Is it just me or are christians getting a little more aggressive?
Not physically, but that would give a whole new meaning to 'bible thumping'! It's just that they seem quite ready to attack popular scientific ideas and ridicule scientific explanations.
I have (in my rational quest for proof) looked at many of these 'proofs' and found them to be embarrassingly poor and a waste of my time. Actually that's not true - I've had quite a few laughs!
Lets look at some of them...
4000 year old Earth
Carbon dating being wholly inaccurate (About 80% actually but still only one of many methods used)
Fossils on the tops of mountains. (Hey! I ACTUALLY saw these on Mount Snowdon!)*
Evolution errors (Ahem - misconceptions or more likely a p**s poor understanding of what evolution is.)
False fossils (So OBVIOUSLY hundreds of thousands of fossils MUST ALL BE FAKE!!!)
Half-evolved creatures (cow-frogs etc. LOL. Just. Too. Stupid.)
Dinosaurs existing with humans. (Jurassic park has A LOT to answer for!)
(These are just the scientific attempts that people have tried over the last two years... the philosophical 'proofs' have their own post.)
* I walked up Mt Snowdon (Tallest mountain in UK) with my family and we saw the fossils on the summit. 500 million years ago - that creature was alive! Now THAT is incredible. :-P 4000 years, my arse!
Scientific thinking has been at the forefront of trying to understand these things and offered plausible explanations to satisfy our curiosity. The fact that we are STILL looking at these concepts to refine our understanding and remove misconceptions is one of the greatest achievements of humankind.
So as church numbers continue to decline and organised religion is under scrutiny for the next case of fraud or sexual abuse, we seem to be getting to a hardcore of those who are ready to fight for their cause. And some willing to die for it too. Martyrs are held in high regard and, for many christians I have spoken to, seem to consider it the ultimate test of faith.
I find that worrying.
I have no problem with people questioning commonly held scientific ideas - science THRIVES on being challenged. But when people consider death as a martyr - death for a non-existent, mythological entity - death that they think will inspire others - and let's be honest, they think they will get a FAST PASS to sky pixie's magical kingdom - then I DO have a problem with it.
STOP BEING SO F**KING STUPID. Seriously.
But on a darker, humorous note... go ahead. One less idiot out of the gene pool.
Rant over. Time for the theists to have their say...
>>Edit - Snowdon is the second highest. I was tired. Sorry Scotland.
Showing posts with label proof. Show all posts
Showing posts with label proof. Show all posts
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Friday, 8 May 2009
Petrified trees prove the bible is right. *sigh*
When someone challenges me, I usually have to respond. (It's a weakness.)
Alrighty then. Petrified trees. Apparently there are VERTICAL trees that go through the layers of strata. Therefore the fossil record is rubbish.
With no further research, (and let's face it that COMPLETELY proves the bible) it would appear a problem to geologists.
However... what is not mentioned is the fact there are many more horizontal trees in the same area. Roots are non-existent and bark is missing from one side - this really shows that it was not covered by layers of ash while it was growing. The strata is actually flat - inconsistent with slopes that would have been covered with such trees. Mt Etna eruption provided an excellent example of how trees blasted out of the ground by volcanic eruptions can cause upright conditions.
There is more information in detail
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-ChanceOrDesign-FossilRecord-PetrifiedTrees.html
I have a lot to thank JL for. I'm learning so much! :-)
Alrighty then. Petrified trees. Apparently there are VERTICAL trees that go through the layers of strata. Therefore the fossil record is rubbish.
With no further research, (and let's face it that COMPLETELY proves the bible) it would appear a problem to geologists.
However... what is not mentioned is the fact there are many more horizontal trees in the same area. Roots are non-existent and bark is missing from one side - this really shows that it was not covered by layers of ash while it was growing. The strata is actually flat - inconsistent with slopes that would have been covered with such trees. Mt Etna eruption provided an excellent example of how trees blasted out of the ground by volcanic eruptions can cause upright conditions.
There is more information in detail
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-ChanceOrDesign-FossilRecord-PetrifiedTrees.html
I have a lot to thank JL for. I'm learning so much! :-)
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Conversations with a (nice) christian.
