Here is the question atheists can't answer...

[Montrovant]

So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god.

You are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god (or a belief that there is no god, depending on the definition). If natural selection is a person's god, they are not an atheist. Calling natural selection an atheist's god is just a way to try to make atheism into a type of religion IMO.

You're pleased with what you said above?

What that tells me is that you really had no defense for the gist of my post, so you looked for something to pick at and divert the discussion.

I know atheism does not believe in any god. I used the word 'god' in a context I was hoping the reader would understand.

Now go back to my post and explain how "nature" can be so clever, yet so mindless, thoughtless, and without feeling all at the same time. (Post #131 So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0 )

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of natural selection. There is no decision involved. Some creatures survive, others do not. Natural selection is just a phrase to use to easily describe the process whereby some creatures are better able to survive and procreate due to whatever characteristics they have which other creatures, that don't do as well at surviving and procreating, do not have.

In other words, natural selection did not do anything. It is not an entity or intelligence capable of doing.

 

[turzovka]

It is not a stretch by any means to assume we as humans do not possess the intellectual and/or sensory capability needed to explain absolutely everything in the universe

wow.


From that, it strikes me that you have not learned much of anything.

I'm intelligent enough not to let hubris cloud my estimation of the limits of the human brain.

As I said my dog is physically incapable of the intellect required to do algebra. Our brains are physical biologic constructs and every physical biologic construct has its limits

If you deny that then you have not learned much

Limitations of human brain mean we may never understand the secrets of universe, says Britain's top scientist

Ok, you win. You are right.

I read your previous statement incorrectly.

I thought you said humans DO possess the capacity needed to explain everything.

Sorry. I guess my stupidity proves your statement was correct. : )

 

[Saul]

I had thus far failed to note my prime question on the subject of the God concept: if there was, and possibly is, a God, why worship it? Why fear it? Why even think of it? It's become obvious that ignoring it has no ill effects on people, as it is obvious that loving it does not get you any favors. Whether one believes, or not, life hands us all the very same pains and joys.

You sure do not ask for much, do you?

"Give me 75 good years of pleasure and peace and you can do whatever you want with me the next trillion years."

What a martyr.

I ask only for logic, not that I expect any.

 

[Saul]

It is not a stretch by any means to assume we as humans do not possess the intellectual and/or sensory capability needed to explain absolutely everything in the universe

wow.


From that, it strikes me that you have not learned much of anything.

Are you saying that you can explain everything?

 

[Saul]

Mocking? Annoyed? Being defensive?; against what? Broadbrush? All I asked was why worship God, even if there were no doubt it/he/she exists.

The fact you feel defensive about a general comment I made to another poster is interesting. Do you always feel this way when someone says something like "To broad brush all just for the actions of a loud-mouthed few is wrong regardless if they are theist or atheist"?

I don't see an answer to the question: why *worship* a god?

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't see an answer to the question: why *worship* a god?

Nice dodge on my questions. Odd that you responded to a question posted to sealybobo. Do you use sock puppets?

As for worship, an all-knowing, all powerful entity doesn't need worship. Ergo, there's no reason to "worship" God, but there is a very good reason to better understand the meaning of existence.

This is what I mean. I think if someone truly believed they were going to a heaven and others were not, they would only be capable of feeling sorrow for anyone who mocked or doubted them. Even the slightest hint of being annoyed tells me you are getting defensive and to me that makes me doubt that even you believe what you are saying.

And this is what I mean. Most Christians would feel sorry for another. To broad brush all just for the actions of a loud-mouthed few is wrong regardless if they are theist or atheist.

Mocking? Annoyed? Being defensive?; against what? Broadbrush? All I asked was why worship God, even if there were no doubt it/he/she exists.

 

[MaryL]

How did we get here?

And here is a question theists can't and won't bother to answer: Were did GOD come from?

 

[Divine Wind]

How did we get here?

And here is a question theists can't and won't bother to answer: Were did GOD come from?

You're asking a natural universe question for an entity that is beyond the natural universe. Do you believe the laws of our universe apply outside of it?

