Are most atheists just hypocrites?

[Tres Juicy]

[Jiggerj]

 

but the concept of a Creator, who is perfect in everyway seems more logical

 

First off, if there is life on earth then there is no reason why life can't occur on at least one of the trillions of planets in the universe.

 

Now, you find the existence of a perfect being to be logical, and I find it to be one of the major contradictions in the catholic bible. If man was made in a god's image, then exactly what does this perfect god look like?

 

Does he have hair that needs to be cut? Does he have a body that needs food? If this perfect god is made of flesh and blood, can you imagine such perfection needing to use the bathroom?

 

If he is not made of flesh and blood, then is he pure energy? If so, then he can't have eyes like ours, a nose, mouth and ears like ours, skin and internal organs like ours. How can we be made in his image then?

 

Wonder if any deeeeep thought has ever gone into nailing down exactly what is meant by the word 'Perfect'?

[morgsboi]

I think that's rather obvious, but why does that matter?

 

Actually, I was wondering if she was just taking the piss.

[1=1]

Actually, I was wondering if she was just taking the piss.

 

She is.

[Arete]

 

Non-physical life=> God => Good & Devil & us =>(from Devil) Evil => temptation to believe in evolution

 

 

So, as an evolutionary biologist working at the juncture of evolutionary biology and epidemiology, from this assertion you'd believe we are doing the "devil's work" so to speak - and rather than any positive, practical outcome of our lab's work being a result of dedication, hard work and good science, it would be an inexplicable, miraculous gift from God?

 

By the same token, the reason we need a new flu vaccine each season wouldn't be due to evolutionary change and biologists working hard to develop new vaccines, but because the devil makes it so and God miraculously grants the researchers a magic elixir to boost herd immunity each year?

 

If that's the type of assertion you're making, it would seem a rather extreme example of intellectually offensive mental midgetry worthy of extraordinary ridicule.

[njaohnt]

njaohnt... pot... kettle... black...

 

I know. But that's not the same in world.

 

Obviously there is some disagreement of this, isn't there.

 

Also WHO PRESSED THE MINUS! I think it was you, but it could have been someone else.

You did not think hard enough.

 

And yet, you're suggesting "god did it" is a viable explanation

 

Maybe you haven't thought enough

 

Yes, but how is that different from gravity, and many other things being here. The only answer I've ever had, was that "We know here" but that is no better than Christianity. That's a 50/50. There is nothing with more, or less evidence. 1 point each.

 

Then we'll put on the factors. The Bible. People have said "the Bible is no evidence" but that is no better than some smart guy that thought up some theory, that you've never even seen -- 1/2 point for Christianity. That's the thing. If you could see God, He was with you everyday, you would believe that He exists, right? However, you will believe someone that you've never seen -- 1/4 point for atheism.

 

Point count.

Christianity: 1.5

Atheism: 1.25

 

Lay on your factors Atheists!

 

 

If he is not made of flesh and blood, then is he pure energy? If so, then he can't have eyes like ours, a nose, mouth and ears like ours, skin and internal organs like ours. How can we be made in his image then?

 

 

We can't.

Not really pure energy. Just -- what He is. Who knows? Perhaps some sort of special "matter"? Perhaps nothing, just a "Spirit" of nothing? Jump out of the fact that everything is made of matter, and go for the fact that no one knows what's out there.

 

Oh, less points for atheists!

The chance life the way it is, with life complexity is approximately 1/1 000 000 000

1.25/1000000000 = 1.25 × 10^-9

So now Atheism: 1.25 × 10^-9

[Arete]

What's with the bizarre point system?

 

Yes, but how is that different from gravity, and many other things being here. The only answer I've ever had, was that "We know here" but that is no better than Christianity. There is nothing with more, or less evidence.

 

The theory of gravity makes the prediction that, notwithstanding air resistance, things I drop will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8ms^-1. If I so desire, I could spend all day dropping things and measuring their acceleration due to gravity. I could compile my results, work out the probability that the things I dropped indeed accelerated at the rate predicted by gravity and thus work out the probability that the assertion made by the theory is correct, and thus decide if my observations support the theory or not.

 

To my knowledge, a similar prediction for the existence of God does not exist, thus we cannot measure the effects of God and form observations to support or reject the possibility of his existence. If you can suppose a way to measure a phenomenon the existence of God predicts, we can equate acceptance of his existence to the acceptance of scientific theories. Until then, it's a false comparison.

