DescentBB

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Foil wrote:There are some atheists who see a relatively young intentionally-designed universe.

Foil, the atheists who believe this "I.D." are simply confused creationists and not really atheists.

Bee

aliens != gods

Bet51987 wrote:

Foil wrote:There are some atheists who see a relatively young intentionally-designed universe.

Foil, the atheists who believe this "I.D." are simply confused creationists and not really atheists.

Bee

That would depend on your definition of who/what did the intelligent design. Just because someone thinks there may have been some outside intelligent design involved doesn't mean the person isn't an atheist.

Who ever said a whatever provides the intelligent design HAD to be also a god or deity? Who ever said that whatever provides the intelligent design was also creating, not just providing some intelligent design?

I am not an atheist (far from it, and I know you already knew that), I believe in a God who created this world and all of us ... and I know where you stand.

What I don't get is why you seem to think that some I.D. influence can only come from a God or deity/creator that you (obviously) do not believe could exist. Why can't I.D. influence come from a being/source other than a God/deity/creator?

Intelligent design ... Answers.com http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligent-design

Atheism ... About.com http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... theism.htm

... Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
atheism
One entry found.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

In depth info on Atheism ... from Answers.com http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism


Wow ... I'm telling Bee the definitions of Atheism ...

Yep... this is about where these kinds of threads start getting into ... Now we choose: Let it die, or let the religious/non-religious debate ensue.

,

but not all ID'ers are Christian Bet. Lothar has taken pain staking steps to point this out in the past. There are some very prominent Christian microbiologists that are involved in intelligent design, but not all involved are.

one of the things that makes scientists take a look at ID is that Darwin (and his crew) knew very little, if anything about microbiology. Discoveries have been made that punch some rather large holes in Darwin's original theory at the base level. You choose not to agree, so be it. But remember that these are folks that have PHD's in their field and know a great deal more of the matter than most of us here on this board combined.

Hi, Bee.

Bet51987 wrote:Now, if someone wants me to believe that in a void far far away some entity (not a God) got clumsy and dropped a flask during a science exhibit causing a small explosion that we humans perceive as the big bang and expansion of our universe... I'm open to that.

I wouldn't call that "Intelligent Design", more "Stupid Accident" which would be no more probable than Evolution.

No, I'm talking about the possibility of an entity (not a deity, not a God, just an intelligent being (or beings) that did (or does) something intelligent (and must be intentional, not accidental) which results in what we currently experience.

I'm asking: Why can't this be considered possible?

If you're going to say "There is no God, and we came about through evolution" or "There is a God and he/she created us" ... Those are pretty definitive statements and leaves out HUGE possibilities.

Bet51987 wrote:But, The problem I have with intelligent design, intelligent cause, or intentially designed theorys is that the majority are associated with the Discovery Institute which believes the designer to be the God of Christianity which seems right since:

Genesis: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... He also made the stars....

Intelligent Design: Belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

It's all related. If God created the heavens, the stars, and the earth, then He is the intelligent designer.

Bettina

IMO, The apparent tilt of the Discovery Institute should have nothing to do with this discussion.

I don't think an "intelligent cause" is implicitly related to Christianity. Just because so many people automatically connect it that way, doesn't mean it has to be considered that way. That would not be thinking for yourself.

Spaceboy wrote:Now it's clear you haven't taken evolution seriously.
It doesn't have to be missing links connecting species to today, we can see many different examples in the fossil record.

However, the real evidence is in genetics. It is far more compelling than the fossil record. If you're going to take evolution seriously then look it up.

Also, explain to me why bacteria is becoming more resistant to antibiotics without any concepts of evolution.

Tell me your reasoning for not being convinced by evolution.

So far the only argument I've heard against evolution is "It can't possibly be!"
which is pure disbelief. Disbelief does not disprove something.

I believe in micro evolution because it makes sense. Living things adapt to their environment. But macro evolution, the idea that single-cell organisms turn into fish and fish turn into alligators and alligators turn into primates and primates turn into humans... that doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that's the exact process of macro evolution or even close, I just put it in a nutshell. I also don't believe that macro evolution is micro evolution with more time. Everything exists according to how it was made.

Double post

Trying to answer the origin of the universe or life itself with intelligent design makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying that it is impossible, but if you're going to answer those questions with intelligent design...

Where the heck did the designer come from? How did his life start, or his universe?

You can say something like 'it's always been...' but that's just saying a random idea. It's interesting to think about for a moment, but it still answers nothing.

Answering with Intelligent design is like answering an unanswerable question with an unanswerable question; it even brings up the exact question it attempts to answer!

Intelligent Design may be fun to believe and accept as a possibility for our universe if you like, but it still really does not answer anything at all.