Consider this: When did time and space begin? The Big Bang. Where did the Primordial Atom come from? Take your time. I can wait.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't see an answer to the question: why *worship* a god?

Nice dodge on my questions. Odd that you responded to a question posted to sealybobo. Do you use sock puppets?

As for worship, an all-knowing, all powerful entity doesn't need worship. Ergo, there's no reason to "worship" God, but there is a very good reason to better understand the meaning of existence.

This is what I mean. I think if someone truly believed they were going to a heaven and others were not, they would only be capable of feeling sorrow for anyone who mocked or doubted them. Even the slightest hint of being annoyed tells me you are getting defensive and to me that makes me doubt that even you believe what you are saying.

And this is what I mean. Most Christians would feel sorry for another. To broad brush all just for the actions of a loud-mouthed few is wrong regardless if they are theist or atheist.

Mocking? Annoyed? Being defensive?; against what? Broadbrush? All I asked was why worship God, even if there were no doubt it/he/she exists.

We all s

I don't see an answer to the question: why *worship* a god?

Nice dodge on my questions. Odd that you responded to a question posted to sealybobo. Do you use sock puppets?

As for worship, an all-knowing, all powerful entity doesn't need worship. Ergo, there's no reason to "worship" God, but there is a very good reason to better understand the meaning of existence.

This is what I mean. I think if someone truly believed they were going to a heaven and others were not, they would only be capable of feeling sorrow for anyone who mocked or doubted them. Even the slightest hint of being annoyed tells me you are getting defensive and to me that makes me doubt that even you believe what you are saying.

And this is what I mean. Most Christians would feel sorry for another. To broad brush all just for the actions of a loud-mouthed few is wrong regardless if they are theist or atheist.

Mocking? Annoyed? Being defensive?; against what? Broadbrush? All I asked was why worship God, even if there were no doubt it/he/she exists.

We all want to know the meaning of life. I just don't believe the people who think they know.

 

[MaryL]

God is beyond the universe now? I don't want to sound like doubting Jewish mom. But then wisenheimer, who made God and all that stuff. It's a interesting question, don't you think?

 

[sealybobo]

God is beyond the universe now? I don't want to sound like doubting Jewish mom. But then wisenheimer, who made God and all that stuff. It's a interesting question, don't you think?

If God is eternal and our universe has a beginning and end it's safe to assume we aren't his first or last universe. We are but one roll of gods dice

 

[MaryL]

God is beyond the universe now? I don't want to sound like doubting Jewish mom. But then wisenheimer, who made God and all that stuff. It's a interesting question, don't you think?

If God is eternal and our universe has a beginning and end it's safe to assume we aren't his first or last universe. We are but one roll of gods dice

So were DID GOD come from, just between us?

 

[sealybobo]

So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god.

You are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god (or a belief that there is no god, depending on the definition). If natural selection is a person's god, they are not an atheist. Calling natural selection an atheist's god is just a way to try to make atheism into a type of religion IMO.

You're pleased with what you said above?

What that tells me is that you really had no defense for the gist of my post, so you looked for something to pick at and divert the discussion.

I know atheism does not believe in any god. I used the word 'god' in a context I was hoping the reader would understand.

Now go back to my post and explain how "nature" can be so clever, yet so mindless, thoughtless, and without feeling all at the same time. (Post #131 So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0 )

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of natural selection. There is no decision involved. Some creatures survive, others do not. Natural selection is just a phrase to use to easily describe the process whereby some creatures are better able to survive and procreate due to whatever characteristics they have which other creatures, that don't do as well at surviving and procreating, do not have.

In other words, natural selection did not do anything. It is not an entity or intelligence capable of doing.

Actually I think we created the emperor crab. It was a deformaty and fisherman threw those back. Superstition said they looked like the emperor. Anyways, that species survived eventually we ate all the non emperor crabs.

But we didn't cause the initial mutation no

 

[MaryL]

So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god.

