Intellectual Laziness (3)

[ANIMOSITY]

So I guess that if I want to make a cake. I take my bowl out and don't put anything in the bowl, don't buy any ingredients, Just let that empty bowl sit there on the counter...
In about a few million years, it will be a cake. Now I find that harder to believe in then the possibility of a Creator. Who is crazier!!

 

[Digital]

Why is it this always goes back and fourth and everyone with a open mind says "we don't know and that's ok" and everyone who is delusional says "IT HAD TO BE GOD" regardless of any information backing that up?

Who taught you god? God most certainly didn't. Another human did. If I suddenly believed that a pink unicorn was whispering commands into my ear to do things I'd be bakor acted. But if it's a dude in a white robe with a long beard it's legit? GTFO here.

Humans are sad and pathetic creatures that have to cling to the notion that a all mighty being is holding their hand and eveything will be ok. That's why old people suddenly become so faithful. They're time on the planet has come to an end and they are scared that they will be dust and nothing else. So they find some way to live forever by believing in some god. How sad and weak a race we are.

Other species from other planets must look at us like we're toddlers with all our views on religion and how we use and abuse this planet. We must be such wastes of organic material to them.


[youtube_Browser]JdILmgJGuvw[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_Browser]wHHz4mB9GKY[/youtube_browser]

 

[61mmstang94]

So I guess that if I want to make a cake. I take my bowl out and don't put anything in the bowl, don't buy any ingredients, Just let that empty bowl sit there on the counter...
In about a few million years, it will be a cake. Now I find that harder to believe in then the possibility of a Creator. Who is crazier!!

If there was a dictionary term named after the title of this thread, your post would be listed as definition number 1. You personify intellectual laziness through trying to compare the creation of a cake to the creation of the universe.

So scientific evidence is out of the window with you, but the entire creation of everything we know is all explained in one book known as the bible? I guess science should give up because the bible had EVERYTHING figured out so long ago.

I still just find it insane that believers say "something can't come from nothing" then how would we get god to begin with if there was nothing? Then they use unfalsifiable and ridiculous arguments.

 

[TheCPE]

So I guess that if I want to make a cake. I take my bowl out and don't put anything in the bowl, don't buy any ingredients, Just let that empty bowl sit there on the counter...
In about a few million years, it will be a cake.

This is a terrible analogy.

First, the bowl isn’t akin to a singularity. The cake isn’t made of matter and energy of the bowl.

Second, both a bowl and a cake are man made whereas a singularity and the universe are not.

Third, your time scale is way off (not that it matters); it took much more than a few million years for the universe to form.

The analogy might work great in Sunday school, but it doesn’t stand up to any scientific or intellectual scrutiny.

Who is crazier!!

I’d say the craziest folks are the ones that believe two humans populated the entire human species with all our genetic variance...

 

[Carbd86GT]

I've seen it. I've seen most of those types of debates. While Krauss isn't as articulate like Craig, I would completely disagree with who was owned...

Hitchens is much more entertaining to watch anyway...

May god rest his soul :dw:

It also teaches you to be an abject slave, human sacrifice is good, genocide is just, intolerance and bigotry is expected, slavery is righteous, and that a being so powerful, omnipotent even that can create the cosmos is also so petty it needs constant reassurance of your worship and it is concerned with silly trivial things like circumcision. Or perhaps these petty very human emotions and ideas are only self evident of the true human authors.

I don't think I've seen a great rebuttal such as this in a LONG time. This explanation is so basic, but sums up everything PERFECTLY, in my opinion of course.

This is a CRITICAL PREMISE in your worldview and it is NOT TRUE with the respect to the universe we are in.

Our universe is a collection of things negative and positive that all neatly and precisely sum up to zero energy. Physicist and professor Lawrence Krauss, who has contributed 300+ scientific papers to his field, says that the physical laws—as we now understand them—allow for a universe to arise from zero energy. In his universe from nothing lectures, he also explains how we know—from experimental observation—that we live in a flat universe, a universe that will expand indefinitely and as a whole carry zero energy.

Natural explanations now allow science to posit zero energy to get a universe. In this regard, unlike religion, science doesn't need to posit an eternal super being that stands apart from nature.

By the way, I really liked the 'circular reasoning' image you shared, but I question who the joke is really on here.



.

I read all 5 pages just to see when Wurd2 would post, and what he would say. It's about time, my eyes are killing me from staring at this LCD screen so closely.

 

[Digital]

Because I'm An Atheist... | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
^ Good read

 

[wurd2]

So I guess that if I want to make a cake. I take my bowl out and don't put anything in the bowl, don't buy any ingredients, Just let that empty bowl sit there on the counter...In about a few million years, it will be a cake.

