by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
in this thread I am not arguing for any specific deity but Intelligent Design at most
But that's not true. Your started the thread denouncing atheism, which means that implicitly your position is that there is a god of some sort.
The issue of intelligent design is not necessarily the same as that of the existence of a god. I can just as well say that maybe the first form of live on earth was designed by space pixies. I can be an atheist and still believe that nonsense as well.
Anony Mous
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You quote: "they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes" and then ask why you're not allowed to use the same argument to propose a divine entity. Divine intervention is exactly the definition of "unknown or exotic causes".
I am evoking intelligence not deity. But I do believe following the evidence to its conclusion.
We know pretty well how life started and developed and between the 1950's have replicated various requirements of it in the lab without requiring unknown or exotic causes. Yes, we can create all the prerequisites for life (including self-replicating enzymes, the components of DNA) in the lab, when exactly life forms or chemical components become "life" is a difficult question and given recent developments I am pretty sure we will be able to make start developing single cell organisms in the next few decades. We even have a pretty good model of how the Universe started - at no point does any of it require divine intervention, it's just stuff that happens all the time in the Universe.
Notice all that took place under the guidance and supervision of intelligence.
And if you think salts and snow flakes aren't complex, again, you have no idea.
I am referring to information capacity to structure.
Caedes
Atheism is not a statement that there is no god, it is a statement that no theist has provided empirical evidence of a god or gods. Since your definition is flawed then so is the rest of your OP.
When discussing worldviews Atheism comes up unique. It seems that many want to be under the umbrella of Atheism but do not agree on its definition. Atheism is affirming the nonexistence of deity.
redvip2000
But that's not true. Your started the thread denouncing atheism, which means that implicitly your position is that there is a god of some sort.
No, my position could be Agnostic.
The issue of intelligent design is not necessarily the same as that of the existence of a god. I can just as well say that maybe the first form of live on earth was designed by space pixies. I can be an atheist and still believe that nonsense as well.
Think about it, all you have done is move the goal post back. The question now becomes ,”where did the space pixis originate from?”
I am evoking intelligence not deity.
What exactly you call it makes no difference. If you invoke an intelligence, you not only have to come up with the established facts of how our Universe came into existence but also how your intelligence came into existence. You now have 2 problems to solve.
The point is that I've proven to you it doesn't require an intelligence to come up with these things and your only response is:
Notice all that took place under the guidance and supervision of intelligence.
I haven't noticed, you're just making a baseless statement, if you're so sure of it, you can prove it. You've failed to prove it ergo you're wrong.
When discussing worldviews Atheism comes up unique. It seems that many want to be under the umbrella of Atheism but do not agree on its definition. Atheism is affirming the nonexistence of deity.
What makes you think that you get to define what atheism means? The reason I am an atheist is because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods, I have not seen or heard anything that makes me think that the claims of theists hold any merit whatsoever. You are welcome to show me some evidence if you think you have something.
I would also disagree with your statement that atheism is unique, personally as a rational human I accept that theism covers a wide variety of positions from people who claim to speak to god, know that he exists, believe s/he/it exists, think that on the balance of probabilities god does exist all the way through to not sure/ vaguely spiritual, I don't think it is up to me to define the meaning for those people other than a belief in god. So tell me where do you sit in the theism spectrum?
Now you on the other hand don't seem to have read or understand the wide variety of positions that atheists hold, I would say that my position is probably common to most atheists and that my definition would be accepted by most as well.
If you are going to attempt to redefine terms to suit your bias then you should expect people to disagree with you. Even other theists (see below) can point out the mistakes you are making if you can't bring yourself to take advice from an atheist.
https://carm.org/mistakes-christians-make-when-dialoguing-atheists
To Towerwatchman,
You make some good points about DNA. Natural selection does not explain the formation of DNA
It seems that many want to be under the umbrella of Atheism but do not agree on its definition. Atheism is affirming the nonexistence of deity.
There is an umbrella. Google atheism and you get a box defining it as:
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism incorporates both ways of thinking. An atheist may make a positive statement about the non existence of a deity. Personally, I will say that I have a lack of belief in a God in the absence of any evidence. It is a rational approach to demand evidence to be provided before accepting something as true. It is up to the believer to produce that evidence before assuming that thing's existence.
My position is that it is more technically accurate to state a lack of belief in God. Just like it is more technically correct to say, I have a lack of belief in Santa Claus. But I have no issue really with saying Santa Claus doesn't exist because without any evidence why should I even consider it?
@stephenmyers complaining that natural selection does not explain the origin of DNA is like complaining gravity doesn't explain rainbows.
DNA proves that all living things evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years
The origin of life is another topic.
