RobbyPants

I am fairly offended that you feel you know my agenda for being here better than me, especially since I posted my reasons for being here no less than four different times when asked. As far as I can tell, everyone just assumes I'm lying. Maybe it's the red non-believer tag under my avatar, I don't know. That being said, if you, and two other moderators really don't want me posting here, I won't. A bit of advice for avoiding these types of confusion in the future: if only seekers are welcome and non-believers aren't, perhaps you should not allow non-believers in the ToS and get rid of the non-believer member group. The only reason I joined this site as opposed to any others were because the ToS specifically said non-believers could post in the designated areas. If you don't want non-believers posting, be more upfront about it, and they won't come.

I thought that around 75+% of Americans were Christian. That would be three Christians per each non-Christian.

I'd be sad to see the Apologetics and Faith Vs. Science forums go, but yeah, that layout confused me, too, when I first joined.

Science cannot measure faith in God. If they could, there would be no question God exists. This is true. I think it's a lot of why Stephen Jay Gould coined NOMA.

That depends on how you define "creationism". If creationism to you simply means "God created everything" with no other strings attached, then you could satisfy that with a Bible-literal view of creationism, with the big bang and evolution (having God be the "first cause"), or anything else in between. I know my wife accepts evolution and the big bang, yet I would still call her a creationist, because she believes all of the laws of physics and all of the matter were created by God, so the evolution and the big bang would simply be a carrying out of God's plan. So, under that definition, I would say yes, the model could change in light of new facts and evidence. If by creationism, you mean a more Bible-literal view, then I would say the model would only change so much as that it could still be gleaned from a literal reading of the Bible. I agree with you on this part, as well, although for me, it's more a matter of fairness and the First Amendment. I guess the latter wouldn't apply to you in Germany.

I'm sorry. When I read "disrespectful", I figured that would be anything insulting the believers, the beliefs, or God. I didn't feel I was being out of line. Also, I thought the Apologetics board was for discussion of apologetics. I'm glad we're clearing this up, but I hope you can understand how my reading of the ToS and Botz's post made me think my manner of posting was within the site's boundaries. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out, later.

Well, yes, I know that's the nature of the site, but the site is partitioned into several areas: namely, the Inner and Outer Court. When I joined, I read a posted by one of the moderators, Botz: (emphasis, mine) So, while I understand the nature of the site is ministry, I came to the Outer Court in good faith to discuss my stance directly with people to learn more about theirs. The reason I am here and not somewhere else is I wanted to discuss beliefs that I don't hold with people who hold them, rather than read about there elsewhere, where there is no one to better explain their stance. I can assure you that I am not here for my own amusement at other people's expense; just to have good discussion with others who would like to do the same. Was my understanding of Botz's post incorrect?

When I first joined, I read the ToS (to make sure non-believers posting was permitted), and a thread sticked at the top called From what I gathered in that thread, the purpose of the OC was for believers to explain and defend their beliefs to non-believers. It was that first point that Botz posted that made me think it was okay to explain my side of things. If you are specifically referencing my post to Enoob57, I said what I said, because when he said that he "would not put on my shoes", that tells me he is unwilling to consider my point of view, whereas I am considering both. I certainly don't expect him to accept my point of view, but if he won't consider it, then it is impossible to carry on a discussion. Personally, I feel I have been polite and courteous, as per the ToS, I haven't used profanity or specifically been disrespectful to God or believers. No, I don't think that would work, even if it were my purpose. I have two main purposes here: 1) I wanted to find a place where I would find differing points of view. It is one thing to read about what others believe, and it is another thing to be able to actually discuss with them their beliefs. I think it is more productive for me to gain a better understanding. 2)When I see any misconceptions about certain things (what the word "atheism" is or means, for example), I like to try to clear it up. Also, I can give my own anecdotal point of view in any of the threads that are specifically directed toward non-believers.

What other means are you talking about?

Sorry, I saw your post right after I made my last one. I understand why Christians would use scripture as a basis for their beliefs. My point is that the question is "does atheism make sense", and the Bible says "no, it's foolish"; however, asserting that to people that don't accept the Bible as the supreme authority of truth is less than compelling. Does that make more sense? I wasn't trying to say that quoting scripture is bad or improper, but rather, that it's not compelling to someone who doesn't innately accept it as truth.

What if someone (here or elsewhere) told you about Allah being the one true god? Once you knew, would you be responsible for being a good Muslim to avoid Muslim-Hell? I'm not saying that you don't believe in scripture, and I understand that the majority of posters here do; that being said, this is the "Outer Circle". This place is specifically a place for the posters to explain their beliefs to non-believers and seekers, and to defend their beliefs from skepticism. That being said, you accept the scripture being true as an assumption that you cannot assert without circular reasoning. Therefore, if I don't make that assumption, I won't consider it a valid conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that you are asserting your own beliefs as true to answer a question as to whether or not a different belief system "makes sense".