 

Then we'll put on the factors. The Bible. People have said "the Bible is no evidence" but that is no better than some smart guy that thought up some theory, that you've never even seen

 

The problem with using the bible as proof of God is that the authority of the bible comes from God. You have to believe in the authority of God to accept it as proof of God and thus it's circular. As stated above a theory makes predictions of things we can independently measure and calculate the probability of the theory being acceptable or not.

 

 

The chance life the way it is, with life complexity is approximately 1/1 000 000 000

Love to see your calculations on that one... but regardless the argument is nonsensical. If I roll a dice 100 times the probability of obtaining the result, regardless of what it is, is (1/6)¹⁰⁰. A result is inevitable, the chances of coming to a particular result "by pure chance" are miniscule - using the extremely low probability of the observed result after the fact as evidence that it couldn't happen by chance isn't logically sound.

[njaohnt]

What's with the bizarre point system?

I don't know

The theory of gravity makes the prediction that, notwithstanding air resistance, things I drop will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8ms^-1. If I so desire, I could spend all day dropping things and measuring their acceleration due to gravity. I could compile my results, work out the probability that the things I dropped indeed accelerated at the rate predicted by gravity and thus work out the probability that the assertion made by the theory is correct, and thus decide if my observations support the theory or not.

It's not about measuring, it is about existence. How did gravity come? You don't know. Even if you found a way to change gravity, or make another force, it had to come out of something, by the the rules of science. That's the thing. The rules of science are impossible without God, or at least some other god to make them -- or some other thing that made these amazing forces that allow us to live.

Love to see your calculations on that one... but regardless the argument is nonsensical. If I roll a dice 100 times the probability of obtaining the result, regardless of what it is, is (1/6)¹⁰⁰. A result is inevitable, the chances of coming to a particular result "by pure chance" are miniscule - using the extremely low probability of the observed result after the fact as evidence that it couldn't happen by chance isn't logically sound.

 

Yes, possible, but very unlikely.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Even if you found a way to change gravity, or make another force, it had to come out of something, by the the rules of science. That's the thing. The rules of science are impossible without God, or at least some other god to make them -- or some other thing that made these amazing forces that allow us to live.

Which rules are these? Could you list them?

[Moontanman]

Oh, less points for atheists!

The chance life the way it is, with life complexity is approximately 1/1 000 000 000

1.25/1000000000 = 1.25 × 10^-9

So now Atheism: 1.25 × 10^-9

 

 

No, the chance life is the way it is happens to be exactly 1/1....

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's not about measuring, it is about existence. How did gravity come? You don't know.

 

Do you not find it a rather silly thing to ascribe observed natural phenomena to a fairy tale with no basis in reality and no evidence whatsoever just because science cannot explain every small process in full and exact detail?

Edited February 9, 2012 by hypervalent_iodine

[Arete]

It's not about measuring, it is about existence. How did gravity come? You don't know. Even if you found a way to change gravity, or make another force, it had to come out of something, by the the rules of science. That's the thing. The rules of science are impossible without God, or at least some other god to make them -- or some other thing that made these amazing forces that allow us to live.

 

This is classic shifting the goalposts. You explicitly and repeatedly equated belief in God with acceptance of a scientific theory - which is what I was addressing in my response. Now you've shifted to a new argument which was not stated in your original post and criticized me for not addressing it. It's not a valid way of having a logical discussion.

 

In any case, the new argument is as logically fallacious as the first. It's a transferrance - that "gravity" (although gravitational force simply being a property of matter this translates to matter) cannot "simply exist" or "come into existence". However this results in the presumption that God had to "simply exist" or "come into existence". You can't refute one possibility as having unacceptable assumptions and then simply apply those assumptions to the possibility you have a personal preference for in a logical fashion.

 

It also fails via the application of Occam's razor - despite natural, evidence based theories for the inception of the universe - say we have to accept that at some point, something had to inexplicably, spontaneously just exist. Given we have measurable, positive evidence of the existence of matter but none for God, and it follows axiomatically that if God is a sentient being capable of creating matter he is more complex than the matter itself, there are more unsupported assumptions in the spontaneous existence of God than there are in the spontaneous existence of matter. Therefore, the existence of God is less likely than the existence of matter.

 

Yes, possible, but very unlikely.

