Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[Alisa]

Okay, can science explain where life came from? Life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Good question. I cannot answer that question (there are some hypotheses floating around, which Rich alluded to, but nothing with enough evidence to ascend to the level of a theory). BUT, the lack of a current scientific theory cannot be used as evidence that god exists. That is just laziness - I can't figure this out, so god must have done it. If all scientists thought that way, we would have no scientific discoveries. No, scratch that, we wouldn't have any scientists if we all thought that way. We would be too lazy to wonder about anything - why bother trying to explain anything if we can just say, oh that? God did that.

 

[Alisa]

Where's the I'm a realist option?

What is a realist? Or I guess I should ask, what is the difference between a realist and an atheist, or a realist and a theist?

 

[CraigDolphin]

Amino acids can occur a-biotically (no life involved) in very specific situations. Proteins are just chains of amino acids. Small chains of amino acids can form naturally as a result of chemical reactions. Prions are essentially just complicated proteins but they are considered an organism or 'life form'. It's a small step from Prions to viruses, and archaebacteria and Dick Cheney.

This is a classic example of humans viewing the world through a filter of anthropogenic labels: Life and Non-Life. The reality is that there is a continuum between completely inanimate matter through chemicals that show some characteristics of living organisms (but aren't in the opinion of most scientists), though to organisms that seem almost like inanimate matter (George Bush's brain ), through to sentient life forms.

There's a lot of ridiculous improbabilities to be swallowed when following this chain of logic but, conceptually, it's possible. And since evolutionary theory cannot be falsified by any particular observation, and life exists now and had to come from somewhere, it must have happened this way despite the odds against it.

If you wish to read a good book (hard to find now) that looks at some of that detail there's one called 'Not Proven' (by Rolph Gruner) which is basically a discussion of the underlying assumptions/philosophies implicit in evolutionary theory and looks at the issue as to whether it is really as devoid of the need for faith as its proponents argue. Incidentally, this book does not advocate creationism, it only compares the philosophical underpinnings of creationism versus that required for evolution and, I think, presents fairly a convincing argument that there's little difference in those underpinnings.

An interesting argument but one I cannot agree with or be pesuaded by.... In no way is this any sort of evidence of the existance of a god.

Sorry Rabbie. I did not intend that to be an attempt to convince or sway you in any way. I did not intend for it to be viewed as evidence FOR the existence of God. (and I don't believe there's any such possible evidence or argument I could make that would do that). I was simply trying to expand the frame of the debate so that people can understand that it is possible to believe in God (by faith) without sacrificing IQ or willingness to embrace scientific method. The central premise to this thread was that belief in God was, somehow, reserved for the ignorant and uneducated plebs of the world.

I truly hope the OP is wrong on that matter since I do believe in God AND have a Masters degree in Biology, and have picked up a few tricks about Access on this forum, so I like to think I'm reasonably educated and not entirely stupid. And I'd hate to think I'd have to start voting republican now

It could have come about by coincidence or by Divine intervention

Exactly. So it is a matter of choice (faith) to believe whichever way you feel is right.

 

[Rich]

What is a realist?

One who doesn't believe in fairy tales

 

[Alisa]

So provide me one observation/test that you can perform that would disprove, once and for all, that there is a God?

I don't have to. Your side has never provided even one percent of one iota of evidence that there IS a god.

presents fairly a convincing argument that there's little difference in those underpinnings.

Are you kidding me? The philisophical underpinning of evolutionary theory is a methodical continuous search for and analysis of evidence. The philisophical underpinning of theists (christians and others) is to state that there is a god and that is just the way it is. How can you compare the two?

How is it possible to "believe" in something which does not exist?

 

[Alisa]

One who doesn't believe in fairy tales

How does that differ from an atheist? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the fairytale that there is a god.

 

[Rich]

How does that differ from an atheist? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the fairytale that there is a god.

