High School Atheist's Guide

[Sarah Palin]

I've run into many a stupid arguments for the existence of a god in my day, much like arguments for capitalism. And, comparable to the high school commies guide, I thought I would make this.

Some Arguments:



In the Bible it says...

Religion makes you a better person, with maxims such as don't lie, don't kill, and so on.

I know God exists, I've seen him!

The Universe is so complex, it had to be designed.



1. Most atheists would agree that the Bible is a work of fiction. But if that doesn't work; the Bible was written thousands of years ago by authors who were recording oral tradition from many years before. Thus, any "truth" claimed in the book must be taken with a grain of salt. Also, why would you choose this text over the many, many other religious texts that exist throughout the world?

2. Religion does not necessarily make you a better person. Most religious people would say "NEVER lie." But what if you were in Germany in 1942, harboring a family of jews, and the Nazis came to your house and asked you if you were hiding anything? Would you lie and save the lives of those people, or would you tell the Nazis that you are in fact hiding people. And to the point of killing people, you don't have to be a religious person to know that it's bad. For sure, societies would have deduced that it should be illegal without a thousand year old book.

3. Many people have claimed they've seen or heard things. Some people say they have been abducted by aliens, but we call them crazy. I guess it's just easier to lie to yourself when billions of other people are doing it also, though.

4. There is insufficient space to summarize both sides of that debate here. However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism. Furthermore, there is much evidence, observation and theory that can explain many of the complexities of the universe and life on earth. The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

I hope more arguments can be devised for any teen trapped in religious paranoia.

[Havet]

Good guide. I would also add the following arguments:

- Do you believe in unicorns? why? why not?

- It's not up to atheists to prove he doesn't exist, but for the person making the assertion (god exists) to prove it.

- Where does evil come from? How do you know such definition of evil is the most correct?

- Why do you think faith is more important than reason?

[Lyev]

My favourite, if not a tad over-used, atheist quote; it's so level headed and rational, especially next to the rants of some Christian, fundamentalist preachers.

'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?'
Epicurus

[Demogorgon]

The best answers to the examples you give are probably as follows:

In the Bible it says...
To accept the Bible as divine truth, you must already believe in God, therefore it is useless as proof of the existence of God. It is the most common form of begging the question out there, but only simple logic is needed to see right through it.

Religion makes you a better person, with maxims such as don't lie, don't kill, and so on.Those are pretty universal maxims held by people of all religions or none. Religions are a product of society and naturally reflect societies values, but they don't create them out of thin air. At any rate virtually everyone holds a moral code, religious or not, and there is little to no evidence that religious people hold better ones.


I know God exists, I've seen him!I'm not sure if you are likely to encounter that argument too often. Certainly one of the proofs of God is the argument from experience, but I have never heard it claimed that one has personally encountered God. Of course you would have to work out what was actually meant by this, before you could proceed. If someone thinks they actually saw God then most likely they have been taking certain substances not provided for general sale by law abiding establishments.

However I suspect, that this may simply be one of those fuzzy Californian style sayings (a bit like the even sillier "God may not exist for you, but he exists for me") that provides a more vacuous version of the argument from experience. People claim to have experienced God in various manners. Well they can believe it was God if they like, that's no skin of my nose after all, but it won't make it so.


The Universe is so complex, it had to be designed.All we need to prove this is a Universe that was definitely designed and a Universe that was definitely not designed. We can then compare our Universe to them and see what it best looks like.

Never get too upset about these arguments though. There are plenty of good reasons to want God to exist therefore people will base belief structures around these desires. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but it doesn't make them right.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Just to say thank you so much for making this thread. I may come back and add something to it later.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have stickied this thread. Please keep posting.

- August

[Sarah Palin]

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc were all atheists and they were horrible murders! Thus, atheism is bad.

I will put Hitler aside for the next paragraph, because he was most certainly not an atheist.
The crimes that people like Pol Pot and Stalin can in no way be attributed to their atheism, whereas there have been MANY religiously "inspired" murders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

And so on...

As for Hitler, saying he was an atheist is like saying the Sun revolves around the Earth. Hitler said himself:
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.
and in the diary of SS officer Gerhard Engel:

The Führer made it known to those entrusted with the Final Solution that the killings should be done as humanely as possible. This was in line with his conviction that he was observing God's injunction to cleanse the world of vermin. Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy ("I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" [quoting Hitler]), he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God--so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.

[amandevsingh]

I wrote a little thing on this for the writing passage, and one point that has yet to be brought up is this:


A second idea that can be put forward to contend the idea of God is the various religions. There are many religions, but few, if any, are compatible. Two obviously incompatible religions, I will take as an example, are Hinduism and Islam. One considers the greatest sin to be polytheism and the other is polytheistic, which then is true? The answer is neither, it depends purely on your upbringing.

[Decolonize The Left]

Here is my post "Resources for the Anti-Theist" posted originally in the Anti-Theist usergroup. It may be of help as there are many atheist resources:



This thread was created as a resource for anti-theists. Websites and books are currently listed.

Websites:
Wikipedia entries on:
Antitheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-theism)
Antireligion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion)
Criticism of Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion)

Strong Atheism (http://www.strongatheism.net/)
Secular Web (http://infidels.org/)
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm)
The Skeptic's Annotated Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm)
The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm)
The Committee For Skeptical Inquiry (http://www.csicop.org/)
Council For Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index)
Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/)
Nontheist Nexus (http://nontheistnexus.com/index.php)
Dwindling In Unbelief (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/)
The Scripture Project (http://www.reasonproject.org/scripture_project/)
No Beliefs (http://nobeliefs.com/)
God is Imaginary (http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm)
Evil Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/)
ExChristian (http://exchristian.net/)
Naturalism (http://www.naturalism.org/)
(V. Stenger's) Scientific Case Against God (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm)


Books:
Albert Camus, The Stranger
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Daniel Dennett, Breaking The Spell
Sam Harris, The End Of Faith
Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist
Jack Huberman, The Quotable Atheist
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ
Friedrich Nietzsche, On The Genealogy of Morals
Bertrand Russel, Why I Am Not A Christian

Please reply to this post with any resources you feel would be of interest and benefit to the members of this group. I will update this thread as often as possible.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't understand your second point. If you don't lie.. EVER.. the Jews or not, your going to tell the truth.

What?

- August

[bailey_187]

"The Universe is so complex, it had to be designed."

Look at all the failed stars imploding, planets that can not support life out there. Out all all the thousands of planets, the only one we know with even the possibility of supporting life is ours, and even here it is on a knife point. 99% of species existing on this planet are already exstinct and in a few billion years the Sun is going to blow up and burn our planet and everthing on it.
What a shit design and shit designer.

From Christopher Hitchens on Sean Hannity btw.

[Mumbles]

Another "good" addition to Sarah Palin's list of examples of the christian way: Eric Robert Rudolph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph) a.k.a. the Olympic Bomber and the guy who blew up several abortion clinics.

[Cal Engime]

My favourite, if not a tad over-used, atheist quote; it's so level headed and rational, especially next to the rants of some Christian, fundamentalist preachers.

'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?'
Epicurus1. Who is to say what is evil? What absolute ethical standard is there against which to judge the world without a god Who wants us to behave in a particular way?
2. Doesn't the good of having free will and being able to choose love outweigh any evil we must consequently be free to commit?
3. Isn't it possible that God sees some purpose in evil that mere mortals are incapable of understanding?
4. Doesn't Christian eschatology hold that God will eventually defeat all evil and reward the righteous with everlasting life?

[kragura]

1.unless you deny evil as a whole the argument still stands
2.personally (and as far as I can tell this can only be argued a a personal level) no
3.If he is omnipotent he would have no need for tools such as evil
4.If he is omnipotent then what is he waiting for?

Ultimately the quote does not disprove god, merely his power.

[ComradeMan]

Why do atheists so often, like Dawkins, attack "religion" and then usually hone in Judaism and Christianity with rather superficial strawmen or the rantings of fundamentalists who usually understand jack shit about their professed religion? Perhaps they are too worried about the ensuing fatwahs.

The problem of good and evil is simple- man creates his own good and evil. They are human concepts that only exist in a human existential reality.

[Sadena Meti]

Here is a link to "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, both in eBook and Audio Book.

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion.pdf

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion/

Also here is Bertrand Russel's "Is There a God?"

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20Is%20There%20A%20God.pdf

Finally, here is Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not A Christian and The Faith Of A Rationalist"

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20Why%20I%20Am%20Not%20A%20Christian%20and%20The% 20Faith%20Of%20A%20Rationalist.pdf

[CommieTroll]

IF there is a "supernatural being" (which is an irrational belief) why does he have ownership over me? Why is it his decision if I live or die or go to "heaven" or "hell". Religion should have been done away with Feudalism but some people are blindsided enough to listen to the word of a man who loves them, can see everything they do, hates them at the same time and needs their money Haha:laugh:

[Drosophila]

If God exists, then he's an asshole.

