:Paxim, you're a mighty judgmental sort, aren't you? As far as your man-made laws go, can you tell me which man created the LAW of ATTRACTION? Or, Paxim, did we just observe NATURE and say, "Wow, look at that! That Mother Nature sure is one organized and capable intelligence and power, isn't she?

Paxim, I don't know why you're so angry. Perhaps you had a bad experience in a confessional booth? Is that what made you an atheist?

I just prefer to think rationally about this thing we call NATURE. If it is all ONE, it must be intelligent, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be one, right? Then, I'd have to believe in Separation, wouldn't I?

Ever thought that this ONENESS is indifferent to you and me? That, it simply allows us to create whatever experience we choose and doesn't really care one way or another? Perhaps, this oneness is all about Freedom of Choice?

Regardless, I love you.

[bwinwright]

He's back and basically saying the same exact drivel.:)

:)Techno, you also seem to be an angry person, liberal with the put-downs and insults. Personally, treating others that way always makes me feel bad. Some believe such ill feeling are the primary cause of ill health. Please be careful. Try to be a little more loving, OK?


Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?

[CurtC]

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years

This was my favorite part.

[Safe-Keeper]

:cool:Paxim, you're a mighty judgmental sort, aren't you? As far as your man-made laws go, can you tell me which man created the LAW of ATTRACTION?The laws that enables God to think, create, judge, be omnipresent, etc... where did they come from?

Laws are just natural functions. Where did the law of gravity come from? From bodies rotating, creating a gravitational pull, that's where.

[CurtC]

Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?

That's not intelligent design, it's just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. If you want to get a handle on that in a book that's not too hard to read, I suggest Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

[Mashuna]

:)Techno, you also seem to be an angry person, liberal with the put-downs and insults. Personally, treating others that way always makes me feel bad. Some believe such ill feeling are the primary cause of ill health. Please be careful. Try to be a little more loving, OK?

Why would you start your threads with insults, then post something like this?


Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?

I'm sorry you don't understand how evolution works. Perhaps if you learnt about it, you wouldn't keep repeating your arguments from personal incredulity.

[Zarathustra]

"And God gave man dominion over the plants and animals."

-Or something like that.

If that's true, then why is the most successful, prolific, hard to control or eradicate, and supremely permeated organisms on the planet not human beings, but rather Bacteria.

It would appear that God indeed loves the bacterium and protists far more that we, as he pretty much gave them vaster numbers, abilities, and much to our benefit and detriment, the number one top spot of dominion not only over us, but every other organism on the planet that has ever existed.

[bwinwright]

I'm personally baffled at the idea that atheism is such an all-encompassing philosophy that includes evolution, cosmological origins and the universal laws of nature, when it does none of those things.

Atheism is simply a statement that there is no god or gods and no organizing, invisible intelligence. Nothing more. The evidence is lacking, and therefore it is legitimate to suspend or withhold belief in such a concept until that evidence presents itself.

Atheism, in and of itself, says nothing about evolution or cosmology or the veracity of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection or why the cosmological constants appear to be so tuned that life on Earth is possible.

Its not surprising therefore that none of the board atheists is impressed by the OP at all.

:blush:Diamond, you say there is no organizing, invisible intelligence? This is where you might want to think about the ACORN. Again, that little acorn already knows what the oak tree inside it looks like..AND...that little acorn is all that's necessary to begin a thousand forests of oak trees. How you can ignore or reject the incredible intelligent design here simply baffles me. You simply haven't thought too deeply about this, have you?

In my experience, I have found that the vast majority of atheists simply hate organized religion, and don't really reject the idea that Mother Nature is really an extremely intelligent thing.

However, I have also observed that it has become fashionable or the "in" thing now to claim to be an atheist. Frankly, I simply prefer to give credit where credit is due, see organized religion for what it is and see Mother Nature for what she is.

Even when you're ugly, I still love you. Why? Because I'm one of those people who believes everything is connected, unified, or ONE. That means you consist of this ineffable oneness, 100%, and are, indeed, adorable and lovable, even if you don't realize it yet.

[Ladewig]

To clarify your god belief - you DO NOT believe in the OT Yahweh, correct? You agree the OT/NT god is a complete idiot and that the bible would be an insult to a god - if He existed?
Additionally, you DO NOT believe that Jesus is the 'son of god'. Or that he performed miracles.

Can we agree on this?

quoted for relevance.

[paximperium]

:blush:Diamond, you say there is no organizing, invisible intelligence? This is where you might want to think about the ACORN. Again, that little acorn already knows what the oak tree inside it looks like..AND...that little acorn is all that's necessary to begin a thousand forests of oak trees.
Oh my GAWD...did this guy actually use an acorn argument? That was almost as bad as the banana argument. Nevermind this ignorance about DNA, natural selection and something called science...sad.

How you can ignore or reject the incredible intelligent design here simply baffles me. You simply haven't thought too deeply about this, have you?
Oh, the irony and delusion...it burns it burns...


In my experience, I have found that the vast majority of atheists simply hate organized religion, and don't really reject the idea that Mother Nature is really an extremely intelligent thing.
Your "experience" is not credible and your "Mother nature" excuse is just moving the goalpost...again.


However, I have also observed that it has become fashionable or the "in" thing now to claim to be an atheist. Frankly, I simply prefer to give credit where credit is due, see organized religion for what it is and see Mother Nature for what she is.
Ooooh a Poisoning the Well attack followed by a non-sequitur. Why are all ID proponents so pathetic?
I see "mother nature" as nature, nothing more, nothing less.


Even when you're ugly, I still love you. Why? Because I'm one of those people who believes everything is connected, unified, or ONE. That means you consist of this ineffable oneness, 100%, and are, indeed, adorable and lovable, even if you don't realize it yet.
Group hugs...now care to explain how your Argument to Love makes anything you've stated true?

[bwinwright]

My favorite clear-cut example of how order appears without intelligent direction is (big surprise) geological.


Take a bag of mud sand and gravel all stirred up and mixed in a disordered fashion.
Pour that bag into a tall container, like a graduated cylinder.
As you will quickly see, the gravel falls first, followed by the sand and finally the mud settles out.
When all of the sediment has settled, you will have several well-ordered layers of sediment. You have done nothing to put them in order. It was done by natural processes.
We see exactly this same process occurring in nature. Sediment sizes tell us a lot about how they were deposited.
None of this requires any sort of intervention.
This is a simple example that can be easily demonstrated. There are countless more complex examples that can be demonstrated with a little (or a lot) more effort.

Now if you want to discover how things can become ordered in a closed system while the disorder (entropy) of the universe is increasing overall, that will require some study of physics. But as an analogy, think of how you can increase the warmth in closed systems, like houses, by lighting a fire, even if the temperature outside is dropping.

:cool:Tricky, I said WITHOUT intelligent direction. Your example requires intelligence to first acquire the mud, rock, and sand, right? Then, it requires intelligence to put this material into a graduated cylinder, right? So, clearly, in order to produce the orderliness you describe, intelligence was definitely required. Do you have another example? Also, how do you know there wasn't some form of intelligence directing the settling process? You don't, do you? Yet you have chosen to rule out the possibility anyway?

I've had this argument so many times before and I have discovered that ORDER ALWAYS REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION...ALWAYS!!!!! You can not give me an example. Please try. And, for folks to believe that FAR more sophisticated and complex systems, beyond man's ability to produce, are the product of random luck or cosmic accidents? PLEASE!!!!!!!

Mother Nature is so intelligent, so incredibly cool, yet the vast majority of folks in this forum refuse to acknowledge it. Folks keep telling me that I don't know how evolution works as if they are so sure they know the specific nature of the intelligence directing evolution. PLEASE!!!!!

[Zarathustra]

:blush:Diamond, you say there is no organizing, invisible intelligence? This is where you might want to think about the ACORN. Again, that little acorn already knows what the oak tree inside it looks like..AND...that little acorn is all that's necessary to begin a thousand forests of oak trees. How you can ignore or reject the incredible intelligent design here simply baffles me. You simply haven't thought too deeply about this, have you?


We can attribute this organisms' knowledge, and thus "design", to two prime attributes:

Deoxy Ribonucleic Acid, and hundreds of millions of years of Evolution.



In my experience, I have found that the vast majority of atheists simply hate organized religion, and don't really reject the idea that Mother Nature is really an extremely intelligent thing.


I would argue that these two concepts have nothing in common.
One is mostly political, and the other is focused on attempting to fit itself into the Earth sciences, which though an interesting concept, for lack of any sort of evidence at all, really belongs more in the realm of philosophy, and at that, perhaps only as a metaphor.



However, I have also observed that it has become fashionable or the "in" thing now to claim to be an atheist.


Perhaps only in as much as it is generally now considered unfashionable to burn men and women of science at the stake for heresy.



Even when you're ugly, I still love you. Why? Because I'm one of those people who believes everything is connected, unified, or ONE. That means you consist of this ineffable oneness, 100%, and are, indeed, adorable and lovable, even if you don't realize it yet.

If by connectedness you mean that all life on Earth is essentially the same continuous offshoot from the first bag of floating chemicals that was able to successfully make a copy of itself, then I agree with you.
However concepts of aesthetic appearance, and ideas of emotive constructs are really irrelevant outside of human social behavior, and again, have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[paximperium]

:cool:Tricky, I said WITHOUT intelligent direction. Your example requires intelligence to first acquire the mud, rock, and sand, right? Then, it requires intelligence to put this material into a graduated cylinder, right? So, clearly, in order to produce the orderliness you describe, intelligence was definitely required. Do you have another example? Also, how do you know there wasn't some form of intelligence directing the settling process? You don't, do you? Yet you have chosen to rule out the possibility anyway?

I've had this argument so many times before and I have discovered that ORDER ALWAYS REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION...ALWAYS!!!!! You can not give me an example. Please try. And, for folks to believe that FAR more sophisticated and complex systems, beyond man's ability to produce, are the product of random luck or cosmic accidents? PLEASE!!!!!!!

Mother Nature is so intelligent, so incredibly cool, yet the vast majority of folks in this forum refuse to acknowledge it. Folks keep telling me that I don't know how evolution works as if they are so sure they know the specific nature of the intelligence directing evolution. PLEASE!!!!!

Nuff said. Ignorant and close-minded.

[lumos]

:D:) I once heard Neal Boortz, the Atlanta based radio talk show geek say, "Atheism is absolutely false. Anyone trying to sell atheism is simply insane."


I would replace two words the heading of this thread to make it accurate:
Atheism is a scientific philosophy held by the most intelligent"

And then change your following comment to:
(Most) Religious beliefs are absolutely false. Anyone trying to sell religion is simply wrong, deceptive, or insane

People walking on water, magically turning into salt, spreading the red sea, conversing with a burning bush, loading 2 of every animal in existence on to a boat, sodomy and incest. That's insane.

[Darat]

Wow - so god is sat there making each and every snowflake.... he must have got fed up with it and that's why we've got global warming.

[bwinwright]

Oh my GAWD...did this guy actually use an acorn argument? That was almost as bad as the banana argument. Nevermind this ignorance about DNA, natural selection and something called science...sad.

Oh, the irony and delusion...it burns it burns...


Your "experience" is not credible and your "Mother nature" excuse is just moving the goalpost...again.


Ooooh a Poisoning the Well attack followed by a non-sequitur. Why are all ID proponents so pathetic?
I see "mother nature" as nature, nothing more, nothing less.


Group hugs...now care to explain how your Argument to Love makes anything you've stated true?

:)Paxim, my feeling of love for you only make me feel better. As far as DNA, natural selection, and science, these all make my point! I say Mother Nature or The Ineffable Oneness is the directing intelligence behind all of it. You, I guess, prefer to think something else. I still don't know what you think because it appears all you can do is criticize and insult people. Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.

By the way, I still love you and that's the truth. Oh, and why are you down on my ACORN example?

[Moochie]

A Dog looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and takes me on walks; she must be God."
A Cat looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and brushes my fur; I must be God"

I swear by all that is holy that my cat knows he's god. That is why I have given over my life in service to him.


M.

[kedo1981]

I’m interested in knowing “bwinwright” is this going to be used for some bible college homework assignment?

It seems to be trend here lately that “persons” of your belief category will post a massive “op” containing none of their own thoughts or ideas, just a cut and paste from some fundy web site or church pamphlet. All this seems to coincide with the start of the school year.
Anyway
I may be wrong but I’d guess you’re member of a protestant denomination, the history of which being they hated organized religion (the Catholic Church) so much they broke off and formed their own, with all the wars and blood shed that ensued, happily praising god all the while.
I’ll gladly tell you very simply why I’m an atheist.
The supernatural isn’t real.
No need to go any further.
Explain God, no need The supernatural isn’t real.
Explain how life began, throw out all the explanations that need a supernatural cause and go from there.

One question I’d like you to answer is how is being an atheist more “arrogant” than a person who believes they will live like gods for ever and ever?

