The Professor and the Christian

While I agree that agnosticism is a rational position, I disagree with your definition - no definition I have seen in any dictionary (and I don't have a copy of Websters to hand) involves choice. The definition of "atheism" runs along the lines of "lack of belief in deities" (depending on the dictionary).
 
Science shows no teleology and thus exhumes the question of God as contradictory to our teleonomical Cosmos. Stenger presents arguments from science, casting doubt on His existence.
What a straw man indeed, but that bespeaks the incredulity of many theists about atheism. They use that silly non-argument about no atheists in fox holes.
What are other nonsensical non-arguments do they make about us?
 
Ouch. I hate it when I see this kind of thing. Similar to the concept of "debating" God. It really is a worldview issue. I can't, and won't, say atheists are wrong. I will say, that for me, in my experience, I do feel there is a God. Not necessarily of the robed and bearded sort, but something there.

It boils down to the way we answer question of the origin of life:

Is there a reason?

A Christian says yes. There is a reason, and there is a God, something beyond experience that created that reason and exists for the purpose of relationship between the creator/the created.

An atheist says no. Everything is random. WYSIWYG.

... Neither position can be verified as accurate in some quantifiable way. I know what is part of me, personally, and beyond that, I can't say. I don't see how these two viewpoints can "debate". Discuss, maybe, but there isn't much room for debate. Neither side will EVER see it the same way...both could talk til' they're blue in the mouth.

Insults like the OP with the so-called "wit" about the "stupid-atheist-professor" do nothing positive for either side and only further divide people who might otherwise be able to have an interesting chat. Frankly, it bums me out.
 
justcharlie09 said:
Ouch. I hate it when I see this kind of thing. Similar to the concept of "debating" God. It really is a worldview issue. I can't, and won't, say atheists are wrong. I will say, that for me, in my experience, I do feel there is a God. Not necessarily of the robed and bearded sort, but something there.

It boils down to the way we answer question of the origin of life:

Is there a reason?
A Christian says yes. There is a reason, and there is a God, something beyond experience that created that reason and exists for the purpose of relationship between the creator/the created.

An atheist says no. Everything is random. WYSIWYG.

... Neither position can be verified as accurate in some quantifiable way. I know what is part of me, personally, and beyond that, I can't say. I don't see how these two viewpoints can "debate". Discuss, maybe, but there isn't much room for debate. Neither side will EVER see it the same way...both could talk til' they're blue in the mouth.

Insults like the OP with the so-called "wit" about the "stupid-atheist-professor" do nothing positive for either side and only further divide people who might otherwise be able to have an interesting chat. Frankly, it bums me out.
Click to expand...
The highlites above are mine.I think it would be more accurate to say:
Is there a reasonor?
An atheist says "not until I see some evidence/rationale indicating a reasonor." An atheist will presume everything is natural until we find some evidence of anything that is unnatural, subnatural, supernatural.

Also, don't mistake atheism as an opposing position, its just a non-belief or skeptical position. A person who has never heard/experienced the concept of God is an atheist, but you could hardly say that they are opposed to God. Everyone is born an atheist, and many people convert at some point in their lives (and may convert back and forth as well). These people have chosen to embrace a belief, while the atheist simply hasn't.
 
The highlites above are mine.
I think it would be more accurate to say:
Is there a reasonor?
An atheist says "not until I see some evidence/rationale indicating a reasonor." An atheist will presume everything is natural until we find some evidence of anything that is unnatural, subnatural, supernatural.

Also, don't mistake atheism as an opposing position, its just a non-belief or skeptical position. A person who has never heard/experienced the concept of God is an atheist, but you could hardly say that they are opposed to God. Everyone is born an atheist, and many people convert at some point in their lives (and may convert back and forth as well). These people have chosen to embrace a belief, while the atheist simply hasn't.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is an opposing position--about as varied as the individuals who claim it as a worldview. It isn't fair to say that atheism is *always* in opposition, but to say it never is...not totally accurate. Also, that atheism is the default position of the human mind is a little presumptuous. There is some thought that some really are more predisposed than others to "spiritual" leanings.

Atheism always struct me as a position of certitude: "There is no god(s)."

vs.

