Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

The problem with all Beliefs, Myths, Superstitions, or God(s), is that they simply never change. Little red riding hood will be the same story today, as it will be in the next 100 years. Basic religious knowledge can be finite and static, but its interpretations can be infinite. I think that your examples demonstrate a simple confirmation bias. I'm sure there are some exceptions within your reasons.

You may believe that you know that God exists, but other than your personal testimonials, there is no independent evidence that can objectively confirm any of your claims. Independent of any falsifiable evidence, every religious claim is true. Obedience, pious servitude, and a personal supreme father figure that watches over you even after you die, is a central theme of most religions. Think about it, why would we need religion if we could live forever? Religion is man's emotional compensation for his own mortality. Religion also placates man's own inflated sense of importance and convinced need for purpose. No other animal demonstrates this emotional need to compensate. No other animal has an evolved need to ponders his own mortality. From the first day we took our first breath, life was meant to explore and learn. Life was meant to experience growing up and developing our own uniqueness. Life was meant to accomplish our personal goals, prepare and build our nest, form casual and permanent relationships, experience the first day of parenthood and grandparenthood, and to finally enjoy periods of personal reflection. Life certainly was not meant to prepare for death.

No one can possibly KNOW that a God(s) exist, anymore than one can know what's in the mind of a God(s). Do you also know if God(s) has any human qualities or attributes at all? Is God Good or Evil? Malevolent or Benevolent? Male or Female? Wise or Dumb? Maybe it is the Devil that we are really praising. Just how do you objectively know? Anyway, you've made your point. You believe that because God(s) has made a positive difference in your life, you need to give God(s) the credit. This may avoid personal responsibility for making your own decisions. I take full responsibility for all my decisions and action. Especially in all stages in planning my life. Since we can't know for certain what is in the mind of man, how can we possibly know what is in the mind of a God(s)? Don

Good points, but I find Christianity compelling, uniquely:

1. It's logical, it posits that imperfect people cannot enter utopia and must be perfected.
2. It's loving, Christ triumphs over all as a gift to us.
3. It's unique, other religions emphasize trying to perfect oneself via good deeds (impossible), but Christianity says salvation is via trusting God, only.

 

[BilliardsBall]

To me they're all just conflicting myths.

But if I had to do it all again, I would still frubal the Christ.

 

[Revoltingest]

But if I had to do it all again, I would still frubal the Christ.

You are indeed an equal opportunity fruballer.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How convenient. You have compelling evidence for something outside reality.

That was funny!

Timespace is this universe. Many acknowledge entities pop in and out of our dimension at times.

Of course, skeptics all teach that outside this reality, the multiverse injected the singularity to form this universe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How well we reconcile our assumptions with the weight of observation, experimentation and broader data. There is no single, fail-proof way of doing this, but absolutely the best and most reliable means we have of doing this is the scientific method.

I think that is an excellent idea. I have the same concept, which is why I use my rationalist mindset and a hypothesis method to test any Bible doctrine I hear, to see if it's true or false. For example:

1. Hypothesis - God doesn't exist.
2. A lot of people are telling me differently, maybe God exists.
3. If it's true that God exists, new hypothesis, God is invisible to me and must be able to communicate otherwise, if He is creator/power.
4. God, if you exist, send proof...
5. Verify/test/attempt to falsify said proof.

All born again Christians I know attempted to falsify proof of God. When Christians give testimonies, you almost never hear "I was told about Christ and just jumped in there," because no one wants to yield themselves to God, bow before God, etc. We all tried to walk away from the proof, but as evidence mounted...

 

[BilliardsBall]

What have others said? I gave you the commonest opinions that I've heard - I must have gotten angry with God because I didn't get something I prayed for, or my faith wasn't good enough. Occasionally, I hear that I am trying to be my own god, or trying to escape accountability so that I can sin without compunction, or some other variation of rebellion.

