Deism vs Atheism

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

Hey Indydouche&asshole,

Science doesn't stand up to faith, and faith doesn't stand up to science. That's how it works. But I guess it doesn't matter to you since you don't have a fucking clue about either.

What you say doesn't even make sense you really are a complete moron. The expression "stand up to science" means something can be believable when compared to the laws of science. From now on I won't respond to your post, because your to stupid to even take seriously.

 

[manifold]

Promise?

 

[plt42]

Personally, I would enjoy participating in such a debate or discussion as proposed... but I won't because of the contributions or responses I've read so far.

To pursue it is pointless when all you get in response is filth and name calling.

Good luck!

 

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

Personally, I would enjoy participating in such a debate or discussion as proposed... but I won't because of the contributions or responses I've read so far.

To pursue it is pointless when all you get in response is filth and name calling.

Good luck!

Yeah, I know I got on this site because I wanted to have intelligent debates with people, but on this board it's just a bunch of hate and insults. The political board is alot better, which is sad because I really wanted to debate religion. Looks like I have to settle for politics though.

 

[Diuretic]

This thread will be a debate between Deism (belief in a God based off scientific facts) and Athiesm. This means no talk of Christian Ideas AT ALL just based off of complete scientific facts.

I would go toward Deism. There is no scientific fact that life was created by evolution. Evolution is a theory that acts on already living organisms; it does not and can not create life. Scientist have been trying for over a century to create life in a labratory, and if they can't create life in a lab how can they expect people to believe it just happened accidently. No where else in Science and Nature has anything happened, because of accidents. It's science's job to explain why things happen and saying it just happened is not explaining it, which is what they do with the big bang also.

I seen all the theories of the big bang and too me it seems completely ridiculous. To say the whole universe was created by a massive explosion that happened because four supercharged atoms that came out of nowhere collided is not explaining anything it shouldn't even be a theory. Something can't come from nothing. That is a basic law of science, and as long as scientist can't explain what was before the universe and what created it there is no proof of Atheism.

The whole point of this thread is to prove that their is no scientific proof that Atheism is the correct belief. If someone can prove it I would like to hear it or see it. Please no Christianity in this debate. I am a Christian and I am willing to admit their is no science in it. This is purely wether you believe or don't believe in a God based off of science.

God of the Gaps.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes I know the dangers of talking like this thank you for warning me. I just want to have debates with athiest, but they never seem to do anything except insult Christianity. Now, these people just come in and be smartass's and sarcastic, but none of them has even stated a single opinion. It just proves it isn't all our governments fault Americans can't talk to each other like they got sense either.

I'm an atheist and I won't insult you or anyone else for their religious beliefs. I may get a bit frustrated but I won't attack your religious beliefs. I WILL attack superstitious rubbish that people try to pass of as science though.

 

[Diuretic]

Atheists are incapable of reason... that's why they're atheists. Reason comes at the foot of the Father; God being infinite reason... Thus atheism exists outside of reason.

What you need to understand is that atheism is nothing more than secular humanism... it's evil's rationalization which serves to obfuscate final judgment. If there is no God, then there will be no final judgment; thus 'everything is relative' and one can do as one pleases without concern for whether or not what ever it is, is morally right; this because while secular humanism likes to refer to morality and the idiocy that one can be moral and not 'religious,' they can never seem to explain how that might work... this is very simply because they IT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED...

Try this sometime: Try to get one of the Europeans (they're hands DOWN the most fun, because they are the TRUE believers man... dumber than a bag of hammers...) to explain how in the absence of God that human rights can exist... It is an absolute HOOT!

HEY! Better yet, I'll open a new thread to that effect... come on by and enjoy the intellectual train wrecks.

You don’t really have a clue do you? Secular humanism is a philosophy that doesn’t require gods. Secular humanism is entirely rational and without superstition. Secular humanists can develop good principles for life without requiring the supervision of a god invented by other humans for their own ends.

 

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

I'm an atheist and I won't insult you or anyone else for their religious beliefs. I may get a bit frustrated but I won't attack your religious beliefs. I WILL attack superstitious rubbish that people try to pass of as science though.

You're the type of person I was hoping would come in, instead I hot a bunch of flamers.

I just don't understand how life could form accidently and on it's own. I mean for a biological organism to live it needs many well developed body systems and organs. I know they say cells formed first then they evolved from that, but how do you go from a single cell to a animal. Evolution could never make that leap, because it is a slow gradual process.

 

[Diuretic]

You're the type of person I was hoping would come in, instead I hot a bunch of flamers.