Agnosticism (the very appropriate term coined by Aldous Huxley) which is a true position of skepticism: "There may be a god, but lacking evidence I doubt there is one."
 
justcharlie09 said:
Sometimes it is an opposing position--about as varied as the individuals who claim it as a worldview. It isn't fair to say that atheism is *always* in opposition, but to say it never is...not totally accurate. Also, that atheism is the default position of the human mind is a little presumptuous. There is some thought that some really are more predisposed than others to "spiritual" leanings.
Click to expand...

I think when people describe it as the default position, it basically says that you weren't born believing in it. Whether "it" be god, santa, ghosts, or quantum physics for that matter. So, non-belief is the default position, whether you want to call that atheism or agnosticism.
 
jadey said:
I think when people describe it as the default position, it basically says that you weren't born believing in it. Whether "it" be god, santa, ghosts, or quantum physics for that matter. So, non-belief is the default position, whether you want to call that atheism or agnosticism.
Click to expand...

An infant may not be able to formulate words, or think in the same manner that adults do, but it is presumptuous to assume they lack any sense of God or spirituality of any sort--just because we can't prove it.

Granted, it is unlikely that a newborn holds a specific belief in a specifically named deity or creed, but I don't see the complete absence of a spiritual nature in that.
 
I have a quick point to make regarding the point that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor that is neither monkey nor human:
I'm pretty sure it is accepted that humans did evolve from monkeys. The humans closest relative is thought to be the chimps, which we are thought to have evolved from.
Of course, as to the question "if humans came from monkeys then how come there rest of the monkeys didn't evolve?", the answer is simply "some of the chimps went to a different climate where they were 'forced' to evolve" (put in teleological terms to make it easier).
 
No. None of our ancestors was a chimpanzee. Our most recent common ancestor with the chimpanzee probably looked more like a chimpanzee than it looked like a human, but it was not a chimp.

For more information, see Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale.
 
I am always keen to read something by Dawkins, so I will definitely check that out!
However I must still contest; even if the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was not the chimpanzee, it would still be completely foolish to believe that the common ancestor of human and chimpanzees was not a monkey of some sort, even if that monkey did not resemble any monkey around today.
According to wikipedia (I hope wiki isn't frowned upon around here >.<) the primates date back 50-60 million years. Due to a lack of evidence of humans dating back further than about 7 million years, and due to the strong evidence that humans and the monkeys around today have a common ancestor, I think that the safest deduction to make is that humans evolved from some form of monkey.

(Sorry to harp on about this point, I love evolutionary discussions :) ).
 
And again, to be thoroughly pedantic, although the ancestor would have been monkey-like, it would not have been a monkey. Monkeys are a modern taxon, with just as much evolutionary history as we do. The only reason I harp on about this is that the "descended from monkeys" argument is so commonly used by creationists, and based entirely on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. I believe that it's important to make it completely clear.
 
Oh jolly good, I understand where you are coming from now. Thanks for bearing with me :) .
 
This same argument is used in one of the Christian lie Youtube things where they make up crap and present it to Christians to make scientists look silly and inspire themselves with their lies. Check on Youtube for "Einstein + Light+Cold" and "USC Professor Atheist" for some more propaganda that will really p*ss you off.
Why do Christians have to resort to lies in order to inspire themselves?
It's always easier to lie about reading one book than it is to actually read thousands of others to find real answers. People joke about it but in Christian Schools they actually have science tests where every answer is "God Did it". It's sad that this childish religion continues to strangle our society 2000 years after this Jesus dude supposedly lived.
 
arthwollipot said:
And again, to be thoroughly pedantic, although the ancestor would have been monkey-like, it would not have been a monkey. Monkeys are a modern taxon, with just as much evolutionary history as we do. The only reason I harp on about this is that the "descended from monkeys" argument is so commonly used by creationists, and based entirely on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. I believe that it's important to make it completely clear.
Click to expand...

No, it would have been a monkey. The argument it was monkey-like is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution.
 
arthwollipot said:
I'm not sure where you get this idea from. Modern classifications rarely apply to extinct species.
Click to expand...

"Monkeys" is not a modern classification - it's 16thC word.

Can you provide an example of a modern classification which doesn't apply to at least one extinct species?
 
The claim was yours - the onus lies with you. If you've no evidence to support it feel free to retract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom