Ask An Atheist Anything

reply to post by followtheevidence


You wrote (on ID):

["A consequence I am willing to face, if only my question were to be answered in the process. Indeed, as it is so primitive a question, I see no reason why it could not easily be answered as promptly as it was discounted."]

Because the rejection of ID has been presented so many times, that I believed it unnecessary to repeat it. And while it's rather simple, it takes a bit of time and space. But if you like, I can do it again.

PS I live in a european time-zone, so possibly not before my tomorrow. Depends.

reply to post by bogomil


At your leisure. For me it is simple - I'm expected to believe it took intelligence and design to create a pencil, but not a universe? Perhaps I am daft, so be it.

To clarify, I'm not asking you to explain in what manner this universe lacks properties which could indicate intelligent design. I AM asking for you to outline some properties of a hypothetical universe which would undoubtedly suggest intelligent design.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Insomnia, hence already an answer. I will promise you not to stall or play mindgames, but my time on ATS has taught me the importance of precision. So, first.......

You wrote:

["At your leisure."]

Which I take to be 'yes' unless told otherwise. But which version of ID am I to relate to; what you presented generally in your recent post, or do you have specifications?

Quote: ["For me it is simple - I'm expected to believe it took intelligence and design to create a pencil, but not a universe?"]

Prematurely I can say, that you most likely don't use the same methods to create a pencil as for creating a cosmos (my preferred word instead of 'universe'). This is not cheap semantics on my part, as you will see later.

Quote: ["Perhaps I am daft, so be it."]

I hope not, and I don't think so. It's always a pleasure to communicate with people who can understand, what I'm talking about.

Quote: ["To clarify, I'm not asking you to explain in what manner this universe lacks properties which could indicate intelligent design."]

I take it, that we are both operating from 'agnostic' positions on this, as far as 'agnosticism' carries. Using absence of evidence in such a context is purposeless.

Quote: [" I AM asking for you to outline some properties of a hypothetical universe which would undoubtedly suggest intelligent design."]

A highly unusual request on the subject of ID. Nonetheless a fascinating challenge, which I, with your interest and consent, will take up after the standard ID concept is finished.

reply to post by eight bits

Astyanax: If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. Now, wasn't that easy?

Who says I don’t like reading what you post? Watching you trying to bamboozle the philosophically unlettered can be quite amusing at times. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to get away with it, though.

reply to post by Astyanax


Au contraire. He should be allowed to bamboozle so the unlettered can continue learning from him.

reply to post by followtheevidence


I am awaiting an answer to my post, before I continue. There was a question in that post.

reply to post by bogomil

Which I take to be 'yes' unless told otherwise. But which version of ID am I to relate to; what you presented generally in your recent post, or do you have specifications?

Let's keep it simple. Hearing your thoughts as it relates to a deistic version of ID is sufficient. Rather than trying to infer a benevolent God's existence from the natural world, let me argue instead that intelligence is necessary to account for a complex and finely tuned universe.

Prematurely I can say, that you most likely don't use the same methods to create a pencil as for creating a cosmos (my preferred word instead of 'universe'). This is not cheap semantics on my part, as you will see later.

Yes but all methods require intention...something a natural, undirected process lacks.

I take it, that we are both operating from 'agnostic' positions on this, as far as 'agnosticism' carries. Using absence of evidence in such a context is purposeless.

Yeah, that whole absence of evidence is not evidence of absence thing...

A highly unusual request on the subject of ID. Nonetheless a fascinating challenge, which I, with your interest and consent, will take up after the standard ID concept is finished.

Looking forward to discovering what sort of cosmos you'll fashion in response to this challenge.

I am awaiting an answer to my post, before I continue. There was a question in that post.

Yes I know. I was at work for 12 hours. Now I've answered your question let's proceed.

reply to post by followtheevidence


As I can see, that the semantics aren't quite done with yet, I'll bring up this quote of yours:

["Yes but all methods require intention...something a natural, undirected process lacks."]

Which ofcourse is true, but inclusion of 'method' is yours (quote from a former post):

["I'm expected to believe it took intelligence and design to create a pencil, but not a universe"]

The aim here is to consider and possibly establish validity/non-validity of 'intelligence and design' (in a trans-cosmic theist context). This can't rationally be done by assuming it as already being part of the premises.

The counter-'intelligent design' position is a denial of such a premature conclusion, and does consequently not include such from the start, as the whole procedure then would be a circle-argument.

If you wish, you can go on arguing, that 'intelligence and design to create a pencil' is not a 'method' (as I compressed your statement to). Fine with me, I can retract the word 'method' and exchange it for another more suitable one. The main point is though: The concept 'intelligent design' whatever label it can have secondarily.

