Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[Mashuna]

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.

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. 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.

 

[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. 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):

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]

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 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...

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.

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