What else can a believer say? That God wasn't there for me? That I was a faithful, fervent Christian who prayed in earnest, but that that wasn't good enough for God? The fault has to be with the former believer, because it can never be God's.

The possibility that this god doesn't exist and that the story I told was the account of a young man who turned to religion in a time of psychological distress, found a great community of people, misunderstood his feelings about what he was experiencing, eventually came to understand them, and made the reasonable choice of moving on is simply not entertained.

But that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.

Very respectfully, I tell you this: I felt like your testimony--and I have it wrong PLEASE tell me so--was, redacted down:

1. I'm an atheist because I didn't feel God's Spirit
2. I would even say my God experiences had to do with some special people, such people, I found, were rare in the church.

But every testimony I've heard from born agains was "God did X for me, I feel God," and so on.

I think your testimony was very honest, but it sounds like you did not encounter the risen Christ. I'm not saying you were angry with God or your faith wasn't good enough, as you wrote others have rudely told you, because people I know and heroes of the Bible were angry with God and had little faith!

Nor do I find you were in some particular kind of rebellion. You even wrote something like "I tried to feel the Spirit" and so on.

Nor would it be fair, if we believe in God's sovereignty and timing, to ever say it's your fault if you didn't encounter God in the past. But Jesus did say He would draw all persons to Him. I believe you may have a powerful encounter with God soon.

That's my take on it, if I'm wrong, let me know, but people I know who stay with a church have a "Jesus is with me" testimony, and people who didn't have told me, "I never felt like God was there or exists, even though I did church and Christian stuff..."

Make sense? Not trying to be rude here in any way, but I asked your story in part so I could wise up and know better, but also because I've never heard a lapsed Christian say, "Jesus and I had a thing, and now I hate Him," but I do here, "I was in church but never found a god in a church..."

 

[BilliardsBall]

If those Christians actually believe in the Bible they would have to believe in the existence of many gods and be polytheists. The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott Do you believe in the Bible and are a polytheist or are you a monotheist?

Would you like specific verses where God says in the Bible or God implies in the Bible, "No other gods exist"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

For whatever reason(s) make is advisable to end a relationship rather than continuing in misery

And what has this to do with the religious concept of sin? Or is it just another BilliardsBall strawman

Well, your answer aligned with that of many skeptics I've spoken to, whereas born again married couples would pursue change, counseling, reform, accountability . . . the sanctity of marriage. But that requires belief that something has the quality of sanctity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gut feelings can often be wrong.

Yes, they can be. Is that true for you always or just sometimes.

 

[Audie]

That was funny!

Timespace is this universe. Many acknowledge entities pop in and out of our dimension at times.

Of course, skeptics all teach that outside this reality, the multiverse injected the singularity to form this universe.

Is that "acknowledge", or, "claim"?

As for "skeptics all teach", you just made that up.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, your answer aligned with that of many skeptics I've spoken to, whereas born again married couples would pursue change, counseling, reform, accountability . . . the sanctity of marriage. But that requires belief that something has the quality of sanctity.

Interestingly the divorce rate in the Bible belt states of America is higher than else where.

And America,, (70% Christian) is has the 3rd highest divorce rate in the world.


And you still have not answered what it has this to do with the religious concept of sin so we can assume yet another strawman

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, they can be. Is that true for you always or just sometimes.

On average as often as anyone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Hmm, so what is the likelihood that some god exists? And what's the likelihood that it's the specific God you personally believe in? Those numbers seem pretty negligible too, don't you think?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Really. Here I thought love at first sight was always
right.

Then I find this, and everything starts spinning seemingly out of control-

A counterintuitive proposition is one that does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition, common sense, or gut feelings.[1]

Scientifically discovered, objective truths are often called counterintuitive when intuition, emotions, and other cognitive processes outside of deductive rationalityinterpret them to be wrong. However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counterintuitive for one may be intuitive for another

There is no such thing as an objective truth in science, anymore than there is objective knowledge floating around in space. Science is based on the scientific method of inquiry, and degrees of certainty, NOT OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. It merely attempts to explains how and why natural phenomenon occur, with a high degree of certainty. Science couldn't care less about a person's mental state, or if their ideas are intuitive or counter-intuitive. It is only the evidence that must stand up to the scrutiny of their peers. The evidence must be observable, measurable, testable, practical, logical, repeatable, predictable, and theory-specific. This method of inquiry is why science will always remain objective, impartial, unbiased(well sort of), and unemotional. Science will always maintain its strict objective standards, despite the onslaught of well-meaning pseudo-sophists, philosophical gymnast, and pseudo-scientists.

I personally believe that a subjective perspective must be maintained, even after we die. I can't prove it, and it has no practical value. Therefore, I would never defend or claim it to be true. It is certainly counter-intuitive, but is still my belief nonetheless. Don​

 

[Audie]

There is no such thing as an objective truth in science, anymore than there is objective knowledge floating around in space. Science is based on the scientific method of inquiry, and degrees of certainty, NOT OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. It merely attempts to explains how and why natural phenomenon occur, with a high degree of certainty. Science couldn't care less about a person's mental state, or if their ideas are intuitive or counter-intuitive. It is only the evidence that must stand up to the scrutiny of their peers. The evidence must be observable, measurable, testable, practical, logical, repeatable, predictable, and theory-specific. This method of inquiry is why science will always remain objective, impartial, unbiased(well sort of), and unemotional. Science will always maintain its strict objective standards, despite the onslaught of well-meaning pseudo-sophists, philosophical gymnast, and pseudo-scientists.

I personally believe that a subjective perspective must be maintained, even after we die. I can't prove it, and it has no practical value. Therefore, I would never defend or claim it to be true. It is certainly counter-intuitive, but is still my belief nonetheless. Don​

Are you somehow under the impression you are teaching me something?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Are you somehow under the impression you are teaching me something?

I am under no such illusion, since teaching also requires a willingness to learn(cup full). I was suggesting that your use of the words counter-intuitive and objective truth, are irrelevant to anything that has reached the status of a scientific discovery. The first plays zero role in its validation, and the second(objective truth) does not exist. Both are certainly not the aim of science. Also, science couldn't care less that intuition for some, might be counter- intuitive for others. Since all humans can only maintain a subjective perspective, bias, and their own cognitive processes, all humans can make irrational mistakes. What is your point? Are you suggesting that since humans are fallible, they can make a mistake? This line of reasoning certainly can't be taught. Don

 

[Audie]

I am under no such illusion, since teaching also requires a willingness to learn(cup full). I was suggesting that your use of the words counter-intuitive and objective truth, are irrelevant to anything that has reached the status of a scientific discovery. The first plays zero role in its validation, and the second(objective truth) does not exist. Both are certainly not the aim of science. Also, science couldn't care less that intuition for some, might be counter- intuitive for others. Since all humans can only maintain a subjective perspective, bias, and their own cognitive processes, all humans can make irrational mistakes. What is your point? Are you suggesting that since humans are fallible, they can make a mistake? This line of reasoning certainly can't be taught. Don

No, oh painfully pedantic and turgid one, you seem under the impression that you've something to
teach me. Funny boy.

My use of words?

That was a freakin' cut and paste, the purpose of which was to illustrate
that therevare problems with "gut feeling" as reliable indicators.

Somehow you managed to miss all of that.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Good points, but I find Christianity compelling, uniquely:

1. It's logical, it posits that imperfect people cannot enter utopia and must be perfected.
2. It's loving, Christ triumphs over all as a gift to us.
3. It's unique, other religions emphasize trying to perfect oneself via good deeds (impossible), but Christianity says salvation is via trusting God, only.

