Ghost and Atheism

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes.
I believe I have been pretty clear about that.

No you haven't twitehead. You have gone out of your way to 'prove life' without a creator.

Your previous posts prove this.

Originally posted by chaney3
Ghost, your particular brand of atheism is intriguing to me. You have studied theology at a university level, and are not convinced of God, but you have repeatedly said that you are 'open minded' to God, if the proof were revealed to you.

The issue here though, is that absent of 'god', you seem quite content that earth and humanity just happened, and was ...[text shortened]... e 'God of the bible', but to still not believe in some form of 'creation' is entirely different.

"If God did somehow reveal Himself to you today, you would have no alternative but believe in BOTH scenarios, that God exists....and that He created all."

I don't see how it follows, unless the God in question is solely and specifically a monotheist creator of all, God. Maybe that is all you are talking about.

Originally posted by chaney3
No you haven't twitehead. You have gone out of your way to 'prove life' without a creator.

Your previous posts prove this.

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were asking about the universe.
But even with regards to life, I hereby state that it is entirely possible that it is due to a creator.
You are incorrect that I have gone out of my way to 'prove life' without a creator. You probably attributed someone else's post to me.

To be absolutely clear:
1. I admit the possibility that a creator started life.
2. I do not believe that is the most likely scenario, and in fact think it highly unlikely.
3. I am not aware of any evidence that a creator started life, or any good argument that suggests that was the case.
4. I am not quite sure what you mean by 'prove life'.
5. I do not know how life started.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why do Christians INSIST evolution is some other creation tale? It is DECIDEDLY NOT about creation.

Christians, creationsist INSIST on clumping evolution with creation and the creation of the universe. You should know full well the scientific discipline of evolution is NOT about creation, it is about the changes that happen to life AFTER life has alre ...[text shortened]... e hypothesis closet. And we know it.

So cut them some slack. They are, after all, only human.

Oh, good lord.

I know all that.

What I'm talking about is the typical 'creationism' vs. 'evolution' argument which is usually one of the biggest "Christian vs. atheist" arguments on the internet.

It's a "creation vs. evolution" argument, and not a "creation vs. Big-Bang-plus-cosmology-plus-evolution" argument because that's just too long to type every single time someone brings it up and therefore it has been shortened down to "creation vs. evolution". Everyone knows exactly what the argument is, though.

I really wish that you, of all people, would stop piling me into the same basket as most Christian pinheads, like RJHinds, who insist that everything was just "poofed" into existence, fully formed and ready to go. That doesn't stop the Big Bang, and cosmology and evolution from being the tools God used to create the universe we see today. Like I said, I think people just like to argue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
People do like to argue, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that I do, genuinely believe that creation as believed in by most Christians, is 'some kind of fairy tale'.
Fairy tales may on occasion be factual or in part based on truth. But that doesn't change the fact that you have not convinced me that that particular claim is factual.

But what you miss here is that I'm not actually trying to change your mind, or to "prove" anything.

First, I don't think a "proof" is possible. I think God created the universe in such a way as to enable humans to exercise their free will to believe, or to disbelieve, as they see fit.

And second, I'm not going to change your mind, nor the minds of any atheists here. I'm comfortable, of course, to discuss what I believe, but I'm definitely not so full of myself that I think that I can change the minds of anyone here. I've learned that it's probably one of the biggest wastes of time I can think of.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I will entertain anything that can be evidenced or proven.

That's the problem, isn't it? (Yes, yes, I know... "where's the problem?" )

Just as you claim that religion is just "convenient and reassuring", a lot of Christians (indeed, even other "religionists" ) can just as easily claim that requiring "proof" is also just as "convenient and reassuring" to the atheist.

I've always maintained that there cannot BE any "proof" of God. Faced with definite proof, there would be no atheists (except for some who stubbornly maintain that "there is no way I would worship a being as horrible as the 'Bible-God' " ). Therefore, there can be no proof of God since that would destroy man's free will to believe or not to believe as he sees fit. Those of faith are fine with their belief, and those who do not believe are fine with their non-belief; both are convinced they have made the right decision, because they have not had their free will abrogated in any way. Both decisions are "convenient and reassuring" in their own way.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But what you miss here is that I'm not actually trying to change your mind, or to "prove" anything.

I didn't suggest you were.

What you did say was that you believed that I was saying your belief is a 'fairy tale' for purely argumentative reasons. That is not so.
Nor am I being purely argumentative when I say your musings on free will are incoherent.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's the problem, isn't it? (Yes, yes, I know... "where's the problem?" )

Just as you claim that religion is just "convenient and reassuring", a lot of Christians (indeed, even other "religionists" ) can just as easily claim that requiring "proof" is also just as "convenient and reassuring" to the atheist.