This is a response to my 'Alpha Course' post. (If it has scrolled off the bottom of the page then 'clicky!' )
'JL' is one of those nice christians who (in my experience) make up the majority of christians that are willing to talk to me. Currently we are in the middle of a friendly 'holy war' at our school, where she is trying to get me to appreciate Jesus and I am bestowing the gift of Pastafarian knowledge. I have shown her undeniable evidence of FSM's power by making her jump and pointing out how the kind FSM brings her safely back to Earth with his noodly appendages. (He loves us all and keeps us safe - FACT!)
Randomfish, I believe I might even have been the long-haired born-again that suggested an Alpha course to you.
Yep, The most recent one.
It's not like you have anything to lose, anyway :-p
Well, my scientific reasoning for one...
re: 'based on a relationship, not knowledge'
It always makes me smile that people get so OUTRAGED that the Bible is younger than Jesus, or at least most of it. That it's been *gasp* ADDED TO(!!!111) over the years. Of course it has. Ours is a living God. He didn't just speak once 6000 years ago (you heard right, DB!) and that was it. If you develop a relationship with your living God, he will speak to you. And he will tell you do not have a religion based on laws, you have a new life based on His loving gospel.
We agree here. Religion (especially christianity) has evolved. It has HAD to! Let's face it, if we had the same thinking as we did 1000 years ago, you would look pretty stupid now.
We don't get ill because god is punishing us. We get better because we 1) take medicine or 2) naturally get better over time.
Gods don't live in the sky. We are not the centre of the universe. Evolution is happening. The Earth is over 6000 years old. Morality is not owned by any religion...
Damn those astronomers, doctors, biologists, historians, geologists, philosophers...! They have had to make those crrraaaazzzyyy christians do some drastic rejigging of what to believe! LOL.
'Faith is more important than logic'
Logic is more important than blind faith. Blind faith is an insult to intelligence and reason. Blind faith can be harmful. For example, feel my pain when Arsenal lose! (Thankfully rarely!)
Don't pretend that you have faith in nothing, that faith in itself is ridiculous. You have faith in love, if nothing else, surely.
I DO have faith in humanity; kindness of strangers; love and hope. They are essential for understanding our humanity. I just don't attribute an imaginary friend to fill the gaps in knowledge.
Logic tells me that you can't get evolution from one species to another, only within species. Science tells me that even after thousands and thousands of generations of fly mutations, a fly is still a fly. So how did every living species in the world evolve from a fish? Including, presumably: turnips, scabies mite, chinchillas, sharks etc etc? Are you not putting your faith in a straaaange theory of evolution, hmmmmmm? ;)
Fellow humanists/ atheists, JL is a really nice person and please do not judge someone on their lack of understanding of evolution.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-patterns-of-evolution.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/sat-ii-biology-understanding-origins-of-life.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
'Because of who god is, we will always have questions'
Of course. And let's face it, when Jesus came and proclaimed himself the Son of God, not many people believed him, and what more proof could God really give us? Perhaps you would like a book full of graphs and diagrams, haha.
I proclaim to be the leader of Alpha Centauri. Can you see the problem with that? Jesus was not the first prophet to claim to lead the Jews. He happened to be the most famous. Stories told, generations later, wrote the gospels with a bias to make him more holy. Events were taken from a wide variety of religions (resurrection, death on a cross, virgin birth, claim of godhood, miracles, 12 followers, betrayal, ascension) sometimes even directly rewriting existing religions. See Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Jesus, the man, existed.
Jesus, the son of a god, sadly (but it would actually have been rather groovy) is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. More likely a work of fiction and copyright theft.
"You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour".
Hell for you probably isn't the same idea of hell for me. I think there is a cartoon idea based on lakes of fire with a little red devil with pitchforks. In reality, to me anyway, hell is death; it is separation from love and joy; from contentment and safety and the Lord. For me, now that I know the Lord, no pit of burning sulphur could ever hold as much sadness and fear as separation from His love. But that's just me.
Ahh, you refer to the 'nice' Hell. Depends on how literally one takes the bible doesn't it? Even Jesus refers to Gehenna.
Two very useful sites below
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
and this is pure class.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hellreal.htm (This nutter is doing theism no favours!)