You are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god (or a belief that there is no god, depending on the definition). If natural selection is a person's god, they are not an atheist. Calling natural selection an atheist's god is just a way to try to make atheism into a type of religion IMO.

You're pleased with what you said above?

What that tells me is that you really had no defense for the gist of my post, so you looked for something to pick at and divert the discussion.

I know atheism does not believe in any god. I used the word 'god' in a context I was hoping the reader would understand.

Now go back to my post and explain how "nature" can be so clever, yet so mindless, thoughtless, and without feeling all at the same time. (Post #131 So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0 )

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of natural selection. There is no decision involved. Some creatures survive, others do not. Natural selection is just a phrase to use to easily describe the process whereby some creatures are better able to survive and procreate due to whatever characteristics they have which other creatures, that don't do as well at surviving and procreating, do not have.

In other words, natural selection did not do anything. It is not an entity or intelligence capable of doing.

Actually I think we created the emperor crab. It was a deformaty and fisherman threw those back. Superstition said they looked like the emperor. Anyways, that species survived eventually we ate all the non emperor crabs.

But we didn't cause the initial mutation no

No. And if everything needs a creator, what created GOD? It's a simple question.

 

[presonorek]

How did we get here?

Bobby Henderson is an atheist. He explained this in his book.

 

[sealybobo]

God is beyond the universe now? I don't want to sound like doubting Jewish mom. But then wisenheimer, who made God and all that stuff. It's a interesting question, don't you think?

If God is eternal and our universe has a beginning and end it's safe to assume we aren't his first or last universe. We are but one roll of gods dice

So were DID GOD come from, just between us?

I don't believe there is a need for an initial creator. Why are theists comfortable with an eternal creator but not OK with an eternal number of infinite universes that exist just because? Why do we exist? We may never know. If we didn't exist what would be the point? Why do stars exist? Why does the universe? There is no ultimate purpose. Life just is. Lucky if you had a good life.

We exist so the universe can know itself. I believe we are all connected. I feel connected with the universe. In fact we all came from other stars that died billions of years before our star was born.

There just is existence in between the non existent. Ultimately I can't answer all your questions

 

[sealybobo]

So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god.

You are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god (or a belief that there is no god, depending on the definition). If natural selection is a person's god, they are not an atheist. Calling natural selection an atheist's god is just a way to try to make atheism into a type of religion IMO.

You're pleased with what you said above?

What that tells me is that you really had no defense for the gist of my post, so you looked for something to pick at and divert the discussion.

I know atheism does not believe in any god. I used the word 'god' in a context I was hoping the reader would understand.

Now go back to my post and explain how "nature" can be so clever, yet so mindless, thoughtless, and without feeling all at the same time. (Post #131 So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0 )

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of natural selection. There is no decision involved. Some creatures survive, others do not. Natural selection is just a phrase to use to easily describe the process whereby some creatures are better able to survive and procreate due to whatever characteristics they have which other creatures, that don't do as well at surviving and procreating, do not have.

In other words, natural selection did not do anything. It is not an entity or intelligence capable of doing.

Actually I think we created the emperor crab. It was a deformaty and fisherman threw those back. Superstition said they looked like the emperor. Anyways, that species survived eventually we ate all the non emperor crabs.

But we didn't cause the initial mutation no

No. And if everything needs a creator, what created GOD? It's a simple question.

You do know I don't believe a God exists, right? You're preaching to the choir.

 

[turzovka]

No. And if everything needs a creator, what created GOD? It's a simple question.

Why don't you go explain calculus to a frog? And if he cannot figure that out then nothing he observes makes sense or has meaning.

You are trying to tell us life could easily just happen on its own with no intelligence whatsoever because we cannot explain where God came from. That is your argument? God could not be because someone had to make God, and since God won't tell us how that could be we should pay no heed to any evidence for I AM WHO AM?