I just don't understand how life could form accidently and on it's own. I mean for a biological organism to live it needs many well developed body systems and organs. I know they say cells formed first then they evolved from that, but how do you go from a single cell to a animal. Evolution could never make that leap, because it is a slow gradual process.

I'm definitely not qualified to even begin to give an opinion on that. I will say this though - I think one of the hypotheses that a deity created the universe and all life within it (assuming there's life out there) is fair enough. I know it's impossible to prove at this time but anyone is entitled to hold that hypothesis.

I forget the term used for the hypothesis that doesn't involve a deity but there is an idea that life began on Earth because some sort of chemical reaction (I wasn't kidding when I said I wasn't qualified). But there is one and I don't know the strength of proof on that one, whether or not it's been proven yet.

Evolution isn't a theory about life creation, it's a theory about adaptation of life forms so it may not apply in this discussion.

 

[manifold]

This thread gave me a great idea for a poll question (thanks Indy).

Please find it here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/59537-god-arguments-based-on-science.html#post809369

 

[N4mddissent]

I seen all the theories of the big bang and too me it seems completely ridiculous. To say the whole universe was created by a massive explosion that happened because four supercharged atoms that came out of nowhere collided is not explaining anything it shouldn't even be a theory. Something can't come from nothing. That is a basic law of science, and as long as scientist can't explain what was before the universe and what created it there is no proof of Atheism.

You're the type of person I was hoping would come in, instead I hot a bunch of flamers.

I just don't understand how life could form accidently and on it's own. I mean for a biological organism to live it needs many well developed body systems and organs. I know they say cells formed first then they evolved from that, but how do you go from a single cell to a animal. Evolution could never make that leap, because it is a slow gradual process.

The standard scientific reply would be that this is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Specifically, because you don't understand how it could have happened doesn't make it inaccurate. Then we could go on and talk about life at the basic level is composed of amino acids and how amino acids from spontaneouly when energy is applied to certain simulated atmospheres but it will quickly submerge this discussion into a technical tempest with likely no satisfactory outcome. I'm a little bit uncertain about your big bang comment. I've heard some of the more outstanding theories, bubble universes, collapse of the wave-function (one Hawking worked on), etc.. but I'm not sure where the 4 supercharged atoms theory comes from? As far as the laws of physics go, the problem with discussing the precise moment of the big bang is similar to the problem of black holes- to wit, within a singularity, the laws of physics break down.

As for the general premise of the thread, I personally consider myself an atheist, but find the deist position to the most reasonable theistic position. After all, by saying that there is a force that started it all and nothing further, you are making a statement that essentially falls into a broad agnosticism. It must be admitted that in such a case, the existence or non-existence is really a subjective, unprovable matter but has no practical effect upon one's life. There is no moral code, no dogma, no intercession by the diety, no ritual, etc... I personally don't ascribe to it simply on the basis that I don't feel it is reasonable to accept the existence of such a complex and powerful force without evidence (especially if it refers to a conscious force). Even if there are mysteries unsolved about the universe (and there are), I think the deity hypothesis to explain them is a bit of an unwarranted leap. Beyond that, I see no reason that deism is not an acceptable solution for those who wish to believe it.

When religions claim specifics about a diety, it becomes much less reasonable in my opinion.

 

[cjcord]

Yes I know the dangers of talking like this thank you for warning me. I just want to have debates with athiest, but they never seem to do anything except insult Christianity. Now, these people just come in and be smartass's and sarcastic, but none of them has even stated a single opinion. It just proves it isn't all our governments fault Americans can't talk to each other like they got sense either.

Logically speaking, atheists aren't claiming anything. You are. So the burden of proof lies on those who are making the claim, not the other way around.

So instead of telling us why you disagree with atheistic ideas, why not explain why you feel your views are correct?

 

[LOki]

I would go toward Deism. There is no scientific fact that life was created by evolution. Evolution is a theory that acts on already living organisms; it does not and can not create life. Scientist have been trying for over a century to create life in a labratory, and if they can't create life in a lab how can they expect people to believe it just happened accidently. No where else in Science and Nature has anything happened, because of accidents. It's science's job to explain why things happen and saying it just happened is not explaining it, which is what they do with the big bang also.

I would like to point out that even though your superstitious paradigm regarding the origin of species, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe is unified in an origin myth, you should not treat the scientific explainations of these things as if they are unified in the same manner--they are not.

I seen all the theories of the big bang and too me it seems completely ridiculous.

I've seen alot of the superstitious theories regarding the origin of the universe, and see no foundation for them in an objective reality.

To say the whole universe was created by a massive explosion that happened because four supercharged atoms that came out of nowhere collided is not explaining anything it shouldn't even be a theory.

And it isn't--at least not one I've heard of.

Something can't come from nothing.