[bwinwright]

I would replace two words the heading of this thread to make it accurate:
Atheism is a scientific philosophy held by the most intelligent"

And then change your following comment to:
(Most) Religious beliefs are absolutely false. Anyone trying to sell religion is simply wrong, deceptive, or insane

People walking on water, magically turning into salt, spreading the red sea, conversing with a burning bush, loading 2 of every animal in existence on to a boat, sodomy and incest. That's insane.

:p Lumos, I agree with the anti-organized religion stance. However, I simply don't understand why and "intelligent" person would think that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Have you ever heard of the Tavistock Institute or Operation Mockingbird?
There is an organized movement in the media today to spread the philosophy of atheism, when the real problem is with organized religions.

To deny the existence of an intelligence, other than that belonging to mankind or space aliens if they exist, is atheism too. Using this definition, atheism is clearly a false philosophy.

[paximperium]

Paxim, my feeling of love for you only make me feel better.
The dishonest patronizing condescension makes me feel ill. I don't believe you. Your posts are filled with anger and hate so please spare me your drivel.


As far as DNA, natural selection, and science, these all make my point! I say Mother Nature or The Ineffable Oneness is the directing intelligence behind all of it. You, I guess, prefer to think something else.
Yes I do. I prefer to believe in attempting to understand, explore and learn new things unlike people who prefer to delude themselves into blissful ignorance.


I still don't know what you think because it appears all you can do is criticize and insult people.
I find people who spread hatred towards atheists and the idea that ignorance, superstition and stupidity as good things are harmful to society. So why should I keep quiet?


Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.
Hahaha...why don't you explain why it does? You're the one making a claim that order requires "intelligence" including simple things like crystals, sedimentation and whole host of other well understood scientific concepts.


By the way, I still love you and that's the truth.
I tend to take the definition of love very seriously. You use a loose and useless definition that has little meaning.


Oh, and why are you down on my ACORN example?
Honestly? Because it is stupid.

An acorn becomes a tree because of DNA, natural selection and millions of years of evolution. Your example does nothing to support any "intelligence" but makes you look ignorant about the process.

[Polgara]

I surely don't understand how that comment makes any sense.

Read about Information Theory/Entropy.

[Twiler]

Bwinwright, explain: If any organised entity requires another organised entity to design it, and this is a universal rule, where did the first such entity come from?

Resorting to a 'beyond human knowledge' stance will not help you, as that would equally explain a universe without deities, running on physical laws.

To answer your earlier question:

Order does not require intelligent direction becuase it is the result of universal laws.

Also, are not all emotions relativistic? Surely you love us less than your family?

[Mashuna]

:p Lumos, I agree with the anti-organized religion stance. However, I simply don't understand why and "intelligent" person would think that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

It's quite simple, it's because order does not require intelligent design.

Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.

Have you tried listening to the answers?


To deny the existence of an intelligence, other than that belonging to mankind or space aliens if they exist, is atheism too. Using this definition, atheism is clearly a false philosophy.

No it isn't.


Clearly.

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, and why are you down on my ACORN example? Perhaps you'd have realized if you actually read our posts, rather than just going "oh, they disagree" and move on.

And why an acorn? Why not a human being? Does a mother need to know what a human being looks like to create one? I can just picture a young pregnant woman sitting there thinking, "hmmm... stuck at the heart, how does it work again.. better call Karen, she's a doctor, she'll know...".

DNA. Plain and simple.

:xtongue Lumos, I agree with the anti-organized religion stance. However, I simply don't understand why and "intelligent" person would think that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.wright, your whole line of reasoning is one big argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). We live in the Age of Information. If you want to learn how natural processes bring about what you see around you, educate yourself. It's that simple.

[Polgara]

Wow - so god is sat there making each and every snowflake.... he must have got fed up with it and that's why we've got global warming.

Reading this 'mess' during lunch hour. It's an annoying topic to me, un momento. When a god comes and sits on my lap and tells me all there is to know - I will believe.

Your statement made me snort Pepsi soda. -I thought I would share that tidbit.

:D

[Egg]

I don't know, it still kind of strikes me as a little arrogant for someone to think that the whole universe was created for him/her and his/her neighbors. Even if you include all 6.7 billion neighbors. :)
I'm not sure if that idea is necessarily implied in the biblical Creation story whether taken allegorically or literally, but even if some read it that way, I don't think that's an arrogance that would effect inter-personal relations on Earth (although it might effect how people treat the Earth itself). Should we encounter aliens at some point to feel superior to, the very presence of those aliens would probably mean a rethink was needed on that position anyway.
A cat would find that merely presumptuous.
:) Quite possibly. I don't suppose it takes belief in a universe created for you to be under the impression that one is superior to a cat though.
Hi Egg,

As this thread is likely to go nowhere fast, hopefully you won't mind me playing devils avocado with your post above

If you do, skip this post :)

Right about what? Right about thinking that theism is a load of superstitious, nonsensical, ridiculous old smeg held together by circular reasoning and wishful thinking? There ya go. :D Yep, that's about the size of it.
...and talking of cats, here's a quote from an atheist on another forum, discussing theists (source (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=869439)):
They accept this because they do not posses the same level of intellect as an atheist.

Simply put they are not intelligent enough, they are a lower species if you will, just cannot think in the same way we can, don't understand the concept of logic and critical thinking.

Attempting to understand the workings of a religious persons brain is similar to attempting to understand the workings of a brain of say, a cat, what us atheists know to be true and are able to understand is simply something they have no concept of.


Find me a theologian that makes a conscious effort to view theism objectively and, I wager, I'll be able to show you an agnostic
Oh I don't suppose a theologian trying to be objective is likely to declare the kind of certainty of some outspoken theists, but if they've come to their beliefs largely through personal experiences, that could easily be enough to convince them without providing them strong enough evidence to convince others.
As you say arrogance is generally a relative thing however I do find it hard to understand how a position that denies over 5 billion people "salvation" because they do not (in part) accept the religious authority of one entirely human being can be described as anything but arrogant?
I do wonder if what is often labelled "arrogance" is in fact confidence, so a confident religious person extolling their faith may be labelled arrogant by someone who doesn't share that particular faith, and the converse for confident non-faith holders.
I'm sure that can be the case and I think you've kind of answered your own point there, Darat.

If there's a machine with a row of coloured buttons and a sign saying "press the green button for a chocolate bar", would it be fair to describe that machine as "denying" those (implying a negative connotation) who choose to press the red or blue buttons a chocolate bar? Would it be reasonable to describe someone who believed the sign, pressed the green button and was now waiting for their chocolate as arrogant?

I don't think that just thinking you're right is an arrogant position in itself, although as you suggest, confidence might well come across that way if your position excludes the position another person is taking.

[Loss Leader]

However, I simply don't understand why and "intelligent" person would think that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.



Whereas I, on the other hand, simply don't understand why any "intelligent" person would think that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.


Other than your personal incredulity, do you have any reason for believing any of what you say?

[Hokulele]

:blush:Diamond, you say there is no organizing, invisible intelligence? This is where you might want to think about the ACORN. Again, that little acorn already knows what the oak tree inside it looks like..AND...that little acorn is all that's necessary to begin a thousand forests of oak trees. How you can ignore or reject the incredible intelligent design here simply baffles me. You simply haven't thought too deeply about this, have you?


And when logic doesn't work, try anthropomorphism. Acorns love it when you do that.

:) Quite possibly. I don't suppose it takes belief in a universe created for you to be under the impression that one is superior to a cat though.


But that doesn't mean that your impression of superiority is correct. Hence the arrogance.

[Tubbythin]

Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design?
Nope.


Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?
Nope, try again.

[Shalamar]

Technically, we see an acorn, and we know that other acorns, when properly planted, and cared for, will grow into a tree. However, we can not conclude with 100% certainty that THIS acorn will become the same tree. The probability is great that it will follow what has been observed before, but there could even be a small mutation within it that causes it to be something else.

[Tormac]

Hi bwinwright.

I will agree that things within the universe are bound together. One does not have to evoke the poorly understood (at least for me) notion of quantum physics to demonstrate this; gravity also binds everything in the universe together. I don’t see how the fact that there are natural laws that describe how matter interacts over a vast scales is evidence that the universe as a whole is somehow intelligent, all knowing, or all powerful.

Besides making the statement that you “simply don’t understand why an intelligent person would think that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELEGENT DIRECTION”, you have hardly offered any argument for your position.

I do not think that “order” requires intelligent direction. You seem to be using the term “order” in the common sense of the word (i.e. to create something more complex from parts that are less complex). One of the most common processes in the universe is solar fusion, matter organizing itself into more complex shapes spontaneously. I have never heard of any evidence that any sentient intelligence is behind fusion. It just seems to be what matter does in the right situation. Given that the most common event in the universe is an example of inanimate matter spontaneously ordering itself into a more complex form, why do you think that an intelligent person would not think that order does not require intelligent direction?

[CurtC]

Have you ever heard of the Tavistock Institute or Operation Mockingbird?
No, I had not, so I looked them up.

The Tavistock Institute seems to be a management consulting firm. What about them? Are they destined for the "B Ark"?

And Operation Mockingbird seems to have been a CIA program to influence public opinion through media plants. Pretty standard CIA stuff. Why did you bring it up?

[bokonon]

If there's a machine with a row of coloured buttons and a sign saying "press the green button for a chocolate bar", would it be fair to describe that machine as "denying" those (implying a negative connotation) who choose to press the red or blue buttons a chocolate bar? Would it be reasonable to describe someone who believed the sign, pressed the green button and was now waiting for their chocolate as arrogant?
It's not quite that simple. There's a machine with a row of colored buttons, and one sign says "press the green button for a chocolate bar," while another sign says "press the red button for a chocolate bar," and a third sign says "press the blue button for a chocolate bar."

When children are old enough to read and push buttons, they're provided with a pair of glasses, which only permits them to see one of the signs. So they press the green button, or the red button, or the blue button, but nobody gets a chocolate bar. Some people speculate that "if you just press HARD enough, you'll get a chocolate bar," and point to an instruction manual that says something like "If you press with the force of a mustard seed, you'll get a chocolate mountain," or something similar, but no matter how hard people press, still nobody gets a chocolate bar.

Over time, stories circulate that people who lived thousands of years ago got chocolate bars all the time, but these days the machine (for whatever reason) doesn't dispense them any more. Even so, if you'll faithfully press the correct button, you're guaranteed to get all the chocolate you can eat when you die. It's difficult to confirm this, since nobody has returned from the far side of the grave with any details about how this chocolate is distributed, or what it tastes like, but lots of people believe it anyway. The prospect of no chocolate bar EVER is just too grim to contemplate.

Some people take their glasses off, and (noticing the numerous signs) speculate that there might not really be any chocolate bars after all. Some people try on their neighbor's glasses, and become convinced that they've just been pushing the wrong button, and doggedly begin to press the new button, and attempt to get other people to press it.

The green button people have begun telling a story about a "candy machine repair man," who will return one day and "fix" the machine so it will provide chocolate for everyone.

Some of us are skeptical...

[Elizabeth I]

I for one, am amazed at how they fit those great big trees into those little tiny seeds.

They're dehydrated. Why do you think it takes so much water to make them grow?

[CurtC]

I have never heard of any evidence that any sentient intelligence is behind fusion.

Well, bwinright explicitly left open the possibility that sentient intelligence is behind mud and rocks that self-sort.

Reminds me of a Jack Chick tract, where he talks about how the nucleus of an atom stays together even though the positively-charged protons should repel, and Chick attributes this to Jesus. Like Jesus personally holds together the nucleus of every atom in the universe, and physicists don't have any clue about this thing they call the Strong Force. I guess when a nucleus decays, it's due to Jesus getting distracted for a moment.

[timhau]

You sound crazy to me.

That's good. Then you know exactly how your posts sound to us.

[Tormac]

Well, bwinright explicitly left open the possibility that sentient intelligence is behind mud and rocks that self-sort.

Reminds me of a Jack Chick tract, where he talks about how the nucleus of an atom stays together even though the positively-charged protons should repel, and Chick attributes this to Jesus. Like Jesus personally holds together the nucleus of every atom in the universe, and physicists don't have any clue about this thing they call the Strong Force. I guess when a nucleus decays, it's due to Jesus getting distracted for a moment.

That is one of my favorite line of silliness of al of Chic's tracts.

But I want to see evidence from bwinwright that it is his panthiestic god doing this, and not mud elementals though.

[Zarathustra]

I believe THIS (http://www.oshkoshfreethinkers.org-a.googlepages.com/whydowehategod%3F)article may sum up rather nicely many of the answers to Mr. bwinwright's questions on why Atheists are, well, Atheistic.

[Egg]

It's not quite that simple. There's a machine with a row of colored buttons, and one sign says "press the green button for a chocolate bar," while another sign says "press the red button for a chocolate bar," and a third sign says "press the blue button for a chocolate bar."

When children are old enough to read and push buttons, they're provided with a pair of glasses, which only permits them to see one of the signs. So they press the green button, or the red button, or the blue button, but nobody gets a chocolate bar. Some people speculate that "if you just press HARD enough, you'll get a chocolate bar," and point to an instruction manual that says something like "If you press with the force of a mustard seed, you'll get a chocolate mountain," or something similar, but no matter how hard people press, still nobody gets a chocolate bar.

