atheism

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:07 pm

Laelia wrote:

Eturnalshift wrote:

So, can someone explain how Dawkins can deny there is a God but then entertain the idea that there was some other creator in the universe that kinda created us? Couldn't that creator be the God which theists worship?

He's talking about the idea that aliens seeded the earth with the earliest form of life. This wouldn't be a divine creator, and somewhere evolution and natural processes would have been responsible for the universe's first form of life.

So these technologically advanced aliens he was speaking of seeded our planet although we have no proof that these technologically advanced aliens exist. He's entertaining an idea which is completely impossible to prove or disprove, yet in the same clip he's denouncing the possibility of another something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The idea that a God might exist is just as plausible as his aliens so how can an Atheist be so confident to deny the possibility of its existence while championing other theories derived from abiogenesis, exogenesis or panspermia?

Laelia · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:21 pm

Azelma wrote:

Perhaps this is chicken and egg, but what created the aliens that seeded earth's earliest form of life?

Okay...they evolved or something...then what STARTED the first natural processes that lead to life.

It is my belief that something had to tip the first domino. It didn't just randomly fall one day.

Nobody knows, and it's probably unknowable. Suggesting a god did it doesn't escape from the chicken-egg loop, as you still have to wonder where that god came from.

Quote:

So these technologically advanced aliens he was speaking of seeded our planet although we have no proof that these technologically advanced aliens exist. He's entertaining an idea which is completely impossible to prove or disprove, yet in the same clip he's denouncing the possibility of another something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The idea that a God might exist is just as plausible as his aliens so how can an Atheist be so confident to deny the possibility of its existence while championing other theories derived from abiogenesis, exogenesis or panspermia?

He doesn't believe in these aliens, he thinks it's possible they exist. He also thinks it's possible that some form of a god exists (in the video he puts his confidence at 99% that gods don't exist, although of course it's pretty meaningless to put a number on it). Believing in life-seeding aliens without evidence would of course be silly, and the same thing applies to believing in gods without evidence.

Joklem · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:51 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

So, can someone explain how Dawkins can deny there is a God but then entertain the idea that there was some other creator in the universe that kinda created us? Couldn't that creator be the God which theists worship?

Replace "alien" with "non-divine being that didn't appear out of nowhere then created the universe". That is, a lifeform that didn't originate from Earth. An alien of unknown origins.

He didn't present it as an hypothesis, he was in an interview with an idiot with run-around-in-a-circle questions.

Quote:

IIRC I'm pretty sure there was a theory that a comet crashed into the ocean that carried the materials required for life, which is what kick started everything.

The materials were already here from previous exploding stars, the clouds of ionized hydrogen/helium/heavy elements eventually forming our sun and planets. We're made of the ordinary stuff that everything is made of.

Nobody knows how the very first lifeform began, there's a few hypotheses running around.

Quote:

So these technologically advanced aliens he was speaking of seeded our planet although we have no proof that these technologically advanced aliens exist. He's entertaining an idea which is completely impossible to prove or disprove, yet in the same clip he's denouncing the possibility of another something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The idea that a God might exist is just as plausible as his aliens so how can an Atheist be so confident to deny the possibility of its existence while championing other theories derived from abiogenesis, exogenesis or panspermia?

He was answering someone's question, not proposing an hypothesis. (but to entertain this, the chances of Earth being the only place with any lifeform in the universe is close to 0)

By the way, theory doesn't mean what you think it means. Theory =/= hypothesis = idea. A theory is a worded explanation of phenomena based on empirical evidence; the explanation or prediction that best fits the evidence discovered. An hypothesis is an idea yet to be tested and confirmed, and as such is not implemented into theories.

Science doesn't name "laws" anymore, everything is theory. The reasoning behind this is that they are always being worked on, they could be wrong (extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary changes, but it's always a possibility), and eventually they will be encompassed in a bigger theory. (e.g. gravity is part of relativity which is part of big bang, etc)

There is no authority or governance that decides what is and what is not in science. Findings are published in scientific papers for peer-review, some requirements are that it must be falsifiable and has the information needed for someone else to replicate and test it with experiment or observation. Crackpot claims get dismissed.

Part of the reason why the public has troubles accepting scientific findings is that they are, in fact, unbelievable, counter-intuitive and downright wacky. The reason for that is simple: we aren't born with any intuition of how the very small and very large worlds work. "Common sense" has left science a long time ago, because nature has none once you go small or big enough.

ignayshus · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:05 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

So, can someone explain how Dawkins can deny there is a God but then entertain the idea that there was some other creator in the universe that kinda created us? Couldn't that creator be the God which theists worship?

Sure, but what are the odds that a book written and edited by a collection of people with an agenda over a few thousand years ago got it right?

Seems more logical to assume they got it wrong considering all the logical inconsistencies in the various religious works of the world.

If you're the Christian God does not exist kind of Atheist then it really doesn't take any faith to come to that conclusion.

If you're kind of Atheist that thinks that there is no origin beyond natural laws and random chance well, then you're relying on faith to bridge the gap along with the rest of the religious believers.

If you're an Agnostic Athiest, you're open to whatever, but you want proof. Never read Dawkins, but based on what I've just heard in this thread this is pretty much his take, though because he spends his time assailing the Christian God, he comes off as the other kind.

Joklem · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:21 pm

ignayshus wrote:

Eturnalshift wrote:

So, can someone explain how Dawkins can deny there is a God but then entertain the idea that there was some other creator in the universe that kinda created us? Couldn't that creator be the God which theists worship?

Sure, but what are the odds that a book written and edited by a collection of people with an agenda over a few thousand years ago got it right?

Seems more logical to assume they got it wrong considering all the logical inconsistencies in the various religious works of the world.

If you're the Christian God does not exist kind of Atheist then it really doesn't take any faith to come to that conclusion.

If you're kind of Atheist that thinks that there is no origin beyond natural laws and random chance well, then you're relying on faith to bridge the gap along with the rest of the religious believers.

If you're an Agnostic Athiest, you're open to whatever, but you want proof. Never read Dawkins, but based on what I've just heard in this thread this is pretty much his take, though because he spends his time assailing the Christian God, he comes off as the other kind.

Actually Dawkins doesn't believe in any personal god as per the description of the religions of humanity and he thinks that blind faith and blind following is part of our evolutionary baggage and a potential danger to our long-term survival.

Scientists think in terms of "more likely" or "less likely". It is less likely that an omnipotent eternal god created the universe and everything in it than any other idea or hypothesis. It is also impossible to prove or disprove, as well as being an attractive idea, which makes it perfect for blind followers to fall prey to texts and preachers who claim to speak the word of god.

He's an advocate for reason. He's a tad bit more in-your-face about it, though.

Joklem · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:55 pm

The creationism vs evolution debate is absurd. There's no problem with believing in a god or interpreting scientific data in any way you want, what people like Dawkins warn against is following charlatans who promote dismissing real science in favor of "science" from the bible, as well as promoting hatred and discrimination of the other religions or gods in the name of theirs. In others words, those who take everything in the bible and from their "preacher" as the word of god and preach the superiority of ignorance.

The education system shares a slice of the blame, too.

Here's the pope on it:

Code:

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy  — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
The pope is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy, where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.

“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said in a closed door meeting with 400 priests on Tuesday.

“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.
Our Earth is talking to us 

World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.

The pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April, the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful.

Tehra · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:48 pm

Joklem wrote:

Here's the pope on it:

Code:

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April, the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful.

Behold a pale horse. Pale translates to "Green".

Fuck the emperor, he has no keys to use and he's grasping at lockpicks.

PS: Dooj, this post was made at 2348 military time.

Rathmoon · **Posted:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:24 pm

Dek I don't think Ben Stein is trying to be a douche, he could have delivered his questions on a more respectful level though. I think he was simply trying to make clear his interesting point that a man with such disdain for the hebrew G-d, believes that humans might have been created through potential dna manipulation; to put simply possibly by aliens if not a more intelligent being not the un-affectionately termed prospect "god".