I tend to take the stance that while matter and energy (what we know) can not be created nor destroyed (according to us), there may be another essential component (read..not mass, not energy) that is persistent and has existed eternally or simply popped into being. This could be \"intelligence\" (mind) or something completely foreign to us.

Any interpretation of where are Universe \"came from\" is doomed from the very onset because it seeks a starting point. A point from which everything started. If we take the idea that there is no starting point, that the universe has always existed, and simply changes, or evolves if you like, then questions like \"who created the Universe\" cease to have any meaning.

I think it is beyond our limited understanding ATM to entertain the notion of a Universe that has always existed. It challenges our understanding on a very basic level. How can something just \"be\"? After all, we see things having a beginning, middle, and end all the time. However, nothing really dies, nothing is really created, and yet we continue to think that the Universe was created.

Now, all this being said, I have no clue as to the nature of the Universe, whether it was created or always existed. Just throwing ideas out there to chew on.

Burlyman wrote:
I believe in micro evolution because it makes sense. Living things adapt to their environment. But macro evolution, the idea that single-cell organisms turn into fish and fish turn into alligators and alligators turn into primates and primates turn into humans... that doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that's the exact process of macro evolution or even close, I just put it in a nutshell. I also don't believe that macro evolution is micro evolution with more time. Everything exists according to how it was made.

Macro evolution has to happen if micro evolution happens.

Macro evolution is micro evolution, just over a much larger time frame.

If micro evolution happens to one organism over and over and over it will be something different.

The key factor here is time.

If traits that define an organism are routinely selected out through micro evolution eventually what you call macro evolution has to take place, otherwise you believe that for some reason certain traits are exempt from being selected out.

Accepting micro evolution but not macro evolution is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Spaceboy wrote:Answering with Intelligent design is like answering an unanswerable question with an unanswerable question; it even brings up the exact question it attempts to answer!

What if it's true? What does that do for the equation? The Bible indicates that God is eternal, dwelling outside of time--that time itself is a created thing. This kind of turns the "where does God come from?" argument (and let me point out that the Bible has been around longer than that argument) on its head, if in fact you address the claim instead of ignoring it. The Bible says that God is he who is and was and is to come. If it isn't true merely because you can't grasp it... well, that isn't very scientific. I think it would be safe to say that the only way scientific observation and study disproves anything is to prove something that is irreconcilable in its place. As far as I know this has not been done.

Spaceboy wrote:Trying to answer the origin of the universe or life itself with intelligent design makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying that it is impossible, but if you're going to answer those questions with intelligent design...

Where the heck did the designer come from? How did his life start, or his universe?

What caused the First Cause?

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[12] The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[13] Proponents who follow William Lane Craig's statement of the argument counter that the atheists' objection is a straw-man argument, pointing out that the first premise does not state that everything needs a cause, only that an entity needs a cause if and only if it has a beginning; thus, since the First Cause (often God) doesn't have a beginning, it doesn't need a cause. Also, if the First Cause has a cause then it is not the First Cause (and begins the cycle of infinite regression again), that is to say exemption of the First Cause is inherent in the First Cause argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

People have been arguing about this for a very long time. I wouldn't bet against the fact that people will still be arguing about this well into the future.

Oh, and arguments about the origin of life, not to mention the origin of the universe, are outside the scope of discussions of biological evolution.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: .."where does God come from?" argument (and let me point out that the Bible has been around longer than that argument)..

Lol.
Of course the argument came after.
How could the argument possibly have come before?

For other gods it is the exact same thing...

What if it's true? What does that do for the equation? The Bible indicates that God is eternal, dwelling outside of time--that time itself is a created thing.

Answer:

Where the heck did the designer come from? How did his life start, or his universe?

You can say something like 'it's always been...' but that's just saying a random idea. It's interesting to think about for a moment, but it still answers nothing.

The Bible says that God is he who is and was and is to come. If it isn't true merely because you can't grasp it... well, that isn't very scientific. I think it would be safe to say that the only way scientific observation and study disproves anything is to prove something that is irreconcilable in its place. As far as I know this has not been done.

Trying to discuss god using science is nearly impossible.

If you want a purely scientific response:
There is no way we know of to test it, thus we have no response.

The debate is not Science vs Religion.

Therefore, the the two sides of the debate are:

Logic predisposed by skepticism vs. logic predisposed by faith.

Pure skepticism is flawed as you can doubt everything, so most people on this side assume the foundation that physical reality is real, and all possible answers can come directly from observation.

Pure faith is flawed, as you can accept anything, which is the opposite of the problem of skepticism. Most people on this side base their foundation in whatever religion they are a part of.

Because the two sides are arguing with different foundations, proving for or against god becomes infallible.

Which goes back to my point: you can debate it all you want, but it answers nothing.