The aim here is to consider and possibly establish validity/non-validity of 'intelligence and design' (in a trans-cosmic theist context). This can't rationally be done by assuming it as already being part of the premises.

Precisely, which is why I distinguished between a method and an unguided process in my reply. It was for the above stated reason that I called into question your choice of the word "method". Methods require intention (obviously); using this word presupposes that 'intelligence and design' are fixed within the causal origin of the universe. Since intelligence and design are NOT included in your premise, I found your choice of the word method slightly misleading. This was only compounded by the fact that intelligence and design are actually necessary in creating a pencil, which of course renders your comparison even more confusing given your premise. Perhaps it was a bit semantic and annoying, but the point was made for clarity's sake. All splitting of hairs aside, I would like to move on. Hopefully you do too.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Here’s a question from a fellow-atheist: have you ever felt the lack of Someone to praise or thank? You know, when the sheer marvellousness of everything overwhelms you, or you suddenly enjoy a piece of undeserved good luck, or a fortuitous last-minute reprieve from some impending disaster?

I never have had that feeling. In fact, as long as I can remember I've found the concept completely baffling to me. I do know that some formerly religious people upon becoming atheist will have a feeling of loss or lack. Religion never took with me so I've never had that experience.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
Hello OP! When you have time I would like for you to answer my simple question. My question if you had a chance to know everything and that is 100% fact on any faith what would that faith be? Doesn't mean the religion is right or wrong just if you knew everything about it. Like knowing about Islam, the laws, history, individuals, and so on. Understand?

I don't think I would single out one faith over another. I tend to think it's more valuable to know as much as one can about as many faiths as one can.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?

I think the possibility of life in the universe other than earth is quite strong. If you are asking if I believe that earth is visited by little green men, I personally don't find the evidence for such a proposition compelling.

Originally posted by followtheevidence
For me it is simple - I'm expected to believe it took intelligence and design to create a pencil, but not a universe? Perhaps I am daft, so be it.

What specifically about the universe would imply any kind of design? The universe doesn't look designed to me so I'm always curious as to what "design" people are seeing.

reply to post by followtheevidence


The semantic part done with now.....

The versions of 'intelligent design' I'm familiar with are based on a regression of the positivistic theory of the Big Bang. ('Continuous creation' and zero-point physics thus disregarded for now).

In the Big Bang theory there is an 'event horizon', i.e. what's observable in a cosmic context, but it does imply the conclusion, that matter/energy and space/time are created with the Big Bang. Matter/energy and space/time (as we understand the concepts) being part of the cosmic fabric only.

The only transition from the observed to the non-observed we have is the quantum entaglement hypothesis resulting from the double-slit experiment. Indicating a trans-cosmic existence-level in a small and specific meaning. But not more.

Scientific considerations don't go further and any claims of them doing so don't come from science itself, but from hijacked 'science'.

At the transition-point from observed to non-observed 'logic' is the only rational tool for a continuation of a reasoning chain, in this case expressed through 'causality'. But as matter/energy and space/time no longer are reference-points (trans-cosmically), the causality-logic based on matter/energy and space/time (the one mankind knows) breaks down in a trans-cosmic context.

As in the standard versions of theist vs. 'rational' positions, what's trans-cosmic is anybody's guess. Here including the validity of trans-cosmic 'causality'. The 'intelligent design' concept being reduced to a be another extension of 'agnostic' positions.

Inversely the theist claims from highly structured complexity in cosmos are equally 'agnostic' from a rational perspective. The scientific starting-point is an ackowledgement of a basic observable structured order (already considered non-regressive on rational tems above). No use in returning to that, as I NOW am considering how complexity evolves. Take any initial structured conditions with dynamic qualities and let them combine and recombine into growing complexity. The endresult will be an outcome of those initial conditions, and while our cosmos manifests as it does, other cosmoses with other initial conditions would also manifest similarly complexity according to THEIR initial conditions.

That our cosmos gives rise to the specific astro-physical result we observe and to (at least) carbon-based biology simply means that that is the outcome of 'our' initial conditions. With other initial conditions complexity, such as self-organization, is possible, though again (both ways theist-rational) still another 'agnosticism'.

My question has nothing to do with the fact that you are atheist. I am just curious what do you think about the relationships based on Domestic Discipline? Do you think that it is just a Christian Phenomen ?

originally posted by: traditionaldrummer
All too often I see remarks lodged against atheists in general. Very rarely do I find anyone asking an atheist for opinions and facts about their non-beliefs.

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs. This can only help, as an overwhelming majority of negative comments about atheists and atheism are tragically incorrect.

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.

Why is it you don't understand?