It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[ArtieE]

I already have that but I must look at it anyway. I have to leave for today, have a good one.

You too.

 

[ArtieE]

With God all this stuff has an explanation. However I still do not think the two statistical modules are equal but it does not seem you want to investigate that further.

I just had a thought. If you think that the odds against a life supporting universe by chance are too great imagine the odds against a life supporting universe with exactly you in it here and now by chance.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And how do you KNOW this?! Because your bible and religious leaders say so. Look I'm done now. Believe what you want, have a nice day.

I've spent posts establishing this, the creed which scholars agrees goes back within 5 years of Jesus, the letter of Paul treated as a historical document, the historian Josephus... You cannot actually dispute any of my points, and keep going back to attacking a straw man, that I am simply appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible.

I recommend reading the Gospel of John if you have an open mind. The Bible does a far better job of convincing than any historical argument does.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Actually, there's an element of truth to it. You yourself would regularly discount ancient history where it involves unlikely events.

Something as simple as claims around military forces and casualties in war is notoriously inaccurate the further back one reaches, with simple logistic calculations able to prove this beyond doubt.

The concept of 'historical accuracy' was also vastly different, and the way we look at documentation from those times is commonly flawed.

That's not a specific comment or criticism related to this thread, just a general comment on ancient history.

Thanks, I get what you're saying. Indeed I remember Tacitus recounting some crazy thing to do with pigs one time in Rome that raised an eyebrow, I can't remember exactly what it was haha, might have been man-pig hybrids or something. (And yes, that was me pretending to be well read in ancient history, when Tacitus was just compulsory in our Latin class )

However I do not think this actually affects the points I was making, especially the creed from Paul where he was not writing a biography but simply writing a real letter to a real congregation with real problems. It is different to one person recounting some myth that happened a while ago that no one saw, but rather attesting to multiple witnesses who all saw the same thing and whose lives were radically changed by it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I'm sorry you don't understand the point I was making.

Oh, I understand it all right. Your point is misconstrued because you refuse to give the other side a chance to make a point.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I believe that the great questions most humans want answered will not be answered by looking backwards into ancient mythology and superstition. The scientific method is the best tool for answering these or any question really. Next, you may ask how science can prove if there are any gods or afterlives. Well, it may never discover the answers to that. In the end, I'm more comfortable being intellectually honest and saying I don't know if I don't know. From my perspective your religion is just as plausible as any other religion that makes claims about the supernatural. The problem for these religions however, is that they don't have any evidence or rational arguments to back them up. Else I'd be a believer too.

So what has the "scientific method" done for you so far?

Every time science is able to answer a question the door is opened to yet dozens more questions. Science only educates you as to what the questions are that science cannot in itself answer. And so where do you go from there?

 

[ArtieE]

So what has the "scientific method" done for you so far?

It has given me the laptop I write this on and countless other things and saved my life several times last time when I had appendicitis.

 

[1robin]

Since when has science been concerned with proving or disproving your god? You are the one who originally brought up the fined tuned universe concept and said you could defend it, yes? You tried to bring up string theory which is not a proven theory to back up your idea about how improbable it was for the universe to support life. That's not going to work. You tried appealing to authority by dredging up scientists theories in the hopes of supporting your position, but they don't KNOW how the universe started any more then you or I do. So you really don't have anything there do you? The concept of a fined tuned universe is a purely theological argument with no scientific backing to it. I'm simply cutting through all the BS and tap dancing you want to do to avoid the core of the argument. The only place this argument was leading to was you claiming that your god exists outside the boundaries of our known universe and is not bound by its rules anyway. So why spend any time on science when it can't help you? You're left with a god that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Can the universe be the creation of a powerful entity in another universe? Maybe, truth is often stranger than fiction. Is this entity similar to anything described in any of humanities ancient mythological stories? Doubtful.

1 last response to let you know I no longer desire debating you in a subject you do not seem to have any experience in. My facts have no effect on your ignorance concerning these issues and your emotional preferences.

 

[1robin]

I just had a thought. If you think that the odds against a life supporting universe by chance are too great imagine the odds against a life supporting universe with exactly you in it here and now by chance.

Ok, let me go ahead and show that the statistics involved are not that similar.