I was like that too, for a long time. I wouldn't consider any idea that would lead to the conclusion of God not being real. I totally get that.

This is true that induction is technically not possible; however, if we take care what we induce, and try to assume as little as possible, science has totally delivered us things like spaceships, supercomputers, and all sorts of medical marvels. So, we can say we can't actually know what science says we know, and we can still deliver some rather amazing results. Just because the underlying fabric of it all is (currently?) unknowable doesn't mean that we have to consider the method itself to be problematic, or that we have to start making assumptions about how it works. We've delivered the results we have precisely because we kept delving deeper to get a better understanding, rather than to assume that the current gap in our knowledge must be something inherently unknowable or unprovable. Maybe this will be something we can never know or prove, and maybe not. I just don't see why we should default all of physics and logic working the way it does to God.

You are asserting you are correct by simply stating that you are correct. There is no evidence that we all know God other than you saying that we all do. Also, I do not worship myself. Quoting scripture in a thread titled "Does Atheism make sense" does not make sense to me. Would you take me seriously if I quoted the Quran in a thread titled "Does Christianity make sense"?

But that goes both ways, doesn’t it, Robby? In order to postulate an exclusively naturalistic view of the universe, you must have FAITH in nature, don’t you? And that’s not all: you must also have faith in yourself. Because I still didn’t receive any answer to one of my old questions in this forum: why does any atheist think (s)he will EVER understand the universe (let alone now)? What’s the basis for such an expectation? Until you have an answer to that question, please don’t claim you DO understand the universe: because you have no basis for that. You must reasonably conclude if the universe is understandable in the first place. I postulate a naturalistic world view, because there are a lot of parts of it that we do understand, so there's no compelling reason to fill any of those gaps with God (or Allah, the FSM, fleems, or anything else). That being said, your approach to this and mine are not the same. I do not dogmatically believe in evolution. If evolution were definitively proven to be false, I would happily drop it, and if a better model were offered in its place, I would happily adopt that. That's what science is. It changes when the evidence changes, or new evidence becomes available. Your position, however, relies an a dogmatic assumption of certain truths, and then a systematic attack on anything that runs counter to those truths. I have seriously never seen anyone other than you, and one other person here, posit that gravity does not exist. So, I wouldn't consider this a "cutting both ways".

There is no contradiction. Some plants and some animals were created in the Garden of Eden (some even from different material than in the general Creation from Genesis 1). But again, that regards the Garden of Eden only. Some Creationists (Hovind, for example) claim that God did that even in front of man (Adam), so that he could see who the Creator is. In support of that comes the fact that the serpent went to tempt Eve, not Adam. Other than that, I couldn’t find any arguments for this thesis. Sounds good, but I don’t know if it’s really true. That is a very interesting way to look at it. That’s really enough – no need for other reasons at all. If one is going to believe the Bible, then (s)he should obviously believe the Bible on how the Bible (and not other people) says it should be believed. And no, it’s no circular reasoning at all. Okay, if that is your justification, the it is Begging the Question, instead, which is a form of circular reasoning. It involves asserting the conclusion in the premise, and then using the premise to "prove" the conclusion. When I said circular reasoning, I figured the reasoning was something in line with: 1) God exists. 2) We know God exists because the Bible says so. 3) We know the Bible is true because it's the word of God. Which, of course, forms a circle (how can we assert #3 without assuming #1?). I'm not even sure what this means. No, I wouldn’t. I already know why. Even better than them… That is very dismissive. You haven't even said what there people are even arguing. You simply assumed their ideas are wrong, and that you understand them better than they do. Your problem isn’t that we two disagree. You should have expected that form the start, since I’m a Creationist and you an evolutionist. Your problem is that evolutionists themselves disagree between themselves (and with you). Technically, many creationists believe different things. My wife would qualify as a creationist, yet she would disagree with a lot of things you say. Does this lack of consensus among creationists disprove creationism? If not, then how does that same argument disprove evolution? Or are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman and call my wife not a "true" creationist? I honestly don't care how many you have. I don't dogmatically accept evolution. I honestly couldn't care less if someone diffinitively proved it wrong tomorrow. I wouldn't mind switching my world view to something else if a better model were presented in its place, and if it were disproven without another model put in it's place, I would be happy answering "I don't know" when people ask where we came from. Assuming that the only two possible answers are creationism or evolution is simply setting up a false dichotomy. If you don't accept that, then prove to me difinitively that the world was not created by fleems. I didn’t. And I’m still not. Simply because it was not my argument. Actually, yes, it was your argument, and I'm taking your refusal to answer those two questions as you admitting that if you do answer them, your line of reasoning doesn't work. Let me walk you through it. If you disagree, tell me where and why you disagree: 1) What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open? You assert that the universe is isolated, yet there are other types of systems within the universe. The earth is an open system. It gets energy from the sun, and to a lesser extent, other sources from space. 2) Is it possible to discuss thermodynamics in a sub-system (as it pertains specifically to that sub-system) that is Open or Closed, even if it is inside a larger, isolated sub-system? If not, why not? You assert that because the universe is isolated, we must look at it, and only it when talking about evolution (which we have only observed on earth) and the second law of thermodynamics. If closed and open systems exist, and they exist within the universe (an isolated system), there are one of two possibilities: i. Open and closed systems can be studied spearately from any larger systems in which they are enclosed, because their open and closed nature gives them different properties. If this is the case, then we do care that the earth is an open system, and, this would invalidate the argument of using the second law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution ii. If we cannot study a smaller system that is inside a larger system, and all systems are inside the universe (an isolated system), then why do we even have separate designations for closed and open systems? That is it. There is no magical third option that allows you to declare that because the universe is an isolated system, that we must consider that (and only that!) when discussing evolution. So please, answer the questions, or tell me where the above reasoning is wrong.