Over time, stories circulate that people who lived thousands of years ago got chocolate bars all the time, but these days the machine (for whatever reason) doesn't dispense them any more. Even so, if you'll faithfully press the correct button, you're guaranteed to get all the chocolate you can eat when you die. It's difficult to confirm this, since nobody has returned from the far side of the grave with any details about how this chocolate is distributed, or what it tastes like, but lots of people believe it anyway. The prospect of no chocolate bar EVER is just too grim to contemplate.

Some people take their glasses off, and (noticing the numerous signs) speculate that there might not really be any chocolate bars after all. Some people try on their neighbor's glasses, and become convinced that they've just been pushing the wrong button, and doggedly begin to press the new button, and attempt to get other people to press it.

The green button people have begun telling a story about a "candy machine repair man," who will return one day and "fix" the machine so it will provide chocolate for everyone.

Some of us are skeptical...

:egglaugh:
Fantastic expansion on my analogy, Bokonon. That's well worth a nomination by my book. There's not much there I'd disagree with.

In defence of my initial analogy, it was just from the point of view of a Christian and to make a particular point. I did consider expanding on it, but I don't suppose I'd have done half as good a job as you.

[Egg]

And when logic doesn't work, try anthropomorphism. Acorns love it when you do that.:eggwink:




But that doesn't mean that your impression of superiority is correct. Hence the arrogance.
Is it only arrogance if you're incorrect about your superiority?

I guess it could be argued that anyone who values humans over other animals could be displaying arrogance towards the animals. If you include insects then I would have thought it starts being the reincarnation religions who may be the only ones free from such arrogance.

[Nogbad]

quoted for relevance.

He doesn't seem to be pushing that particular flavour - some sort pantheism by the looks of it :)

To be perfectly honest I have no strong feelings about pantheism. The cosmological, evolutionary and physics models seem robust enough to me but if he/she wishes to consider the workings of sub atomic particles as imbued with the oneness of divinity then who am I to rock his boat.

Mostly harmless? :)

[six7s]

If it is all ONE, it must be intelligent, right?No. That you suggest it must be indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about

Otherwise it wouldn't be one, right?I think I can see some of the hurdles you have jumped over to reach your desired conclusion... a conclusion that supports your belief in a god

You seem incapable of recognising (or, perhaps, stubbornly intent on ignoring) the clear distinctions between elements of a system. Either way, you are arguing form ignorance.

If you really do want to increase your understanding of reality, then this blind-spot is a problem, for you; and only you can implement a solution

When the aim is simply to better comprehend reality, it is illogical to fashion 'god-shaped' pieces to fit the gaps in the puzzle

Then, I'd have to believe in Separation, wouldn't I?I dunno... what is 'separation' in this context?

Ever thought that this ONENESS is indifferent to you and me?Yep... although not quite in those terms

That, it simply allows us to create whatever experience we choose and doesn't really care one way or another? Perhaps, this oneness is all about Freedom of Choice?Stop anthropomorphising the ONENESS, otherwise it'll get seriously pissed off

Regardless, I love you.Just as well you're impotent

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

What is that ONANISM everyone is talking about?

[six7s]

Everyone? Only the barbarians...

[Nogbad]

What is that ONANISM everyone is talking about?

It is very much a hands on religion

[six7s]

Isn't it called palmistry?

[jenski]

:cool:Paxim, you're a mighty judgmental sort, aren't you? As far as your man-made laws go, can you tell me which man created the LAW of ATTRACTION? Or, Paxim, did we just observe NATURE and say, "Wow, look at that! That Mother Nature sure is one organized and capable intelligence and power, isn't she?

Paxim, I don't know why you're so angry. Perhaps you had a bad experience in a confessional booth? Is that what made you an atheist?

I just prefer to think rationally about this thing we call NATURE. If it is all ONE, it must be intelligent, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be one, right? Then, I'd have to believe in Separation, wouldn't I?

Ever thought that this ONENESS is indifferent to you and me? That, it simply allows us to create whatever experience we choose and doesn't really care one way or another? Perhaps, this oneness is all about Freedom of Choice?

Regardless, I love you.

When you went to proselyting school, did they instruct you to be deliberately rude or is that simply an accident?

As for being judgemental, I would refer you to your original post which makes some rather...judgmental comments all on its own.

[jenski]

Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?

Acorns are sentient?

[bwinwright]

Yawn...a pseudo philosopher at work...

Sure you have, so why is your entire essay one big strawman?


What a nice and completely useless definition but whatever makes you happy.


No.


No. Nice blatant Non-sequitur. You make a useless definition of "god" and them jump to giving this useless "all universe" some characteristic that can never be proven. Nice philosophical juggling.


Wow, what a nice bit of Creationism/ID apolegetic Straw man and Argument from Incredulity you have there. "bwinwight doesn't get it therefore it cannot be true"


False.


False again. Crystals, planets, stars and even ice are examples of organizing order that does not require intelligence. You need to read up on more current ID apolegetics, yours is rather lame and outdated.


Yup...oh you didn't some relevant comeback?


Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? [/quote]
Still irrelevant. You mean, how scientists keep changing how long a year actually is every few years? Yeah, precise. Pssst..why don't you look up what arbitrary system we use to keep time. Keep trying.


Unlikely but not absolutely impossible. More likely the cosmos will end before that happens...what was your point again?


You had some point?
ONE BIG FLAW, Mr. amateur philosopher wannabee in your entire argument.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is nothing more than a response to theism. Nothing you have attempted to amateurishly tried to state is even relevant to your claims.[/QUOTE]

:cool: Paxim, you fit the label perfectly, don't you? Arrogant, condescending, so far superior to others. Wow! I'm sure you have a lot of close friends. However, it all gets back to definitions and calling yourself an atheist is admitting that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. That's the entire point of this exercise. That's THE flaw, the error you keep making.
You arrogant atheists keep referring to billions of complex interactions over billions of years which MUST produce the orderliness we now see. Yet, you claim all of this happens without any intelligence? PLEASE!!!!!

If that's not what you believe then explain how all this can happen without a directing form of intelligence. YOU CAN'T, can you?

[jenski]

:p Lumos, I agree with the anti-organized religion stance. However, I simply don't understand why and "intelligent" person would think that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Have you ever heard of the Tavistock Institute or Operation Mockingbird?
There is an organized movement in the media today to spread the philosophy of atheism, when the real problem is with organized religions.

To deny the existence of an intelligence, other than that belonging to mankind or space aliens if they exist, is atheism too. Using this definition, atheism is clearly a false philosophy.

May I hazard a guess that yours is not a religion but a relationship?

[bwinwright]

Acorns are sentient?

:cool: Jenski, of course they are. When you boil one you can hear it scream, can't you?

Just kidding. The way I see it, which most of you are harshly reject, is that everything is unified, and this interconnected oneness is intelligent. This intelligence occupies all space, simultaneously. Therefore, since everything consists of this ineffable and intelligent oneness, this includes the acorn too.
Therefore, yes, the acorn is sentient. Of course, I don't speak acorn, so I don't know just how sentient an acorn really is.

It's like the old saying that God sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals, and thinks in man. Of course, I know Paxim will rip me a new one over this.

[paximperium]

:cool:Paxim, you're a mighty judgmental sort, aren't you? As far as your man-made laws go, can you tell me which man created the LAW of ATTRACTION? Or, Paxim, did we just observe NATURE and say, "Wow, look at that! That Mother Nature sure is one organized and capable intelligence and power, isn't she?
Wow...look at that? A "Law of Attraction" that's not a scientific law at all but some New Ager, Pseudo-Science made up pile of garbage.


Paxim, I don't know why you're so angry. Perhaps you had a bad experience in a confessional booth? Is that what made you an atheist?
Patronizing pile of garbage from one of the most disgusting and judgmental life forms on the planet.

BTW: I was never religious but thanks for your pop-psychology BS.


I just prefer to think rationally about this thing we call NATURE. If it is all ONE, it must be intelligent, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be one, right? Then, I'd have to believe in Separation, wouldn't I?
Thanks for a completely useless statement again. One with nature? What the hell does that even mean? Pseudo-science at its finest.


Ever thought that this ONENESS is indifferent to you and me? That, it simply allows us to create whatever experience we choose and doesn't really care one way or another? Perhaps, this oneness is all about Freedom of Choice?
Now, you're getting stupider and stupider. I suggest you stop with the drugs or BS books like the Secret.


Regardless, I love you.
Your "love" is as useless as your evangelizing. You show up spewing stupidity and hatred towards atheist and I'm suppose to believe you? You are a liar.

[jj]

:Just kidding. The way I see it, which most of you are harshly reject, is that everything is unified, and this interconnected oneness is intelligent.

It seems to me that you're anthropomorphizing natural feedback processes.

I'm not sure how atheisms plays into this, except by declaring that it's all natural, and there is no deity out there fiddling around invisibly behind the scenes.

[Tubbythin]

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? </quote was here>
Still irrelevant. You mean, how scientists keep changing how long a year actually is every few years? Yeah, precise. Pssst..why don't you look up what arbitrary system we use to keep time. Keep trying.


Huh? I'm very confused. Is this some badly done quoting or is he debunking his own arguments now?

[bwinwright]

That's not intelligent design, it's just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. If you want to get a handle on that in a book that's not too hard to read, I suggest Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

:cool: CurtC, you say the acorn is not an example of intelligent design but just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. Wow! How brilliant is that? Of course you aren't addressing the original point, are you?

The point is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION and you act as if biological evolution just happens by luck, by some form of random accident, as if some form of NON-INTELLIGENCE could possibly be responsible for such incredible behavior. SAY SOMETHING that reveals the fact that you are actually thinking about this.

The key to selling is the KISS formula. KISS is an acronym which means....KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!!!!! That's the biggest problem with atheists. Most are only pretenders without a real sales pitch. Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism. It's very sad. I was hoping at least one of you could SAY SOMETHING of value.


You guys all worship at the feet of people like Richard Dawkins whose really just pissed off at organized religion. He can't explain how order doesn't require intelligent direction either. None of you can. Why? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

[paximperium]

:cool: Paxim, you fit the label perfectly, don't you? Arrogant, condescending, so far superior to others.
Yes I am. Was that suppose to be an insult? Was that suppose to make you automatically right?


Wow! I'm sure you have a lot of close friends.
Yes I do. I also have a great career. Were you trying to make me cry or something? Thanks for your "love". We can see what your "love" means.


However, it all gets back to definitions and calling yourself an atheist is admitting that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
Hey, you got something right.


That's the entire point of this exercise. That's THE flaw, the error you keep making.
EVERYONE is still eagerly waiting for your wonderful explanation and evidence of this flaw.


You arrogant atheists keep referring to billions of complex interactions over billions of years which MUST produce the orderliness we now see. Yet, you claim all of this happens without any intelligence? PLEASE!!!!!
Yes. You may want to take a basic college class in physics which explains this easily. Your ignorance and stupidity on the issue does not make you right. It just makes you look stupid and ignorant and you lack even basic imagination.


If that's not what you believe then explain how all this can happen without a directing form of intelligence. YOU CAN'T, can you?
It's called physics. It's called biology. It's called ENERGY(W)=FD

It's understood. Would you care to tell us all how order needs intelligence? Everyone has asked you multiple times and you have been unable or unwilling to answer this simple question which is telling.

[paximperium]

The point is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION and you act as if biological evolution just happens by luck, by some form of random accident, as if some form of NON-INTELLIGENCE could possibly be responsible for such incredible behavior. SAY SOMETHING that reveals the fact that you are actually thinking about this.
Since Evolution is not random, your entire statement shows your ignorance.


The key to selling is the KISS formula. KISS is an acronym which means....KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!!!!!
Yes it is.
Science: There is a natural world
bwinwright: I don't understand science or even the natural world therefore some super all powerful oneness created the cosmos and loves me but I can't explain who or what this god is but believe meeeeeeee...


That's the biggest problem with atheists. Most are only pretenders without a real sales pitch.
HAHAHAHAHA...oh, the irony coming from this moron. No one here is evangelizing, you are...the oh, dishonesty and delusion...it burns...


Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism. It's very sad.
Why? No one here is selling atheism, you're the one selling some BS belief.


I was hoping at least one of you could SAY SOMETHING of value.
You first.


You guys all worship at the feet of people like Richard Dawkins whose really just pissed off at organized religion.
Ouch...so painful...oh wait, I've never read Dawkins. I'm more a Spinoza and Humes guy but thanks for your amateurish Poisoning the Well.


He can't explain how order doesn't require intelligent direction either. None of you can. Why? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
It's called Energy. EVERYONE IS STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY ORDER REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE.

Yawn...keep repeating your claim that you've never supported. Maybe if you repeat it constantly it will magically come true..snort.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

:cool: CurtC, you say the acorn is not an example of intelligent design but just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. Wow! How brilliant is that? Of course you aren't addressing the original point, are you?


Are you?


The point is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION and you act as if biological evolution just happens by luck, by some form of random accident, as if some form of NON-INTELLIGENCE could possibly be responsible for such incredible behavior. SAY SOMETHING that reveals the fact that you are actually thinking about this.

