<p>King818, GTFO NOOB-- you're making us look bad.</p>
<p>I'm baaaack...real quick. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Scientists simply do not know, and therefore they do not assume the presence of a divine creator.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not all scientists are atheist. Both my parents are doctors and many (most?) of their colleagues are religious or spiritual to some extent. Knowing about the universe does not mean you deny a god, because not all theists base their beliefs in ignorance. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What I think is funny is how Atheists see themselves as smarter and "free-thinkers." How they believe they derive their morals and facts from the human condition and science. How they are some how more intelligent and how they can figure it all out themselves. What they don't realize is none of their ideas are their own and they can be controlled just as well in "non-religion" as they were or could be with religion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you. Ignorance is found just as easily in both atheists and theists. Anyone who founds their beliefs on the assumption that the other side is immediately and irrefutably wrong and/or inferior, they're ignorant. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're walking on a beach, and you see a watch, how do you think it got there? Did it randomly develop from the atoms around it? Of course not, it was probably bought at a store, and someone dropped it there. What Dawkins and his minions conclude, however, is that God isn't real.. so it MUST have developed by chance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm religious, and I have such a problem with this argument. Why can't something develop by chance, by atoms banging around into one another or by evolution, and still have a reason behind it...a reason for that chance, that interaction? Ultimately, I suppose, that makes it not entirely chance, but if the "creator" aspect is much more loosely applied, it doesn't restrict the Big Bang or evolution.</p>
<p>A watch is an inanimate object created by man. We know everything about its development and what it is. We know, on a shallow scale, "why" it exists: to tell time. Humans are not quite the same thing, and neither is the universe. I agree, as I said in my earlier posts, that I think creation points to a creator. But if we're going to be educated theists (OOOOMMMGGG OXYMORON) and agree that evolution, etc etc happened, the watch argument doesn't really work. God didn't chuck humans down on earth as is. I believe that he had some hand in nature and the forces it is governed by, and that the universe was created (or not created, if it's always been there...which is mind-boggling) and the first atom was created and blah blah blah because there were rules--chemical reactions, physical interactions--in place to allow elements to become something. That doesn't mean God sat there going "Oooh this oxygen is pretty! We'll put it on a planet with some H20." But we're not watches sitting on a beach. We're people, not just here to tell time or look pretty on a wrist. We, like the rest of the world, change. Watches really don't.</p>
<p>And I really don't think I made much sense, and I'm really leaving this time.</p>
<p>If we're gonna talk about time wasters, CC itself might as well be locked :)</p>
<p>Too many people see a clash between religion and science. The idea that Obama (or a scientist) can't be smart because they believe in god (or vise versa) is incredibly ignorant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we're gonna talk about time wasters, CC itself might as well be locked
[/quote]
<br>
lol, good call</p>
<p>Pawn, you're ugly IRL and you have no social life, nor have you ever had any connection with a girl. Talk about looking bad...</p>
<p>King, I have no idea why people in "the hood" believe in God, whereas a good population of educated people do not believe. It's logically irrelevant to whether or not God is real, but I suppose it's just a cultural issue. The educated people tend to use the scientific and educational establishment for their news and info.... and the educational institution happens to lean atheist/agnostic. The hood people, however, tend to get their info from... well, nowhere really. Quite frankly, I try not to associate myself with the people like that because they make all religious people look bad. </p>
<p>"--Herein lies your problem-- God does not even stop the chain of causation:</p>
<p>I know this is an often repeated Dawkins argument but by your own argument: </p>
<p>"Every complex thing with a known origin has a creator/inventor" (falsified by evolution, but I'll humor you...)</p>
<p>The creator of a complex thing is in and of himself complex no? Therefore the creator of a complex thing has a creator....--"</p>
<p>Thanks for the intelligent and reasonable argument, Pawn. :)</p>
