I know why atheists are still curious

[Piggy]

The signs are all about you. Out in the heavens is fire and cold. Yet here, on earth, where oysters live like they did millions of years ago, and do just fine without cars, cell phones, tv's, computers, movie theaters with buttery popcorn, and fancy car accessories, and digitally controlled/computerized homes with security systems, pools, fireplaces, home theaters... and Rolex watches, and Las Vegas and cruise lines, and water parks, and fireworks displays, et al... we JUST SO HAPPEN to have everything imaginable at our disposal, including the ability to graft and create new skin, venture into space and breaking the bonds of gravity...and of the atom in making the atomic bomb. I could go on and on. And you pay no heed to this. That there is no design to this?

Wrong again. I pay heed to it all. What you ingore, however, is that the Modern Synthesis (aka Darwinian evolutionary theory) explains why there should be a fit between living things and their environment, since we are all part of a system which has developed over eons.

What would be difficult to explain would be if there were a species which somehow appeared and survived without being integrated into the system.

Furthermore, there is no "just so happens" to it.

You seem to be imagining the universe as if it were a collection of disparate objects that all fell together accidentally, like a collection of items at a lost-and-found. If that were the case, then yes, it would be truly amazing if this junk-drawer universe worked like a well-oiled machine. But that's not at all the history of our world.

Yet we see that human beings do not have any special place in this universe. It is not here for our benefit.

We are mind-bogglingly tiny creatures crawling around on the surface of one little dirt-ball that's spinning around one little fireball on the edge of a collection of billions of these balls, which itself is one of billions of such collections separated by unimaginable stretches of near-empty darkness.

Humans are afflicted by famine, predation, accidents, old age, dementia, illness, parasites, war, poison, depression, and a host of other nasty fates.

Wake up!

If you are certain of this...let me ask you...HOW certain of you are of your claim, percentage-wise? And do you have scientific evidence that supports your view?

100%. If you want to see the logic, look up my thread "Proof of Strong Atheism", where it's explained.

And yes, I have scientific evidence supporting my view. The entire scientific corpus supports my view.

If you're looking for a scientific refutation of your view, however, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed because there can be no scientific disproof of nonsense.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If you actually read what was being discussed, I didn't say there were alike. I said that saying they "have nothing to do with each other at all" is wrong.

Obviosuly if there is no universe there is no environment for life to evolve in.

The origin of the universe is a completely different issue from the existence of the universe. Even if god did make the universe, that has nothing at all to do with the measurable and demonstrable fact that evolution is taking place all around us, and even inside us, right now.

 

[bpesta22]

Repost, but I think it addresses your design argument!

Scientists using powerful computers have calculated the probability of the Christian God just happening by accident. It's 1 in 20 (e) 5000. That's five times less likely than a tornado going through a trailer park and creating a velvet elvis out of shredded winnebegos / parts from the abandoned cars on people's green carpets (i.e., front lawns). It's ten times less likely than a catholic priest keeping his vows while troop leading altar boys on a camping expedition! We might as well just wait 4000 million years for something whacky like natural selection to create the complexity of the Christian God as we know him.

Imagine walking through a forest and stumbling upon a Jesus lying on the ground. You pick up the Jesus and note his construction--The perfectly trimmed beard, and heavenly-groomed nasal hair; his totally symmetrical nail holes (obviously nonrandom-- the work of some grand hammerer); a halo so round, it conforms perfectly to biblical pi (3.0!)

You wouldn't assume this jesus just happened by chance (or the non random replication of randomly replicating molecules-- since jesii don't reproduce). Surely, Jesus was designed. (repeat thought experiment for Jesus' dad.)

What good is half a jesus? A cross requires 4 limbs. Can you crucify a legless jesus just by nailing his hands? Wouldn't his pelvis just rest on the ground (picture: How big was that fish you caught again, jesus?)

Wouldn't nails in the feet of a handless jesus cave in to the pressure of jesus' head / halo, resulting in an embarassing / half assed crucifiction (picture: imagine jesus just as he's about to jump off a diving board)?

Neither work, if the goal is to cruicify your god. You simply cannot crucify half a god. Therefore, Jesus is irreducibly complex.

These arguments converge on one obvious conclusion: The christian god was designed (alas by humans).

 

[Cosmo]

If you actually read what was being discussed, I didn't say there were alike. I said that saying they "have nothing to do with each other at all" is wrong.

You're still wrong. It is true that they have nothing to do with each other at all.

Obviosuly if there is no universe there is no environment for life to evolve in.

Nihilism, T'ai Chi?

 

[Meri]

The signs are all about you. Out in the heavens is fire and cold. Yet here, on earth, where oysters live like they did millions of years ago, and do just fine without cars, cell phones, tv's, computers, movie theaters with buttery popcorn, and fancy car accessories, and digitally controlled/computerized homes with security systems, pools, fireplaces, home theaters... and Rolex watches, and Las Vegas and cruise lines, and water parks, and fireworks displays, et al... we JUST SO HAPPEN to have everything imaginable at our disposal, including the ability to graft and create new skin, venture into space and breaking the bonds of gravity...and of the atom in making the atomic bomb. I could go on and on. And you pay no heed to this. That there is no design to this?