[ComradeMan]

IF there is a "supernatural being" (which is an irrational belief) why does he have ownership over me? Why is it his decision if I live or die or go to "heaven" or "hell". Religion should have been done away with Feudalism but some people are blindsided enough to listen to the word of a man who loves them, can see everything they do, hates them at the same time and needs their money Haha:laugh:

The laws of physics "own" you for a start....:lol:

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

In regards to the watchmaker argument, you need to realize that it is an argument of infinite regress:

If you are arguing that things are too "complex" to have simply "come to be", you are failing to recognize that this fundamentally contradict your own beliefs. In order for a God to have created all of life, he must have been rather complex himself, so why doesn't God have to have sprung from something. Why are you using two standards when analyzing the world and God. Therefore, if you argue that things are too complex to spring into being and say that a God must have created them, by that same logic, a God must have created that God in turn, and so on infinitely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

[Kamos]

Some Arguments:

Religion makes you a better person, with maxims such as don't lie, don't kill, and so on.

Actually, the answer that I would give to this (I think I saw it on this forum, in fact) is: if you're not a very good person, why would reading a book suddenly help?

[Cal Engime]

3.If he is omnipotent he would have no need for tools such as evil
4.If he is omnipotent then what is he waiting for?Well, there you come up against the point of question 3, which is the lesson of the magnificent Book of Job: who are you to make such a judgment? Do you know what it's like to be the omnipotent creator of the universe? Have you ever had the kind of experience or authority that God has? The good Christian will say that you owe God everything while He owes you nothing; you have no right to expect what you would consider justice from the temporal world, and should accept what appears to be an evil as emanating from the same source as the good, and for the same (benevolent) ultimate purpose.

What I was really trying to say with that post is that if you think something as simple as the problem of evil settles the matter, and you get into an argument with a theist who has done his homework, you'll quickly find yourself out of your depth; a lot of thought has gone into this stuff in the last 2,000 years.

[ComradeMan]

Actually, the answer that I would give to this (I think I saw it on this forum, in fact) is: if you're not a very good person, why would reading a book suddenly help?

For the same reasons that bookstores have shelves full of self-help books, philsophy, spirtuality and so on...

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, there you come up against the point of question 3, which is the lesson of the magnificent Book of Job: who are you to make such a judgment? Do you know what it's like to be the omnipotent creator of the universe? Have you ever had the kind of experience or authority that God has? The good Christian will say that you owe God everything while He owes you nothing; you have no right to expect what you would consider justice from the temporal world, and should accept what appears to be an evil as emanating from the same source as the good, and for the same (benevolent) ultimate purpose.

So G-D is essentially a cosmic Kim Jong Il?

Were that the case, consider me a satanist :(

[ComradeMan]

So G-D is essentially a cosmic Kim Jong Il?

There are similar ideas in Vedic/Dharmic religions too... the Shaivite Hindus see all, and that means ALL, things coming from Lord Shiva.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, then consider me a deamon :lol: Khali, here I come

[ComradeMan]

Ya, then consider me a deamon :lol: Khali, here I come

Kali is not a demon(ess). Kali is actually very misunderstood. Far from being the evil deity she is portrayed, she actually protects against evil in her role as the "dark mother" or destroyer of evil within Hindu theology.

F89ziwFRwlg

[Judicator]

In regards to the watchmaker argument, you need to realize that it is an argument of infinite regress:

If you are arguing that things are too "complex" to have simply "come to be", you are failing to recognize that this fundamentally contradict your own beliefs. In order for a God to have created all of life, he must have been rather complex himself, so why doesn't God have to have sprung from something. Why are you using two standards when analyzing the world and God. Therefore, if you argue that things are too complex to spring into being and say that a God must have created them, by that same logic, a God must have created that God in turn, and so on infinitely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Implicitly I think here the options are:
1) Came about by chance
2) Came about by design
3) Didn't come about, i.e. existed forever

These are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. I don't know if there are necessarily any complexity restrictions on things in category (3).

[RedAtheist]

My best argument against belief in God is inspired by a clip from the Atheist Experience. I can't post links yet so look up, 'Atheist Experience Jar Fallacy Model' on Youtube.

I love Tracy's argument. We need some criteria for telling the difference between what is real and what isn't. The criteria that we use in our day day lives is evidence and reasoned argument. When we apply the same criteria to ideas about god we find no reason to believe in them.

[PhoenixAsh]

the above mentioned video

a65acW1qbIQ

[zoot_allures]

Religion makes you a better person, with maxims such as don't lie, don't kill, and so on.
Re "never lie", I've honestly never heard a single religious person ever say that, either online or offline.


However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism.
What does that have to do with the proposition you're denying, though? The belief "the universe was designed" does not all entail creationism.

The two most powerful arguments I've encountered against a theist using the "the Universe is so complex, it must have been designed" argument are:

1. The complexity of nature suggests that nature isn't designed. The idea here is that when we design things, we typically look for the simplest solutions, the simplest structures; on the other hand, complexity is found all the time in things we haven't designed. Simplicity, not complexity, is the mark of design. For a good presentation of this argument, go to youtube, and type in "Design vs Chance by PZ Myers" and jump to about 10:50. I would post it directly, but my post count isn't high enough (I'll edit this later, or maybe somebody else could post it for me?)