.

Here's an interesting video to watch about evolution:

http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/video/

It's all speculation of course, but still interesting to think about.

Bet51987 wrote:But, here's the point I'm trying to make. If you believe in Genesis and that God is the originator and ruler of the heavens and the earth, then you cannot believe in an intelligent creator as a separate non-deity. That entity would have to have been created by God.

So, if you want to believe in both God and an intelligent designer, you must put them in the same bottle.

Bee

I agree.

So at this point, you and I are saying there are at least three ways of thinking about the origin of us (people/life/existance on this world ... not regarding the whole cosmic universe...)

1. The Atheist viewpoint (No deity/God involved in our origin)

2. The Intelligent Design viewpoint (an intelligent entity/cause of our origin ... but not by a deity/God ... not accidental because accidental would rule out intelligent)

3. Creationism viewpoint (a deity/God/creator (could be plural) who created all of this). This would include the religious or Christianity views.

Did I miss anything?

Faith doesn't come from nowhere, Spaceboy. It's not the conscious choice to believe something there is no proof for (that would be insanity). It is a choice to accept things you have not entirely tested/understood, based on judged trustworthiness of the source. It is very unscientific for you to take your parents at their word when you are young and inexperienced, but you are so ignorant when you first come into the world that it would be foolish not to--it would be folly to try to judge the things they tell you based on your own extraordinarily limited understanding of the world.

The problem with religion is that more people than not make bad judgments about who to believe and why. I will go on record as saying that for the greater part skepticism is the right approach (that is actually the Bible's position). To believe something you have no reason to believe, or to trust someone you have no reason to trust is foolishness--it's simply bad judgment. I will not exclude myself, because I have made bad judgments that I have been ashamed of afterward. However, there is a point where \"skepticism\" as you call it, boils down to nothing more than a moral flaw, in not wanting to believe something that is true, for whatever selfish, rebellious, or cowardly reasons (I believe I can guarantee that in such a case it will be at least one of the three).

You know what truly accomplishes nothing?
1 - Two people arguing over something that neither of them actually has a working grasp of, but instead using only impressions and assumptions (I learned that about myself and others through the DBBs!).
2 - Arguing with a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth of what you're saying, event though you've presented them with facts.

You can blame the uselessness of a discussion on one of these two, you can't blame it on the subject matter.

.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Faith doesn't come from nowhere, Spaceboy. It's not the conscious choice to believe something there is no proof for (that would be insanity). It is a choice to accept things you have not entirely tested/understood, based on judged trustworthiness of the source. It is very unscientific for you to take your parents at their word when you are young and inexperienced, but you are so ignorant when you first come into the world that it would be foolish not to--it would be folly to try to judge the things they tell you based on your own extraordinarily limited understanding of the world.

The problem with religion is that more people than not make bad judgments about who to believe and why. I will go on record as saying that for the greater part skepticism is the right approach (that is actually the Bible's position). To believe something you have no reason to believe, or to trust someone you have no reason to trust is foolishness--it's simply bad judgment. I will not exclude myself, because I have made bad judgments that I have been ashamed of afterward. However, there is a point where "skepticism" as you call it, boils down to nothing more than a moral flaw, in not wanting to believe something that is true, for whatever selfish, rebellious, or cowardly reasons (I believe I can guarantee that in such a case it will be at least one of the three).

You know what truly accomplishes nothing?
1 - Two people arguing over something that neither of them actually has a working grasp of, but instead using only impressions and assumptions (I learned that about myself and others through the DBBs!).
2 - Arguing with a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth of what you're saying, event though you've presented them with facts.

You can blame the uselessness of a discussion on one of these two, you can't blame it on the subject matter.

Yes, and there is no proof for most things religious. Religious sources have no credibility other than a massive amount of people following it... and that still doesn't give credibility.

My parents had opposing viewpoints on everything.
My beliefs came on my own, which voids half your post.

boils down to nothing more than a moral flaw, in not wanting to believe something that is true, for whatever selfish, rebellious, or cowardly reasons

It seems quite the opposite to me.
Science seems to be much more selfless as it is a significant factor in the advancement of mankind. Science accepts the fact we know almost nothing of the universe, which is rather humble in my opinion. With science there is an end, which is far from cowardly to accept.


This is all beside the point, however.

Arguing with a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth of what you're saying, event though you've presented them with facts.

Who are you to say what you believe is the truth?

If you understood my post, what is logically true for you is not logically true to someone else with a different foundation of thought. Your facts are based off of your faith, to anyone else they look like garbage.

The uselessness of discussion arises from the incompatibility of different foundations of thought, not subject matter.

The origin of mitochondria is fascinating, look up \"purple bacterium\" to see what i mean.