This sounds like the idea of non-overlapping magestiria, which is basically the idea that science can only examine certain things. This is true that a method used to study things that involves observation and testability will not be able to measure something that is either not observable or that makes no testable claims. This could mean one of two things: 1) It is not scientific, therefore, we need to examine/consider it using different means, or 2) It is not scientific, therefore, we do not need to consider it. The first approach means that different people will likely come to different conclusions, and many of those different conclusions will not be any more defensible than opinions. This doesn't make any of them wrong, but they also wouldn't be compelling, either. You could argue the second approach is unnecessarily dismissive, but I feel the first approach doesn't give any outputs more useful than any one random person's opinion.

I knew a few Wiccans in college, and from what I learned from them, they do believe in gods. They believe in two gods, a male god and female goddess, each with three aspects (both good and bad). They do tend to venerate nature, but they believe it works through those aspects (so one aspect might promote life through birth, and another promotes death through hunting, or the circle of life). That being said, another thing I learned about Wiccans is, if you ask ten Wiccan's what Wicca is, you will get ten answers. They don't have a centralized "holy book" that contains all of the rules or beliefs for the religion. About the most common rules you will hear is the whole "rule of three" (deeds you commit are revisited upon you three-fold; I am honestly now sure how this is supposed to work) and the "do as you will as long as it harms no other". Other than that, it's a free-for-all, complete with three-legged cauldrons and herbs!

Exactly. Any time someone says that "atheists have as much faith as Christians", they are talking about gnostic (strong) atheists. Agnostic (weak) atheism is simply withholding judgment due to a lack of evidence. If I'm understanding you, it's basically a God of the Gaps argument; you're just taking it back a step or two further. So, instead of asking where the universe came from, you are asking where all of the inherent order came from, and saying that God is a better explanation than any naturalistic cause. It's not to say that you are wrong, but you are still taking something that science doesn't understand (yet?) and assuming God is the best default answer. And while I certainly can't prove it wrong, D-9 already pointed out that invisible pink unicorns are an equally valid assumption. I would disagree. I do not innately know God. You are basically asserting what other people believe in order to frame it within your belief system.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right: So, the idea is, that God is already fairly-well defined, so we can use him as a means of explanation. If I were to posit some other force/entity/object that could conceivably be able to answer all the questions about "why are we here", I have to start making a bunch of stuff up to satisfy all that. Under the current assumptions of God, those questions are already answered. Is that what you are saying? Technically, atheism doesn't make that claim. All it claims is "no" or "I don't know" to the question of "do you believe in any gods?". Anything else is over-defining the term. This is why I brought up point #1. That being said, I have a feeling we've been talking past each other for the past two posts or so. When you say "atheism" in this context, do you mean "atheistic assumptions about the first cause and order in the universe" as opposed to "lack of belief in gods"? If so, this all makes a lot more sense, and I'm sorry about the confusion.