2. Let's assume that the universe was designed. Okay. What grounds do we have for believing that the person who designed it is god? What possible reason could there ever be for believing that? There is no way of distinguishing between god and something (or things) very powerful relative to us.

[zoot_allures]

My best argument against belief in God is inspired by a clip from the Atheist Experience. I can't post links yet so look up, 'Atheist Experience Jar Fallacy Model' on Youtube.

I love Tracy's argument. We need some criteria for telling the difference between what is real and what isn't. The criteria that we use in our day day lives is evidence and reasoned argument. When we apply the same criteria to ideas about god we find no reason to believe in them.
I'm unclear about how that argument is applied to god in particular. Could you explain your reasoning in a little more detail?

Also, bear in mind that most people who believe in the supernatural consider it to have measureable effects. The argument comes close to begging the question.

[Saviorself]

Re "never lie", I've honestly never heard a single religious person ever say that, either online or offline.

"You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another." - Leviticus 19:11

"Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight." - Proverbs 12:22

"Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." - Surah 40:28 (though it is commonly accepted that Mohammad did set 3 precedents for lying being okay: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy; or a lie to settle trouble between people)


What does that have to do with the proposition you're denying, though? The belief "the universe was designed" does not all entail creationism.

Uh, yes, yes it does. IDT is nothing more than Creationism wrapped up as science in order to make it more palatable.

[zoot_allures]

"You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another." - Leviticus 19:11

"Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight." - Proverbs 12:22

"Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." - Surah 40:28 (though it is commonly accepted that Mohammad did set 3 precedents for lying being okay: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy; or a lie to settle trouble between people)
Yeah, so? Very few religious people take their texts literally. They tend to pick and choose the bits they like, if they bother reading them at all. This is obvious.


Uh, yes, yes it does. IDT is nothing more than Creationism wrapped up as science in order to make it more palatable.
The creationist movement is proposing much more than just "the universe is designed". Again, this is obvious. There are plenty of people who believe that the universe was designed but who reject creationism.

[Saviorself]

Yeah, so? Very few religious people take their texts literally. They tend to pick and choose the bits they like, if they bother reading them at all. This is obvious.

The point is that religious people do tend to think they are better because of the morals given by the religion - whether or not they actually follow them.


The creationist movement is proposing much more than just "the universe is designed". Again, this is obvious. There are plenty of people who believe that the universe was designed but who reject creationism.

What is obvious here, though apparently not to you, is that "designer" and "creator" are merely substitutions for "god". All three are equal loads of bullshit.

[zoot_allures]

The point is that religious people do tend to think they are better because of the morals given by the religion - whether or not they actually follow them.
So? I never said anything about that. Let me refresh your memory:

Re "never lie", I've honestly never heard a single religious person ever say that, either online or offline.


What is obvious here, though apparently not to you, is that "designer" and "creator" are merely substitutions for "god". All three are equal loads of bullshit.
First of all, that's not at all obvious, but again, so what if it is true? We can strengthen the proposition:

"the universe was designed by god"

Again, the creationist movement is arguing for much more than that. There are plenty of people who accept that proposition but who reject creationism.

[Saviorself]

So? I never said anything about that. Let me refresh your memory

I know what you said. You said that you have never heard a religious person say "never" lie. So what? I've heard it said by a religious person before. And a non-religious person.


First of all, that's not at all obvious, but again, so what if it is true? We can strengthen the proposition:

"the universe was designed by god"

Again, the creationist movement is arguing for much more than that. There are plenty of people who accept that proposition but who reject creationism.

If it's not obvious to you, I would suggest learning a bit about logic.

I am curious as to what you think ID actually claims.

If there is a designer then there must be a creator, you know, someone to implement the "instructions" of the design.

Tell me, what is the difference between ID and Creationism?


There are plenty of people who accept that proposition but who reject creationism.

That's a load of shit. One can not accept ID without also accepting Creationism. Both argue that the Universe and everything in it was created by some sort of god. Again, ID is nothing more than Creationism disguised as science in order to make it more palatable. And it is not even a good disguise. ID, Creationism, "Ancient Astronaut Theory"...it's all nothing more than unsubstantiated bullshit.

[zoot_allures]

I know what you said. You said that you have never heard a religious person say "never" lie. So what? I've heard it said by a religious person before. And a non-religious person.
So that's it. That's all I was saying. I was just relaying my experiences there. I've never heard anybody say that you shouldn't ever, under any circumstances, lie.


If it's not obvious to you, I would suggest learning a bit about logic.
Or instead of being patronizing, maybe you could just explain why you think I'm wrong. Or not. I don't care. But I'm not interested in talking to you if you're going to be an ass.


I am curious as to what you think ID actually claims.