Yes but atheism is seen as evil by the bible punchers who need a fairytale to justify their existence of course it also includes secularism which I don't subscribe to

 

[Rabbie]

Sorry Rabbie. I did not intend that to be an attempt to convince or sway you in any way. I did not intend for it to be viewed as evidence FOR the existence of God. (and I don't believe there's any such possible evidence or argument I could make that would do that). I was simply trying to expand the frame of the debate so that people can understand that it is possible to believe in God (by faith) without sacrificing IQ or willingness to embrace scientific method. The central premise to this thread was that belief in God was, somehow, reserved for the ignorant and uneducated plebs of the world.

I truly hope the OP is wrong on that matter since I do believe in God AND have a Masters degree in Biology, and have picked up a few tricks about Access on this forum, so I like to think I'm reasonably educated and not entirely stupid. And I'd hate to think I'd have to start voting republican now

Exactly. So it is a matter of choice (faith) to believe whichever way you feel is right.

Craig, to clarify I did not feel that you were trying to influence my beliefs so no apology was necessary. My personal position in this debate has been reached after a lifetime of examining the options so I can understand and respect your position.

 

[CraigDolphin]

I don't have to. Your side has never provided even one percent of one iota of evidence that there IS a god.

Um. Alisa, you're the one claiming that it is objectively possible to TEST whether there is a God or not. I say there isn't and I invited you to demonstrate or describe such a test to prove your point. So you're right, no one can make you do so. But your thesis isn't likely to win me over if you don't.

If I claimed it were possible to scientifically prove there was a God then you'd be well within your rights to ask me to demonstrate it. I made no such claim. I believe by faith. I will state it again, I do not believe it is possible to scientifically confirm, nor deny, the existence of God.

Please remember that God exists outside of the laws of physics and time. He's omniscient, omnipresent, and unimpressed by attempts to force him to do anything he doesn't already want to do. The bible also says he doesn't want us to test him to validate our faith. We're not talking about a lab rat here. Makes him a hard target to pin down experimentally don't you think?

Are you kidding me? ...How can you compare the two

No, I'm not kidding but I'm not going to go down that road right in detail now.

In short: The scientific method is objective. The choice of which underlying philosophy of science and, therefore, interpretation of the results of that method are mostly subjective. If you are sincerely interested in this topic then I suggest you read that book that I mentioned earlier and come back to me with your thoughts.

However, I've invested enough energy and time in this thread to make my original point (or so I believe) and I really do not intend to continue to debate this onward ad-nauseum. In my experience people just start getting upset and grumpy about this topic pretty quickly.

I have no wish to convert you from your beliefs about the existence of God, just to hope that you'll allow me MY belief in God without slandering me as an ignorant yokel for doing so. Fair enough?

Craig, to clarify I did not feel that you were trying to influence my beliefs so no apology was necessary. My personal position in this debate has been reached after a lifetime of examining the options so I can understand and respect your position.

Ah....good. Don't want to be seen as an annoying, preachy type. And I can certainly understand and respect your position also.

Unless you would vote for Bush/McCain, in which case I'm all for chemical neutering

 

[Mike375]

BUT, the lack of a current scientific theory cannot be used as evidence that god exists. That is just laziness - I can't figure this out, so god must have done it. If all scientists thought that way, we would have no scientific discoveries. No, scratch that, we wouldn't have any scientists if we all thought that way. We would be too lazy to wonder about anything - why bother trying to explain anything if we can just say, oh that? God did that.

Not everyone is a an evolution or religious zealot. Disproving the existance of God does not prove evolution to me. Disproving evolution does not prove the existance of God to me.

But if you are going to be scientific about all this, that is disprove, then God or gods are currently the only reasonable explanation for the universe. Taking the position of an atheist would have to be about the most unscientific position ever taken.

Let's consider the basic problem. Firstly we assume The Big Bang is the answer. But of course where did the Big Bang come from. Thus to believe in the Big Bang and atheism while having not even the slightest theory on Before the Big Bang makes the position of an atheist look ridiculous unless being an atheist is about faith.

Can you give even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Just a microscopic piece will do. Of course you can't. Thus for you to be an atheist requires faith and lots of faith on your part.

Consider also that the God or gods side of town has been consistently the same for all known time. But the scientific side of town contiunally has to change its position as each new development unfolds. Thus based on the last couple of thousand years evolution will be just a passing phase.

Thus the faith you require is quite incredible. Firstly, you have not even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Secondly, you have a rigid belief in evolution even though history clearly demonstrates that the theory of evolution will be replaced.

 

[Sum Guy]

Alisa:
You gave yourself away when you failed to captialize God.

Regardless of your beliefs, every style book in the English language requires a capital "G" when writing that word.

Where did we come from? What was the origin of the Big Bang? Did we materialize from matter in space? (in that case where did space come from).

A Supreme Being said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT". And there was light.

Until science comes up with a better explanation, that's good enough for me.

BTW, has anyone ever considered that evolution was part of the Divine Plan?

 

[statsman]

Several years ago, Peter O'Toole starred in a film called "Creator". He was a biologist with a strong belief in God.

At one point he had to make a presentation to a foundation to get funds to continue his research. He began "We are on the edge of a breakthrough in cellular biology and God had agreed to give us the answers we seek for just under 5 million dollars".

There is always the possibilty that God exists and is revealing the secrets of the Universe to us when he thinks we are ready to handle them.

 

[Rich]

Can you give even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Just a microscopic piece will do. Of course you can't. Thus for you to be an atheist requires faith and lots of faith on your part.

Where did your god come from then?

 

[Mike375]

Where did your god come from then?

I am agnostic.

But I think to be an atheist requires more faith than does believing in God or gods.

I am inclined to think there is an "outside force" that influences different things that happen to us but I think whatever it is it is only like the branch manager. It may even be some form of telepathy as I have certainly seen/experienced many things that cause me to believe in some type of force but I have never seen anything physical as such. In other words I am from the school of...the harder I work the luckier I get...what goes round comes around.....etc and etc.

I might add that..the harder I work the luckier I get... appears to mainly apply where work is seeked or canvassed for. In other words when the person initiates work as opposed to just doing more of what is handed to them.

 

[Rabbie]

Unless you would vote for Bush/McCain, in which case I'm all for chemical neutering

I am happy to confirm that if I was entitled to vote in the US elections it would not be for the Republicans - <sigh of relief at not being neutered>

 

[GaryPanic]

interseting little discussion...

my take on this is -

you cannot prove one way or the other whether god exists or doesn't - but something must of started life(the universe off)..if we take the Big bang theory (which sounds good to em) - what caused it - and the answer to that question just leads to another - what caused that .....

so it becomes an never end question all the way down

if at some point there was nothing ,then why did the process start ...

religion in itself is not a bad thing ( a set of values that people try to live to is a worthwhile cause in itself ..) its the presumption that their view and their belief is the only one - this is open to abuse by priests, vicars -religious leaders of all faiths .

where as a set of values without a leader is a safer route to take ...
problem with this is greed steps in and someone will make a religion out of this

so while I have a problem beliving in a god - i don't have a problem following the 10 commandments as a set of rules .(might bend them occasionally)

 

[Rich]

if at some point there was nothing ,then why did the process start ...

Because it's always been there

 

[Rich]

I am happy to confirm that if I was entitled to vote in the US elections it would not be for the Republicans - <sigh of relief at not being neutered>

Can you persuade your cousins to vote correctly this time?

 

[Rich]

It may even be some form of telepathy as I have certainly seen/experienced many things that cause me to believe in some type of force but I have never seen anything physical as such.

The mind can certainly play tricks, even more so when under stress and engaged in mass hysteria

 

[Rabbie]

Can you persuade your cousins to vote correctly this time?

No persuasion needed. The only cousins who have US citizenship always vote Democrat or Liberal. The very rightwing partner of another won't be voting because he regards McCain as a dangerous left-winger.