And finally...
My final point I made in a rather fun theological debate is that JL is ACTUALLY a 'humanist with an imaginary friend'.
Peace to you all.
'JL' is one of those nice christians who (in my experience) make up the majority of christians that are willing to talk to me. Currently we are in the middle of a friendly 'holy war' at our school, where she is trying to get me to appreciate Jesus and I am bestowing the gift of Pastafarian knowledge. I have shown her undeniable evidence of FSM's power by making her jump and pointing out how the kind FSM brings her safely back to Earth with his noodly appendages. (He loves us all and keeps us safe - FACT!)
Randomfish, I believe I might even have been the long-haired born-again that suggested an Alpha course to you.
Yep, The most recent one.
It's not like you have anything to lose, anyway :-p
Well, my scientific reasoning for one...
re: 'based on a relationship, not knowledge'
It always makes me smile that people get so OUTRAGED that the Bible is younger than Jesus, or at least most of it. That it's been *gasp* ADDED TO(!!!111) over the years. Of course it has. Ours is a living God. He didn't just speak once 6000 years ago (you heard right, DB!) and that was it. If you develop a relationship with your living God, he will speak to you. And he will tell you do not have a religion based on laws, you have a new life based on His loving gospel.
We agree here. Religion (especially christianity) has evolved. It has HAD to! Let's face it, if we had the same thinking as we did 1000 years ago, you would look pretty stupid now.
We don't get ill because god is punishing us. We get better because we 1) take medicine or 2) naturally get better over time.
Gods don't live in the sky. We are not the centre of the universe. Evolution is happening. The Earth is over 6000 years old. Morality is not owned by any religion...
Damn those astronomers, doctors, biologists, historians, geologists, philosophers...! They have had to make those crrraaaazzzyyy christians do some drastic rejigging of what to believe! LOL.
'Faith is more important than logic'
Logic is more important than blind faith. Blind faith is an insult to intelligence and reason. Blind faith can be harmful. For example, feel my pain when Arsenal lose! (Thankfully rarely!)
Don't pretend that you have faith in nothing, that faith in itself is ridiculous. You have faith in love, if nothing else, surely.
I DO have faith in humanity; kindness of strangers; love and hope. They are essential for understanding our humanity. I just don't attribute an imaginary friend to fill the gaps in knowledge.
Logic tells me that you can't get evolution from one species to another, only within species. Science tells me that even after thousands and thousands of generations of fly mutations, a fly is still a fly. So how did every living species in the world evolve from a fish? Including, presumably: turnips, scabies mite, chinchillas, sharks etc etc? Are you not putting your faith in a straaaange theory of evolution, hmmmmmm? ;)
Fellow humanists/ atheists, JL is a really nice person and please do not judge someone on their lack of understanding of evolution.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-patterns-of-evolution.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/sat-ii-biology-understanding-origins-of-life.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
'Because of who god is, we will always have questions'
Of course. And let's face it, when Jesus came and proclaimed himself the Son of God, not many people believed him, and what more proof could God really give us? Perhaps you would like a book full of graphs and diagrams, haha.
I proclaim to be the leader of Alpha Centauri. Can you see the problem with that? Jesus was not the first prophet to claim to lead the Jews. He happened to be the most famous. Stories told, generations later, wrote the gospels with a bias to make him more holy. Events were taken from a wide variety of religions (resurrection, death on a cross, virgin birth, claim of godhood, miracles, 12 followers, betrayal, ascension) sometimes even directly rewriting existing religions. See Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Jesus, the man, existed.
Jesus, the son of a god, sadly (but it would actually have been rather groovy) is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. More likely a work of fiction and copyright theft.
"You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour".
Hell for you probably isn't the same idea of hell for me. I think there is a cartoon idea based on lakes of fire with a little red devil with pitchforks. In reality, to me anyway, hell is death; it is separation from love and joy; from contentment and safety and the Lord. For me, now that I know the Lord, no pit of burning sulphur could ever hold as much sadness and fear as separation from His love. But that's just me.
Ahh, you refer to the 'nice' Hell. Depends on how literally one takes the bible doesn't it? Even Jesus refers to Gehenna.