The zero-sum concept implies that your "cake" will consist of negative and positive things that perfectly cancel each other out and sum up to zero energy. What this means is that your "cake" can come into existence without violating conservation of energy or drawing energy from an unnamed source.

Who is crazier!

The parties of god, those that want to start reality by positing a creative eternal super being that stands apart from nature.

.

 

[wurd2]

Neither religion or science can prove whether God exists or doesn't exist, that's a fact.

We cannot prove or disprove astrology. The point you make, which is true, doesn't require a call to action.

Logic and experience tells us when we see a painting, it needed a painter. When you see a car, do you believe that a set of random unordered natural actions created that car? Or do you believe it had to have some sort of intelligence involved to be designed, engineered, and assembled? How about a computer program? So in my opinion for someone to say that we (with complex DNA coding among other complex processes occurring in our body), our planet (which is FINELY tuned to support human life), our universe...everything, came from just random, unordered, set of un-intelligent actions and/or nothing-ness, well then I believe it requires more FAITH to be an atheist than to be a theist.

When we look at life, take the human body for example, we see design but we do not see optimal design. The human eye, for instance, has an inherent blind spot that a child can demonstrate with a pencil and a piece of paper. Our prefrontal lobes are too small, and our adrenal glands are too large. Our lungs are so inefficient that we exhale most of the oxygen we inhale. Because we have to eat and breathe through the same orifice, 50,000 people in the U.S. alone die of choking every year. And our mouths are too small for our number of teeth. The list of design problems with the human body goes on and on.

We can even see design problems at the genetic level. Apparently 25% of the human genome material is composed of dead retroviruses. And, as of this June 13th, we discovered that the genome of bonobos and chimpanzees differs from that of humans by a mere 1.3%. This observation makes a complete mockery of the idea that humans were designed in God's image.

Life is clearly not intelligently designed as you claim, and nor did it just come about by random chance. It came about by Darwinian natural selection which is a process that is part random and part not. Richard Dawkins said it in as few words as possible: evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators. Evolution is about adaptive differential reproduction, which we have mountains of evidence for in molecular genetics.

By the way, if you want to embrace intelligent design, then you have to believe that the designer has an inordinate fondness for beetles as we have about 350,000 distinct beetle species on record.

That would be like me telling you that the Library of Congress is there because a tornado went through a forest and by chance and un-intelligent natural processes it was created.

I am going to bet that you will execute this argument in the future, despite my informing you that evolution is not a chance process. I too have favored arguments that I routinely execute, but I prefer to discard them if I discover they are rooted in misconception or misinformation.

Atheists believe they shouldn't have the burden of proof but I believe theists and atheists should both have the burden of proof on whether God exists or doesn't.

Let me put it this way. If one individual says God exists, and another says God does not exist, I hold both of them equally accountable for extraordinary evidence. The problem here is your understanding of atheism. As an atheist, I reject the creator hypothesis due to insufficient evidence. I don't reject the God hypothesis simply because I somehow know it to be false.

If there is sound reason that a Creator COULD exist...

Tell me, logically, how you got yourself to the position that reality allows for a creative god.

.

 

[wurd2]

Why are people so scared of the answer "we don't know"?

I think Christopher Hitchens answered this best when he said that we are pattern seeking creatures that prefer a supernatural or superstitious explanation to no explanation at all.

.

 

[wurd2]

To me there is too much that can and never will be explained as we humans are too ignorant to see this...

If science knew everything or just pretended to, then all scientists would be out of a job. Science is always going to be a work in progress, hopefully.

i am humble enough to know that some of the most intelligent people that i have studied believe in a higher power of some kind.

I don't see any humility in believing the creator of universe is interested in us.

.

 

[wurd2]

Which do you find more plausible:

The universe (which is all of nature) had a natural cause (meaning that nature had to exist prior to nature to cause nature)?

or...

The universe popped into existence uncaused?

or...

The universe (which is all of nature) had a cause outside of itself (meaning a cause outside of nature)?

The position I find more plausible, which you have conveniently left off the table, is:

The universe exists by laws that do not involve or require intelligent intervention.

This would imply that the natural laws of our universe were naturally created by the set of natural laws that govern the higher dimension in which the universe was created. According to Lawrence Krauss, all that is needed to start a universe is what he calls quantum fluctuations which apparently cannot not exist, per the very nature of reality.

The way I see it, believers posit an eternal supernatural creative intelligence to get things started, while nonbelievers merely need posit what Lawrence Krauss refers to as quantum fluctuations which—regardless of what they really are—are much simpler than a creative intelligence sufficiently complex to create our universe.

Enjoy your burden of proof.



.

 

[wurd2]

Science is an important tool. It isn't however the only way to come to knowlege. For example the very statement you made above is a philisophical statement!