As others have said, the fact that the Earth is well suited to our surviving here does not mean that the Earth was designed for us to live here, and thinking that way is backward. The reason the earth is so well suited to us is because we evolved to take advantage of what was on the Earth, and so we are suited to the Earth, not the other way around. There's nothing surprising about a species and its environment being suited to each other, because it simply wouldn't work any other way. There's no chance involved, as "JUST SO HAPPEN to have" would imply, since only things that fit the environment survive, and no creator or designer are needed to regulate such a system.

 

[Kochanski]

That said...let's suppose then that everything indeed came from one common speck.

Do you know what I see before me as I sit here typing? Pencils, with lead, eraser, writing with ink, paper, cardboard, shaped metal box, a telephone, eyeglasses, medication, matches, a nightlite, the computer, speakers, wire, plastic, rubber, glass, metal, a straw, chopsticks, an aluminum pop can, a soft mouse pad, a chair with fabric and wood, a flannel shirt with pretty colors and buttons, me, paint on a wall, a plaster wall, a clock, a stuffed toy, a rug, a cane, cigarettes, staples, empty wrappers, a comb, paper, notebooks, a plastic bag, a wallet/purse thingy,wood trim, paneling, a pail, cleaners, brush, dishes, utensils, stove...I give up. You get the picture.

Iamme, just because your knowledge and understanding of evolution of evolution is limited, don't assume that others are so limited.

Atheists are indeed curious about many things, including why many believers are so FRIGHTENED of evolution. Of course, we know the simple answer is that no god is necessary, if evolution can create it all, so hapless believers throw the same tired old notions up against the wall that is the evidence for evolution.

 

[Piggy]

Following Iamme's logic, it would be possible to demonstrate that the universe was designed explicitly for the purpose of providing everything necessary for snails. Or badgers. Or rhododendrons, quasars, comets, cosmic dust clouds, atomic nuclei, or literally anything at all you care to pick at random.

 

[Kochanski]

Ah, I think you are wrong Piggy.

Iamme needs to demostrate that the universe was designed for MAN, so that the scripture would be correct that god created it all for little old us.

Gosh we had better be grateful and respectful and obedient for this wonderful gift given to us by our creator.

 

[Meri]

Following Iamme's logic, it would be possible to demonstrate that the universe was designed explicitly for the purpose of providing everything necessary for snails. Or badgers. Or rhododendrons, quasars, comets, cosmic dust clouds, atomic nuclei, or literally anything at all you care to pick at random.

It would even be possible to demonstrate that the universe was designed just so skeptics would arise and question the design.

 

[Piggy]

Ah, I think you are wrong Piggy.

Iamme needs to demostrate that the universe was designed for MAN, so that the scripture would be correct that god created it all for little old us.

That's exactly my point.

Even if you buy Iamme's logic, it still doesn't prove what it's intended to prove, because you could use the identical argument to demonstrate that the world was created purposefully and designed explicitly for wombats or dandelions or red dwarf stars.

 

[Pae]

My point is, even the atheist knows that this stuff just could not have appeared

You might want to address your ''point'' to theistic evolutionists as well. Really, how many times must it be pointed out that evolution and atheism have nothing to do with eachother?

to be such benefit to man, for no reason or purpose or design behind it. That we just got lucky and have all this stuff, that grew out of some spec, out of the past. This is more illogical than believing a creator did it for some kind of benefit or experiment. Because...that is what WE do. WE design and create things. Therefore it's actually MORE easy and logical to believe some intelligent force out there did it, rather than it all doing it itself, for no reason, but happens to all be perfect and convenient for us, which goes WAY beyond us (an organizsm) simply utilizing what we have to to evolve to survive (like an oyster can).

Wow. First, humans are a force of nature. Your stapler was created by a force of nature. I have no problem believing that there is an intelligence that created the universe, but I need some evidence before I believe it.

Do you know that Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying that he has another 'flock' to tend to? I have always wondered what he meant by that.

Who cares? What does this have to do with the beginning of the universe?

Perhaps the entire universe is an experiment to see which solar system race of people can come up with discovering the most stuff in the least amount of time, and/or to see, if any civilization would be more God-like than another. This last paragraph is a little off-topic, but it popped into my head. (It has to do with the experiment comment I made, above)

Ok.......

Even if an intelligence is behind the beginning of the universe, why is it a god? Why is it a being that must be worshipped? I have NEVER understood this. An intelligence created the universe? Fine, but why is it a god?

 

[kellyb]

My point is, even the atheist knows that this stuff just could not have appeared, to be such benefit to man, for no reason or purpose or design behind it.

Actually, we're taught as children about nature vs. industry. We see the buildings where "things" are made, and go to the stores where we can buy "stuff". I think most human children start figuring this out around or before their first birthday.

That we just got lucky and have all this stuff, that grew out of some spec, out of the past. This is more illogical than believing a creator did it for some kind of benefit or experiment.

Right. We learn where different stuff comes from, and how it's made.
Things we don't understand seem like "magic" until we learn more about them.
"Stuff" made by other humans is relatively easy to understand.

Because...that is what WE do. WE design and create things. Therefore it's actually MORE easy and logical to believe some intelligent force out there did it

Easier, but not more logical.

rather than it all doing it itself, for no reason, but happens to all be perfect and convenient for us,

Actually, we're perfect for this environment...this environment is not that great for all the other species that died out.

There's a mouse, native to this area, who's living in my house right now. Were the mouse a wee bit smarter, he/she might assume the various food scraps he/she finds were delivered from the great designer just for him/her...the warmth in the winter a sign of the designer's love and care, and those perfect nooks and crannies all over evidence of the designer's painstaking planning.
But, the mouse would be wrong.

which goes WAY beyond us (an organizsm) simply utilizing what we have to to evolve to survive

I think it's basically the same thing.

 

[Piggy]

<tangent>
Regarding the flocks, at this point in John, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. He appears to be referring to the deliverance of Israel. [Note the reference in the previous chapter which sets the stage for his parable: "The Jews still did not believe...".] His reference to the sheep which are not of this flock appears to be a promise of a universal religion (which fits well with Johnian theology) in which salvation is offered to gentile (the other sheep) as well as Jew (the sheep "of this sheep pen") so that there will eventually be one flock and one shepherd.
</tangent>

 

[kellyb]

Why is it a being that must be worshipped?

Because it's very, very insecure, and has a very bad temper.

 

[Piggy]

Actually, we're taught as children about nature vs. industry. We see the buildings where "things" are made, and go to the stores where we can buy "stuff". I think most human children start figuring this out around or before their first birthday. <snip> We learn where different stuff comes from, and how it's made. Things we don't understand seem like "magic" until we learn more about them. "Stuff" made by other humans is relatively easy to understand.

Whenever I hear the watchmaker analogy, it always strikes me odd, b/c (similar to what you're saying here) the reason we wonder who made the watch that we find in the forest is that the watch is so radically different from everything else in the woods. We assume it has a designer precisely because it is unnatural. So it makes no sense to conclude that the natural world must also have had an intelligent designer who created it for a purpose.

 

[Kochanski]

Yes, it is poor and it is old, but damn if they don't love it to bits...remind you of other pretty, old stories that they seem to love to bits, too?

 

[Ladewig]

Next, you are here in the religion forum reading posts which says to me that you must be curious, and have hope yet to ripen on the vine.

A religion forum ON A SKEPTIC BOARD, you (rule 8)!

 

[Ladewig]

What good is half a jesus? A cross requires 4 limbs. Can you crucify a legless jesus just by nailing his hands? Wouldn't his pelvis just rest on the ground (picture: How big was that fish you caught again, jesus?)

Thanks, I needed that.

 

[Darat]

As others have said, the fact that the Earth is well suited to our surviving here

...snip..

If you think about it the Earth is not well suited for our surviving here.

The vast majority of the Earth is totally and utterly unsuited for our survival. We (as in all the various stuff we use the label "life" to classify it) can only exist in or on a very tiny fraction of the Earth.

If you take the "we" to refer only to humans then the Earth is even more unsuited for our survival.

The evidence we have is that if the universe was designed it was not designed for humans by any measure we would use to determine design (as the word is commonly used).

 

[Tricky]

You are quite simply wrong. The two are nothing alike.

Actually, he is not quite simply wrong, but because of a divergence in the way the word "evolution" is used by different people, you two aren't talking about the same thing.

The big bang theory attempts to describe how the universe may have come into its present state.

As I understand, the Big Bang is only about the origin of the universe, not its evolution. Yes, I used the word "evolution", and I meant it. The word has, for many years, meant "change through time" and as such, it well describes the universe.

Evolution describes the process by which natural selection, on planet Earth, adapts life forms to their environments.

I believe you are talking about one specific kind of evolution, called "biologic evolution". Since Darwin, that is almost the only kind anybody talks about. Some might even say that the word has changed meaning such that it now only refers to biologic evolution, but I disagree.

Indeed, the principals of biologic evolution can be applied to inorganic evolution as well. The main principle is, "that which is stable persists". This might seem to be a tautology, but it well describes how certain compounds tended to condense out of the "stuff" of the universe. It also describes how configurations of bodies with stable orbits also persist while unstable ones fall apart. You might even describe how certain compounds, like carbon, with it's extremely well-balanced electronic and geometric configuration, became such a big part of many worlds. Or how certain minerals tend to dominate because they are so "good" at making copies of themselves, growing crystals off of their templates or being stable at higher temperatures than others.

All of these things change through time and they interact with each other such that what was stable in one environment (say on a hot Earth) is not as stable as the earth cools. It is evolution. It is one of the fundamental principles of the universe. That organic evolution obeys the same "stable stuff survives" rules should not be terribly surprising. Indeed, we shouldn't expect anything but for the principle of evolution to operate on living things just as it does on non-living things. Sure, the complexity is greater, just as life is more complex than rocks (though some geologists would argue this), but the principle is similar.