Not even an uncaused creator?

That is a basic law of science, and as long as scientist can't explain what was before the universe and what created it there is no proof of Atheism.

I'm sorry. The existence of atheists proves Atheism. The fact that there is no objective, imperical evidence for the existence of a creator proves that atheists have a point; and though absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it certainly supports the argument for absence.

The whole point of this thread is to prove that their is no scientific proof that Atheism is the correct belief.

You can't prove with no evidence, the non-existence of something--you can only say there is no evidence. What do you think mainstream atheists are asserting?

If someone can prove it I would like to hear it or see it.

You can't prove with no evidence, the non-existence of something--the burden of proof is on those making the positive assertion. It is perfectly rational to suspend belief in a notion for which no evidence has been presented that supports its validity. Sorry about your luck, but evidence supports the scientific theories regarding the origin of species, the origin of the universe, and the origin of life; evidence does not support the superstitous theories of the origin of species, the origin of the universe, and the origin of life.

Please no Christianity in this debate. I am a Christian and I am willing to admit their is no science in it. This is purely wether you believe or don't believe in a God based off of science.

It is good that you accept there is no science in your religion. Religions that demand faith (such as, but not limited to, Christianity) demand a denial of evidence; science is evidence based--since evidence does not (and arguably cannot) support a belief in God, those who believe what they see, rather than see what they believe, will most reasonably not believe in God.

It doesn't prove they are right. I was just stating why I think it is right, because it's what I believe. Now Athiest were supposed to tell me why think it doesn't prove their is a God. Everything doesn't have to be right or wrong. That is the premise of a debate.

This seems to be a 'round-about way of asking if reason is a more valid means of exploring the nature of existence than faith. I think it is.

However, if you want to know why I think it does prove their is a God is because of the complexity of nature and science. Think about all the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and the many other laws of nature. Laws are things intelligent beings make to keep order in the world. If their were no governments there would be anarchy throughout the world. People who have intelligence make them to keep order. Just as the laws of science and nature were made to keep order in our universe.

Just because the term "law" is common to the vernacular of science and government, does not mean that "law" has the same meaning in the context of scientific method and government.

Compicated things like the universe aren't accidents and they don't just happen.

Noone asserts that the univers was an acciden--not even proponents of the Big Bang Theory.

Someone or Something or things would have to create it.

Are you asserting that this Someone or Something could not exist by accident; that they too had to be created?

I don't know necesarilly what did, I believe God did, but their is no way to know for sure.

What evidence do you bring to support your assertion.

Just as their is no way to know for sure the Universe wasn't a accident (maybe it was).

Strawman. No one asserts that the universe is an accident.

I just want to debate this topic with people of intelligence who can have a arguement without getting bentout of shape.

Is the measure of a "person of intelligence" the acceptance of superstition as valid means to describe the universe?

 

[Luissa]

This thread will be a debate between Deism (belief in a God based off scientific facts) and Athiesm. This means no talk of Christian Ideas AT ALL just based off of complete scientific facts.

I would go toward Deism. There is no scientific fact that life was created by evolution. Evolution is a theory that acts on already living organisms; it does not and can not create life. Scientist have been trying for over a century to create life in a labratory, and if they can't create life in a lab how can they expect people to believe it just happened accidently. No where else in Science and Nature has anything happened, because of accidents. It's science's job to explain why things happen and saying it just happened is not explaining it, which is what they do with the big bang also.

I seen all the theories of the big bang and too me it seems completely ridiculous. To say the whole universe was created by a massive explosion that happened because four supercharged atoms that came out of nowhere collided is not explaining anything it shouldn't even be a theory. Something can't come from nothing. That is a basic law of science, and as long as scientist can't explain what was before the universe and what created it there is no proof of Atheism.

The whole point of this thread is to prove that their is no scientific proof that Atheism is the correct belief. If someone can prove it I would like to hear it or see it. Please no Christianity in this debate. I am a Christian and I am willing to admit their is no science in it. This is purely wether you believe or don't believe in a God based off of science.

Geological history of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For one most Christians don't believe the earth is that old! People need faith and don't want to except that when they die there is no where to go and after that they do not exsist anymore. People are scared of the unknown so therefore religion is a way to make them feel better about it which is why they call it faith not science.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Indydouche&asshole,

Science doesn't stand up to faith, and faith doesn't stand up to science. That's how it works. But I guess it doesn't matter to you since you don't have a fucking clue about either.

Mani, you're gonna have to back up a bit on this one. One of the greatest scientific minds ever to be on this earth (Albert Einstein), once said the following quote.....

"Science without theology is blind, and theology without science is crippled".

Incidentally, most of the scientists that are at the higher levels of their discipline generally have a pretty healthy belief in a Higher Power, whether they call it God, HaShem, or any other name. Interestingly enough also, the Jews have a pretty devout group of people, but they also have an excellent grounding in science, because to them, the Torah supports all new discoveries that they get.

How did life on earth form? Dunno. However.....there have been some interesting discoveries over the past few years. One of which was that scientists took basic chemical building blocks. Now....for quite a few years before, they had been trying to create life by mixing various things together. Unfortunately, they kept missing one crucial ingredient. Recently, the scientists were running their mixtures and one got the idea to charge it with electricity, as during the period when life was thought to form, there were supposedly super-storms running around.

Well....after application of a pretty healthy charge of electricity, the scientists looked and what they had, and it was long-chain DNA and RNA strands.

Now....I believe in God, but I also believe that science is a way for Him to point us to where He is at. Additionally, because of the fossil record, which clearly shows single cell organisms eventually developing into complex organisms, I'm kinda of the belief that God utilizes evolution as a way to guide creation towards wherever He is looking for it to go. I also think that Darwin got it wrong, not with his basic theory, but with where he tried to lead it. We have LESS in common with apes than we do with dolphins. However, characteristics in dolphins and humans are very similar. Did you know that the only other animal to have sex for enjoyment other than man is the dolphin? And the physical similarities are pretty interesting also.

And.......for all you "Christians" that think that is a bunch of hooey, then lemmie ask you one thing.....

Why did Jesus keep telling people He would make them "fishers of men"? I really don't think that it was just because they were fishermen, I think He picked fishermen to show something else also.

Deism or athiesm? I'll take Diesm thank you.

Evolution or "just created"? I'll take evolution. Remember, God is eternal, and therefore beyond the limits of the time/space continium, so a long term thing like evolution (with small tweaks and changes as necessary), would not bother Him, as He's got all the time He needs.

 

[N4mddissent]

Mani, you're gonna have to back up a bit on this one. One of the greatest scientific minds ever to be on this earth (Albert Einstein), once said the following quote.....

"Science without theology is blind, and theology without science is crippled".

Incidentally, most of the scientists that are at the higher levels of their discipline generally have a pretty healthy belief in a Higher Power, whether they call it God, HaShem, or any other name. Interestingly enough also, the Jews have a pretty devout group of people, but they also have an excellent grounding in science, because to them, the Torah supports all new discoveries that they get.

I appreciate your open minded approach and I wish more Christians thought that way, especially in my part of the country, but I want mention a few things not as an attack on your argument, but just on a couple of points that may be mistaken.

The quote you mentioned was from Einstein, however it is a common misconception that Einstein was religious. He did often speak of "god" but as he made clear later in life when it was pointed out that his quotes were being used to support religious beliefs, he was only referencing the general mystery of the universe and did not believe in a personal god or any supernatural entities or even an afterlife. And as a matter of fact, that exact quote was from an essay explaining the secular origins of religion and why scientist would have no need of religion including morality which he believed should not come from religion. Although at the end he talked about the fascination with the material universe that he believed inspired primitive man to invent religion was critical to the scientist- that the scientist must look upon the universe with the same sort of awe and wonder as one would have in religion. It is during that part that he made the statement used as your quote. So if you choose to use that quote it is no problem, I just feel it's a bit disrespectful to use a quote out of context to lend credibility to a view he didn't hold. But I assume you did not do so intentionally (as is usually the case) so I wanted to let you know so you could make an informed choice. If you would like to read the quote in context, let me know and I will try to get you a link.

The other thing is the comment about scientists ranked highly in their fields. Studies on the religiosity of scientists have shown a high level (over 60%) of university scientists in the U.S. are atheists or agnostics, especially as compared to the rate among the general population in the U.S. Further studies have shown on several occasions that scientists more highly regarded (for the U.S. study it was scientists elected to the National Academy) are more frequently atheists or agnostics with only 7% or so having any belief in a personal god whatsover and 8% believing in an afterlife. Other international studies among Nobel Laurettes have shown similar trends.

 

[Ravi]

Did you know that the only other animal to have sex for enjoyment other than man is the dolphin?

Uh, monkeys?

Seriously, how would you possibly know?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I didn't say religious N4, I said "believe in some type of Higher Power".

Incidentally, Einstein DID believe in something larger than himself.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Uh, monkeys?

Seriously, how would you possibly know?

Came across it one time while in a class. Looked it up later to verify, and found out that it is true.

 

[jillian]

Came across it one time while in a class. Looked it up later to verify, and found out that it is true.

I don't think that one's correct since apes engage in mastabatory behavior. I'm not sure if any other animals do, though.