Pain pain blah more whining!

[vindicatedxjin]

By 'logic', I'm assuming that you're talking about what most Atheists believe. Which is pretty much, that the universe was created by a huge explosion which somehow brought life into being, and allowed it to slowly mutate into different branches of life. Humans are nothing more than pieces of walking flesh, that somehow grew brains (unlike trees), who have no souls, so when they die...they merely decompose into dust. I'm not going to go out and say that it isn't true...It could be exactly what really happens. But please tell me exactly how that concept is more "logical" than the assumption that 'us' humans aren't exactly as super intelligent as we think we are, that there 'just' might be a more intelligent being/ beings who created maybe not exactly the universe..but us 'humans'. All I want to say is that there are many theories as to where we could have come from. And people have many different beliefs, religiously as to our humble beginnings. I just can't agree that Atheists main beliefs, are the most logical.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

By 'logic', I'm assuming that you're talking about what most Atheists believe. Which is pretty much, that the universe was created by a huge explosion which somehow brought life into being, and allowed it to slowly mutate into different branches of life. Humans are nothing more than pieces of walking flesh, that somehow grew brains (unlike trees), who have no souls, so when they die...they merely decompose into dust. I'm not going to go out and say that it isn't true...It could be exactly what really happens. But please tell me exactly how that concept is more "logical" than the assumption that 'us' humans aren't exactly as super intelligent as we think we are, that there 'just' might be a more intelligent being/ beings who created maybe not exactly the universe..but us 'humans'. All I want to say is that there are many theories as to where we could have come from. And people have many different beliefs, religiously as to our humble beginnings. I just can't agree that Atheists main beliefs, are the most logical.

That's a misrepresentation. The logic of atheism is that the notion of a God is spiritual and not supported by evidence, therefore, it is more logical not to believe that God exists rather than that God does, simply because it's a safer assumption. You can attempt to lampoon the idea of evolution and the idea that we all decompose into dust, but these are supported by evidence. Religion dominates a spiritual realm. I guess you could argue that incredibly unassuming deism which postulates only 'there is a creator' is on a similar level logically to atheism, as that truly is an entirely grey area, but actual belief systems aren't.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by JCC

You can attempt to lampoon the idea of evolution and the idea that we all decompose into dust, but these are supported by evidence. Religion dominates a spiritual realm. I guess you could argue that incredibly unassuming deism which postulates only 'there is a creator' is on a similar level logically to atheism, as that truly is an entirely grey area, but actual belief systems aren't.

Dude, with all due respect I didn't mean to 'lampoon' anything. I for one wasn't there to witness it, so who am I to say it didn't happen? But how can you say that we have evidence of a theory?


If we had evidence, then it wouldn't really have to be a theory now would it?

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

If we had evidence, then it wouldn't really have to be a theory now would it?

Oh crap, here it comes!

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by JCC

I guess you could argue that incredibly unassuming deism which postulates only 'there is a creator' is on a similar level logically to atheism, as that truly is an entirely grey area, but actual belief systems aren't.

Even the most abstruse notion of a creator is illogical in a way that atheism isn't, as the purest logic assumes nothing that isn't suggested by evidence.

Consider the thesis "I am about to grow a flower from the top of my head". As it's supported by absolutely nothing and simply based on the sourceless intuition of whomever should posit it, it's of equal logical value to "there is a creator". So, the atheist, cleaving to logic, operates under neither premise, resolving to believe it when he sees it.

Originally Posted by xjin

But how can you say that we have evidence of a theory?
If we had evidence, then it wouldn't really have to be a theory now would it?

There's that rootin'-tootin' Lone Star home-schoolin' for you.
First of all, I was talking about atheism, which has only a tenuous connection to evolution. Atheism, which I claim as more logical than any form of theism, is nothing more than the belief that no divine creator exists. Arguing against your strawman, as I will now do, is no problem at all, but I want to make clear that it is a strawman.
The degree to which a theory is supported by evidence in no way effects its status as a theory. Evolution, though it remains a theory, is one supported by an enormous body of evidence-- the fossil record, homologous anatomy in animals, microevolution of powdered moths-- and is therefore a credible theory. If one were to theorize, however, that you have any fucking idea what you're talking about, that individual's theory would be a very spurious one indeed.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

There's that rootin'-tootin' Lone Star home-schoolin' for you.

*sigh* I'm honestly, wholeheartedly, not trying to argue here. I just feel like it's more logical to just say "I don't know" than, "I KNOW there wasn't ever a creator".

You could be totally right dude, I'm not going to tell you that believing in evolution is wrong. I'm just saying that you DON'T really know anything, other than what small amount of scientific proof is left on this mesmerizing planet.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Even the most abstruse notion of a creator is illogical in a way that atheism isn't, as the purest logic assumes nothing that isn't suggested by evidence.

Consider the thesis "I am about to grow a flower from the top of my head". As it's supported by absolutely nothing and simply based on the sourceless intuition of whomever should posit it, it's of equal logical value to "there is a creator". So, the atheist, cleaving to logic, operates under neither premise, resolving to believe it when he sees it.

Straw-godzilla masquerades over Tokyo city, leaving no semblance of logic in the wake of its dreaded claw. The thesis "I am about to grow a flower from the top of my head" is rooted (no pun intended) in absolutely everything we know not to be true about the human anatomy, laws of nature and also sound argument, since you created it as an example intentionally bereft of any worth, therefore arguing against the aforementioned straw-godzilla. Compare the implication that the laws of nature will be moulded to create a situation beyond human reckoning to the implication that because all things have some kind of linear path through history upon which one will eventually reach a position of genesis, the universe is similarly beholden to such a trend. At this point of creation, there is a creator. The first is entirely irrational and the second is merely superfluous. So, an accurate description of the deistic and atheistic positions are so:

Deist: I believe that because all things can be traced to a beginning, the universe can also be traced to a beginning. I choose to believe that this beginning lies with a creator.

Atheist: I choose not to believe that the universe was created.

Both are absolutely based on conjecture and the most logical choice would be to declare the whole thing as a grey area and make no assumptions.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by JCC

Straw-godzilla masquerades over Tokyo city, leaving no semblance of logic in the wake of its dreaded claw. The thesis "I am about to grow a flower from the top of my head" is rooted (no pun intended) in absolutely everything we know not to be true about the human anatomy, laws of nature and also sound argument, since you created it as an example intentionally bereft of any worth, therefore arguing against the aforementioned straw-godzilla. Compare the implication that the laws of nature will be moulded to create a situation beyond human reckoning to the implication that because all things have some kind of linear path through history upon which one will eventually reach a position of genesis, the universe is similarly beholden to such a trend. At this point of creation, there is a creator. So, an accurate description of the deistic and atheistic positions are so:

Deist: I acknowledge that because all things can be traced to a beginning, the universe can also be traced to a beginning. I choose to believe that this beginning lies with a creator.

Atheist: I acknowledge that because all things can be traced to a beginning, the universe can also be traced to a beginning. I choose not to believe that this beginning lies with a creator.

Both are absolutely based on conjecture and the most logical choice would be to declare the whole thing as a grey area and make no assumptions.

JCC, thank you so much, you pretty much summed up how I feel, in better words. Because I suck at writing.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by JCC

Straw-godzilla masquerades over Tokyo city, leaving no semblance of logic in the wake of its dreaded claw. The thesis "I am about to grow a flower from the top of my head" is rooted (no pun intended) in absolutely everything we know not to be true about the human anatomy, laws of nature and also sound argument, since you created it as an example intentionally bereft of any worth, therefore arguing against the aforementioned straw-godzilla.

You're right that 'I am about to grow a flower from the top of my head' is opposed by what we know of natural laws, but it contains an implicit idea that our knowledge is incomplete and some power exists by which what it describes might happen-- thus, while unqualified, it exists outside of opposing evidence.
In fact, you're applying a logical understanding of natural laws here, a line of thinking that should lead you to atheism. There is, as yet, no evidence of any forces at work beyond the natural laws we observe, so therefore we assume no other, stranger such laws exist.