How about this (I'm sure it has been asked to you before): INTELLIGENT DIRECTION REQUIERES ORDER. ........................ (Dots to let you think about the concept).

The key to selling is the KISS formula. KISS is an acronym which means....KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!!!!! That's the biggest problem with atheists. Most are only pretenders without a real sales pitch. Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism. It's very sad. I was hoping at least one of you could SAY SOMETHING of value.
KISS : Eliminate GOD and you have the simplest formula of all.

You guys all worship at the feet of people like Richard Dawkins whose really just pissed off at organized religion. He can't explain how order doesn't require intelligent direction either. None of you can. Why? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!At least RD exists :dl:.

It has been 'splained :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[Tubbythin]

:cool: CurtC, you say the acorn is not an example of intelligent design but just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. Wow! How brilliant is that? Of course you aren't addressing the original point, are you?
Thats because the original point wasn't much of a point. Just an assertion without evidence.


The point is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION
You have shown precisely 0 evidence that this assertion is in anyway correct.


and you act as if biological evolution just happens by luck, by some form of random accident, as if some form of NON-INTELLIGENCE could possibly be responsible for such incredible behavior. SAY SOMETHING that reveals the fact that you are actually thinking about this.
Ever heard of "survival of the fittest"?


The key to selling is the KISS formula. KISS is an acronym which means....KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!!!!! That's the biggest problem with atheists. Most are only pretenders without a real sales pitch. Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism. It's very sad. I was hoping at least one of you could SAY SOMETHING of value.
Which is simpler... the universe is governed by a set of laws that are what they are and require no designer. Or, the universe is designed by a designer who in turn must be designed by a designer designer who in turn must be designed by a designer designer designer who in turn... ?


You guys all worship at the feet of people like Richard Dawkins whose really just pissed off at organized religion. He can't explain how order doesn't require intelligent direction either. None of you can. Why? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
The burden of proof is on you, not Dawkins. You haven't explained how order requires intelligent direction.

[Hokulele]

Is it only arrogance if you're incorrect about your superiority?


Hmm, good question. I would call it arrogance either way, but I can see how someone could find that it would only be arrogant if you refused to change your view, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. See my argument below.

I guess it could be argued that anyone who values humans over other animals could be displaying arrogance towards the animals. If you include insects then I would have thought it starts being the reincarnation religions who may be the only ones free from such arrogance.


There is a vast difference between someone valuing humans over animals, and stating that humans are superior to animals. The first statement indicates that there is a subjective value judgement being made, where the second implies an inherent worth. The arrogance creeps in when stating that not only is value inherent, but you know what everything is worth (you in the figurative sense, not necessarily you personally). How do you know humans are superior to animals?

Many religions (and many religious) assume that value is an inherent thing. I strongly disagree. This tends to lead to unjustified hierarchies that always lead to trouble from a moral perspective. It can also develop the mindset that other traits and properties are inherent. If you accept that any argument regarding superiority/inferiority can work both ways, and if you can accept that certain values fall on a continuum rather than being binary, it is easier to develop a consistent ethic when it comes to treating others (human and non).

Don't get me wrong, "love thy neighbor" and "love thine enemies" are both pieces of advice I wish more people would follow, I just don't think Christianity takes it far enough. Particularly when it is clear that certain Christians are willing to define exactly who qualifies as "neighbors" and "enemies", leaving some of the human race out (see Fred Phelps for an unfortunately extreme example).


Sorry for the start of a derail, but with the OP now being weird about some flavor of pantheism, we can take this to another thread if you'd rather.

[jenski]

:cool: Jenski, of course they are. When you boil one you can hear it scream, can't you?

Just kidding. The way I see it, which most of you are harshly reject, is that everything is unified, and this interconnected oneness is intelligent. This intelligence occupies all space, simultaneously. Therefore, since everything consists of this ineffable and intelligent oneness, this includes the acorn too.
Therefore, yes, the acorn is sentient. Of course, I don't speak acorn, so I don't know just how sentient an acorn really is.

It's like the old saying that God sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals, and thinks in man. Of course, I know Paxim will rip me a new one over this.


I try never to be harsh. However the bolded portion is exactly the problem. It is your opinion. While the old saying is certainly quaint, it is also an opinion.

[jenski]

The key to selling is the KISS formula. KISS is an acronym which means....KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!!!!! That's the biggest problem with atheists. Most are only pretenders without a real sales pitch. Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism. It's very sad. I was hoping at least one of you could SAY SOMETHING of value.


You guys all worship at the feet of people like Richard Dawkins whose really just pissed off at organized religion. He can't explain how order doesn't require intelligent direction either. None of you can. Why? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!


If you make anymore strawmen, you're going to need fire insurance.

I personally do not 'sell' my atheistic philosophy. That's the glorious difference between you and I. You're the one coming to us with a sales pitch not the other way around.

[bwinwright]

Yes I am. Was that suppose to be an insult? Was that suppose to make you automatically right?


Yes I do. I also have a great career. Were you trying to make me cry or something? Thanks for your "love". We can see what your "love" means.


Hey, you got something right.


EVERYONE is still eagerly waiting for your wonderful explanation and evidence of this flaw.


Yes. You may want to take a basic college class in physics which explains this easily. Your ignorance and stupidity on the issue does not make you right. It just makes you look stupid and ignorant and you lack even basic imagination.


It's called physics. It's called biology. It's called ENERGY(W)=FD

It's understood. Would you care to tell us all how order needs intelligence? Everyone has asked you multiple times and you have been unable or unwilling to answer this simple question which is telling.

:cool:Paxim, I was just looking up the word DELUSIONAL, which means you are irrational due to your belief in a false idea, which in this case is your belief that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Paxim, you say, "It's called Physics. It's called biology. It's called Energy." You say these things as if they actually address the issue. Of course you're delusional and incapable of thinking critically. Therefore, all I want you to do is give me ONE example of orderliness the at did not require intelligent direction.

You can not possibly be serious in believing that all the complexities and laws of physics, biology, and energy simply occurred as the result of non-intelligent rocks and gases banging into one another billions of times over billions of years? PLEASE!!!!!!

That's just as absurd as the Rolex watch reassembling itself without any intelligent direction. Wow! I believe you may want to call the shrink and get some heavy medication so you can simply stay at home on the couch. Otherwise, I fear for you safety, your ability to know when to cross the street, whether to eat what FIDO left on the lawn, etc. Wow!

[Pardalis]

Genes.

[rocketdodger]

Therefore, all I want you to do is give me ONE example of orderliness the at did not require intelligent direction.

Sand dunes?

River pebbles?

Hurricanes?

Snowflakes?

Stars?

Of course you are going to say "but god created those as well, so they require intelligent direction."

[Nogbad]

Sand dunes?

River pebbles?

Hurricanes?

Snowflakes?

Stars?

Of course you are going to say "but god created those as well, so they require intelligent direction."

Opening day at Macy's sales....

no wait....

[paximperium]

:cool:Paxim, I was just looking up the word DELUSIONAL, which means you are irrational due to your belief in a false idea, which in this case is your belief that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
You can't even get a bloody psychiatric definition correct:

Delusions
Delusions are false beliefs that are deeply entrenched and clearly not based in reality and are not consistent with cultural believes or the persons' level of intelligence and life experiences. Persons cling to these believes even after the believes are shown to be false.
http://psyweb.com/Glossary/delusion.jsp

My position is called Philosophical Naturalism. It is firmly entrenched in reality and is purely based within the observed world. I believe the Natural World exist. That is the only position I take. I don't tag on anything else to it. My mind is easily changed with evidence.

Your position involves lying and making statements without evidence while ignoring all the multiple posts and evidence that has been presented to show how inane your posts are.

We'll let others decide who is the deluded one.


Paxim, you say, "It's called Physics. It's called biology. It's called Energy." You say these things as if they actually address the issue.
Actually it does very well.


Of course you're delusional and incapable of thinking critically. Therefore, all I want you to do is give me ONE example of orderliness the at did not require intelligent direction.
Is "Delusion" your word of the day?

An example? The fusion reaction of sun, the strata of Earth due to gravitational collapse, sedimentation, crystals, branching of tree branches, mitosis, meiosis, DNA replication, neuronal and axonal formation, I could go on but you'll just ignore it.


You can not possibly be serious in believing that all the complexities and laws of physics, biology, and energy simply occurred as the result of non-intelligent rocks and gases banging into one another billions of times over billions of years? PLEASE!!!!!!
Since that is not what I believe, you're strawmans are becoming tedious.


That's just as absurd as the Rolex watch reassembling itself without any intelligent direction.
And how does a Rolex even relate or offer an analogy to anything in nature? Try harder.


Wow! I believe you may want to call the shrink and get some heavy medication so you can simply stay at home on the couch. Otherwise, I fear for you safety, your ability to know when to cross the street, whether to eat what FIDO left on the lawn, etc. Wow!
Is that all you have left? Slurs, insults, slanders and words of the day?

Under what DSM-IVR definition do I fit under any of the psychiatric axises for psychiatric diagnosis? Be very specific about the diagnosis and the underlying criteria being used.

Everyone is still waiting for you to explain how Order requires intelligent. If you provide a mathematical proof, it would be better, otherwise a basic philosophical and logical explanation will suffice.

[Jeff Corey]

I don't get it. It appears that KISS means "Keep it stupid, Simple" in this context. Rediculous.

[Pardalis]

Bwinwright, did god intend to make chimps and humans so similar, down to our DNA?

[six7s]

:cool: Paxim, you fit the label perfectly, don't you? Arrogant, condescending, so far superior to others. Wow! I'm sure you have a lot of close friends.I'm sure s/he does, too... humility and intelligence make a winning combination

You should try it :)

However, it all gets back to definitions and calling yourself an atheist is admitting that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. No... being an atheist is simply living a life without theism... nothing more, nothing less. Haven't you done any research into your pet hate?

That's the entire point of this exercise. That's THE flaw, the error you keep making.So... your tirade is pointless :)

You arrogant atheists keep referring to billions of complex interactions over billions of years which MUST produce the orderliness we now see.No. Not must. Does. Note the subtle yet significant difference

ETA:
Note: this is neither a defining nor an exclusive attribute of atheism... there is overlap with, for example, many non-IDiotic theists

Yet, you claim all of this happens without any intelligence? PLEASE!!!!!No... Observations (gazillions of 'em) show no evidence of intelligence being involved... so alternate hypotheses were formulated and, waddaya know, some of 'em lead to consistent, repeatable results, which prompted yet more thinking and hypothesising and testing and so it will continue... that's how science works :)

If that's not what you believe then explain how all this can happen without a directing form of intelligence. YOU CAN'T, can you?See above and then do some research. The results ain't hiding and I'm sure that, if you ask politely and sincerely, many people on this forum will be only too happy to give you links to clear, concise, coherent literature :) Perhaps that trait is the scientific communities equivalent to 'sharing the love'

:cool: CurtC, you say the acorn is not an example of intelligent design but just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. Wow! How brilliant is that?Very :)

Of course you aren't addressing the original point, are you?You mean there was one (at least one that hasn't been thoroughly debunked already)?

The point is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION Get real. You can type that a gazillion times on a gazillion forums but, until you furnish at least ONE piece of evidence that supports your claim, I ain't even window shopping, let alone buying

and you act as if biological evolution just happens by luck, by some form of random accident, as if some form of NON-INTELLIGENCE could possibly be responsible for such incredible behavior.Yes... well, close enough

Why don't you?


Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism.Please illustrate how by describing how you would put together a sales pitch for aUnicornism or aLeprechaunism or aStampCollectingism


You can not possibly be serious in believing that all the complexities and laws of physics, biology, and energy simply occurred as the result of non-intelligent rocks and gases banging into one another billions of times over billions of years? PLEASE!!!!!!Wrong. It ain't a belief. Its a thought, supported by all of the evidence to date. If/when 'better' evidence arises, the thought will be modified accordingly :)

Wow!Woo!

[rocketdodger]

Bwinwright, did god intend to make chimps and humans so similar, down to our DNA?

Bwinwright is similar to us?

[NavyPack]

Momentarily de-lurking;

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

[six7s]

Last edited by NavyPack; Today at 11:50 AM. Reason: I'm drunk.Yeah... but you'll be sober at least a few hours after your bottle is empty...

bwinwright, on the other hand, is hell bent on swallowing the contents of The Eternal Fountain of Woo at The Last Supper Bar & Grill

[Polgara]

Momentarily de-lurking;

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

That would be a whole new thread. However, I would love to hear the OP's version.

[six7s]

Bwinwright is similar to us?Indistinguishable from any of us

Apart from the blinkers

And the intelligence behind them

[Robin]

Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.
Well why didn't you respond to mine and tell me what is wrong with it? Here is is again:
Either there is a God or there is not.

If there is not then order does not require intelligent direction.

If there is, then God is an example of order that does not require intelligent direction. Nobody created God and he did not create himself.

Therefore the one thing that we can be most sure about is that order does not require intelligent direction.
Perhaps you can finally explain why it is that you think intelligence could possibly exist without order!