 

[presonorek]

Excerpt from pages 154-156 of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson

Life, Kolgoromov Complexity, and Delicious Spaghetti

Nick Moran

To begin, let us look at the forms of life we can see on this planet. They all exhibit a certain degree of complexity that is not found in nonliving matter. A dog is much more complex than a rock. To express this, we can use the concept of Kolgoromov complexity. Living things possess high Kolgoromov complexity, because their DNA is decidedly uncompressible. As an example, consider the string of bits 10101010. This string has very low Kolgoromov complexity because it can be compressed to "write 10 four times." On the other hand, the string 0100101 is uncompressible in the same sense that DNA is. It has very high Kolgoromov complexity. That string was generated by me tapping the "0" and "1 " keys on my keyboard. If I had a keyboard with only ACGT, I could similarly write random DNA. If we put that DNA into a cell, and tried to make a living organism out of it, I very much doubt we would get anything living, much less good at living. Therefore, the uncompressible complexity we observe in living things is also nonrandom. It has been created for a purpose: the purpose of building living things. So, if the DNA has been created, then there must be a creator. Some choose to posit the Christian God, other choose intelligent aliens with amazing technology. The problem is that both of these choices also must have extremely high Kolgoromov complexity. My chances of randomly hammering out the code to a divine being on my four-key keyboard are even less than that of coming up with a living animal. These are really just restatements of the same problem; we still don't know where the complexity came from. We could posit an endless string of gods each of whom created the one before it, thus accounting for the extremely high complexity of a god. However, this string just results in higher and higher degrees of complexity and gets us nowhere. What we need is a way to get high complexity from low complexity. If you'll indulge me a brief tangent, I would like to discuss the prop- enlightenment Institute * * 155 erties of spaghetti. Imagine a box of uncooked spaghetti. It's essentially a series of straight lines. A box of two hundred pieces of spaghetti has very low Kolgoromov complexity. You could easily compress the data contained in those two hundred pieces. Now imagine a plate of cooked spaghetti, complete with sauce and, if you like, meatballs. Imagine the process of untangling this mass. It would take hours to take each individual piece of spaghetti, clean off the sauce, and put it in its own separate place and pick out the meatballs. This plate of spaghetti, all tangled up and covered with delicious sauce has very high complexity. Spaghetti has the astounding property of being able to go from very low to very high complexity. Now, let's return to our search for a creator. Clearly gods and superintelligent aliens don't help us in our problem. A spaghetti god, however, could. It is reasonable that something of low complexity might come into existence on its own. We don't look at a rock in the woods and feel the need for a designer. So, low-complexity, uncooked spaghetti does not require a creator, it is quite capable of arising through random, natural processes. Then, when cooked via the infusion of energy, it can come to have a high complexity. Consider the difference between uncooked and slightly cooked spaghetti. Slightly cooked spaghetti has slightly higher complexity than uncooked. There is a continuous spectrum from low to high as the spaghetti is cooked. The more the spaghetti is cooked, the more energy has been infused. In order to create a Flying Spaghetti Monster capable of creating life, which would have an extremely high level of complexity, we would need an extremely high amount of energy to do the cooking. There is only one place where we might find the required amount of energy: the universe immediately following the Big Bang. Temperatures of 100 billion degrees Kelvin would certainly be sufficient to generate the high Kolgoromov complexity of spaghetti with the power to create life. Thus, we have found a solution to the question of where the Kolgoromov complexity of life comes from. Uncooked spaghetti arose naturally (quite possibly because of its low Kolgoromov complexity) during 156** The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the first instants of the universe. It was then cooked by the extremely high temperatures, causing it to rapidly gain complexity to the point of being able to create life. Further increases in complexity granted it the ability to fly, and monster status. There will likely be some neo-Darwinian, Ivy League, science elitist who will come up with some other object that can rise in complexity when cooked. In order to prove that the true form of the creator is that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will employ a version of the famed cosmological argument:

 

[presonorek]

(continued from post #339)

1. You don't need a reason to enjoy spaghetti.
2. Everything (else) has a cause.
3. Nothing can cause itself.
4. Everything is caused by another thing.
5. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
6. There must be a first cause.
7. The first cause had no cause.
8. Spaghetti is the only thing that can have no cause, thus must be the first cause.