Things I have found interesting about these topics..

the only self-proclaimed "agnostic" I've ever known very well irl (an ex-g/f) came across blatantly as someone who really believed in a creator, but didn't want to feel guilt or accountability for some of their actions that they apparently knew they should feel guilty for.

it also seems to me that a lot of atheists who devoutly believe in direction evolution of man from monkeys (despite missing links and dozen other arguments) speak in ways as if they are exactly correct theory. Religious folks do the same exact thing with their beliefs.

People just need to stop infringing upon others opinions by means of force of belittlement. By people, I mean both sides need to be a bit more level headed and willing to discuss scientific possibilities without stooping to insulting levels.

Laelia · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:06 am

Rathmoon wrote:

(despite missing links and dozen other arguments)

What do you mean by "missing links"? What are these dozens of other arguments?

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:24 am

THE missing link? haven't we been searching for it forever?

Laelia · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:28 am

Usdk wrote:

THE missing link? haven't we been searching for it forever?

If you're referring to fossils intermediate between modern humans and our common ancestors with other apes, the fossil record obviously isn't complete but there's no significant "missing link". Our most common recent ancestor with the chimpanzees was probably around 5-6 million years ago, and there are known fossils covering most of that time frame (Ardipithicus, Australopithecus, early Homo, etc.) which show things like an increase in brain size and development of bipedalism.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:36 am

Laelia wrote:

early Homo

NO U

Laelia · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:02 am

Eturnalshift wrote:

Laelia wrote:

early Homo

NO U

You would count as a modern Homo.

Joklem · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:31 am

Rathmoon wrote:

Dek I don't think Ben Stein is trying to be a douche, he could have delivered his questions on a more respectful level though. I think he was simply trying to make clear his interesting point that a man with such disdain for the hebrew G-d, believes that humans might have been created through potential dna manipulation; to put simply possibly by aliens if not a more intelligent being not the un-affectionately termed prospect "god".

Things I have found interesting about these topics..

the only self-proclaimed "agnostic" I've ever known very well irl (an ex-g/f) came across blatantly as someone who really believed in a creator, but didn't want to feel guilt or accountability for some of their actions that they apparently knew they should feel guilty for.

it also seems to me that a lot of atheists who devoutly believe in direction evolution of man from monkeys (despite missing links and dozen other arguments) speak in ways as if they are exactly correct theory. Religious folks do the same exact thing with their beliefs.

People just need to stop infringing upon others opinions by means of force of belittlement. By people, I mean both sides need to be a bit more level headed and willing to discuss scientific possibilities without stooping to insulting levels.

Ben Stein used deceitful editing. He asked a question, and Dawkins gave intelligent design the best scenario that it has. Instead of the interview showing it in that respect, it was shown as "wait a minute, Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design?!" and strawmanned because Stein didn't understand that "extraterrestrial intelligence" encompasses anything not from Earth that has intelligence. Edit: Also, Dawkins did not know exactly what he was interviewing for.

Evolution is not a belief system, it's recognition of the origin of species. It's a huge family tree over a huge amount of time, you won't find a crocoduck, and a chimpanzee won't give birth to a human. You want some transitional fossils? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Of course there are missing links. Fossils aren't waving a flag and yelling "Hey, hey, I'm here!"

edit: it's incomplete and doesn't answer philosophical questions, and scientists are humble enough to admit that. You can interpret it any way you want, but debating it using Genesis, and convincing masses of people that Genesis is the absolute truth is batshit and dangerous once you get to the point where presidential candidates are batshit like that.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 pm

What is truly annoying about people on the various sides of this "issue," which wouldn't exist if there weren't so many people smugly certain they're right, is that the various participants will only accept that their path to truth, whether it be science or mysticism, is the only path. The smarmy condescension of those who hold the "scientific" view is as off-putting as the zealous idiocy of those who claim to be inspired by the divine. Believe what you choose to believe, but if you can't believe it without trying to tear down the faith/certainty of those who believe differently, the only difference between you and those you scold for abusing people in the name of their beliefs is the degree of your abuse.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

atheism

Who is online