[Robin]

Momentarily de-lurking;

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.
Actually it is not that important. We refer to the process that led to the emergence of the first Rolex as intelligence. I am perfectly happy if someone wants to refer to the process that led to emergence of the first acorn as intelligence, as long as we understand that in the first case there was an intention to produce a Rolex (or something like it), in the second there was no intention to produce an acorn.

That is why I said in my first response that a minimum definition of God must include purposeful intelligence.

[arthwollipot]

Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.Here you go:

The Tesselated Pavement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellated_pavement) (My own photos of the one in Tasmania here ("http://www.arthwollipot.com/photography/portfolio/tasmania/tess[/URL).)

Geometric lines formed purely by natural forces. No intelligence required. No-one picking up rocks, putting them into graduated cylinders, just the action of water, salt, and stone.

[CapelDodger]

Momentarily de-lurking;

A well-chosen strategy (indicative of intelligence).

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

At the cost of opening up new ones, while still leaving the old chasm unbridgeable. Bwinright appeals to common-sense - not intelligence - to explain why something as wonderful as him could have come into existence without the intercession of something intelligent.

That said, I'm with Polgara : bwinright's conception of intelligence (from an outsider's point of view) would be of some passing amusement.

[Robin]

A well-chosen strategy (indicative of intelligence).



At the cost of opening up new ones, while still leaving the old chasm unbridgeable. Bwinright appeals to common-sense - not intelligence - to explain why something as wonderful as him could have come into existence without the intercession of something intelligent.

That said, I'm with Polgara : bwinright's conception of intelligence (from an outsider's point of view) would be of some passing amusement.
Of greater amusement would be his reason as to why intelligence does not require order.

[Silentknight]

Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?

A squirrel eats your acorn before it can do any of that.

What are you gonna do now, huh?

[schlitt]

The problem with the majority of theists I have come across is the lack of ability to grasp complex concepts, which are fundamental to a thinking Atheist’s lack of belief.

If you are unable to grasp a concept, you are not only unable to grasp it, but often you are unable to grasp that you cannot grasp it.

So the theists think they understand yet disagree with the Atheists, when in reality the version they “understand" and disagree with is just a straw man.

Often they make the mistake of thinking top down. Douglas Adams’s sentient puddle analogy is a great example of this, but unless you already understand the point that analogy is making, the true meaning will be lost.

[cannotthinkofaname]

The problem with the majority of theists I have come across is the lack of ability to grasp complex concepts, which are fundamental to a thinking Atheist’s lack of belief.

If you are unable to grasp a concept, you are not only unable to grasp it, but often you are unable to grasp that you cannot grasp it.

So the theists think they understand yet disagree with the Atheists, when in reality the version they “understand" and disagree with is just a straw man.

Often they make the mistake of thinking top down. Douglas Adams’s sentient puddle analogy is a great example of this, but unless you already understand the point that analogy is making, the true meaning will be lost.

Well Im glad to say I luckily dont fall into that catagory of believers but I wanted to ask would you or some one else here please explain to me what the sentient puddle thing is about?

[Personal Grudge]

If you are unable to grasp a concept, you are not only unable to grasp it, but often you are unable to grasp that you cannot grasp it.

Thank you for this statement. I completely agree, but have never been able to state it so eloquently. In every debate I've had with someone of religious/ID persuasion, that really nails down the problem. Sometimes they don't even understand that they don't understand the argument.

[Prometheus]

Well Im glad to say I luckily dont fall into that catagory of believers but I wanted to ask would you or some one else here please explain to me what the sentient puddle thing is about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Sentient_puddle

[cannotthinkofaname]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Sentient_puddle

Thanks for that mate

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.I can't help it if you have an irrational mind and want to believe in magic and sky pixies. But to say no one has made a reasonable case needs a qualifier, "to you". Many of us see god beliefs as irrational and there is a very good case to be made that god beliefs are just things people made up over time for a number of reasons. The fact you don't get that is your problem.

..Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. ....Bull, pure and simple.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I surely don't understand how that comment makes any sense.That does not make the comment wrong.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?Do you have this twisted or something? Are you trying to claim because living organisms are more complex than anything humans have created this is somehow an argument for gods? Huh? I recommend a course in basic evolution and cosmology. It might surprise you how much we know about natural processes.


...Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!You are just making the ignorant, "I can't figure it out, therefore God did it" statement. The rest of us have indeed figured it out to our satisfaction.

I think I'll go watch the rest of Nova Science Now. This thread is giving me a headache.

[Kopji]

The problem, and I did think that Dawkins addressed this fairly well in The God Delusion, is that if you take the position that intelligence is required to create all this instead of evolutionary processes - the source of the intelligence must be vastly more complex than the intelligence. So where does that leave us?

All these ideas amount to is a complicated and much more wordy version of the question:
Daddy, where does God come from?

[six7s]

The problem with the majority of theists I have come across is the lack of ability to grasp complex concepts, which are fundamental to a thinking Atheist’s lack of belief.

If you are unable to grasp a concept, you are not only unable to grasp it, but often you are unable to grasp that you cannot grasp itReading this, I am reminded of just how much I have (conveniently?) forgotten :boggled:

I suspect I ain't alone in having taken abso-bloody-lutely ages to wriggle free from the grip of theistic dogma and then even longer to get a grip on how refreshingly simple* atheism is. Now, all that's left is to learn how to think clearly and I'll be able to wear the Clan McAtheist dress tartan :D

Thanks for the post, schlitt:)

_________________
* simple as in uncomplicated... not stoopid ;)

[Egg]

The problem with the majority of theists I have come across is the lack of ability to grasp complex concepts, which are fundamental to a thinking Atheist’s lack of belief.

If you are unable to grasp a concept, you are not only unable to grasp it, but often you are unable to grasp that you cannot grasp it.


That can certainly be true as this thread would appear to demonstrate. But before the temptation arises to fulfil the second part of the premise in the thread's title, it should be noted that this phenomenon can occur in the other direction too, as demonstrated in some of the straw man versions of religious concepts which some atheists bash down.

[H'ethetheth]

That can certainly be true as this thread would appear to demonstrate. But before the temptation arises to fulfil the second part of the premise in the thread's title, it should be noted that this phenomenon can occur in the other direction too, as demonstrated in some of the straw man versions of religious concepts which some atheists bash down.Exactly. Also, stating this may be true, but it does nothing at all to further debate. All it does is dismiss an argument on grounds that you deem a priori too complex for you opponent, and on top of that, it assumes that there is not some part of the opposing argument that you yourself fail to grasp so miserably.
I guess now would be the time to stop bickering, asserting, and pointing to the library, and start explaining.
Of course, there is always the possibility that either party is not interested in debate, but in bickering. In that case, disregard this post.

If people are interested in debate, I would like to know from BWinwright why (s)he thinks all order requires intelligent direction. Several counterexamples have been presented. For example crystals: In what way are crystals not orderly, or conversely, in what way is their formation intelligently directed?

ETA:
Ah, I just saw the other thread BWinwright started. He does not seem to be much interested in debate.

[schlitt]

That can certainly be true as this thread would appear to demonstrate. But before the temptation arises to fulfil the second part of the premise in the thread's title, it should be noted that this phenomenon can occur in the other direction too, as demonstrated in some of the straw man versions of religious concepts which some atheists bash down.

Agreed. This applies in all manner of thinking, not just religious matters.

[Belz...]

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.

And how is that hypothesis not rejecting "science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason." ? What is an "organizing intelligence of which everything consists", if all known intelligence is instead composed of matter ?

Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

They don't apprear to claim that it's intelligent. That's a big leap.

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right?

Wrong. Omnipotence is inconsistent.

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering

STOP! <In the naaaame of love!>

This is circular reasoning. You can life "engineered" and then proudly announce that there is a designer.

than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Which is why nobody believes that. Evolution is not just blind luck.

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?

Wrong.

The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

That could be true IF atheism had anything to do with evolution. Which is doesn't. Perhaps you should strive to understand what you are talking about before you make yourself look like a fool in public.

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

Sex is a synonym of sophistication ? We have computer programs that can reproduce, though. Does that count ?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made?

Nope. The Earth is not always going at the same speed. Again, learn the subject matter.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

Longer than a string of amino acids, probably.

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

There is none more arrogant than he who believes that the entire universe was made for him by a perfect being he imagines made him in its image.

[schlitt]

Exactly. Also, stating this may be true, but it does nothing at all to further debate.



Some times you have to cut your losses. Trying to use reasoning that is beyond the capability of possible comprehension of the other party, is pointless.


All it does is dismiss an argument on grounds that you deem a priori too complex for you opponent,


Instant dismissal with that assumption would be unreasonable. However, sometimes after prolonged argument, it can be a fair conclusion.



and on top of that, it assumes that there is not some part of the opposing argument that you yourself fail to grasp so miserably.


I am not sure where you pull that assumption from?

A conclusion of what is correct is always only subject to ones perception and possibility for calculation.

As you note, the issue can occur both ways, probably often does.
However there are things we can point to which give indication of which side may be more inclined towards non comprehension causing the non acceptance of a position. Indicators such as provable ignorance and inability to represent an accurate position of the opposition.


Things like evolution and perceived order are tricky concepts due to the share number of variables involved and things that are innately beyond our usual manner of thinking. (Time scale in millions/billions of years for example.)

I am convinced that the majority of opposition to these concepts comes from ignorance. But also a large factor will be the inability to truly understand, or contemplate the necessary logical steps needed to marry the known data consistently with possibility/probability for occurrence, and extrapolate a sequence of events to an accurate conclusion. A breakdown at any step leads the whole process awry, and all too quickly an argument from personal incredulity pops up.

[KarlG]

Everyone? Only the barbarians...

Conanism?

[H'ethetheth]

Some times you have to cut your losses. Trying to use reasoning that is beyond the capability of possible comprehension of the other party, is pointless. Let me first say that I think your conclusion is very much correct in this case. After that I'm going to say this though: Rubbing their noses in it is even more pointless. In fact, it is counterproductive, since it reinforces the impression that you feel superior, smacks of cop-out, and discourages every will to learn about your position.

Instant dismissal with that assumption would be unreasonable. However, sometimes after prolonged argument, it can be a fair conclusion. Yes.

I am not sure where you pull that assumption from?

Simple, you conclude that you understand both your own position as well as the position of your opponent. In cases where this happens, your opponent also thinks he understands both positions. In fact, it might very well be that you yourself are in fact the one with the incomplete understanding, or even both are.

A conclusion of what is correct is always only subject to ones perception and possibility for calculation.

As you note, the issue can occur both ways, probably often does.
However there are things we can point to which give indication of which side may be more inclined towards non comprehension causing the non acceptance of a position. Indicators such as provable ignorance and inability to represent an accurate position of the opposition.


Things like evolution and perceived order are tricky concepts due to the share number of variables involved and things that are innately beyond our usual manner of thinking. (Time scale in millions/billions of years for example.)

I am convinced that the majority of opposition to these concepts comes from ignorance. But also a large factor will be the inability to truly understand, or contemplate the necessary logical steps needed to marry the known data consistently with possibility/probability for occurrence, and extrapolate a sequence of events to an accurate conclusion. A breakdown at any step leads the whole process awry, and all too quickly an argument from personal incredulity pops up. Yes, I agree with most of this, but it still brings nothing to actually say it. Most people can probably follow the reasoning required to understand these things sufficiently, but it requires translation into terms they are familiar with, and small steps. For instance, the first reply in this thread, though very to the point, explains nothing to BWinwright. In stead of concluding that your opponent is fundamentally unable to grasp a point, you might as well conclude that your own teaching skills are fundamentally insufficient to make him grasp the point.

But, as said before, this only goes for people willing to grasp the point.

[bwinwright]

Okay, let's pretend for the sake of argument that the universe was designed. So what? Your God still doesn't exist.


Next.

:eek:Silentknight, When you say, "Your God still doesn't exist.", that's like saying
"ninney-ninney-boo-boo". Forget the word God for a moment and simply consider the word INTELLIGENCE, in whatever form.

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!

Now, because people like Dr. Albert Einstein devoted the last 30 years of his life attempting to prove that everything is connected, his UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, along with the Hindu concept of Brahman, the oneness of it all, and the Buddhist concept of Dharmakaya, the oneness of it all, this concept of oneness is not new.

I happen to "believe" that everything "is" connected and that this oneness is intelligent. I feel it is "from" this intelligent oneness that law and order come.

You see, my basic argument is and has always been just this: ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

People like you seem to get lost and confused by the many definitions of God that are out there. In my view, this omnipresent oneness, of which everything is made, is also INTELLIGENT. Because this intelligent oneness also includes YOU and me, whatever you want to call it, IT IS US!!!!

Therefore, since YOU exist, my God does exist. So there!

[Don At Work]

And when logic doesn't work, try anthropomorphism. Acorns love it when you do that.


Ok, you are not allowed to post like everyone else anymore. You must use the Spoiler tag from now on. You made me choke on my coffee!

<3

[H'ethetheth]

You see, my basic argument is and has always been just this: ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.Yes, you have repeated this a few times now. I would like to know what the reasoning behind this argument is.

