An atheist's call to arms

[TER]

Yes. If I found a watch in the forest, I would assume someone made it.

If you found a rock in the forest, would you assume someone made it?

But why would you assume someone made the watch? Did you see them make the watch?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

But why would you assume someone made the watch? Did you see them make the watch?

If the watch is obviously designed, it implys that the surrounding forest is obviously not designed, thus refuting your entire argument.

 

[TER]

If the watch is obviously designed, it implys that the surrounding forest is obviously not designed, thus refuting your entire argument.

Well, why do you say the watch is obviously designed and the surrounding forest isn't. Why is that?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Well, why do you say the watch is obviously designed and the surrounding forest isn't. Why is that?

Because of evidence. I have knowledge about watches, how they are built, how they are manufactured, characteristics that show evidence of being built. On the other hand, I have no evidence of any natural process that would result in a watch forming.

As I said, the watch should not be needed. If you are arguing from intelligent design, then everything is designed, and absolutely anything should be proof of design in your analogy. You should be able to pick up a rock, show it to me, and say, "You see, this rock is obviously designed."

Furthermore, I never said the watch is obviously designed and the forest obviously is not. You did. In your analogy. Your own analogy refutes the point you are trying to make.

 

[TER]

Because of evidence. I have knowledge about watches, how they are built, how they are manufactured, characteristics that show evidence of being built. On the other hand, I have no evidence of any natural process that would result in a watch forming.

As I said, the watch should not be needed. If you are arguing from intelligent design, then everything is designed, and absolutely anything should be proof of design in your analogy. You should be able to pick up a rock, show it to me, and say, "You see, this rock is obviously designed."

Furthermore, I never said the watch is obviously designed and the forest obviously is not. You did. In your analogy.

So you base the existence of God on your own personal knowledge. In other words, your mind has enough knowledge to confidently say "there is no God". Wow. You must be the smartest person in the universe.

 

[captainelectron]

I only skimmed through the new posts.... The watchmaker argument has been corrupted.


I do not contend that it is Man's complexity which means there is a creator, but mass itself. It would not be logical for mass to just "exist", created out of nothing. There is no logical explanation. There is still room for faith (the supernatural) regarding our creation.

Why is it logically more plausible for a vast intellect to just exist than it is for mass to just exist? Does the creator have mass? Did the complex thinking creator just "exist"? Primates have questions.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

So you base the existence of God on your own personal knowledge. In other words, your mind has enough knowledge to confidently say "there is no God". Wow. You must be the smartest person in the universe.

Im done playing your silly games. Come back when you have a real argument.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Why is it logically more plausible for a vast intellect to just exist than it is for mass to just exist? Does the creator have mass? Did the complex thinking creator just "exist"?

my point exactly.

Their reasoning goes like this:

Creationist: "Matter and the universe couldnt have always existed. They must have come from somewhere. And they didnt just spring into existence on their own, they must have been created by an intelligence"

Voice of Reason: "Where did this intelligent designer come from?"

Creationist: "The intelligent designer has always existed."

Voice of Reason: "So why couldnt matter and the universe have always existed?"

Creationist: ". . ."

 

[TER]

Im done playing your silly games. Come back when you have a real argument.

I guess I'm not as smart or knowledgeable as you, being that you know in your vastly superior mind that there is no God. I'm obviously out of my league discussing such matters.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I guess I'm not as smart or knowledgeable as you, being that you know in your vastly superior mind that there is no God. I'm obviously out of my league discussing such matters.

More strawman argument I see.

I dont need absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that there are no fairies or gnomes. I just need to know your claims of fairies and gnomes have not met their burden of proof. Why should my standards be different for gods?

 

[TER]

More strawman argument I see.

I dont need absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that there are no fairies or gnomes. I just need to know your claims of fairies and gnomes have not met their burden of proof. Why should my standards be different for gods?

Well, you have come to the conclusion that there is no God because you know there is no God, which would obviously make you amongst the most intelligent life forms in all of the universe.

ooh ooh, I just thought of something to discuss which you might consider a 'real' argument.

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Well, you have come to the conclusion that there is no God because you know there is no God, which would obviously make you amongst the most intelligent life forms in all of the universe.

ooh ooh, I just thought of something to discuss which you might consider a 'real' argument.

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

Wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there are no gods because non of the god claims have satisfactorily met their burden of proof. There is no justified reason to believe any of them to be true.

 

[TER]

Wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there are no gods because non of the god claims have satisfactorily met their burden of proof. There is no justified reason to believe any of them to be true.

Well, again, it seem that you are basing your conclusions on your vastly superior mind. Still, you haven't answered my question:

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Well, again, it seem that you are basing your conclusions on your vastly superior mind. Still, you haven't answered my question:

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

You keep jumping from one argument to the next as your points or clearly refuted. . .

You can define a god to be anything you want. Its not my job to disprove your claims. Its up to you to provide evidence that your claims are true.

 

[TER]

You keep jumping from one argument to the next as your points or clearly refuted. . .

You can define a god to be anything you want. Its not my job to disprove your claims. Its up to you to provide evidence that your claims are true.

No, I'm not jumping around and I don't believe my points have been clearly refuted.

You are making a positive statement that there is no God. The burden is just as much on you since you make such an affirmitve claim.

Again, if my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

 

[Kludge]

Why is it logically more plausible for a vast intellect to just exist than it is for mass to just exist? Does the creator have mass? Did the complex thinking creator just "exist"? Primates have questions.

Where did the mass come from, unless it is "magic" mass?

 

[Mesogen]

I highly recommend watching a show that came on the National Geographic Channel called Morphed.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/morphed

It was on last night and I think it's a series.
It's interesting.

 

[M House]

Because? Again, you are just making assertions with no scientific justification.

Um what scientific justification do you want? I just posted a few thoughts and tried a bit of reasoning that's all. Hell, I thought it was scientific. I posted three gene studies and a article for a start. I mean there's quite a bit more I guess. I could go thru the Meissner Corpuscle's you got in your skin and the color vision arrangement you got. Adrenal structures whatever. What specific evolutionary path do you want me to say happened? I just kinda thru in the hybrid stuff cuz well this hominid doesn't just work itself into that hominid then into a human the way I see it using just a bit of nat. selection and genetic drift. With a incredibly small starting population of humans, I mean that just won't work. I mean you agree that we started out with a very small population right. Unless you can somehow show there were millions of humans around and a massive amount of genes to pick from there's gotta be alittle more here with the mechanics.

 

[Pennsylvania]

Most atheists would only ever say something like "there is no God" out of convenience, and because it is inconvenient to give a detailed opinion on the burden of proof when stating one's opinion on God. I'm going to take a guess and say that MRS probably doesn't think the non-existence of God is 100%, absolutely, positively, guaranteed.

To me, there appear to be two different ways of approaching the question does something exist?

The common approach: Until we have evidence supporting the claim of the existence of that thing in question, the answer to the question is "both existence and non-existence are equiprobable".

The scientific approach: Until we have evidence supporting the claim of the existence of that thing in question, the answer to the question is "no"

However, in the first scenario, why do we start at maybe? If we start at maybe and can only move toward yes then "no" is never an acceptable answer.

If someone asked you the question: "are there interdimensional turkish-speaking space aliens trying to contact you via telepathy?"

Would you feel obligated to reply with "maybe" because you could not disprove the notion? Or would you reply with "no" as the likely and convenient answer.

Long story short, most of the debate we have about this subject could be avoided with a more efficient natural language. English is simply not efficient enough to convey a complex outlook with a simple convenient sentence.

 

[M House]

I'm an atheist cuz I want to find an answer that's something I can comprehend. It's pretty simple. I do not feel it's intrinsically wrong though to believe otherwise since it's tough to prove anything along the lines of you're a super evolved primate or a being divinely created. Common it's like pure elitist both ways. You're a biological organism that got here like most animals aka sex. Thus the simpler more definite and less it's up to chance the better to me. Other than some sweet and fairly unique physiology, we're not like very well adapted innately or superior to much in the mammal families. Let's leave you butt naked in the wild and what are you gonna be able to do. O yeah remove from your head all knowledge of the previous generations. You might make it...?