Motoring2 mins ago
God Is Or Is Not.
161 Answers
If God IS, then all of our big questions about origins, are answered.
If God IS NOT, then the alternative is purely materialistic.
What do you say?
Obviously there are atheists who believe the latter. So please guide me to the evidence for a purely materialistic origin, beginning of life, and evolution.
Please feel free to guide me towards any YouTube videos where atheistic experts can convince me that a purely materialistic scenario is the only option.
I am eager to understand the atheist mindset.
If God IS NOT, then the alternative is purely materialistic.
What do you say?
Obviously there are atheists who believe the latter. So please guide me to the evidence for a purely materialistic origin, beginning of life, and evolution.
Please feel free to guide me towards any YouTube videos where atheistic experts can convince me that a purely materialistic scenario is the only option.
I am eager to understand the atheist mindset.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Wow you lot are quite free with your abuse aren't you?
Why not get down to the heart of the matter, and compare accounts of the big questions rather than huddle together like a group of gossiping old women?
"Ah! I told that Theland feller didn't I didn't I didn't I?"
"Oh you sure did! That Theland feller won't be back here in a hurry hehe!"
Why not get down to the heart of the matter, and compare accounts of the big questions rather than huddle together like a group of gossiping old women?
"Ah! I told that Theland feller didn't I didn't I didn't I?"
"Oh you sure did! That Theland feller won't be back here in a hurry hehe!"
Theland - // But I am interested in the atheist view of how the universe came into existence, the beginning of life from inorganic materials, and the theory of evolution which I don't believe in. //
As I and others have told you before - and of course you ignore it - atheists devote next to no time pondering the 'mysteries of creation' because they can't be bothered!
As I and others have told you before - and of course you ignore it - atheists devote next to no time pondering the 'mysteries of creation' because they can't be bothered!
Something that Ive noticed since leaving Christianity behind, is the liberating effects of been able to fully explore life...both good and bad!
No one has ever said that science has all the answers. No one has ever said that Philosophy has all the answers. No one has ever said that Psychology has all the answers.
But it feels so good to know that. Leaves us free to explore rather than be constrained by some ancient myths, written by ignorant people who knew even less than we do!
No one has ever said that science has all the answers. No one has ever said that Philosophy has all the answers. No one has ever said that Psychology has all the answers.
But it feels so good to know that. Leaves us free to explore rather than be constrained by some ancient myths, written by ignorant people who knew even less than we do!
Theland - // Wow you lot are quite free with your abuse aren't you? //
As are you, to the 'gullible atheist' with more patience and courtesy than you deserve.
//Why not get down to the heart of the matter, and compare accounts of the big questions rather than huddle together like a group of gossiping old women? //
That's pretty free with abuse right there - but it's what you employ when you wish, and whinge about when it's given back - your hypocrisy writ large.
As I have told you, atheists really don't care, and I have better things to do on a Saturday night that plait fog with you.
//"Ah! I told that Theland feller didn't I didn't I didn't I?"
"Oh you sure did! That Theland feller won't be back here in a hurry hehe!" //
Oh please, you keep saying that, but you never mean it.
You will be back, which is fine - but think about practising what you preach - literally - stow the abuse, listen and respond to what people say, and allow them the courtesy of a view different to your own.
As are you, to the 'gullible atheist' with more patience and courtesy than you deserve.
//Why not get down to the heart of the matter, and compare accounts of the big questions rather than huddle together like a group of gossiping old women? //
That's pretty free with abuse right there - but it's what you employ when you wish, and whinge about when it's given back - your hypocrisy writ large.
As I have told you, atheists really don't care, and I have better things to do on a Saturday night that plait fog with you.
//"Ah! I told that Theland feller didn't I didn't I didn't I?"
"Oh you sure did! That Theland feller won't be back here in a hurry hehe!" //
Oh please, you keep saying that, but you never mean it.
You will be back, which is fine - but think about practising what you preach - literally - stow the abuse, listen and respond to what people say, and allow them the courtesy of a view different to your own.
Theland - // Would it make you happy if I stopped posting? //
No - because others are interested in debating with you - and what 'makes me happy' is not what this is about.
Stop being mealy-mouthed and simply accept that you argue your points in a superior condescending sarcastic manner, you ignore valid points, and you are a seriously bad advert for your faith with all of that.
No - because others are interested in debating with you - and what 'makes me happy' is not what this is about.
Stop being mealy-mouthed and simply accept that you argue your points in a superior condescending sarcastic manner, you ignore valid points, and you are a seriously bad advert for your faith with all of that.
There are plenty of things an open and curious mind will be open and curious about, Theland. The origin of life, the origin of conscious[i life in particular and the moral sense we as an example of the latter group share being examples.
It is not that the theory of God as [i]architect] (i.e. "deism") is implausible, but that the theory that said architect is the source of moral authority (i.e. "theism") is. So that's a theory I reject.
But my curiosity remains, and it's mainly centred on ethical issues because those are about the love and support we give to those closest to us, but also about the respect and kindness we give to those who are not. And it is at this point ethics with its concerns for human happiness unites with practical means of assisting it. Which is to say that is, or ought to be, an aspect of politics.
I don't know how science can extend its clearly beneficial role in assisting human happiness (e.g. crop yields and medicine) to these broader moral/political concerns. And I was saddened/disappointed/depressed to hear Hawking quoted (truly or not I don't know) as saying that the advance of science would render philosophy redundant. While the discovery of the Higgs-boson may tell us abouty the building blocks of the universe it's difficult to see what contribution the discovery of Mr Higgs's up until now elusive particle may make to the resolution of the question "Is mugging old ladies right or wrong?".
Strangely enough - and atheist as I am - I do not embrace the advance of secularism which began most furiously, I guess, after WWI. The imposition of anti-theist regimes in the 20th century by the communist revolutions in Russia and China Lenin and Mao respectively did not contribute to human happiness. Further confusions in my curious mind are the observations that appear to support two propositions. One is the 16th century "Natura abhorret vacuum" and the other is the the one often attributed to Chesterton, that if a man stops believing in God, it is not that he then believes in {i]nothing[i], but that he will believe in anything. Climate change being an obvious example.
It is not that the theory of God as [i]architect] (i.e. "deism") is implausible, but that the theory that said architect is the source of moral authority (i.e. "theism") is. So that's a theory I reject.
But my curiosity remains, and it's mainly centred on ethical issues because those are about the love and support we give to those closest to us, but also about the respect and kindness we give to those who are not. And it is at this point ethics with its concerns for human happiness unites with practical means of assisting it. Which is to say that is, or ought to be, an aspect of politics.
I don't know how science can extend its clearly beneficial role in assisting human happiness (e.g. crop yields and medicine) to these broader moral/political concerns. And I was saddened/disappointed/depressed to hear Hawking quoted (truly or not I don't know) as saying that the advance of science would render philosophy redundant. While the discovery of the Higgs-boson may tell us abouty the building blocks of the universe it's difficult to see what contribution the discovery of Mr Higgs's up until now elusive particle may make to the resolution of the question "Is mugging old ladies right or wrong?".
Strangely enough - and atheist as I am - I do not embrace the advance of secularism which began most furiously, I guess, after WWI. The imposition of anti-theist regimes in the 20th century by the communist revolutions in Russia and China Lenin and Mao respectively did not contribute to human happiness. Further confusions in my curious mind are the observations that appear to support two propositions. One is the 16th century "Natura abhorret vacuum" and the other is the the one often attributed to Chesterton, that if a man stops believing in God, it is not that he then believes in {i]nothing[i], but that he will believe in anything. Climate change being an obvious example.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