 

That entirely the point of what I wrote in that post - citing the low likelihood of a past event occurring is in no way support for the event being miraculous. If we roll a dice 100 times the chances of getting the particular sequence we get is miniscule - but it's simply probability at work. In the same sense if we re-ran evolution over again many times each plausible outcome has an infinitesimal chance of occurring. It is not evidence of a creator, but simple probability at work.

[Moontanman]

I know. But that's not the same in world.

 

Obviously there is some disagreement of this, isn't there.

 

Also WHO PRESSED THE MINUS! I think it was you, but it could have been someone else.

You did not think hard enough.

 

 

It was not me in that instance, i can show you why, i can still give you neg rep for that post, you can't give neg rep to the same post twice, watch me give you neg rep....

[morgsboi]

No, the chance life is the way it is happens to be exactly 1/1....

 

I would actually say 1/x as extra terrestrial life is unknown and we have no idea how big the universe actually is. The "x" just suggests that maybe there is, maybe there isn't and there isn't a lot of point discussing the details unless you really have something to put forward other than one's opinion.

[JustinW]

What I don't get is that most of the reasons I have gotten on why atheists are atheists is because God is irrelevant due to the fact that he has no bearing on reality. He is unprovable and holds no logical basis for belief so therefore isn't relevant. But the part I don't get is that most atheists believe in extra terrestrial life due to the immense distance and infinant possiblities of the universe. So I can't get around the fact that so many atheists believe in infanant possibilities and relate that fact towards multiverse theories and possibilities of alien life forms, but neglect the fact that if there are infinant possibilities that a God is bound to be one of them. For those that do believe in infanant possibilities, wouldn't this inturn make God relevant? Is my thinking correct on this or did I get some different concepts confused?

[morgsboi]

But the part I don't get is that most atheists believe in extra terrestrial life due to the immense distance and infinant possiblities of the universe. So I can't get around the fact that so many atheists believe in infanant possibilities and relate that fact towards multiverse theories and possibilities of alien life forms, but neglect the fact that if there are infinant possibilities that a God is bound to be one of them.

Because it is a big thing. That is like asking why Christians believe in God and why they relate their facts to God. Also, to us a god is a paradox. I find Christians neglect the fact how that if there is a god....... who created God? Yes, you may say that God has always been there but if God made man in his image, God must be made from matter. The universe is also made from matter (or energy) so isn't saying that even though matter doesn't have to be created (God)......... matter matter has to be created (the universe). Try hooking up your video camera on a live stream to your T.V and line it up so its dead on straight. The picture would keep on getting smaller and smaller and wouldn't stop getting smaller until the T.V ran out of pixels in the centre of the T.V. You wouldn't look at the end and see a god right at the end of the "tunnel" would you?

It's a paradox in my head and this is actually the first time I've ever mentioned it so if it's a bit hard to understand so if you have any questions or replies then please do.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

With respect, Morgan.

Edited February 8, 2012 by morgsboi

[JustinW]

I believe I understand your paradox thinking and it is a hurdle. Also I wasn't necessarily talking about the Christian God or any denomination for that matter. Maybe I should have used the word creator instead. Even though it is a parodox, if there are infinant possibilities then there would be a way around it. We just can't fathum one yet that could be applied in our current realm of reality.

[iNow]

What I don't get is that most of the reasons I have gotten on why atheists are atheists is because God is irrelevant due to the fact that he has no bearing on reality. He is unprovable and holds no logical basis for belief so therefore isn't relevant. But the part I don't get is that most atheists believe in extra terrestrial life due to the immense distance and infinant possiblities of the universe. So I can't get around the fact that so many atheists believe in infanant possibilities and relate that fact towards multiverse theories and possibilities of alien life forms, but neglect the fact that if there are infinant possibilities that a God is bound to be one of them.

When we posit the likelihood of aliens, we're talking about another biological entity that evolved. Nothing special, just another collection of cells composed in a special way. We also don't worship aliens, or ascribe thoughts or powers or intentions to them. It's just that... biological life on another world seems rather plausible given the numbers.

 

God is not just like us. It is not another biological concept. It is presented as special... omnipotent, omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing... the creator of creation itself... and there is nothing comparable. There are no other gods living deep down in the ocean or near volcanoes that we can posit a likelihood even in extreme conditions.