[Beerina]

:cool:I appreciate what you are saying but how can you be so sure quantum physics isn't intelligent? How can you make such positive statements about things you can't possibly know.

1. Quantum mechanics does not have intelligence as part of its theory.
2. There is no need to include intelligence as part of QM.
3. Human intelligence may or may not be explainable by physics, including QM, as currently understood. But even in that case, there is no need for QM itself to be intelligent.

Do you see any reason, any evidence, that we need "intelligence" embedded as part of the physics of the universe itself? As opposed to intelligent items in the universe, like humans.


I am simply speculating that since everything is connected, per Albert Einstein and the TOE folks, why can't it all be super-intelligent?

Well, it could be. But there's no reason to suspect so. Is there?

What have you observed around you that would lead you to think this might be, or even might be needed, for some theory?


I mean why is everyone arguing about this? You say Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence? Well, does it have anything to do with omnipresence? Of course it does. How can you separate any of it when its all one?

To be generous, the universe could be a created thing, with god, a scientist, or a little kid with a Deluxe Universe Simulation Kit, running it. Integration between "creator" and "created" need not be an overlap.

It could be, of course. But it need not be. If you think it must be, then that would be putting a limitation on an omnipotent god.

In other words, QM may connect everything, but that's beside the point, and unneeded, for an omnipotent god to do anything.

Just think about it...Just suppose ALL "IS" ONE, then what? Not only will you be denying the existence of an omnipresent and omnipotent oneness, but you will be denying your own existence, because you consist of this oneness, 100%, right?

In the sense that everything that exists, exists, then yes, they are "all one" in existing. I deny an omnipotent god exists because I see no evidence for it and no need for it as an explanation for anything.

By the way, omnipresence is an optional feature for omnipotence. Like being part of the universe, being the universe, or being separate from it, it is an academic difference for an omnipotent being.

[Firefish]

...

Even when you're ugly, I still love you. Why? Because I'm one of those people who believes everything is connected, unified, or ONE. That means you consist of this ineffable oneness, 100%, and are, indeed, adorable and lovable, even if you don't realize it yet.

I find one of the toes on my left foot ugly and I hate it, but i still love my self 100%.
It's okay to not love a part of something even tough you love the complete something.

[Mashuna]

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!


I understand that this is your argument, but I've highlighted the bit you're missing.

[cyborg]

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!

1 2 3

1 3 2

2 1 3

2 3 1

3 1 2

3 2 1

Which of these sequences is ordered and which is not and why?

[Polgara]

:eek:Silentknight, When you say, "Your God still doesn't exist.", that's like saying
"ninney-ninney-boo-boo". Forget the word God for a moment and simply consider the word INTELLIGENCE, in whatever form.

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!

Now, because people like Dr. Albert Einstein devoted the last 30 years of his life attempting to prove that everything is connected, his UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, along with the Hindu concept of Brahman, the oneness of it all, and the Buddhist concept of Dharmakaya, the oneness of it all, this concept of oneness is not new.

I happen to "believe" that everything "is" connected and that this oneness is intelligent. I feel it is "from" this intelligent oneness that law and order come.

You see, my basic argument is and has always been just this: ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

People like you seem to get lost and confused by the many definitions of God that are out there. In my view, this omnipresent oneness, of which everything is made, is also INTELLIGENT. Because this intelligent oneness also includes YOU and me, whatever you want to call it, IT IS US!!!!

Therefore, since YOU exist, my God does exist. So there!


a) Are you being serious, or are we playing the debate game here? Do you really believe all of this touting and spouting you are doing?

b) You call foul on another player for playing some imaginary 'nanny boo-boo' game, and then pass the following ending comment "So there!" That's ridiculous.

c) Re: Your need to qualify the definitions re: concepts that you are discussing: Why don't you specify the definitions you are discussing, and then let the others work with those definitions. This is your topic, you lay the groundwork.

[wolfgirl]

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!Yes, we get that that's what your argument is and has always been. We aren't missing that. We just don't get where you get that from. Where is your evidence of this? You seem to think that "it just makes sense to me" or some such is evidence and we should all just bow down to your obviously superior intellect and agree. Once you learn about evolution, truly learn the facts and not just the crap that you've apparently been spoon-fed, you will be able to see how order exists without the need for any intelligent design behind it. It will, at long last, "just make sense to you."You see, my basic argument is and has always been just this: ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.So - and this has been asked of you several times before, including by me - what intelligent direction created this "creator" that you believe must exist? Because certainly an intelligence capable of creating the universe must have an extremely high level of order. So if you can't comprehend a universe that can exist without someone having designed it, then how do you simultaneously comprehend a designer that can exist without someone having designed it. In your own words, order requires intelligent direction, therefor any creator requires intelligent direction, too.

Until you can answer that, you have to leave off arguing with us and start arguing with yourself!Therefore, since YOU exist, my God does exist. So there!I am stunned by the sheer intellectual magnificence of this statement!

[godless dave]

Thanks for that mate

I'd like to thank you for being at pains to differentiate yourself from the moronic believers. Too many of the more thoughtful believers have a tendency to leap to the defense of the morons.

[six7s]

Which morons would Jesus defend?



;)

[Silentknight]

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!
Not at all. Your argument certainly contained some order, or some semblance thereof, and yet it's obvious there was no intelligence behind it.

Therefore, since YOU exist, my God does exist. So there!
In that case, I hereby command you to build an ark. Be quick about it too, because there's another tropical storm brewing.

[bwinwright]

That can certainly be true as this thread would appear to demonstrate. But before the temptation arises to fulfil the second part of the premise in the thread's title, it should be noted that this phenomenon can occur in the other direction too, as demonstrated in some of the straw man versions of religious concepts which some atheists bash down.

Agreed. This applies in all manner of thinking, not just religious matters.

And how is that hypothesis not rejecting "science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason." ? What is an "organizing intelligence of which everything consists", if all known intelligence is instead composed of matter ?



They don't apprear to claim that it's intelligent. That's a big leap.



Wrong. Omnipotence is inconsistent.



STOP! <In the naaaame of love!>

This is circular reasoning. You can life "engineered" and then proudly announce that there is a designer.



Which is why nobody believes that. Evolution is not just blind luck.



Wrong.



That could be true IF atheism had anything to do with evolution. Which is doesn't. Perhaps you should strive to understand what you are talking about before you make yourself look like a fool in public.



Sex is a synonym of sophistication ? We have computer programs that can reproduce, though. Does that count ?



Nope. The Earth is not always going at the same speed. Again, learn the subject matter.



Longer than a string of amino acids, probably.



There is none more arrogant than he who believes that the entire universe was made for him by a perfect being he imagines made him in its image.

Thank you for this statement. I completely agree, but have never been able to state it so eloquently. In every debate I've had with someone of religious/ID persuasion, that really nails down the problem. Sometimes they don't even understand that they don't understand the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Sentient_puddle

Thanks for that mate

I can't help it if you have an irrational mind and want to believe in magic and sky pixies. But to say no one has made a reasonable case needs a qualifier, "to you". Many of us see god beliefs as irrational and there is a very good case to be made that god beliefs are just things people made up over time for a number of reasons. The fact you don't get that is your problem.

Bull, pure and simple.

That does not make the comment wrong.

Please cite ONE scientifically-reached 'conclusion' that posits the existence of any god

You might have been listening, but you didn't hear

Atheism is the absence of theism; nothing more, nothing less


Similarly, aUnicornists and aLeprechaunists are equally silent on the details of their respective non-beliefs

Why?

Wrong

Again... wrong

Maybe... so?

Please, stop arguing from incredulity! Instead, do some research and realise how your ignorance is blinding you from the 'magic' that is reality

mcAq9bmCeR0
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)






Unfortunately, in real life and on this forum, there is nothing to prevent the promotion of 'madness', as your posts illustrate

This is your problem. The solution lies with you

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.

[applecorped]

Does the thought that there is no god or intelligent design scare you?

[Hokulele]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.


:eusa_eh:

[Silentknight]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.

Since you can obviously read people's minds, I happen to know of a way you can make a cool million dollars yourself, hint, hint.

Hey, I'm just trying to help you out here.

[paximperium]

Forget the word God for a moment and simply consider the word INTELLIGENCE, in whatever form.
Alright...yeah...now what? It is still an unjustified and useless statement.


My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!
In which everyone is waiting for you to explain the justification for this statement that you have cowardly refused or have been unable to answer.


Now, because people like Dr. Albert Einstein devoted the last 30 years of his life attempting to prove that everything is connected, his UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, along with the Hindu concept of Brahman, the oneness of it all, and the Buddhist concept of Dharmakaya, the oneness of it all, this concept of oneness is not new.
Screw you, you dishonest pile of idiocy. This statement shows you don't even know what you're talking about and by bantering about Einstein, it just shows you're attempting to subvert his work for your retarded reasons. Pathetic.


I happen to "believe" that everything "is" connected and that this oneness is intelligent. I feel it is "from" this intelligent oneness that law and order come.
So? How does you feeling or believing anything make it true. Everyone is still waiting for an explanation.


You see, my basic argument is and has always been just this: ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
Still waiting....


Atheists, on the other hand, believe that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
Yup...so?


People like you seem to get lost and confused by the many definitions of God that are out there. In my view, this omnipresent oneness, of which everything is made, is also INTELLIGENT. Because this intelligent oneness also includes YOU and me, whatever you want to call it, IT IS US!!!!
A completely and utterly useless and even more ill defined version of god but whatever makes you happy. Knock yourself out.


Therefore, since YOU exist, my God does exist. So there!
I stand corrected. This is the stupidest statement I've read all time. Thanks for the laugh.

[wolfgirl]

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure.(sigh) I repeat...

Once you learn about evolution, truly learn the facts and not just the crap that you've apparently been spoon-fed, you will be able to see how order exists without the need for any intelligent design behind it. It will, at long last, "just make sense to you."

What intelligent direction created this "creator" that you believe must exist? Because certainly an intelligence capable of creating an entire universe must have an extremely high level of order. So if you can't comprehend a universe that can exist without someone having designed it, then how do you simultaneously comprehend a designer that can exist without someone having designed it. In your own words, order requires intelligent direction, therefor any creator requires intelligent direction, too.

Until you can answer that, you have to leave off arguing with us and start arguing with yourself!

[schlitt]

Let me first say that I think your conclusion is very much correct in this case. After that I'm going to say this though: Rubbing their noses in it is even more pointless. In fact, it is counterproductive, since it reinforces the impression that you feel superior, smacks of cop-out, and discourages every will to learn about your position.


In general I agree with you. Using reasoned argument and pointing to evidence is always the best course of action. However in some cases you just have to cut your losses and move on. There are prime examples of people on this discussion board who have been arguing the same nonsense for years and are immune to logic/evidence.



Simple, you conclude that you understand both your own position as well as the position of your opponent. In cases where this happens, your opponent also thinks he understands both positions. In fact, it might very well be that you yourself are in fact the one with the incomplete understanding, or even both are.


I agree. That is the problem with argument that I was pointing out in the first place. :)

However there is a difference between those who understand the possibility of their logic being flawed, and those who's perceptions exist only within the sphere of their possibly flawed logic and are therefore never able to recognize any possible flaws.




Yes, I agree with most of this, but it still brings nothing to actually say it. Most people can probably follow the reasoning required to understand these things sufficiently, but it requires translation into terms they are familiar with, and small steps. For instance, the first reply in this thread, though very to the point, explains nothing to BWinwright. In stead of concluding that your opponent is fundamentally unable to grasp a point, you might as well conclude that your own teaching skills are fundamentally insufficient to make him grasp the point.

But, as said before, this only goes for people willing to grasp the point.


Agreed.

You may differ from me here however; I suspect there is a significant portion (perhaps it is even the majority) of the human species who are physically incapable of grasping reality from the bottom up. By physically incapable I mean the system of matter which comprises their brain cannot physically be arranged in such a way as to manifest a conscious understanding of many complex, key concepts.

[paximperium]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.
Now not only ignorant but a mind reading liar as well. Your "love" knows no bounds.
Thanks for your dismissal of all biology and all the scientists who work in the field. We respect your amazing insight and complete and utter ignorance on this topic to make a sweeping and bigoted judgment against biologist and atheists. We feel your "love".


Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.
Wow...simply...wow....thanks for this post. It is great evidence on who and what you are.


I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.
I would never insult Forest Gump by equating a fictional character with the likes of you.


Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.
We now know that you are:
1)Paranoid
2)Delusional
3)Ignorant
4)Bigoted

I feel sorry for harping and attacking someone with a mental disorder. I seriously apologize to everyone. I feel like a bully. This fella needs help.

[bwinwright]

Yes, we get that that's what your argument is and has always been. We aren't missing that. We just don't get where you get that from. Where is your evidence of this fact. You seem to think that "it just makes sense to me" or some such is evidence and we should all just bow down to your obviously superior intellect and agree. Once you learn about evolution, truly learn the facts and not just the crap that you've apparently been spoon-fed, you will be able to see how order exists without the need for any intelligent design behind it. It will, at long last, "just make sense to you."So - and this has been asked of you several times before, including by me - what intelligent direction created this "creator" that you believe must exist? Because certainly an intelligence capable of creating the universe must have an extremely high level of order. So if you can't comprehend a universe that can exist without someone having designed it, then how do you simultaneously comprehend a designer that can exist without someone having designed it. In your own words, order requires intelligent direction, therefor any creator requires intelligent direction, too.