I've always maintained that there cannot B ...[text shortened]... ree will abrogated in any way. Both decisions are "convenient and reassuring" in their own way.

I think the key part of what I wrote was, 'I will' entertain anything that can be evidenced or proven.

I readily accept that this is not the same for everybody. I can however only speak for myself. As far as I am concerned, evidence is not a convenient luxury, it is a necessity for belief. I would rather have no answer at all than an answer that is unproven.

Ask me how the universe began and I can only shrug my shoulders and say 'I don't know.' For me though this is preferable than saying 'God created it,' when such an answer is pie in the sky. (If you excuse the expression). It's okay for us not to have all the answers. We don't need to invent them.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I really wish that you, of all people, would stop piling me into the same basket as most Christian pinheads, like RJHinds, who insist that everything was just "poofed" into existence, fully formed and ready to go. That doesn't stop the Big Bang, and cosmology and evolution from being the tools God used to create the universe we see today.

But haven't you frequently been at pains to say BOTH Christian Creationists like RJHinds AND Christians like you are right?

Originally posted by FMF
But haven't you frequently been at pains to say BOTH Christian Creationists like RJHinds AND Christians like you are right?

And here you are, being simplistic in the extreme, simply to take a swipe at me.

Enjoy yourself. But I'm not going to take you seriously when you do this.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think the key part of what I wrote was, 'I will' entertain anything that can be evidenced or proven.

I readily accept that this is not the same for everybody. I can however only speak for myself. As far as I am concerned, evidence is not a convenient luxury, it is a necessity for belief. I would rather have no answer at all than an answer that i ...[text shortened]... use the expression). It's okay for us not to have all the answers. We don't need to invent them.

Well, yes, but the corollary of that is "I will not entertain anything that I cannot prove."

That is what I was speaking to. Proof is completely unnecessary for faith. I have no "proof" that the Bible is the word of God, but to me, the argument holds water. It is not 'pie in the sky'.

And, btw, "God created it" or, as some put it, "God did it" is not the totality of the answer, either. The "six days" of Genesis is not the full answer, and those who think so are blinding themselves to the whole truth, just as much as those who "require proof". The first group needs to use the brain God gave them, and the second group are just as blind without their feelings as the first group is without their brain.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, yes, but the corollary of that is "I will not entertain anything that I cannot prove."

I bet you can't find anyone actually promoting that supposed corollary. (it isn't actually a corollary.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't suggest you were.

What you did say was that you believed that I was saying your belief is a 'fairy tale' for purely argumentative reasons. That is not so.
Nor am I being purely argumentative when I say your musings on free will are incoherent.

The only difference between my belief on creation and the "natural evolution" of the atheists is that I believe in a Creator directing the action. That's it.

I did not say that you believe what you do purely for argumentative reasons. It largely mirrors my belief on the origin of the universe. The only difference is that I believe in a Creator.

What I did say is that there could be a lot more agreement between the "sides" if only everyone didn't like to argue so much. The Christian view of the origin of the universe does not require "magic", and there would be a lot less fighting about it if they would drop this whole literal "six days" nonsense.

"God did it" doesn't mean that "God did it specifically this way".

Originally posted by Suzianne
What I did say is that there could be a lot more agreement between the "sides" if only everyone didn't like to argue so much.

I doubt that. As far as I am aware, there is nothing that any of the 'sides' would agree on that they currently disagree on, simply because they chose not to argue as much. They might choose to not discuss their disagreements, but I am not aware of any significant disagreements that are purely invented for the sake of argument.

The Christian view of the origin of the universe does not require "magic", and there would be a lot less fighting about it if they would drop this whole literal "six days" nonsense.
There would be even less fighting if you would drop the whole 'Christian' nonsense.

Seriously, now, if you think that everyone can agree simply by changing their beliefs to match yours, and they are only holding out because they like arguing, then you are delusional.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I doubt that. As far as I am aware, there is nothing that any of the 'sides' would agree on that they currently disagree on, simply because they chose not to argue as much. They might choose to not discuss their disagreements, but I am not aware of any significant disagreements that are purely invented for the sake of argument.

[b]The Christian view of ...[text shortened]... o match yours, and they are only holding out because they like arguing, then you are delusional.

Based on your posts in this this thread, you are very close to being a theist, more than an atheist. Same with Ghost.

The belief in a possible creator is something I suggest you and Ghost put more thought into.