Compare the implication that the laws of nature will be moulded to create a situation beyond human reckoning to the implication that because all things have some kind of linear path through history upon which one will eventually reach a position of genesis, the universe is similarly beholden to such a trend. At this point of creation, there is a creator. The first is entirely irrational and the second is merely superfluous.

Superfluity is irrationality, see Occam's razor.

So, an accurate description of the deistic and atheistic positions are so:

Deist: I believe that because all things can be traced to a beginning, the universe can also be traced to a beginning. I choose to believe that this beginning lies with a creator.

Atheist: I choose not to believe that the universe was created.

Both are absolutely based on conjecture and the most logical choice would be to declare the whole thing as a grey area and make no assumptions.

Think about the last line of your deist's position and your atheist's position. The key difference is that the atheist's is a negative idea-- he elects not to needlessly assume in the absence of evidence. Essentially, what you put forth as 'the most logical choice' IS the atheist's choice, in that he acknowledges the notion of a creator as impossible to disprove, but gives that notion no credence because nothing suggests it as true. Atheism isn't afraid to admit that it doesn't know, but won't pretend that "there is a creator" and "there is not a creator" have equal value logically-- as agnosticism might-- when the burden of proof is plainly on the former. Again, Occam's razor.

Originally Posted by xjin

JCC, thank you so much, you pretty much summed up how I feel, in better words. Because I suck at writing.

I should say "Don't you dare fucking piggyback your frighteningly ignorant, barely comprehensible blathering onto this well-reasoned and intelligent post," but I kind of just want to say "ha, see, I'm obviously right".

[vindicatedxjin]

*Rolls eyes* really???? REALLY????

[KontanKarite]

Fuck you, xJin.

[KissMeDeadly]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Fuck you, xJin.

Eloquent as always, I see.

[KontanKarite]

Fuck you, Asshole!!! o_0

[vindicatedxjin]

You Kontankarite, are a chupacabra.

[KontanKarite]

And you are a cunt whore. :-| Where have you been all my life?

[vindicatedxjin]

Far, far away from chupacabra land.

[KontanKarite]

Then you need to die in a fire.

[vindicatedxjin]

So what you are trying to say, is that I need to be in chupacabra land...because it's either deal with you, or die?

[KontanKarite]

There is a storm a-comin'.

[vindicatedxjin]

*sigh* whats a girl to do?

[KontanKarite]

Prepare to get pwned... again.

[vindicatedxjin]

...Pawn, pawn away!

[ape descendant]

AWE I missed the brunt of the argument!!! My tears flow like twin waterfalls!! Very NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

To add my two cents anyway ... an atheist is some one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. A logical atheist lacks a belief in god due to a lack of evidence, and an emotional atheist doesn't believe in god for ... other ... reasons.

Personally, I think its rather sound to lack a belief in something for which there is no good evidence.

In my opinion plopping some sort of supernatural creator into the gaps of our knowledge instead of being comfortable saying "I don't know" is intellectually dishonest and quite childish.

Also I noticed there was a mention of a scientific theory being "just a theory". A scientific theory is different from the way we tend to use theory in everyday speech. The way we use theory in everyday speech would be more loosely akin to an unproven hypothesis, than an actual scientific theory. While a scientific theory is an explanation for observed facts and phenomena, and is subject to change due to new data.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

In my opinion plopping some sort of supernatural creator into the gaps of our knowledge instead of being comfortable saying "I don't know" is intellectually dishonest and quite childish.

That's agnosticism, not atheism.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by JCC

That's agnosticism, not atheism.

Agnosticism is more along the lines of saying that if there is a god, such a being would be beyond our grasp and unknowable.

An atheist merely lacks a belief in a god or gods, and one is stil atheistic if one does not believe in god, but admits that one could not really know for sure.

I am in this camp. I lack a belief in a god or gods because there is no evidence for them. I do not say that I know for sure that god doesn't exist, and if there were good enough evidence of such a creature I would certainly change my mind.

I also think the same way about pixies and unicorns.