Well, I wasn't arguing whether or not murder was practical, but that it's flat-out detrimental to a cohesive society. If you have to seriously worry about whether or not you are going to be murdered, it makes it pretty hard to carry on basic commerce, or to work on large-scale projects, like making and running a hospital. I could say that, under my view, "morality" would be split into two groups: 1) The stuff that is necessary for keeping society running, and 2) The subjective stuff. Sometimes, they coincide quite nicely (most people don't have a stomach for murder). Sometimes not (should gay people be allowed to marry?). I'd say that is an assumption, or perhaps an opinion. Not necessarily a bad one, but I don't know that it's innately true. It sounds a lot like the framework of Kant's ethics. Yeah, social Darwinism is creepy, and you can make an argument for it using arguments from the majority. A lot of times, societies do attempt this sort of thing. The US had it's own eugenics program most of a century ago (one that Hitler modeled, creepily enough!). It's more of the subjective half of society that decides that we shouldn't treat the minority that way. I think there is a bit of a practical side as well, in that we wouldn't want to be treated that way as a minority. Well, again, I'd say that it would be pretty hard to participate in a society if I had a continuous fear of being tortured. We don't decide not to torture because it isn't as useful, it's because to do so would cause problems.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like you're trying to use #2 to justify making the assumption in #1. If we don't concern ourself with things like the first cause and just try to answer the question "are there any gods?" or "is there a god?" or "does God exist?", I would counter with "is there any evidence of it?" One could just as easily ask "are there any subatomic particles that existed before time and space that created everything?", and that question would have equal explanatory power and the same amount of evidence. There is no baseline evidence that God exists that doesn't rely on assuming he exists in the first place. This is why I'm saying that I think making no assumptions is a better default position to making one. I'm not sure if that made more sense than my last post, or not.

Actually, I didn't "choose" to stop believing in God. It just sort of happened. I really wanted to believe, and tried hard for two years to make it work, but in the end, I couldn't. I most certainly didn't stop believing so I could free myself up to pursue some sort of hedonistic goals, or something. Now, I'm sure it's easy for some people to place the blame solely on me, and say that I just needed more faith. Maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but it is certainly non-falsifiable. The beauty of that argument is, no matter how much faith someone brings to the table, if they didn't get the desired results, you can simply declare they needed more. Lets say, for sake of argument, that we were to completely disprove evolution and the big bang in a way that no one could argue about it. That still wouldn't prove God. Assuming it would is setting up a false dichotomy. This is quite true. I don't believe in God because I can prove he doesn't exist, but rather, because I don't see any evidence that he does. So, I wouldn't take the stance that God doesn't exist; I'm simply withholding judgment until I see further evidence. A lot of books have been around for a long time, and that doesn't make them true. There are also people that are totally willing to believe things that were obviously made up out of whole cloth. Take Wicca and Scientology, for example. Both of these religions were created within the memory of my living grandmother, and people still totally believe them! You have your facts mixed up. Children can still totally pray in school. Children can even lead prayer in school. What was changed is that teachers and the institution cannot lead prayer. This is a good thing. It keeps the institution from dictating what religion is going to be the correct one. Imagine if a Muslim teacher tried to lead an Islamic prayer in a class. All of the non-Muslims would be outraged (and for a good reason!). This is simply offering the same protections to non-Christians, which is fair. Prayer is still totally legal in schools. The First Amendment was strengthened, not weakened with that ruling. I dont' think this proves what you want it to prove. The woman made sure the First Amendment was afforded equally to all children in school, and she was murdered for it. This is a bad thing.

I guess I could view this two ways: 1) If you ask me whether or not I believe in any gods, atheism makes sense as a default position because it makes less assumptions. If the question is just about existence, then I think this is a better starting answer. I'd need evidence to want to budge from it. 2) If your question is "where did everything come from", then I think you are right about assumptions. You could say "what was the first cause". We could assume it was God. We could say we don't know. We could say it was laksdjfakls. In any case, you're either not giving an answer, or making an assumption. Granted, in order to assume that the first cause is God and not laksdjfakls, you have to make an assumption, since the two have the same amount of evidence backing them. So, personally, I'm fine with saying "I don't know" when I'm asked what caused the big bang, or what came before it.

No, you are making an assumption that complexity require intelligent design in your premise, then showing the result of complexity proves intelligent design. It's called begging the question. Sorry, but you're still making the assumption by begging the question, claiming I'm not honest for not doing so, an d saying it's absurd to not do so. Without begging the question, we don't know that the universe has a creator. You are assuming that. I never said "no reason or cause". I said "no intelligent design". You're conflating those two things. Probably because you'd be lying. Also, there are probably other traits things in your garage don't share with the universe. Nothing in human experience supports that it does have an intelligent cause. That's you making an assumption and begging the question. I'm not saying it wasn't created by an intelligent creator. I'm saying there's no evidence it was created by an intelligent creator, so I'm not going to just make that assumption. If I did, I'd be begging the question. Oh, I see. Well, I suppose it's possible in the strictest sense of the word, but it's not as good of an analogy as you'd want it to be. It makes sense to assume humans made it because we have evidence of humans building other stone structures. No, it's quite the opposite. Empirical science gives us demonstrable results. We totally have things like space ships, super computers, and antibiotics precisely because people learned from their observations and didn't make up a bunch of other assumptions. Would we have had penicillin if we simply assumed God killed the bacteria around the mold, and that the mold wasn't responsible? What is absurd is making baseless assumptions to satisfy a preconceived conclusion. Or, perhaps they would be willing to consider the idea if there were any evidence an intelligent creator existed that didn't rely on assuming the creator existed in the first place.