against intelligent creator?

[syo]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

It's also possible for a space-whale made of gold and cheese to exist. Doesn't mean it's not absurd.

 

[metis]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, and I do believe it is hypothetically possible that a creator or creators might exist.

But notice that you are using the singular form ("creator") and not the plural ("creators"), so are you making assumptions here as well?

 

[columbus]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

Because Creation shows no particular signs of intelligent design. Some of us humans superimpose that on the universe.

But when I ask simple questions like "Why do you believe that?" the answers are really bad ones. The answers are usually some form of "I don't understand how that could be.", followed by a bald, unsupported assertion. The assertions near always imply that the ID proponent is smarter and more perceptive than the large majority of people.

I see the Theory of Intelligent Design as a form of hubris. People believing in their own ability to explain things that they don't know much about.
Or want to know much about because the evidence that is available contradicts their world view. I see it as similar to the Church trying to silence Galileo.
Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not only atheists. I'm no atheist but I think it's clear that the universe forms and perpetuates itself. No "outside" (as if something could be outside the cosmos in the first place) agency needed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It is absurd. To look at the organic, self-perpetuating contents of the universe and then claim that it is so sophisticated that it must have required a "creator", and then to insist that this equally (if not more) sophisticated "creator" DOES NOT ALSO NEED A CREATOR is absurd no matter how you slice it.

I am not saying the contents of the universe do not display sophistication - of course they do. However the self-perpetuating, self-contained nature of these sophisticated elements means that these phenomena take care of themselves - things not needing a creator to become instantiated at all - like stars, planets, galaxies, etc. As for life? There is NO PROOF that life doesn't simply arise on its own given the right conditions and raw materials - much like a star forms on its own, or a galaxy comes together on its own. All you have is an intellect incapable of grasping just how life might arise from the matter of the universe. Literally... that is ALL YOU HAVE. No proof against the idea, or even reasoning of any kind - just "God did it." Whereas we CONSTANTLY witness a universe that contains no traces of "God" except people's assertions that He is there (again, LITERALLY all there is to inform one that God exists is the word of others), and within this universe are things like galaxies, stars, planets, configurations of matter of all kinds, crystals that grow on their own based on their atomic properties, chemical reactions that start on their own based on laws of attraction, beings that propagate themselves (us and other animals of Earth) without the need for any "creator's" intervention. A "creator" is NOWHERE in any of it... and yet we are expected to believe? Why?

 

[Quintessence]

That which one finds absurd is simply an indication of the limits of one's worldview. It is thus not at all surprising that theists and atheists who reject the idea of an intelligent creator might find it absurd. It is a reflection of their way of seeing... nothing more, nothing less. Or at least it seems such to me.

 

[syo]

I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, and I do believe it is hypothetically possible that a creator or creators might exist.

But notice that you are using the singular form ("creator") and not the plural ("creators"), so are you making assumptions here as well?

nah I wouldn't say so. creative force if it's more proper

 

[syo]

these phenomena take care of themselves - things not needing a creator to become instantiated at all - like stars, planets, galaxies, etc.

I think they need a creator. think god(s) as the entire universe's DNA, god has the blueprint and the stars and atoms simply carry out commands that are programmed with in the first place. that's why everything works like a clock.

 

[jonathan180iq]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

The boogey man is something that you and I probably both agree is an absurd belief for a child to have, right? The idea of a necessary intelligent designer is no different. Absurdities diminish as ignorance is replaced with knowledge.

 

[Twilight Hue]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

I would love the idea of a creator but there is nothing there save for the ideas in people's minds that there is one. My personal reasoning is that it's much better to approach things realistically rather than live in a rose colored world. It won't hurt the grand scheme of things one way or another as we all live in the same basic reality. Just interpreted differently.

 

[sun rise]

One of the unasked questions in such debates is what the purpose of that design might be. If there is an Intelligent Designer, what was his purpose in creating the design?

A second question would be are we truly qualified to review that design? I designed software during part of my IT career but my non-techy wife would not have the background to evaluate whether the design was a good one or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator?

Mainly because we do not like to encourage falsehoods and the emotional and moral consequences of same.

isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

Anything is possible if one uses lax enough criteria. But it is disrespectful towards both truth, belief and believers to use that as an excuse to protect Intelligent Design and similar ideas.

 

[Valjean]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

We don't attack, and we defend only when challenged. It's the theists who attack; who feel threatened by facts, reason and logic.

I think they need a creator. think god(s) as the entire universe's DNA, god has the blueprint and the stars and atoms simply carry out commands that are programmed with in the first place. that's why everything works like a clock.

Wasn't the clockwork model abandoned in 1905?
A blueprint, or the laws of nature is fine, but it doesn't need a conscious entity periodically tweaking it.

 

[Nakosis]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

I'm not saying it's absurd. I'd just like some evidence before accepting a possible explanation. Otherwise natural law is capable of explaining the design of the universe.

We can test and verify natural laws. My bias is only for what we can test and verify as an explanation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

It's not absurd. It makes sense if defining it by culture, language, and traditions. It doesn't if you separate needing a creator from the human thought and views of life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

As a recovering atheist , I think deep down I just liked atheism better than theism- it offered (I thought) a simpler and more comfortable model of reality for me. I was taught that atheism was more 'intellectually sophisticated' and I was guilty of believing this

Most of all, by definition, a-theism teaches you to scrutinize every belief other than your own, to even refuse to acknowledge your own belief as such- and that makes it particularly difficult to escape

 

[Quintessence]

We don't attack, and we defend only when challenged. It's the theists who attack; who feel threatened by facts, reason and logic.

Let's not substitute an improper and wrong generalization about atheists with an equally improper and wrong generalization about theists, yeah? It'd be nice, at least.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

I don't think it's the idea that an intelligent creator might exist, but the idea that the creator is the way he is. Why would an intelligent creator approve mass killings when everyone is his children that he cares about? Why would an intelligent creator test the faithful in such sadistic ways? Why would an intelligent creator design a perfect world when part of that has to do with traumatic punishments? What's so intelligent about this backwards logic?
That's what most atheists have a problem with. And the fact a huge enlightened white-haired bearded man ruling the sky isn't very convincing to some.

 

[Sunstone]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

An intelligent creator is an unnecessary hypothesis.