For the universe no physical necessity produced a universe like ours. It only has a tiny range over which it could support life. No one knows what the chances exactly are but even secular scientists think it at best is 1 chance in 10^80th with many saying it would be for far less probable than even that.

DNA or genetics is different because there is a physical necessity which causes humans to produce human DNA. Also any in tact human DNA would have sufficed to produce me. I have no idea what the chances would be for the exact DNA I have but they are vastly more probable that the universe we have.

However all these unimaginable improbable properties lose their mystery if we allow for God's existence.

I really have nothing to offer to your claims except to say that yes these events are improbable.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It has given me the laptop I write this on and countless other things and saved my life several times last time when I had appendicitis.

Great. What about life after death? Science doesn't allow for that.

 

[McBell]

Great. What about life after death? Science doesn't allow for that.

Because just like god, there is nothing to support life after death outside wishful thinking.

 

[ArtieE]

Great. What about life after death? Science doesn't allow for that.

Who cares? I have a life before death and you take what you get and make the best of it. Stop whining "I want more, I want more."

 

[JustWondering]

Oh, I understand it all right. Your point is misconstrued because you refuse to give the other side a chance to make a point.

I was once Christian and I have been on these forums on and off for years. I doubt very much you can make an argument for Christianity that I haven't already heard/seen before. Don't let that stop you though.

 

[JustWondering]

So what has the "scientific method" done for you so far?

Produced all the modern medicine and technology we enjoy today.

Every time science is able to answer a question the door is opened to yet dozens more questions. Science only educates you as to what the questions are that science cannot in itself answer. And so where do you go from there?

Did you not read my post? I said that I am comfortable with being intellectually honest, if I don't know something I don't know something. What is the alternative, make up answers?

 

[JustWondering]

1 last response to let you know I no longer desire debating you in a subject you do not seem to have any experience in. My facts have no effect on your ignorance concerning these issues and your emotional preferences.

Point 1: You ignored my main point. There is no solid evidence to suggest the universe could exist or operate any differently than it does. Therefore, saying that the universe has to be fine tuned is an ASSUMPTION, a THEORY, and mere CONJENTURE. I stated this point clearly several times and your only response is posturing, insults, and claiming (without reason or evidence) that I don't understand your arguments.

Point 2: You didn't provide any facts to support your position. You presented a mish mash of quotes from different sources, and I presented links to articles that clearly supported my position. Which is that NO ONE really understands how the universe came about or what will eventually happen to it. You want to cherry pick ideas and scientific theories (all of which are unproven) and twist them to support your pre-conceived beliefs. I didn't buy into it. This is a debate forum, not a let's listen to 1robin's monologue forum.

Point 3: Who's being emotional? Who's taking their ball and going home? Not me.

 

[SomeRandom]

So what has the "scientific method" done for you so far?

How about the internet, longer lifespans, an increase in safe births, electricity, phones, calculators, planes, trains, cars, all of medicine, wiping out dangerous diseases, increased safety of sexual encounters, rocket ships etc etc etc

One only needs to look at today's society, regardless of religion, to see exactly what science has done for all of us. Like, geez, ungrateful much?

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think that atheists understand Christians anymore than Christians understand atheists. A person can only truly understand something that he or she has actually experienced.

 

[ArtieE]

DNA or genetics is different because there is a physical necessity which causes humans to produce human DNA. Also any in tact human DNA would have sufficed to produce me. I have no idea what the chances would be for the exact DNA I have but they are vastly more probable that the universe we have.

I am saying that if you make a long list of things that would have to be exactly the way they are in the universe for life to exist, I can add to that list all the things that would have to happen up through the years in order for me to exist and therefore conclude that the universe exists so that I personally can exist.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't think that atheists understand Christians anymore than Christians understand atheists. A person can only truly understand something that he or she has actually experienced.

And neither a Christian nor an atheist can understand how it is to be abducted by aliens unless they have experienced it first hand.

Oh, and you can perfectly well be a Christian atheist. Christian atheism - Wikipedia

 

[JustWondering]

I don't think that atheists understand Christians anymore than Christians understand atheists. A person can only truly understand something that he or she has actually experienced.

So what do you think an Atheist who used to be a deeply faithful Christian understands? Are you going to off-handedly dismiss anything this person has to say about their personal journey from a religious mindset to an atheist one? Are you going to instantly dismiss this persons valid points and arguments because their current beliefs do not mirror your own?