Until you can answer that, you have to leave off arguing with us and start arguing with yourself!I am stunned by the sheer intellectual magnificence of this statement!

:cool:Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.

Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters. Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings. Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

[paximperium]

In general I agree with you. Using reasoned argument and pointing to evidence is always the best course of action. However in some cases you just have to cut your losses and move on. There are prime examples of people on this discussion board who have been arguing the same nonsense for years and are immune to logic/evidence.
You are forgetting one other use for these threads.
I tend to use these boards for:
1)Friendly banter
2)Discussion: An exchange of ideas and to learn new things
3)Debate: Where I try to change to mind of the other debater and the lurkers in the crowd
4)Cathartic smackdown ie. trolling: I do this as a stress reliever. I do this to people like bwinwright, EJ Armstrong and DOC once I realize that they are completely and utterly unable to hold an honest conversation. It amuses me. It's a great stress reliever. I don't do this in a more neutral forum because even if the posters are complete loons, I am still attempting to convince the crowd to my side...try discussion of vaccines in health food forums...it is an interesting tip toe exercise.

I find these fellas great training wheels for more amateurish online debaters to practice on. For a beginner atheist, bwin's arguments are extremely easy to dismantle and I do recommend that they try their hand at it.


However there is a difference between those who understand the possibility of their logic being flawed, and those who's perceptions exist only within the sphere of their possibly flawed logic and are therefore never able to recognize any possible flaws.
I agree to an extent. Logic is mostly objective, pointing out this flaws tend to be evidence. Among the delusional, they do not realize those flaws and among the dishonest, they dismiss those flaws.


You may differ from me here however; I suspect there is a significant portion (perhaps it is even the majority) of the human species who are physically incapable of grasping reality from the bottom up. By physically incapable I mean the system of matter which comprises their brain cannot physically be arranged in such a way as to manifest a conscious understanding of many complex, key concepts.
Unfortunately, this is the case. The multiple cases of those with specific fanciful and extreme pathologic personality disorders such as Schizoid or Schizotypal personality disorders are examples. I believe that a lesser form of these disorders exist among the vast population.

[volatile]

Some of us are skeptical...


John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)."

[Macoy]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.

Not me, though. I'd much rather swallow your far more logical and satisfying conspiracy theories than Dawkins'. In my full title as 'Keeper Of Most Piously Lofty Epistles And Tracts: Tirades Of Staggering Stultification', I can state on behalf of my organisation that your threads have inspired us all.

[paximperium]

Logical Fallacies 101:
Can anyone spot more?
:cool:Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
No, you are not arguing, you making a statement without any justification or evidence to support this claim.

EVERYONE is still waiting for you to support this claim.


Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.
Argument from Authority.


This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.
Argument from Incredulity


Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence.
Blatant lie.


Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters.
Moving the goalpost


Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.
Ad hominem


Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.


He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings.
Unfounded statement. Likely pure Ad Hominem.


Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.
Another blatant lie. Produce some evidence to support this statement.


In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.
Evidence of ignorance about Memetics. Another Ad Hominem and lie.


I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.
An Appeal to Moderation


However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?
A Strawman, Argument from Incredulity and Ad Hominem.


It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!
A continued and dishonest statement that has been demolished multiple times in multiple posts in this thread which bwin has continued to ignore.

[slingblade]

Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.

[schlitt]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.



No arrogance in the above statement. :rolleyes:


Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling.


No arrogant presumptions in the above.


He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.



100% arrogance free, and overflowing with verifiable evidence.


He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.


Lucky for us you are here to enlighten us.



Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction.



That would be why he has a book titled:
"The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design"


His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.


Not only are you a beacon of humility, you can also read minds. Impressive.


I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.


You incessantly present straw man arguments that do not reflect reality. This indicates you are either ignorant of the real theories, or as you put it; too "Forest Gump like", to understand them.


Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.

He probably gets to share a bed with Satan. All us evil Atheists are so jealous!

[godless dave]

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.

I was an atheist many years before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins.

[Tubbythin]

:cool:Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.
You're not really arguing anything. You're just asserting.


Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
So back it up with evidence.


Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.
And we're telling you to tell us why it requires an intelligent design.


This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.
Why is it "simply impossible"? (Am I allowed to tell someone to "Put up or shut up"?)


Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters. Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.
Rubbish. Darwin delayed his Origin of Species because he didn't want to offend his religious family and friends. Why would he do that if he hated organized religion so much?


Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings. Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.
Reference?


In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?
I'm a physicist. I 'believe' what science tells me. It certainly doesnt tell me rocks and gases exploded from the big bang. Next strawman?


It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!
So much bluster, so many posts, not one shred of evidence.

[Silentknight]

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.
Your examples are irrelevant. For starters, Voltaire was a deist who actually devoted his efforts to debunking teleological arguments for God. Others like Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, never went so far as to conflate their prime mover with an object of worship. It's worth noting that Pascal actually accused Descartes of being insincere in his faith, in that he was just using "God" to cheat his way out of his logical dilemma.

Besides, it's possible for philosophers to be wrong, or for their ideas to be questioned and challenged as time goes by. Do you think Plato's "Republic" is a good model for society to follow? Do you agree with what Aquinas said about how it was imperative for the Church to torture heretics?

I hope you realize that design is actually an evolutionary process. It uses existing materials or builds off of existing designs, involves a lot of trial and error, and inevitably results in a lot of failed prototypes until we find something that works. That sounds a lot like evolution to me. Additionally, designing and using tools is an evolved behavior; an adaptation that gave human ancestors a survival advantage.

Intelligent design is like Lamarckian evolution in that the only way it makes sense is if it piggybacks on the concepts of Darwinian evolution.
You are forgetting one other use for these threads.
I tend to use these boards for:
1)Friendly banter
2)Discussion: An exchange of ideas and to learn new things
3)Debate: Where I try to change to mind of the other debater and the lurkers in the crowd
4)Cathartic smackdown ie. trolling: I do this as a stress reliever. I do this to people like bwinwright, EJ Armstrong and DOC once I realize that they are completely and utterly unable to hold an honest conversation. It amuses me. It's a great stress reliever. I don't do this in a more neutral forum because even if the posters are complete loons, I am still attempting to convince the crowd to my side...try discussion of vaccines in health food forums...it is an interesting tip toe exercise.

I find these fellas great training wheels for more amateurish online debaters to practice on. For a beginner atheist, bwin's arguments are extremely easy to dismantle and I do recommend that they try their hand at it.

Then where were you when this guy (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=25955) showed up? ;)

[wolfgirl]

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.Okay. So if there is an intelligence that's capable of directing all of this, must it not be extremely complex and orderly? So where did it come from? Did it just occur randomly? Or was it designed?

There are only two options:

If you say it was designed, then what designed it?

If you say it wasn't designed, then you are admitting that it is possible for something extremely complex and orderly to come about without an intelligence directing it.

Do you see where this is going...?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN.You're right, it can't. Because it's not capable of reproduction.

Evolution requires reproduction to take place. You keep throwing around the words "random" and "accident," obviously not understanding the process of natural selection at all. The initial mutation may indeed be an accident, but then whether that mutation is passed on or not is far from random. If the mutation is beneficial, it has a high chance of being passed on. If it's not, it's much less likely to be passed on. Through this process, over many generations, change occurs. And over many millions or billions of generations, great changes can occur. It's those billions of years that I think most people have a hard time grasping.

[Jeff Corey]

...I agree to an extent. Logic is mostly objective, pointing out this flaws tend to be evidence. Among the delusional, they do not realize those flaws and among the dishonest, they dismiss those flaws.


Unfortunately, this is the case. The multiple cases of those with specific fanciful and extreme pathologic personality disorders such as Schizoid or Schizotypal personality disorders are examples. I believe that a lesser form of these disorders exist among the vast population.

And then there is this.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[six7s]

:cool:Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, bwinwright, it seems that you really are delusional and, before you post a knee-jerk denial or simply ignore this post, please consider getting an opinion from a qualified professional counselor or analyst

Tell them how you know you're right and that many, many others are wrong

Tell them that Richard Dawkins is a fraud, intent only in furthering his own sinful agenda; to convert sheeple into atheists

[jenski]

:cool:Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.

Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters. Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings. Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

Ok.


Who created this creator?

I'm personally going with Jareth the Goblin King - solely due to the fact that he looks smashing in very tight tights but you may not be so inclined that way.

If you can tell me why Jareth is not a viable option, I'll listen. Not for too long ,but I'll listen.

[Pardalis]

I was an atheist many years before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins.

I was born an atheist. Bet you can't beat that! :p

[Hokulele]

I was born an atheist. Bet you can't beat that! :p


Nah, you were just designed that way. ;)

[Mashuna]

This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

It may be the case that Dawkins is working for OXFORD, who are controlled by the Fabian Society, who are run by the Rothschilds. But did you know that the Rothschilds were infiltrated many years ago by the Knights Templar, who report to the Vatican.

You see, atheism is all just part of a global Catholic plot. All the money from Dawkins' books goes to the roof repair fund for the local cathedral.

[Pardalis]

Nah, you were just designed that way. ;)

So that's what my birthmark is, it's a seal of approval!

[applecorped]

So that's what my birthmark is, it's a seal of approval!

:)

[Polgara]

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.


I have. You're not missing anything. I wrote one of my best papers on that topic. :)

Signed: An athiest.

[paximperium]

So that's what my birthmark is, it's a seal of approval!

I don't believe you. As a skeptic, we need evidence. A nice photo would suffice...:D

[Polgara]

And then there is this.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

*laughing* Having suffered a few years of my own delusional fancies, I'm happy to report that I did/do understand metacognitive, and that I wasn't so self inflated as to not force myself into a better sense of reality.

*still laughing*

I am not, however, laughing at the OP.

[Polgara]

You may differ from me here however; I suspect there is a significant portion (perhaps it is even the majority) of the human species who are physically incapable of grasping reality from the bottom up. By physically incapable I mean the system of matter which comprises their brain cannot physically be arranged in such a way as to manifest a conscious understanding of many complex, key concepts.


Disagree, except for a minority - stupidity is a choice. The minority includes truly handicapped people and brain damaged people. I don't include children in this statement. Childred actually have the capacity if taught and desirous.

I speak from whence I've traveled, and I speak upon years of experience being an avid observer and tester of people in all walks of life.

[MattC]

bwinwright, you reference the complexity of biological systems as strong evidence for the supposition that it was designed by an intelligent source.

To that I have only one question.

Is not complexity in design a hallmark of poor design?

~ MattC

[triadboy]

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

Did someone tell you that rocks and gases exploded from the big bang? I wouldn't believe that either. You should pick up a science book. It was more like a rapidly expanding hot soup. The rocks and gases came later. And then the trees. Science is much more fascinating then any religion could ever be.

[Elizabeth I]

Is the Fabian Society still around? I thought it passed on about the same time George Bernard Shaw did.

[Polgara]

Is the Fabian Society still around? I thought it passed on about the same time George Bernard Shaw did.

Labour Party
http://www.lycos.com/info/fabian-society--labour-party.html

[Robin]

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
FAR too complex - so you conclude it must have been created by something even more complex. Tell me, hand on heart, that you really can't see the flaw in your claim.

Oh, and can you finally tell my why you think intelligence does not require order?

No I guess you can't, it's just "coz you say so".

[Prometheus]

and then there is this.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

ROFL Best Line:
But I wore the juice...

[schlitt]

Disagree, except for a minority - stupidity is a choice. The minority includes truly handicapped people and brain damaged people. I don't include children in this statement. Childred actually have the capacity if taught and desirous.

I speak from whence I've traveled, and I speak upon years of experience being an avid observer and tester of people in all walks of life.

Fair enough, we shall agree to disagree then. :)

But it seems to me you imply a line which most people are on one side of, and mentally disabled people being on the other. I don't think the distinction is so easily defined. To me the capability or more accurately, possibility, for operation of a system of matter is the way it should be evaluated. I find it hard to believe that each human being, with incredibly varying brain structure are all capable of contemplating the same concepts with the same level of understanding. This would contradict my most fundamental understanding of reality, as a materialist.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.

You should give The Ancestor's Tale a try. It's almost poetic.

[leonAzul]

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all.

Have you actually read anything these people have written? Check my sig to see what Thoreau really wrote about atheism.

[Egg]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.
Hi Bwinwright. While personally I suspect we have plenty more still to find out about DNA and the evolutionary process and I would not rule out some kind of intelligence playing its part somewhere along the line, your assertion that order requires intelligence needs to be backed up with a stronger argument than what is essentially "it's obvious to me" if you want anyone here to take your argument seriously.