Aside from the fact that I would argue science is the most important tool, you cannot dissect it from philosophy and put the two at odds. Science is a natural form of investigation. And philosophy happens to be an earlier stage of this very form of investigation, which gave way to science when the limits of what can be discovered from the armchair were reached. Philosophy and science do not represent opposing methodologies; they represent a natural progression of a single methodology.

.

 

[wurd2]

Great so when you see something created it's safe to assume it had no creator. Do you see how much sense that makes? You can go into all the ways you believe the universe or our planet is flawed, but I'll say once again, if you don't know the intentions of the Creator then you don't know whether it's flawed or designed that way. Just because a Civic can't carry 8 people like an SUV doesn't mean the design is flawed, it was the intentions of the creator to only have 4 seats.

We should assume something had a creator if:

• something exhibits evidence of intelligent design, and
• there is more than absolutely zero evidence for said creator.

...a deist IS a theist...

A deist does not believe the creator god intervenes. The defining characteristic of a theist is the belief that the creator god intervenes on our behalf.

.

 

[wurd2]

If you're interested, he debates a theist in this vid...

William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss - YouTube

And gets owned!

I'm curious as to how a theist can "own" an accomplished physicist in a debate on the subject of the universe. Was there something privately revealed to William Lane Craig that Lawrence Krauss had yet to discover in his laboratory?

:shrug:

.

 

[blacksrt]

The fact that "you" people are trying to disprove the existense of God by squeezing every last bit of intellectual knowlage from your "grey matter" database is quite comical.

Why waste your time trying to convince these "intellectual lazy" people that there isn't a god? Feeling guilty maybe? Trying to convince yourself by convincing others? I promise you it isn't going to comfort you, feel your void, nor make you feel better by convincing others to burn with you!

As far as I am concerned you guys are the proof that a "higher" power exists and that you are nothing but mere pawns in this game of life.

 

[61mmstang94]

The fact that "you" people are trying to disprove the existense of God by squeezing every last bit of intellectual knowlage from your "grey matter" database is quite comical.

Why waste your time trying to convince these "intellectual lazy" people that there isn't a god? Feeling guilty maybe? Trying to convince yourself by convincing others? I promise you it isn't going to comfort you, feel your void, nor make you feel better by convincing others to burn with you!

As far as I am concerned you guys are the proof that a "higher" power exists and that you are nothing but mere pawns in this game of life.

That's a very judgmental statement from someone who claims to be a believer.

Gotta love someone talking about how they're better because they believe god exists and then tells someone they're going to burn in he'll as if they're the judge of that. Ironic that you claim to believe in god with statements like that.

 

[TheCPE]

The fact that "you" people are trying to disprove the existense of God by squeezing every last bit of intellectual knowlage from your "grey matter" database is quite comical.

I know it is so silly and comical, the endeavor to maximize our knowledge by trying to use the full potential of our brains.

Why waste your time trying to convince these "intellectual lazy" people that there isn't a god? Feeling guilty maybe? Trying to convince yourself by convincing others?

Perhaps it isn't a waste of time. Perhaps for starters some of us find science, the universe and seeking understanding of existence exciting and discussing these topics exciting. Perhaps we also feel that as long as there is open dialog progress can be made and others that have questions and are on the fence about religion can find enlightenment.

As far as I am concerned you guys are the proof that a "higher" power exists and that you are nothing but mere pawns in this game of life.

Cool story.

 

[blacksrt]

That's a very judgmental statement from someone who claims to be a believer.

Gotta love someone talking about how they're better because they believe god exists and then tells someone they're going to burn in he'll as if they're the judge of that. Ironic that you claim to believe in god with statements like that.

There's no judging........ You either believe or you don't. If you don't, you burn, simple as that. Anybody up for some barbecue?

 

[61mmstang94]

There's no judging........ You either believe or you don't. If you don't, you burn, simple as that. Anybody up for some barbecue?

You stated that he's empty and upset because he doesn't believe you're fairy tale. That's passing judgement.

 

[blacksrt]

I know it is so silly and comical, the endeavor to maximize our knowledge by trying to use the full potential of our brains.



Perhaps it isn't a waste of time. Perhaps for starters some of us find science, the universe and seeking understanding of existence exciting and discussing these topics exciting. Perhaps we also feel that as long as there is open dialog progress can be made and others that have questions and are on the fence about religion can find enlightenment.



Cool story.

Want another cool story? What if Aliens were the ones that actually wrote and placed the Bible here on earth to play some sick joke on humans for thousands of years... We don't even know it, but we are actually someone/somethings sitcom........ Now is my thinking along the lines as yours now?

Just chillin' on a big blue ball out in the middle of nowhere....... :rockon: