Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[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 it

Reading this, I am reminded of just how much I have (conveniently?) forgotten

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

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.

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]

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.