I think to say that most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant would be highly unfair. Certainly there are some outspoken, arrogant atheists who might give this impression, but at least from my experience, it's often an attitude reflecting their reaction to what is perceived as religious arrogance and they don't necessarily represent the majority in displaying such an attitude (in fact I suspect the majority of atheists just identify themselves as non-religious and having little interest in discussing religion, would not usually be found in a forum such as this). I would expect that if your usual approach to debating atheists is to insist that unless they see things your way they are clearly insane, then it's highly likely your experience of atheists would include a certain amount of hostility and arrogance.

And on to Dawkins...

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.
I think that's a creative and funny idea. I'm sure Dawkins is very much aware of his meme usage in his approach to sharing his ideas and I get the impression he enjoys his fame/notoriety, but unless you have any evidence of his Fabian Society connections, hidden motivations and that he doesn't actually believe what he preaches, I see no reason to entertain such suggestions as any more than amusing speculation.

[wmadoss]

:blush:Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling. He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction. His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.


Ramblings of a mad man....


Not at all. Your argument certainly contained some order, or some semblance thereof, and yet it's obvious there was no intelligence behind it.

Hehehehehe


Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

Brilliant any sources for this..?

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

Well youre right that he is very very intelligent atleast.

Just how can anyone be so gullible?

When you post oneliners like this dont forget the irony tag....

[UnrepentantSinner]

When you post oneliners like this dont forget the irony tag....

We have a smilie for that. :i:

[H'ethetheth]

You may differ from me here however; I suspect there is a significant portion (perhaps it is even the majority) of the human species who are physically incapable of grasping reality from the bottom up. By physically incapable I mean the system of matter which comprises their brain cannot physically be arranged in such a way as to manifest a conscious understanding of many complex, key concepts.
I guess I'm a bit more optimistic there then...








...or naive.

[H'ethetheth]

:cool:Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.

Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters. Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings. Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!
So this is your answer; let's see here. You believe order requires intelligent direction because...
1) lots of philosophers from between 2000 and 130 years ago thought so.
2) you don't believe rocks and gases can form stars and a complex universe.
3) you don't believe watches can assemble themselves.

So, the first reason is not a very good one. I think most of the philosophers you mention died before Darwin came up with his idea. There has been some progress in the understanding of the universe since then.
The second one isn't either. We can see this happening with telescopes. They are all snapshots, of course, but there are snapshots of all stages of the process from star birth to star death.
While it is true that the odds of a watch assembling itself without inteligent direction are remote, this is not so evident in the case of stars, galaxies, or the layered deposition of minerals. Life of course is a less obvious example perhaps, but I guess that's why it took until the 19th century to work out how it's possible.
Finally, the idea that the vast majority of biologists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, and chemists believe in Evolution because Richard Dawkins says so is, frankly, preposterous. So preposterous in fact, I'm not even sure how to address this. You clearly haven't the faintest conception of how well supported this theory is. If your roof were supported this well, it would be a very strong roof in itself, and it would be supported by 50 foot solid titanium columns rooted in the lower regions of the earth's crust and for additional support, it would be suspended with a million carbon fibre cables from the heavens themselves. You could put at least a million elephants on top without flinching.

[maxfrost]

Bwinwright doesn't so much deny science as he incorporates the concept of science into his belief of intelligent design because doing so is so much easier than taking the trouble to understand how the science works--and works well without an intelligent designer.

Other than that, it's the same old hubris, "I'm intelligent because I believe in intelligent design. You're insane because you're an atheist," over and over again.

And that's why he's now on "Ignore."

[Polgara]

Fair enough, we shall agree to disagree then. :)

But it seems to me you imply a line which most people are on one side of, and mentally disabled people being on the other. I don't think the distinction is so easily defined. To me the capability or more accurately, possibility, for operation of a system of matter is the way it should be evaluated. I find it hard to believe that each human being, with incredibly varying brain structure are all capable of contemplating the same concepts with the same level of understanding. This would contradict my most fundamental understanding of reality, as a materialist.

My statement was broad, but it encompasses what I believe based on knowledge both in a scientific standpoint and based upon experience. I don't think if we were to travel the intricacies, we would differ so much in our assessments and opinions. It was just a notion mentioned that always makes me think and comment.

I am curious, seriously, what exactly you mean by "incredibly varying brain structure" for each human being. I'm not including people with distinct and obvious problems e.g. brain damage, genetic defects...

I firmly believe that most people can contemplate the same concepts with the same level of understanding. Now, having said that, this statement stands upon the fact that they are -willing- to learn and do the work required to reach degrees of understanding, etc.

Case in point, the OP (assuming he believes what he is saying) has the capacity to write this thread and cites various examples using other sources and people to build his debate (of sorts). This shows me that he is quite capable of contemplating a more accurate reality. He simply chooses to not do it.

[Polgara]

ROFL Best Line:

*grins* Given my personal adventures in learning about reality v BS, I found this article most entertaining. Part of my personal adventures were me having read almost every single religion, chronologically; reading things like MEMES :); learning etymology; oh help me the list is too long to place here. Suffice to say, I did a lot of work and concluded that my Christian life was delusional. After having come to the conclusion that religions are (short version, here) just fancy stories to offset cognitive dissonance, and often used by people to control other people, etc., I became rather angry at myself for having been so stupid. I'm not angry anymore.

And then I traveled pseudoscience.

I read that article linked and LMAO. I am happy to report I was never running around hoping on 'the juice'.

:eye-poppi

[Elizabeth I]

Labour Party
http://www.lycos.com/info/fabian-society--labour-party.html

Wow. Interesting, thanks!

ETA:There's actually an MP, or consultant, or whatever he is, named Ed Balls? ROFL.

We have a funeral director here in town named Dick Tips.

[Polgara]

Wow. Interesting, thanks!

ETA:There's actually an MP, or consultant, or whatever he is, named Ed Balls? ROFL.

We have a funeral director here in town named Dick Tips.

L-M-A-O. U noticed the Balls, eh? I did, and could do nothing but chuckle.

Actually, I was a wee bit surprised at the depth of the Fabian hoopla still in play re: Labour Party. I just happened to remember a tiny bit about Fabian and Labour Party, and then surfed for a little while.

Dick Tips? I'd have legally changed my name long ago... That is funny.

I'm thinking of watching some Eddie Izzard snips now.

[Elizabeth I]

Wow. Interesting, thanks!

ETA:There's actually an MP, or consultant, or whatever he is, named Ed Balls? ROFL.

We have a funeral director here in town named Dick Tips.

L-M-A-O. U noticed the Balls, eh? I did, and could do nothing but chuckle.

Actually, I was a wee bit surprised at the depth of the Fabian hoopla still in play re: Labour Party. I just happened to remember a tiny bit about Fabian and Labour Party, and then surfed for a little while.

Dick Tips? I'd have legally changed my name long ago... That is funny.

I'm thinking of watching some Eddie Izzard snips now.

It's actually Richard Tips, but he does really and truly go by Dick. You have to wonder if his parents hated him.

[Polgara]

It's actually Richard Tips, but he does really and truly go by Dick. You have to wonder if his parents hated him.

Heh. I'm wondering if he hates himself by going by Dick Tips.

[I Ratant]

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.
.
"The Ancestor's Tale is worth reading.
It shows how that icky slime mold way back when evolved into icky slimy humans. :)

[I Ratant]

It may be the case that Dawkins is working for OXFORD, who are controlled by the Fabian Society, who are run by the Rothschilds. But did you know that the Rothschilds were infiltrated many years ago by the Knights Templar, who report to the Vatican.

You see, atheism is all just part of a global Catholic plot. All the money from Dawkins' books goes to the roof repair fund for the local cathedral.
.

True, that, but not in the L A Archdiocese. It's going into the pederasty pay-back fund.

[I Ratant]

bwinwright, you reference the complexity of biological systems as strong evidence for the supposition that it was designed by an intelligent source.

To that I have only one question.

Is not complexity in design a hallmark of poor design?

~ MattC
.
Cataracted, diabeticed, failing health me would second that!

[wolfgirl]

I was an atheist many years before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins.Me, too. Just read Dawkins for the first time a couple of years ago (The God Delusion when it first came out). Was an atheist for about 25 years before that.

[schlitt]

I am curious, seriously, what exactly you mean by "incredibly varying brain structure" for each human being. I'm not including people with distinct and obvious problems e.g. brain damage, genetic defects...




Brains are mainly similar, but incredibly different. By that I mean they all have the same basic structure, amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus etc, the same basic layout and functional areas. However delving deeper into each, the actual structural components on a lower level vary hugely. You would find the number of atoms which build each part of the brain the varies greatly, not as a percentage, but as a real number. The overall structure of an individuals brain is unique, and obviously the outward manifestation of behavior is the ongoing result of what is occurring within this unique structure.

As an example of the differences you could give the most complex mathematical exam on the planet to two healthy 25 year old males or females, both entirely capable of leading their lives competently from an external viewpoint (at least it would seem so). Give them the same study material, the exact same study regime (I mean the exact same, for the purposes of this hypothetical example), yet you would get two varying results. You might even get passing with flying colours and one failing dismally. Thinking about this on a purely physical level, this result is merely just a manifestation of the different physical interactions that occurred in the two individual's brain matter system.


I firmly believe that most people can contemplate the same concepts with the same level of understanding. Now, having said that, this statement stands upon the fact that they are -willing- to learn and do the work required to reach degrees of understanding, etc.


Fair enough, this is where we part ways, I believe this depends wholly on the possibility of physical interactions confined to a physical structure. Some results are inherently impossible due to the composition of the physical structure and how it operates under physical law.


Case in point, the OP (assuming he believes what he is saying) has the capacity to write this thread and cites various examples using other sources and people to build his debate (of sorts). This shows me that he is quite capable of contemplating a more accurate reality. He simply chooses to not do it.

This shows me he is competent enough to conduct himself in a manner which is suitable for a successful (with varying degree) existence as a Homo Sapiens. He has the ability to comprehend most things necessary. However just how far the ability to grasp complex concepts goes is not determinable. The compartmentalized nature of our physcial brain structure allows some people to be incredibly competent in some areas, and completely lacking in others. This can lead us to erroneously think someone displaying prowess in one area is "intelligent" and therefore competent at every type of reasoning.

As a simple example:
You cannot fit 1,000 marbles into a Jar which is designed to fit 100. You can fit anything from 1 through 100 however. I believe most of what is required to exist as a human are things which are 1 through 100 marbles. However I believe when contemplating physical reality without resorting to magic as an explanation (which is all religion is) you start to encounter concepts with more than 100 marbles, and therefore only those with larger jars can fit them.

(Please note; I am not trying to use the above example as an overall model of intelligence. This is more applicable to variant sub-components that participate in making the whole.)

[FledgelingSkeptic]

:D:) I once heard Neal Boortz, the Atlanta based radio talk show geek say, "Atheism is absolutely false. Anyone trying to sell atheism is simply insane."

I listened to Neal for over 10 years practically every day when we lived in Atlanta. That does NOT sound like him at all.

That quote, I'm guessing, was taken out of context.

And, I have met Neal in person on two separate occasions. He may be bald and wear glasses but that does not qualify him for the vaunted status of "geek".

[MattusMaximus]

I'm pretty sure this point has been made numerous times already, but here goes...

I see no reason why I even should believe in any god(s). For me, atheism is kind of like a default position. I don't believe in god(s) for the same reason why I don't believe in leprechauns - I see no compelling evidence that such beings exist. And I see even less compelling evidence (read: zero) that I should blindly follow the dictates of those who do believe in such beings.

Pretty simple, really.

[Herzblut]

My argument is and has always been the fact that, logically speaking, the only possible way for ORDER to exist is because some form of INTELLIGENCE produced it. THAT'S IT!!!!!!

I disagree.

Intelligence evolves from coherence, the other way round is a logical and physical impossibility. Unless you describe an intelligence model based on pure chaos, happenstance, accidental coincidence.

In natural systems, self-organization produces intelligence, there's no central intelligence organizing anything. An ant colony is a system with amazing intelligence, its constituents are primitive agents with primitive communication signals and without any sense of why they are doing what they are doing. There is no intelligent director of this complex system, nowhere. It's totally self-organized.

The most famous example is the human brain. It's, again, an orchestra without director. Its fantastic "orchestration" is based on self-organizing an enormously high degree of coherence, showing something we call intelligence. But it's neither built nor organized by any kind of intelligent director.

I understand how you conclude from the delivery of an organized system to its internal setup. I suggest you keep believing this, because you like it and it makes you happy. You might safely ignore the fact that you are grossly wrong, the experts working on those areas professionally, they don't care at all.

H

[Egg]

I understand how you conclude from the delivery of an organized system to its internal setup. I suggest you keep believing this, because you like it and it makes you happy. You might safely ignore the fact that you are grossly wrong, the experts working on those areas professionally, they don't care at all.


:egglaugh:

[slingblade]

.
"The Ancestor's Tale is worth reading.
It shows how that icky slime mold way back when evolved into icky slimy humans. :)

Oh, I'm not saying I won't read him. Just that I have not, yet. I haven't read much on atheism, frankly. I've learned to mistrust that smug feeling I get when reading material that tends to agree with my opinions.
It sounds interesting, though. :)