Lol, that was really random.

In the grand scheme of things, what all of you believe doesn't really matter.

Foil wrote:Stick around long enough, you'll find that most threads on the topic start well, but eventually dissolve into scattered thoughts and lengthy rants.

Told ya.

woodchip wrote:In the grand scheme of things, what all of you believe doesn't really matter.

My belief was that giving you a few hundred dollars a week would grant me immortality... oh well.

Spaceboy wrote:How is it possible people still think evolution is 100% false?

I thought it was a small amount of people that thought that, so I dismissed it; there's actually serious debate going on about it!

This is baffling to me.

The problem, on both ends, is that the science of survival of the fittest and natural selection and all get packaged into theories (some more valid than others) about what all of that could imply.

Then, some people take that whole package, find one thing that they philosophically disagree with, and don't realize that they are allowed to take some and leave some... so they throw it all out and end up refusing to believe scientific ideas that are pretty darn solid.

(I.E. people disagree with the origins implications that Darwin set forth, and decided that anything with the "evolution" label has to be wrong... by definition.)

You cant argue with cults (EVERY religion is a cult)

BUBBALOU wrote:(EVERY religion is a cult)

Dictionary wrote:cult  /kʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhlt] Show IPA
Use CULT in a Sentence
See web results for CULT
See images of CULT
–noun
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

It seems you would be wrong

.

Let's see...

• Scattered topics... check.
• Miscellaneous references to macro vs. micro... check.
• Notes about the nature of science vs. religion... check.
• Signs of flame-war breaking out... check.

Yep, so far it's a typical thread on this topic.

Next up: Scriptures fly, Christians debate the Hebrew \"yom\", while Atheists throw stones.

words have denotation.

words have connotation.

dictionaries record meaning(s); they also record common usage of words. \"Cult\" can have any of several meanings.

Spaceboy wrote:...macro evolution...

No deal. =)

If one thinks religion is a cult, yet he is an atheist, he has invalidated his own viewpoint. If one thinks religion is a cult, yet he is a spiritualist, he is still religious, and is splitting hairs.

Anyway, the other people who posted are right, most topics like this just end up nowhere... "you can take a ride through this life but you can't take the edge off the knife (No sir!)" ...the Mark of the Beast will sort them out :P

Not all religions are “Cults”, that’s just a silly notion.

Although 3 current religions I can think of off hand started as “Cults”

Buddhism…offshoot of Hinduism.

EDITED:
Christianity offshoot of Judaism.

Islam offshoot of mono-theism.

But, because of the mainstream acceptance & long duration of all three, they now have “Religion” status. (unless you want to be a dick about it)

–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

–adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

Main Entry: cult
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: group sharing belief
Synonyms:
band, body, church, clan, clique, creed, denomination, faction, faith, following, party, persuasion, religion, school, sect
Notes: a sect is a rule defined by some doctrinal difference, a cult by allegiance to an idea or commanding personality.

End lesson. So every one belongs to a Cult. You may not want too but too bad you do.

I like

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

The Veneration poured upon the cultive personality of his highness Obama by the democrat cult is sickening.

Spidey, I'm not Noah Webster (I hear I'm a distant relative) but I believe you're misusing the word \"cult\". Back in the day they were known as \"sects\" (at least in Judaism). I believe \"cult\" has a more particular meaning. However, based on some of the things I've heard about Islam, it is not an off-shoot of Judaism--that's popular misinformation. To be an off-shoot it would have had to have started with Judaism, and I'm almost certain it didn't...

Foil, maybe you ought to get enough of a life so that the direction of the topic we're involved in doesn't spoil your day? (hyperbole)

Mr. Webster…errr Thorne, see post above yours…note Synonyms…

But, you are right about Islam, not deriving from Judaism. (I keep meaning to say it’s based on mono-theism, but for some reason I keep getting it wrong)

@foil haha! Yup.

Ok…JFTR…words must be used in context, therefore they only have one meaning at a time. (it doesn’t matter how many meanings there are for a word, it can’t mean all of them at the same time)

Therefore…“All Religions are Cults” is a meaningless statement, because of it’s lack of context.

Spaceboy wrote: Macro evolution has to happen if micro evolution happens.

Macro evolution is micro evolution, just over a much larger time frame.

If micro evolution happens to one organism over and over and over it will be something different.

The key factor here is time.

If traits that define an organism are routinely selected out through micro evolution eventually what you call macro evolution has to take place, otherwise you believe that for some reason certain traits are exempt from being selected out.

Accepting micro evolution but not macro evolution is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Burlyman wrote:

Spaceboy wrote:...macro evolution...

No deal. =)

This is intentional ignorance, that's frustrating.

Way to completely dodge my entire post. I doubt you even read what I had to say.