<p>The thing with a "known origin" does not include life forms. We can obviously prove that natural selection and evolution happen, but they don't really have a known origin. In other words, we don't know how life came to be (in the simplest forms) in the first place. We can speculate and develop theories, but it hasn't and probably won't be replicated. We just don't know for sure how life got here. </p>
<p>"--It doesn't matter what seems more likely--- it only matters what is more likely. Your strawman---blind chance--- is completely foolish. Scientists do not purport that the universe happened from blind chance--- this is antithetical to determinism in general. Scientists simply do not know, and therefore they do not assume the presence of a divine creator. There certainly are some very complex theories, such as inflation, which are determined by observations of deep space. However, are current knowledge does not include the universe's origin.--"</p>
<p>You're right. It is which is more likely... and I happen to think that a supreme being of some sort is much more likely than the universe exploding out of nothing, or by chance, or however you would phrase it. We just can't prove scientifically, at least in our lifetime, what happened at the time of the big bang. If we don't know what caused it, why is it so wrong to assume there was a creator? the problem is, scientists don't know what happened, but they still assume that there was no creator... which is completely ignoring a reasonable proposition. When you see a complex item, everyone autmatically assumes there was a designer. So I don't think it takes a large step in reasoning to assume that the universe had one as well. </p>
<p>Your last sentence is a troubling issue for me, I must admit. And I have spent a lot of time thinking about how it could be. My only theory is that if God is real, his origins are far too complicated to understand. And if he or it is in fact God, and the creator of logic itself, don't you think the rules of logic might not apply to him in the same way? I know, not a very strong argument, but it's the best I've come up with so far. lol</p>
<p>glassesarechic, something could possibly create itself out of chance. I'm not saying it's impossible... that's beyond our scientific understanding right now. I'm just saying that it's incredibly improbable for something to occur out of chance, and we have never really seen it happen.</p>
<p>-- I know, not a very strong argument, but it's the best I've come up with so far. lol --</p>
<p>Breaking news: AT9 admits defeat!</p>
<p>My curiousity is completely satiated so I suggest:
<em>Die Thread die...DIE</em></p>
<p>"--Breaking news: AT9 admits defeat!--"</p>
<p>Haha, good try. I concede that the argument that he brought up poses a problem for theists. I didn't say that my argument was wrong, just that I can't come up with a better one right now. I have not even come close to admitting defeat.... and I don't think anyone on here is going to admit that they're wrong, no matter what their beliefs are. Also, I don't think anyone will be converted to another position because of the arguments on here, but it's still fun anyway.</p>
<p>Why should this thread die? As long as this thread stays reasonably civil, I see no reason to close it. The existence of God or the origins of the universe are interesting topics to debate.</p>
<p>
I didn't mean that all scientists were atheists. What I mean is that in terms of science, there are imperfect theories and that science does not assume God when it does not have an answer. Personal beliefs of scientists and science are different. </p>
<p>Also, knowing about the universe is correlated with atheism.</p>
<p>Dude religion is bad. It kills people. Maybe we should swap the legality of religion and drugs. (I obviously don't think religion should be illegal though.) </p>
<p>But, in all seriousness religion KILLS people. And god doesn't exist.</p>
<p>ATHEISM FTW!</p>
<p>P.S. You can't use people who came before the discovery of evolution who were religious and expect them to still be religious after the revelation of evolution. Evolution gives atheism more credibility and makes it a fulfilling non-religion.</p>
<p>I'm so writing about the fact that I'm an athiest for my TASP essay.</p>
<p>Richard Dawkins, in 'The God Delusion', says that religious belief is uncommon among the intelligent people.</p>
<p>^ Biased source much?</p>
<p>^Nah, he conducted a poll among the scientific community.</p>
<p>"If we all woke up one morning and forgot how to kill others in the name of our faith, we'd find an even stupider reason to kill others before noon comes around."- My AP Chem teacher, but it seems like he got it from another source.</p>
<p>^ Very nice.</p>
<p>Religion doesn't kill people! People kill people.</p>
<p>Do you think that the homicide that occurred in America in the last whatever-the-going-rate-for-homicides-in-America-is happened because of religious differences? I think not. Though it could have been. But then we'd have to look at the one prior to that, and question the motives there.</p>
<p>And scientists are a biased source. They're not the only intelligent people out there. What about historians, writers, and all those other liberal arts fields?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mind justifying that?</p>