Two very useful sites below
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
and this is pure class.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hellreal.htm (This nutter is doing theism no favours!)
And finally...
My final point I made in a rather fun theological debate is that JL is ACTUALLY a 'humanist with an imaginary friend'.
Peace to you all.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Alpha? Considering... being converted?
Well, it is my blog. So if I want to rant about stuff... but I also have a responsibility to give a more positive view of atheists. It's too easy for us to poke fun at people who believe in superstition, ritual, chance, planetary alignments, ghosts, lucky charms and stuff.
I do feel, in retrospect, that I did sink to a little bit of 'mocking' religion and that does not do atheism any favours. After all, we have the right to claim a higher morality since humanists care about everyone and we truly believe we are fairer than the harsh black and white laws of what ancient misogynistic priests interpreted from their positions of power.
In my continuing browsings of the web, I came across this wonderful piece of advice for potential worshippers...
"It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior."
Brilliant! It contains all the best bits of religion. Patronising, demanding and a veiled threat.
1) 'Based on relationship, not knowledgee'. A slight put down to education and thinking for yourself. Am I not capable of forming a true relationship with anything?
2) 'Faith is more important than logic'. Because logically, there is no proof or even a real need for a god?
3) 'But ultimately you must believe in the bible by faith'. (See previous post - sorry) What bits exactly? All of it? The 'nice' parts? Do I take it literally or simply as a guide. Well take your pick from the 38000 christian denominations... (sigh)
4) 'Because of who god is, we will always have questions". But to ask them is the wrong thing to do apparently (see section 1) (further sighs...)
5) "You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour". At least no mention of Hell, but an insult nonetheless.
Anyway, all this came as a result on what someone asked me a few months back. "Would you be interested in going to an Alpha course?" BTW - You can send them a question (be nice!) to be discussed - only 125 characters though!
Anyway, I actually wouldn't mind going. Like I have said before, I am an atheist morally, rationally, socially and all this was after a great deal of introspection on my part. Could religion offer a serious alternative? Would my life be improved as claimed by the brochure? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't want to be accused of being 'closed minded'.
All atheists are open to persuasion (seriously, it's true!) but we quite fairly ask for a scrap of proof - real proof mind! After all, an all-powerful god should be able to provide some undeniable evidence? Or at least NOT provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
So we get the 'faith' get out clause. That, my friends, is NOT an argument. It's a cop out! 'Faith' is the blanket stupid answer that I find insulting, patronising and clearly shows that there is no real basis for their point of view.
Just imagine if we said that we had 'faith' there was no god? Yeah, that's right. People WOULD laugh at us! All we can honestly say, is that there is a 'near certainty' that there are no gods. 'Faith' apparently is 100% (often 110%!) - There is no debating with some people... especially when they have a poor grasp of basic maths.
If there was an online version of the Alpha course. (I might suggest it) then I would definitely have a go. Maybe I will go to a session one day... :-)
I do feel, in retrospect, that I did sink to a little bit of 'mocking' religion and that does not do atheism any favours. After all, we have the right to claim a higher morality since humanists care about everyone and we truly believe we are fairer than the harsh black and white laws of what ancient misogynistic priests interpreted from their positions of power.
In my continuing browsings of the web, I came across this wonderful piece of advice for potential worshippers...
"It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior."
Brilliant! It contains all the best bits of religion. Patronising, demanding and a veiled threat.
1) 'Based on relationship, not knowledgee'. A slight put down to education and thinking for yourself. Am I not capable of forming a true relationship with anything?
2) 'Faith is more important than logic'. Because logically, there is no proof or even a real need for a god?
3) 'But ultimately you must believe in the bible by faith'. (See previous post - sorry) What bits exactly? All of it? The 'nice' parts? Do I take it literally or simply as a guide. Well take your pick from the 38000 christian denominations... (sigh)
4) 'Because of who god is, we will always have questions". But to ask them is the wrong thing to do apparently (see section 1) (further sighs...)
5) "You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour". At least no mention of Hell, but an insult nonetheless.
Anyway, all this came as a result on what someone asked me a few months back. "Would you be interested in going to an Alpha course?" BTW - You can send them a question (be nice!) to be discussed - only 125 characters though!
Anyway, I actually wouldn't mind going. Like I have said before, I am an atheist morally, rationally, socially and all this was after a great deal of introspection on my part. Could religion offer a serious alternative? Would my life be improved as claimed by the brochure? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't want to be accused of being 'closed minded'.
All atheists are open to persuasion (seriously, it's true!) but we quite fairly ask for a scrap of proof - real proof mind! After all, an all-powerful god should be able to provide some undeniable evidence? Or at least NOT provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
So we get the 'faith' get out clause. That, my friends, is NOT an argument. It's a cop out! 'Faith' is the blanket stupid answer that I find insulting, patronising and clearly shows that there is no real basis for their point of view.
Just imagine if we said that we had 'faith' there was no god? Yeah, that's right. People WOULD laugh at us! All we can honestly say, is that there is a 'near certainty' that there are no gods. 'Faith' apparently is 100% (often 110%!) - There is no debating with some people... especially when they have a poor grasp of basic maths.
If there was an online version of the Alpha course. (I might suggest it) then I would definitely have a go. Maybe I will go to a session one day... :-)
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Things I do in the quest for a god...
Spent an hour on YouTube looking for 'enlightenment'. As I have said before I like to challenge my opinions, so where better will I find a range of ideas and opinions.
Yeah... I am still an atheist.
It's quite funny seeing ill informed opinions presented with such sincerity.
Play this game, watch a theist 'proof' and score points for the following:
"You can't prove god doesn't exist!"
"You can't prove [insert poorly researched scientific topic]"
"You are going to hell!"
"I found god [crazy eyed stare]" (My personal favourite)
"Atheists are stupid."
"Look at life. Therefore god exists!"
"My explanation is clearly better than an atheist one!"
"Darwin/ Dawkins/ Sagan is clearly wrong, why can't you see that!"
"The bible says so!"
"Hitler/ Mao/ Stalin etc..."
"[cyclic argument]"
There are plenty more. Feel free to add them to the comments. :-)
I might even come up with a proper scoring sheet that will give theists a 'blind faith score'.
BTW: Please vote on the new question. What percentage of the bible is true?
Last vote result.
Christian MINUS god = Nervous wreck!
Thanks to all that took part. :-)
Yeah... I am still an atheist.
It's quite funny seeing ill informed opinions presented with such sincerity.
Play this game, watch a theist 'proof' and score points for the following:
"You can't prove god doesn't exist!"
"You can't prove [insert poorly researched scientific topic]"
"You are going to hell!"
"I found god [crazy eyed stare]" (My personal favourite)
"Atheists are stupid."
"Look at life. Therefore god exists!"
"My explanation is clearly better than an atheist one!"
"Darwin/ Dawkins/ Sagan is clearly wrong, why can't you see that!"
"The bible says so!"
"Hitler/ Mao/ Stalin etc..."
"[cyclic argument]"
There are plenty more. Feel free to add them to the comments. :-)
I might even come up with a proper scoring sheet that will give theists a 'blind faith score'.
BTW: Please vote on the new question. What percentage of the bible is true?
Last vote result.
Christian MINUS god = Nervous wreck!
Thanks to all that took part. :-)
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Proofs of God - part 2 - Intelligent design?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I only just found this today. If you haven't read it, it's worth a quick chuckle. :-)
Anyway, in my further attemps to find god(s) I am looking at 'Intelligent design'
The basic argument of creationists is "Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer." And then they go on to explain how a watch can't spontaneously appear. Animals are in a food web, simple cells are far too complex, the human eye, half a wing... the list is quite impressive!
You will have to forgive me, I am trying to blend an entire branch of science and popular mythology into a single post and hopefully trying to find some 'truth' :-) I'll try not to cause too much offense to either side.
Well, often the simplest idea is the best. And you don't get much simpler than ID. Why, it just explains EVERYTHING! So I suppose I could just go to bed happy (and many people do!)
Good night!
I see you are still here... thanks!