If there is a designer then there must be a creator, you know, someone to implement the "instructions" of the design.

Tell me, what is the difference between ID and Creationism?

That's a load of shit. One can not accept ID without also accepting Creationism. Both argue that the Universe and everything in it was created by some sort of god. Again, ID is nothing more than Creationism disguised as science in order to make it more palatable. And it is not even a good disguise. ID, Creationism, "Ancient Astronaut Theory"...it's all nothing more than unsubstantiated bullshit.
Does the ID movement basically just push creationism? Yeah, that certainly seems to be the case to me. I'm not talking about that, though. All I'm talking about is this proposition:

"the universe was designed by god"

Does accepting that proposition mean we have to, for example, reject evolution? Of course it doesn't. The IDers, like the creationists, are pushing for much more than just that proposition.

Going back to my first post in this thread, my point is that "there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism" is not an argument against "the universe was designed". Yes, the creationists, and the IDers, accept that proposition. But so do many other people. It doesn't help to paint them all with the same brush, unless you're just looking to score easy points for your own team.

[Saviorself]

Belief in an unsubstantiated claim is belief in a unsubstantiated claim. Period. To believe there is a designer is to believe there is a god. Period.


Going back to my first post in this thread, my point is that "there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism" is not an argument against "the universe was designed".

Yes it is; ID = Creationism; argument against Creationism = argument against ID.


Does accepting that proposition mean we have to, for example, reject evolution?

Funny how once evolution has pretty much been proven, the theists try to take the position that they have been in favor of it the whole time and suddenly evolution was created by god. If there was an "intelligent designer" the process of evolution would be non-existent or at least be a better process. Not every trait gained through evolution is beneficial or ensures evolutionary success of a species. Furthermore, if the complexity of life implies a designer, then it would follow that the designer (logically being infinitely more complex than its design) would also require a designer. So where it the designer of the designer - this loop will continue ad infinitum. It never killed anyone to apply the use of Occam's Razor.

[zoot_allures]

Belief in an unsubstantiated claim is belief in a unsubstantiated claim. Period. To believe there is a designer is to believe there is a god. Period.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that in your view, what you consider to be "unsubstantiated claims" are all the same? If we take another "unsubstantiated claim", like the view that unicorns exist (maybe you don't consider that "unsubstantiated", but let's imagine you do), would you accept the proposition "to believe that unicorns exist is to believe there is a god"?

If not, I'm not sure how to intepret what you've said here. Maybe you could explain a bit further.


Yes it is; ID = Creationism; argument against Creationism = argument against ID.
The problem there being that the ID movement (and the creationist movement) are pushing for much, much more than the proposition "the universe was designed".

We can ignore that, though, and just be direct. What's the connection here? How does "there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism" function as an argument against "the universe was designed"?


Funny how once evolution has pretty much been proven, the theists try to take the position that they have been in favor of it the whole time and suddenly evolution was created by god. If there was an "intelligent designer" the process of evolution would be non-existent or at least be a better process. Not every trait gained through evolution is beneficial or ensures evolutionary success of a species. Furthermore, if the complexity of life implies a designer, then it would follow that the designer (logically being infinitely more complex than its design) would also require a designer. So where it the designer of the designer - this loop will continue ad infinitum. It never killed anyone to apply the use of Occam's Razor.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but I already agree with you. I'm an atheist and I don't believe there was any designer. I'm not looking for an argument about whether creationism, ID, whatever, are right.

Are there many theists who have claimed that their religion was in favour of evolution the whole time? I can't recall any, but then, I don't read a lot of religious literature.

Re "If there was an "intelligent designer" the process of evolution would be non-existent or at least be a better process" - well, that's your view. It's a fine view. I agree that it's a good argument against the idea of intelligent design. However, not everybody accepts that view, and there are many reasons they might have for rejecting it. The fact is, there are plenty of people who believe the universe was designed and who accept evolution, and certainly, the proposition "the universe was designed" does not logically imply "evolution is non-existent (or better)", so I don't agree that arguing against the latter is much of a challenge to the former.

[Saviorself]

If not, I'm not sure how to intepret what you've said here. Maybe you could explain a bit further.

It was in response to when you said "It doesn't help to paint them all with the same brush". As far as I am concerned, people who believe in bullshit claims (regardless of what they are) are the same to me. Apologies for not making that clear enough.


The problem there being that the ID movement (and the creationist movement) are pushing for much, much more than the proposition "the universe was designed".

Weren't you just trying to argue that Creationism and ID are not one in the same earlier in this thread? And now you are trying to say they are?


We can ignore that, though, and just be direct. What's the connection here? How does "there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism" function as an argument against "the universe was designed"?

HA! That's easy: The claim that there is some sort of design at work here is the "scientific Creationism" Since there is no evidence to support Creationism, there is no evidence to support the claim "the universe was designed".


I don't know if you're aware of this, but I already agree with you. I'm an atheist and I don't believe there was any designer. I'm not looking for an argument about whether creationism, ID, whatever, are right.

That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is your claim that "The belief "the universe was designed" does not all entail creationism." When it, in fact, does.


Are there many theists who have claimed that their religion was in favour of evolution the whole time? I can't recall any, but then, I don't read a lot of religious literature.

Yes, it is a popular argument that I have heard/seen used on numerous occasions.


The fact is, there are plenty of people who believe the universe was designed and who accept evolution

And they will try and claim that evolution is, suddenly, part of "god's plan" - or, in this instance, "design". But it is still an unsubstantiated bullshit claim.


and certainly, the proposition "the universe was designed" does not logically imply "evolution is non-existent (or better)"

If there was a designer, why would they use such a shoddy design? Doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

[Franz Fanonipants]

trash this reactionary, boring thread

[zoot_allures]

Weren't you just trying to argue that Creationism and ID are not one in the same earlier in this thread? And now you are trying to say they are?
No, I've never argued that. I think that to a large extent, they're pretty much the same. Here's something I said in an earlier post: "Does the ID movement basically just push creationism? Yeah, that certainly seems to be the case to me."


HA! That's easy: The claim that there is some sort of design at work here is the "scientific Creationism" Since there is no evidence to support Creationism, there is no evidence to support the claim "the universe was designed".
So, it looks like we've found the root of our disagreement. In your view, "the universe was designed" just is ID/creationism. I disagree with that.


Yes, it is a popular argument that I have heard/seen used on numerous occasions.
Care to give some examples?


And they will try and claim that evolution is, suddenly, part of "god's plan" - or, in this instance, "design". But it is still an unsubstantiated bullshit claim.
Yes, that's one way of holding both propositions. There are others. And no matter how stupid, irrational, unsubstantiated, etc, you find these ideas, this is why pointing to the failures of ID and creationism does nothing to challenge the proposition "the universe was designed".


If there was a designer, why would they use such a shoddy design? Doesn't seem very intelligent to me.
Why are you asking me? I'm not trying to defend these views. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't agree with the conditional "if the universe was designed, then evolution would be non-existent (or better)". I think it's possible to have a designed universe and existent(/not better, however you're defining that) evolution.

[zoot_allures]

trash this reactionary, boring thread
Or, you can just stop reading it. That way, the people enjoying it get to continue talking, while you don't have to be exposed to it anymore. Everybody wins.

[Saviorself]

In your view, "the universe was designed" just is ID/creationism. I disagree with that.

Well, Deism would also fit in that category but I think Deism is a load of shit too.


Care to give some examples?

Various debates both online and IRL where people have made the claim evolution is proof of god's existence because evolution was created by god.


, this is why pointing to the failures of ID and creationism does nothing to challenge the proposition "the universe was designed".

That makes absolutely no sense. The main claim of ID is that the universe was designed, hence the name "intelligent design". So all of the arguments against ID are also arguments against the claim "the universe was designed". What is so hard to understand about that for you?


Why are you asking me? I'm not trying to defend these views. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't agree with the conditional "if the universe was designed, then evolution would be non-existent (or better)". I think it's possible to have a designed universe and existent(/not better, however you're defining that) evolution.

What I am driving at is that if there was a designer/creator/whatever (not saying you believe there is) that is responsible for the existence of everything, why would evolution even be necessary? Why all failed branches of different species? If something is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, surely it would be powerful enough to come up with a better design than the one that exists currently.


Or, you can just stop reading it. That way, the people enjoying it get to continue talking, while you don't have to be exposed to it anymore. Everybody wins.

Agreed. :thumbup:

[zoot_allures]

Well, Deism would also fit in that category but I think Deism is a load of shit too.
Whether you think it's a load of shit isn't the point, though. The point is just that there are other options. I agree that deism is probably false.


That makes absolutely no sense. The main claim of ID is that the universe was designed, hence the name "intelligent design". So all of the arguments against ID are also arguments against the claim "the universe was designed". What is so hard to understand about that for you?
Because IDers are pushing for more than just that proposition. For example, they're pushing for the idea that the modern evolutionary synthesis is false.

As I mentioned, this is pretty much the crux of our disagreement. In your view, "the universe was designed" just is ID/creationism. Now, I'd say that IDers and creationists are arguing for much more than just "the universe was designed". So, for example, the mountains of scientific evidence in favour of the MES, and the total lack of any scientific support for any radically different theory, is a serious challenge to ID/creationism, since one of their primary goals is getting a radically alternative account taught in the biology classroom. On the other hand, how is this any kind of challenge to the proposition "the universe was designed"? That proposition doesn't imply a radically alternative account. It's consistent with the MES.


What I am driving at is that if there was a designer/creator/whatever (not saying you believe there is) that is responsible for the existence of everything, why would evolution even be necessary? Why all failed branches of different species? If something is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, surely it would be powerful enough to come up with a better design than the one that exists currently.
Again, I'd really rather not have to defend these views, but since you're asking, here are some responses you might see:

1. The world we live in simply is the best of all possible worlds (so evolution is as good as it possibly can be). This argument predates modern evolutionary theory - it coes from Leibniz, and is a response to the problem of evil in general, which I'd say your current argument is essentially a particular form of.

2. "Good", "bad", "better", "worse", etc, are just subjective value judgments. There are no facts one way or the other about whether something is good or bad, whether something is better or worse than something else, etc.

3. The designer doesn't care about us / isn't trying to make a universe that's wholly good / etc.

Those are just three off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think up more. All I'm saying here is that these scenarios are at least logically possible, even though we may see no reason to believe them, and even plenty of reasons to doubt them.

[Saviorself]

The point is just that there are other options.

Like what?


In your view, "the universe was designed" just is ID/creationism. Now, I'd say that IDers and creationists are arguing for much more than just "the universe was designed".

Of course there is much more to it than that. However, ID and Creationism are still the same thing. Despite you trying to claim they are not the same thing.


On the other hand, how is this any kind of challenge to the proposition "the universe was designed"? That proposition doesn't imply a radically alternative account. It's consistent with the MES.

To claim the universe was designed is to imply that there is a designer - an intelligent, conscious designer. That just brings up a whole bunch more questions. And you are forgetting that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the individual making the positive claim. If a person wants to make claims about design, it is up to them to prove their claim, I don't have to disprove anything. So I don't have to provide, what you would consider, "a challenge" to any fantastical claims


Again, I'd really rather not have to defend these views, but since you're asking, here are some responses you might see:

Actually, I wasn't looking for any answers. I was just trying to elaborate on the point I was making since you said you didn't understand what I was getting at. Thanks, though.

[zoot_allures]

Like what?
In that very post I gave some examples of ways people might hold both that the universe was designed and the modern evolutionary synthesis.


Of course there is much more to it than that. However, ID and Creationism are still the same thing. Despite you trying to claim they are not the same thing.
??? I'm not claiming that they're not the same thing. I keep using phrases like "ID/creationism", which should imply that I think they're the same in all ways that are relevant here. Hell, I've stated explicitly a couple of times now that in my view, IDers are arguing for creationism.


To claim the universe was designed is to imply that there is a designer - an intelligent, conscious designer. That just brings up a whole bunch more questions. And you are forgetting that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the individual making the positive claim. If a person wants to make claims about design, it is up to them to prove their claim, I don't have to disprove anything. So I don't have to provide, what you would consider, "a challenge" to any fantastical claims
Of course you don't. You don't have to provide a challenge to anything. I never said you did. Go back to my first post, where this debate started - did I say you have to provide a challenge? No. All I'm saying is that the lack of scientific support for ID/creationism isn't a challenge to the proposition "the universe was designed".


Actually, I wasn't looking for any answers. I was just trying to elaborate on the point I was making since you said you didn't understand what I was getting at. Thanks, though.
I understood what you were getting it - if you're referring to where I said "why are you asking me?", I meant that to be more rhetorical. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Saviorself]

Hell, I've stated explicitly a couple of times now that in my view, IDers are arguing for creationism.

Well alright then, that is a far cry from earlier in the thread when you said that ID does not at all imply Creationism.


All I'm saying is that the lack of scientific support for ID/creationism isn't a challenge to the proposition "the universe was designed".

Well, there certainly exists no evidence to support such a claim. And though absence of evidence does imply evidence of absence, until someone can come up with some sort of corroborating evidence, I feel comfortable in dismissing such claims.

[zoot_allures]

Well alright then, that is a far cry from earlier in the thread when you said that ID does not at all imply Creationism.
Nonsense. I never once said that. Quote the part you're referring to.


Well, there certainly exists no evidence to support such a claim. And though absence of evidence does imply evidence of absence, until someone can come up with some sort of corroborating evidence, I feel comfortable in dismissing such claims.
I agree that there's no evidence in favour of the proposition "the universe was designed". That might be a good argument against that proposition. Pointing to the status of the views of the IDers and creationists is not, though.

[Saviorself]

Nonsense. I never once said that. Quote the part you're referring to.

LMFAO! Are you serious?! Right here:


The belief "the universe was designed" does not all entail creationism.

:ohmy:


I agree that there's no evidence in favour of the proposition "the universe was designed". That might be a good argument against that proposition. Pointing to the status of the views of the IDers and creationists is not, though.

Uh, one of the (MAIN) views of ID/Creationism is that "the universe was designed". How are you still not understanding that?!

[zoot_allures]

LMFAO! Are you serious?! Right here:

The belief "the universe was designed" does not all entail creationism.
Okay, now I'm starting to wonder if you're just not paying attention to anything I'm saying. For example:

So, it looks like we've found the root of our disagreement. In your view, "the universe was designed" just is ID/creationism. I disagree with that.

Because IDers are pushing for more than just that proposition. For example, they're pushing for the idea that the modern evolutionary synthesis is false.

In your view, "the universe was designed" just is ID/creationism. Now, I'd say that IDers and creationists are arguing for much more than just "the universe was designed".


Uh, one of the (MAIN) views of ID/Creationism is that "the universe was designed". How are you still not understanding that?!
I do understand that. The problem is that IDers and creationists are arguing for much more than that.

Consider: one of the main views of capitalists is that humans exist. Obviously, though, there's much more to capitalism than just "humans exist". You can reject capitalism and still believe that humans exist, and an argument against capitalism is not necessarily an argument the existence of humans.

So, an argument against the IDers/creationists might be the mountains of evidence in favour of the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, this argument does nothing to challenge the proposition "the universe was designed".

[Saviorself]

The problem is that IDers and creationists are arguing for much more than that.

For the 15 billionth time: yes, I know they are arguing for more than that. So what?


So, an argument against the IDers/creationists might be the mountains of evidence in favour of the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, this argument does nothing to challenge the proposition "the universe was designed".

Yes, it does. The arguments against ID and Creationism can be used against the claim "the universe was designed". And quite well too. Before anyone can claim that there was a design, they first have to prove the existence of the designer.

[zoot_allures]

For the 15 billionth time: yes, I know they are arguing for more than that. So what?
After the very sentence to which you're responding, I gave a further explanation.


Yes, it does. The arguments against ID and Creationism can be used against the claim "the universe was designed". And quite well too. Before anyone can claim that there was a design, they first have to prove the existence of the designer.
No it doesn't. Why? Because statements like "the universe was designed", "there was a designer" (and yes, obviously the former implies the latter, as long as we're not equivocating) are consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis.

[Saviorself]

Because statements like "the universe was designed", "there was a designer" (and yes, obviously the former implies the latter, as long as we're not equivocating) are consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Give me one instance where it has been determined by evolutionary biologists that the idea of there being a "designer" is compatible with evolution theory.

[zoot_allures]

Give me one instance where it has been determined by evolutionary biologists that the idea of there being a "designer" is compatible with evolution theory.
I think it's fairly obvious that the proposition "there was a designer" is consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis (that's not the same as saying that the MES gives us any reason to believe it - they're just consistent, as in how, for example, the MES is also consistent with the existence of Russell's teapot. I wouldn't say the MES is evidence for a designer or anything like that, just that it's not contradictory to hold both views). If you want to deny that, cool, but as far as I'm concerned the "burden of proof" would be on you there.

[LifeSexDeath]

If they start to yell and cry without explanation, you won the argument.

[Samuelver]

Generally, people have the knack of being problem solvers Once a problem pops up, there is already someone crafting a solution Here are a few solutions you might not have known of
Eat a good amount of protein if you want to get rid of hair thinning Your hair is built from protein Protein can be found in foodstuffs, such as fish, eggs, red meat and poultry If meat doesn’t tickle your fancy, there are always beans and lentils, both being very healthy choices! A high protein diet can help you keep your hair

adsuse com/]hair loss solution

[Marshal of the People]

Generally, people have the knack of being problem solvers Once a problem pops up, there is already someone crafting a solution Here are a few solutions you might not have known of
Eat a good amount of protein if you want to get rid of hair thinning Your hair is built from protein Protein can be found in foodstuffs, such as fish, eggs, red meat and poultry If meat doesn’t tickle your fancy, there are always beans and lentils, both being very healthy choices! A high protein diet can help you keep your hair

adsuse com/]hair loss solutionThis is relevant how?
Wait you are a spammer aren't you?

[Sinister Intents]

This is relevant how?
Wait you are a spammer aren't you?

Yeah, that's spam and I already reported it :)

[Marshal of the People]

Yeah, that's spam and I already reported it :)I reported it also: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2731323&postcount=114

[QuestionableMarxist]

"The Universe is so complex, it had to be designed."

Look at all the failed stars imploding, planets that can not support life out there. Out all all the thousands of planets, the only one we know with even the possibility of supporting life is ours, and even here it is on a knife point. 99% of species existing on this planet are already exstinct and in a few billion years the Sun is going to blow up and burn our planet and everthing on it.
What a shit design and shit designer.

From Christopher Hitchens on Sean Hannity btw.

Agree, but hate Sean Hannity.