I hope that you are not going to represent, dismiss, or ignore my concerns as only, "good points". That would imply an eyes closed and a finger in the ear response. Is it logical for a perfect being, to possess any imperfect human attributes(malice, vengefulness, jealousy, anger, immorality, cruelty, selfishness, violence, contemptibility, war-mongering, ignorance, deceitfulness, evilness, and greediness)? Or, are they all dismissed as being simply beyond our understanding? Is it logical that an perfect being would create a part of himself, to be tortured to death, to atone for the sins He created in the first place?

All culturally-specific beliefs are only variations of the same 3 themes. These themes have existed even before the Bible was written. These themes are all dependent on, and fueled by our inability to reconcile for the permanency of death. One, to believe in, and honor an all-powerful culturally- specific Deity. Two, don't be selfish or greedy, and always do good, kind, loving, and useful things for others. Three, there will be some kind of an everlasting reward, for only those that do the other two. Those that don't..., well, you know what happens to them.

Finally, do you think that it is logical to adopt an entire mindset, and way of life, based on the errant, contradictory, and immoral writings from a 2700 year old foreign book? A book written, compiled, edited, commissioned, and revived, BY MEN, for the purpose of pacifying peasants and centralizing the different religions in the Empire. As I've stated before, the biggest difference between us, is that when the evidence changes, I will change my views with no ill effects. But even if irrefutable evidence could falsify a belief in anything supernatural, you and many like you could never change. Exclusivity and cognitive dissonance, would never allow this to happen. There will always be one more self-serving rationale to use, to maintain this belief. Truth is not protected BY blind faith. It is blind faith that is protected FROM the truth. Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Really. So Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are
identical; the 30-40 thousand protestant sects are
indistinguishable; the Book of Mormon version of
Jesus differs not from the NT.

The teachings of the Abrahamic days didnt divide into Islam and Judaism and Judaism didnt subdivide into
Christianity, it is all identical.

That sure simplifies things. Good to know.

Did I say that all Religious Beliefs are the same? Did I say that all Religious beliefs are indistinguishable from each other? NO! So don't straw man me with this silly misrepresentation. Do you think that the beliefs/teachings within the book of Mormons will change in the next 100 years? No. Do you think that the beliefs/teachings within Christianity will change anytime soon? Do you think that the 30-40 thousand other protestant sects will change their beliefs/teachings in the next 100 years? NO. Do you really think that I believe that all religious and cultist beliefs are the SAME?, or indistinguishable from each other? Maybe you believe that most people belong to a 100 different faiths at once, and share multiple religious beliefs at once? Maybe you believe that most people even know the difference between the different religions?

Let me make this clear, to avoid you cherry-picking more of my comments, and taking them out of context. If you belong to ONE of those religious beliefs, then that particular religious view WILL NOT CHANGE over time. Maybe you can give me just one example of a myth or superstition, whose central theme has changed over time. Maybe the virgin birth in your chosen religion has changed. Maybe the resurrection story within your chosen religion have changed. Maybe the punishment of man for his sins have changed in your chosen religion. Maybe the doing of good works have also changed. Maybe Christianity will start believing in the Trinity in the future. I doubt it! In conclusion, the central theme within(NOT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN) each of the different Religious beliefs, will be the same pedantic turgid dogma, even in the next 100 years.

Hopefully, you now understand that when I said all beliefs do not change, is not the same as saying that they are all the same. There is a big difference. Obviously , my bad. Don

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think that is an excellent idea. I have the same concept, which is why I use my rationalist mindset and a hypothesis method to test any Bible doctrine I hear, to see if it's true or false. For example:

1. Hypothesis - God doesn't exist.
2. A lot of people are telling me differently, maybe God exists.
3. If it's true that God exists, new hypothesis, God is invisible to me and must be able to communicate otherwise, if He is creator/power.
4. God, if you exist, send proof...
5. Verify/test/attempt to falsify said proof.

All born again Christians I know attempted to falsify proof of God. When Christians give testimonies, you almost never hear "I was told about Christ and just jumped in there," because no one wants to yield themselves to God, bow before God, etc. We all tried to walk away from the proof, but as evidence mounted...

And what was that evidence?