But the principle of ID is the single premise that there HAS to be a creator for there to be... 'stuff'. And where is the proof of that? Er... the bible says so. I don't believe that there were any first hand witnesses to creation... except god. And the bible isn't exactly accurate at times. (Seriously, don't even bother to argue that. You WILL look stupid.)
OK, we have the fact that we are incredibly complex and even the simplest forms of life have intricate systems that are quite simply... amazing! But the idea is that we were all designed this way. Pre-constructed and ready to go! Every creature on the planet has a role to play, every plant has a reason, nature is primed and set up for humans to live in perfect harmony on Earth...
And along came Charles Darwin with his dangerous idea: every species on the planet has evolved and adapted to their environments. Not put on the planet, by a god, but changed over thousands - millions - of years to survive and breed. Not necessarily 'Survival of the fittest' - that is just the 'TV soundbite' version which oversimplifies the process, but a series of almost insignificant, sometimes random changes or mutations that sometimes improve the chance of the species' survival.
This seems to make sense. Our similarity to other primates, cavemen, fossils, extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the Earth, the purpose of the appendix, 'junk' DNA, actual observed changes in species...
...or because the bible says so. Creationists (some of them), to their credit, look to science to explain their creation theory. And there are some great websites out there. However, for the purposes of my research, I tend to look at sites that contain both sides of the argument. http://www.talkorigins.org is possibly the best mix of debates you can come across on the internet. Evolutionists need their theories challenged! That is what makes science so awe inspiring. The fact it is allowed to be disproved, improved or debated.
http://www.evcforum.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
So if Darwin is correct, then the claim that we are made in god's image is simply wrong and it brings into doubt the validity of the bible and its claims made in the book of Genesis.
If the bible is correct, then we have all this evidence that attempts to disprove the bible. What would be the purpose in that? Perhaps it is an elaborate miracle that is there to test the faithful and punish the reasoned thinkers. Seems a bit unfair to me. (I'm one of those people who always look both ways before crossing the road.)
The catholic stance has changed over the centuries. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ You can believe in god and accept evolution - the modern christian idea is that god must have had some part in the process and accept that the Genesis story is just an allegory.
Lo and behold! And there we have proof of religious evolution! ;-)
Intelligent design? I'm not even sure that we are designed that well! We are prone to illnesses, injuries, back problems, limited understanding or our surroundings, easily fooled by illusions, misinterpret information, violent by nature, subject to a range of emotions, take risks needlessly, have a method of reproduction that can be quite dangerous, the list could go on... We are NOT designed 'intelligently'! Unless of course, this 'god' has a warped sense of humour!
My conclusion? Evolution has, by far, the greatest wealth of evidence supporting it. It does not explain why there is life but shows us our place in nature. Not as chosen masters, but as part of an amazing journey with nature.
I only just found this today. If you haven't read it, it's worth a quick chuckle. :-)
Anyway, in my further attemps to find god(s) I am looking at 'Intelligent design'
The basic argument of creationists is "Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer." And then they go on to explain how a watch can't spontaneously appear. Animals are in a food web, simple cells are far too complex, the human eye, half a wing... the list is quite impressive!
You will have to forgive me, I am trying to blend an entire branch of science and popular mythology into a single post and hopefully trying to find some 'truth' :-) I'll try not to cause too much offense to either side.
Well, often the simplest idea is the best. And you don't get much simpler than ID. Why, it just explains EVERYTHING! So I suppose I could just go to bed happy (and many people do!)
Good night!
I see you are still here... thanks!
But the principle of ID is the single premise that there HAS to be a creator for there to be... 'stuff'. And where is the proof of that? Er... the bible says so. I don't believe that there were any first hand witnesses to creation... except god. And the bible isn't exactly accurate at times. (Seriously, don't even bother to argue that. You WILL look stupid.)
OK, we have the fact that we are incredibly complex and even the simplest forms of life have intricate systems that are quite simply... amazing! But the idea is that we were all designed this way. Pre-constructed and ready to go! Every creature on the planet has a role to play, every plant has a reason, nature is primed and set up for humans to live in perfect harmony on Earth...
And along came Charles Darwin with his dangerous idea: every species on the planet has evolved and adapted to their environments. Not put on the planet, by a god, but changed over thousands - millions - of years to survive and breed. Not necessarily 'Survival of the fittest' - that is just the 'TV soundbite' version which oversimplifies the process, but a series of almost insignificant, sometimes random changes or mutations that sometimes improve the chance of the species' survival.
This seems to make sense. Our similarity to other primates, cavemen, fossils, extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the Earth, the purpose of the appendix, 'junk' DNA, actual observed changes in species...
...or because the bible says so. Creationists (some of them), to their credit, look to science to explain their creation theory. And there are some great websites out there. However, for the purposes of my research, I tend to look at sites that contain both sides of the argument. http://www.talkorigins.org is possibly the best mix of debates you can come across on the internet. Evolutionists need their theories challenged! That is what makes science so awe inspiring. The fact it is allowed to be disproved, improved or debated.
http://www.evcforum.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
So if Darwin is correct, then the claim that we are made in god's image is simply wrong and it brings into doubt the validity of the bible and its claims made in the book of Genesis.
If the bible is correct, then we have all this evidence that attempts to disprove the bible. What would be the purpose in that? Perhaps it is an elaborate miracle that is there to test the faithful and punish the reasoned thinkers. Seems a bit unfair to me. (I'm one of those people who always look both ways before crossing the road.)
The catholic stance has changed over the centuries. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ You can believe in god and accept evolution - the modern christian idea is that god must have had some part in the process and accept that the Genesis story is just an allegory.
Lo and behold! And there we have proof of religious evolution! ;-)
Intelligent design? I'm not even sure that we are designed that well! We are prone to illnesses, injuries, back problems, limited understanding or our surroundings, easily fooled by illusions, misinterpret information, violent by nature, subject to a range of emotions, take risks needlessly, have a method of reproduction that can be quite dangerous, the list could go on... We are NOT designed 'intelligently'! Unless of course, this 'god' has a warped sense of humour!
My conclusion? Evolution has, by far, the greatest wealth of evidence supporting it. It does not explain why there is life but shows us our place in nature. Not as chosen masters, but as part of an amazing journey with nature.
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Proofs of a god. (Part 1 + Intro)
I'm no philosopher but I'm a freethinker and I enjoy having a philosophical debate with anyone.
And as an atheist (and scientist) I look for evidence to support either side of any argument. It's certainly not 'betraying' any atheist belief. I regularly adapt and improve on my moral stances and opinions as more evidence and experience presents itself.
For example, being a child in the 1970s, TV programs were quite happy to show ethnic minorities in a negative light. Shows like 'Mind Your Language' or 'Love Thy Neighbour' were family shows that I did find funny and formed my opinions of race. In hindsight, we now know them to be offensive and they would be rightly criticised if they were produced today.
I have decided to take time to look for evidence or proofs of a god's existence. I already know of several people who have converted to religion - some of them from a very staunch atheist opinion - and several who have made a choice based on what 'suits' them best. Naturally, I am curious as to what convinced them however I commonly find that they are either (1) embarrassed (2) reluctant (3) condescending (4) aggressive (5) simply unable to explain. Sometimes several combinations of that list.
I am going to do my own research. I did something similar in my early twenties and in all fairness, I think it is time for a review. It is quite possible that I may be convinced by the arguments. I may reject my atheistic viewpoint and possibly become agnostic. It could equally mean that I further reinforce my views. Can I be truly objective? I can only try. Even on a subconscious level I still have my ideas and thinking patterns.
As atheists, I believe we would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we did not question our 'non-beliefs' occasionally. ;-)
Proof 1: The Ontological Argument. (Summary)
Premise 1: By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists
Premise 2: It is possible that God exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists
This is Anselm of Canterbury's proof:
There are some interesting articles about this:
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1977), from Michael Peterson et al, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, (Oxford, 1996), p. 158.
He defends this argument quite rigorously.
But I can see a major flaw in this. This proof will allow ANYTHING to exist. Lo and behold, I have just conjured up a parrot with an IQ of 500. I have just done another one... a creator of gods!
Maybe I'm just being facetious here but this seems a pretty weak proof.
It is an assumption from the very start that attempts to justify itself in the following statements.
Platinga further argues that:
"it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise - that the existence of a maximally great being is possible - will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability."
The problem here lies in that it assumes it is an acceptable method of proof and claims that belief in a god is at the very least rational.
I'm sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster would agree. (Hello, Your Noodleness!)
Many theologians deny this as a reasonable proof since it often creates scorn from both theists and atheists. But as a starting point for a theological discussion, I think it is a good start.
So at the end of the first proof, we have the idea that a god (whatever shape, form or existence) is possible. I don't believe it is rational. It would be considered irrational to believe in everything I could imagine. And I have a particularly vivid imagination!
So I would concede, a god is possible. Provided that theists concede that my ultra intelligent parrot is possible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible and many other imaginative constructs are indeed possible.
In whole, the purpose of this argument appears to be to create doubt in the atheist mind and supposedly allowing theists to then claim that they are now possibly an agnostic. Very sneaky! ;-)
I will finish with an alternative proof by Douglas Gasking:
1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.
Further reading and in more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
As always, comments are welcome. :-)
And as an atheist (and scientist) I look for evidence to support either side of any argument. It's certainly not 'betraying' any atheist belief. I regularly adapt and improve on my moral stances and opinions as more evidence and experience presents itself.
For example, being a child in the 1970s, TV programs were quite happy to show ethnic minorities in a negative light. Shows like 'Mind Your Language' or 'Love Thy Neighbour' were family shows that I did find funny and formed my opinions of race. In hindsight, we now know them to be offensive and they would be rightly criticised if they were produced today.
I have decided to take time to look for evidence or proofs of a god's existence. I already know of several people who have converted to religion - some of them from a very staunch atheist opinion - and several who have made a choice based on what 'suits' them best. Naturally, I am curious as to what convinced them however I commonly find that they are either (1) embarrassed (2) reluctant (3) condescending (4) aggressive (5) simply unable to explain. Sometimes several combinations of that list.
I am going to do my own research. I did something similar in my early twenties and in all fairness, I think it is time for a review. It is quite possible that I may be convinced by the arguments. I may reject my atheistic viewpoint and possibly become agnostic. It could equally mean that I further reinforce my views. Can I be truly objective? I can only try. Even on a subconscious level I still have my ideas and thinking patterns.
As atheists, I believe we would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we did not question our 'non-beliefs' occasionally. ;-)
Proof 1: The Ontological Argument. (Summary)
Premise 1: By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists
Premise 2: It is possible that God exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists
This is Anselm of Canterbury's proof:
- 1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
- 2. God exists in the understanding.
- 3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
- 4. Therefore, God exists in reality
- 1. God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought.
- 2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
- 3. God must therefore be necessary.
- 4. Hence, God exists necessarily.
There are some interesting articles about this:
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1977), from Michael Peterson et al, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, (Oxford, 1996), p. 158.
He defends this argument quite rigorously.
But I can see a major flaw in this. This proof will allow ANYTHING to exist. Lo and behold, I have just conjured up a parrot with an IQ of 500. I have just done another one... a creator of gods!
Maybe I'm just being facetious here but this seems a pretty weak proof.
It is an assumption from the very start that attempts to justify itself in the following statements.
Platinga further argues that:
"it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise - that the existence of a maximally great being is possible - will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability."
The problem here lies in that it assumes it is an acceptable method of proof and claims that belief in a god is at the very least rational.
I'm sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster would agree. (Hello, Your Noodleness!)
Many theologians deny this as a reasonable proof since it often creates scorn from both theists and atheists. But as a starting point for a theological discussion, I think it is a good start.
So at the end of the first proof, we have the idea that a god (whatever shape, form or existence) is possible. I don't believe it is rational. It would be considered irrational to believe in everything I could imagine. And I have a particularly vivid imagination!
So I would concede, a god is possible. Provided that theists concede that my ultra intelligent parrot is possible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible and many other imaginative constructs are indeed possible.
In whole, the purpose of this argument appears to be to create doubt in the atheist mind and supposedly allowing theists to then claim that they are now possibly an agnostic. Very sneaky! ;-)
I will finish with an alternative proof by Douglas Gasking:
1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.
Further reading and in more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
As always, comments are welcome. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
