Posted on 09/09/2024 9:39:13 AM PDT by MosesKnows
Atheism is the absence or rejection of belief in deities. That definition makes it easy to understand an atheist thinking.
What is difficult to understand about atheist thinking is their position on creation. I know neither the atheist nor the believer can refute the self-evident fact that we are part of a creation. Any discussion that begins in agreement stands a chance of progressing.
What issues arise after we agree there was a creation? Why was there a creation? When was there a creation? Where was there a creation? The spine-tingling question when you put the issues together in a pile; who was the creator?
Perhaps a better question we should next ask is; was creation random or by design?
That is clearly a religious belief.
You must not be an engineer: nothing that works properly happens by accident.
By the way "creation" means designed and built by someone. Autogenesis is supposedly how something, somehow makes itself.
It also requires the belief that inert elements could magically combine into something as mind boggling complex as a living cell.
Not necessarily. An atheist may take the position that there is direct evidence of material existence but no direct evidence for the existence of a Creator. Therefore, the atheist may claim, the existence of a Creator should not be assumed or hypothesized. Or, if one insists, at most one might posit that there is an impersonal force that gave rise to material existence, but not a Creator with a person or with the power of will or decision.
Really? How do you suppose that eyes as they exist now developed themselves over time? Does anyone really believe that a structure so intricately constructed could "self-develop" by successful lucky mutations from the very first light-sensing cells, to color perception, forming lenses, retinas, a self-adjusting iris, etc., etc.? Only non-engineers could imagine that happening on its own, even over thousands of millennia.
How about spider venom? Do atheists really think that complex molecules that from a spider's very specialized venom that paralyzes their prey - or kills it outright - as it needs came from starting with salt water? No biochemists out there?
Atheism is shorthand for lazy thinking and a lack of real-world experience in design and development. Nothing worthwhile happens by accident. Everything out there rusts/oxidizes/dissipates/falls apart unless someone intervenes and makes it work.
Interesting you say that since it is the basis of my belief, "intelligent design". Some unfathomable entity[s] either rolled the dice with no restraints to see what would happen, or they included certain physics standards to ensure an eventual outcome - sentient beings.
As much as I love the teachings and morality of Jesus Christ, I just can't buy into any of the organized religions. There's too much Dogma in all.
My belief in creation simply comes from what has been learned through physics back tracking the expansion of our known universe to a basketball sized Big Bang. Sooo, where did that come from? Out of nothingness like some scientists of late are claiming? I don't believe that.
Our "intelligent design" (creation) came from someone or some thing that we will never understand in our current human form. If interested, my morals, values, virtues are based on a simple saying, "Do unto others..." I'll leave the religions to their own beliefs as I maintain a righteous life.
‘ Atheism is a religion.’
Not anymore than not playing baseball is a sport.
Absurd.
Sure you can. You can not see any signs of God out in the world and be an atheist, but also understand that our knowledge isn’t anywhere near complete, so how it all got here is still a mystery. And frankly even with a God it can all still be a mystery, because the Bible doesn’t really get into the mechanics of it, and science is about mechanics. “God said boom and it happened” is nice for a book that’s really about morals, it doesn’t cut it in science though. Science is about “it”, what was “it”, how does “it” work, what are implications of “it”.
It’s always important to note that the big arguments between science and religion are one sided. Religion is constantly getting mad at science, science is too busy to worry about religion.
Marduk and Tiamat
Maybe nothingness, maybe the compression of the previous version of the universe, maybe a black hole in a different universe.
And the size of the universe does play into my lack of belief in a creator. There is a whole lot of universe out there to make just us.
I think the way the dogmatics get hung up on creation is silly. There’s a whole lot of moral teachings in the Bible that really don’t need the first few chapters of the first book to be “true” to be valid and valuable. They should stop worrying about that and worry more about the 10 Commandments, there’s good useful stuff in there.
You would expect a religious text to explain, define or acknowledge atheism?
‘ No atheist can explain how the natural world makes this jump from pure chemical reactions to “life” and sentient beings.“
Just because a scientific explanation for everything hasn’t been found yet, does not mean a supernatural cause is the answer.
Fine tuned for what, survival, existence?
What else would you suspect?
I’d be more inclined to believe in a creator if life wasn’t fine tuned. That would be miraculous.
“If you do not believe in the Creator you are not an atheist, you are a fool.”
Atheists claim the opposite. But scientists say our DNA is programmed to worship and if we don’t worship a traditional God figure we will simply substitute something else. Politics seems to be the atheists’ go-to substitute these days.
Balderdash
Sorry, Blue, but that is about the worst definition of an atheist I've seen. I think you'd be surprised if you seriously looked for the reasons.
The saddest thing about being an atheist is that 99% of them are leftists. I'd never attend an atheist meeting because of that alone. There are quite a few of us Freepers who are non-believers, but don't usually bring it up here for obvious reasons.
There are meetings?
“Does anyone really believe that a structure so intricately constructed could “self-develop” by successful lucky mutations from the very first light-sensing cells, to....”
Yeah, all that happened over millions of years of natural selection and evolution. That’s why simple life forms are found in the oldest paleontological records and complex life much later.
What evolution can’t do was insert a soul when humans emerged. That’s what God did.
True. Ancients had almost zero understanding of atomic chemistry. But has our recently-found understanding solved the question of creation? Or has it just raised more questions, ala my example of Christopher Hitchens?
And then, at what point will we say humans can literally understand "everything?"
Take a bite of that apple, Eve, and you can know what God knows!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.