Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PrimateDave

  Suppose the Russians land on the Moon and discover....

  If comlexity and design in a particular system is found to have an intelligent "cause", does this somehow automatically prove that an omnipotent, invisible, omniscient entity made the earth and life on it in seven days, caused a global flood, sent his son to earth to die for the sins of mankind, and will take the chosen to heaven while destroying the earth? hmmm? Isn't that ultimately what Believers try to prove? Since I have intimately studied the Bible and found its whole story to be a caricature, I find the efforts of Fundies quite laughable.

  Dave
• 

  Gladring

  Why does he [Dawkins] feel it necessary to place adverts on London buses saying God doesn't exist...?

  Dawkins did not place those adverts, but he did lend his public support to them and donated generously to the charity that did. Also those adverts do not say that God does not exist, they say "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

  I suspect Dawkins only claims he is a 6 because he knows that 7 is scientifically untenable.

  Exactly!

  In addition to PrimateDave's comments about the moon nano-bots: - the scientist would probably go, well who made the Aliens then? Not to go into great detail right now, but a designed object would look very different to an evolved object.
• 

  Borgia

  So, the article is a pure call on authority. Why should St. Augustine be THE authority on any interpretation? => logical fallacy

  allow me a small kind of another one: ad hominem => Was St Augustine not the one that independent thinking should be a horror to a true Chrsitian?

  Quote

  The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?

  Unquote

  For the true believer: What constituted proof to faithful unbelieving Gideon? A yes.....some tests....3 as a matter of fact..... => another call to authority.....or is it?

  Have we such evidence.......apart from the striking "historical" unconfirmed & biased stories from the OT.........the silence of the absence is deafening.....

  Cheers

  Borgia
• 

  BarefootServant

  Dave said:

  If comlexity and design in a particular system is found to have an intelligent "cause", does this somehow automatically prove that an omnipotent, invisible, omniscient entity made the earth and life on it in seven days, caused a global flood, sent his son to earth to die for the sins of mankind, and will take the chosen to heaven while destroying the earth? hmmm?

  Exactly; no, it does not. But the whole point of an illustration like this is to separate the wood from the trees. The question is, is there even a smidgen of evidence for the existence of God? Some would say yes, much much more than a smidgen. Others like Dawkins say no, not a smidgen. So, leaving out religion and all the baggage that goes with it, it would appear one's position (assuming one has a strong position either way) is based on our personal assumptions. Getting back to little green men, take a rational position - which view would you choose?

  Gladring said:

  Exactly!

  In which case Dawkins' is a de-facto 7 whilst he disengenuously attempts to maintain his scientific credentials as a 6.

  In addition to PrimateDave's comments about the moon nano-bots: - the scientist would probably go, well who made the Aliens then? Not to go into great detail right now, but a designed object would look very different to an evolved object.

  I don't think there is any way of looking at an object and being able to tell the difference between it being designed and it having evolved, since at the sub-cellular level these life-machines look very carefully designed indeed. Even Dawkins would agree that these things look like they were designed. But since you mention it, when you look under a car bonnet can you say for sure whether it was designed or if it evolved? If so, exactly how?

  A scientist would not say "who made the aliens then", since this is unscientific and completely irrelevant to the evidence and question at hand.

  So, given that it is not possible to detect the difference between an evolved object and a designed one, and the evidence presented, what would your position be?
• 

  PrimateDave

  On a certain level my current atheism is reactionary to my former Fundamentalism. I simply despise the insidious methods of control that some humans have used to manipulate others. I understand that not all Christians fall into this category.

  Had I been raised in a more liberal Christian tradition I would most likely be content with a benign agnosticism or post-theism like many Europeans have.

  My hard reaction to this kind of article is precisely because I was once deceived by that very kind of reasoning that kept me captive to a very narrow mindset. I said before that Campos is preaching to the choir, and I was once a part of that "choir" as it were.

  Know that my objection isn't against the search for the "divine." I hesitate to use the term "god" because it reminds me too much of a male patriarchal deity that enforces hierarchy and dominates through power.

  Once I remove cultural preconceptions of the divine from my basic assumptions on reality, I find the concepts of creator gods rather quaint products of tribal narratives. I understand the differences between engineered, purpose built objects that don't reproduce and biochemical systems that evolve and reproduce.

  Broadly speaking, I don't know how life came to be in the first place, and the complexity of living organisms still appears miraculous to me. At the same time I have yet to see a convincing (to me) definition of "god," so I will choose "none of the above," which is my personal definition of atheism.

  Dave
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  Well said Dave, and I'd just like to add that the JWS have most certainly have orchestrated insidious methods to control people

  and use them to create wealth and power.

  Some of their controls might even be considered useful and purposeful , on the other hand some have proved to be disastrous and even fatal.

  Power should never be in the hands of the ignorant, the results have always proven to be wrong and unjust.
• 

  Twitch

  Re The Holy Toast of Antioch

  I cannot see the image of the lord. What does it mean, sire?
• 

  lrkr

  I read the article hoping for something like a dilemma. All I saw was Dawkins bashing- no evidence, no nothing.

  I'm really hoping for an anti-athiest argument that makes some sense. At least then there can be a discussion. Right now, its like watching a Superbowl between "any other team" and the Buffalo Bills.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Human cognition is limited. We will understand things better as we upgrade ourselves. Homo Sapiens is the past, Homo Evolvulus is the future.

  BTS
• 

  Twitch

  Homo Sapiens is the past, Homo Evolvulus is the future.

  As in OT, NT?

  ;)