 

The comparison is, IMO, false. Just because one accepts the possibility of biological life on one of the other countless trillions and trillions and trillions of worlds out there as a plausible possibility... does not mean they are being somehow hypocritical for not accepting the possibility of an ethereal omnipresent sky dictator who controls absolutely everything, convicts you of thought crimes, wants you to worship him, and tells you not to eat fish on Fridays.

[morgsboi]

I believe I understand your paradox thinking and it is a hurdle. Also I wasn't necessarily talking about the Christian God or any denomination for that matter. Maybe I should have used the word creator instead. Even though it is a parodox, if there are infinant possibilities then there would be a way around it. We just can't fathum one yet that could be applied in our current realm of reality.

 

But is infinity not equal to [math]0[/math] or [math]i[/math] until it comes to a finite point?

 

............................................

 

Also, would it be okay if you reply to the quotes so I can get straight to your reply. Thanks.

[doG]

Off topic question here: Does the repeated demonstration of one's inability to spell, or even use a spell checker, cause you to be more likely to dismiss their points in the debate?

[zapatos]

Because it is a big thing. That is like asking why Christians believe in God and why they relate their facts to God. Also, to us a god is a paradox. I find Christians neglect the fact how that if there is a god....... who created God? Yes, you may say that God has always been there but if God made man in his image, God must be made from matter. The universe is also made from matter (or energy) so isn't saying that even though matter doesn't have to be created (God)......... matter matter has to be created (the universe). Try hooking up your video camera on a live stream to your T.V and line it up so its dead on straight. The picture would keep on getting smaller and smaller and wouldn't stop getting smaller until the T.V ran out of pixels in the centre of the T.V. You wouldn't look at the end and see a god right at the end of the "tunnel" would you?

It's a paradox in my head and this is actually the first time I've ever mentioned it so if it's a bit hard to understand so if you have any questions or replies then please do.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

With respect, Morgan.

My bold.

 

I don't think that is a valid argument. You cannot simply equate 'image' with 'matter'. You need to specify what led you to believe they are equivalent.

[morgsboi]

My bold.

 

I don't think that is a valid argument. You cannot simply equate 'image' with 'matter'. You need to specify what led you to believe they are equivalent.

 

It doesn't matter if it is image or matter. Anything that has an image is matter.

 

Off topic question here: Does the repeated demonstration of one's inability to spell, or even use a spell checker, cause you to be more likely to dismiss their points in the debate?

 

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. I'm a good speller myself and if I slip up occasionally, Google Chrome will underline it in red. So yes, of course I would fix it but I don't see how that is at all relevant to points in the debate or this topic. Open it up in "The Lounge".

[njaohnt]

Which rules are these? Could you list them?

 

Tons of them.

 

Magnets

Gravity

 

You get picture. Anything that happens in the universe. The reason why atheists believe that God isn't here, is that these rules don't support a God.

 

Because it is a big thing. That is like asking why Christians believe in God and why they relate their facts to God. Also, to us a god is a paradox. I find Christians neglect the fact how that if there is a god....... who created God? Yes, you may say that God has always been there but if God made man in his image, God must be made from matter. The universe is also made from matter (or energy) so isn't saying that even though matter doesn't have to be created (God)......... matter matter has to be created (the universe). Try hooking up your video camera on a live stream to your T.V and line it up so its dead on straight. The picture would keep on getting smaller and smaller and wouldn't stop getting smaller until the T.V ran out of pixels in the centre of the T.V. You wouldn't look at the end and see a god right at the end of the "tunnel" would you?

It's a paradox in my head and this is actually the first time I've ever mentioned it so if it's a bit hard to understand so if you have any questions or replies then please do.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

With respect, Morgan.

 

God is not matter. The world outside our world works differently. I don't much about it.

 

Do you find it a rather silly thing to ascribe observed natural phenomena to a fairy tale with no basis in reality and no evidence whatsoever just because science cannot explain every small process in full and exact detail?

 

No, but your rules of science are impossible. Weather ours are or not, yours are.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Tons of them.

 

Magnets

Gravity

 

You get picture. Anything that happens in the universe. The reason why atheists believe that God isn't here, is that these rules don't support a God.

Which rule requires this?

 

Even if you found a way to change gravity, or make another force, it had to come out of something, by the the rules of science.

[Moontanman]

No, but your rules of science are impossible. Weather ours are or not, yours are.

 

 

Can you show us some evidence the rules of science are impossible? They seem to work quite well, you are using a computer and an international computer network that is based solely on the rules of science.