Is Atheism Dead ?

@fmf said
So do you believe that the nature of the universe, the mechanics etc., is evidence that it is justified to anthropomorphize the entity that you assert created it?

I'm saying that we don't see code that directs systems, processes, error checking to do specialized specific jobs within systems being produced by mindlessness. Still, we see minds behind them every time we see such things as computers, motors, airplanes, cell phones, tv sets, mouse traps, clocks, and things of this nature.

@fmf said
As I thought, your rhetorical device - decoupling your belief in a creator entity from your belief in the Christian God figure - which you deployed when talking to avalanchethecat - does not appear to withstand even the small amount of scrutiny I gave it.

I cannot argue against your opinion; it is what it is, no matter what I say or do.

@kellyjay said
I'm saying that we don't see code that directs systems, processes, error checking to do specialized specific jobs within systems being produced by mindlessness. Still, we see minds behind them every time we see such things as computers, motors, airplanes, cell phones, tv sets, mouse traps, clocks, and things of this nature.

But doesn't anthropomorphizing a creator entity, if there is one, come from your theology rather than from observing the mechanics of the universe?

@kellyjay said
I cannot argue against your opinion; it is what it is, no matter what I say or do.

What you might choose to say or do is to tackle the point you are supposedly replying to rather than to simply cop out.

@fmf said
But doesn't anthropomorphizing a creator entity, if there is one, come from your theology rather than from observing the mechanics of the universe?

I think that’s obvious for anyone. Just my two cents.

And God’s a Spirit. The only reason He was anthropomorphized is because He chose to live among His creation, teach His creation and ultimately die for His creation.

@fmf said
But doesn't anthropomorphizing a creator entity, if there is one, come from your theology rather than from observing the mechanics of the universe?

You want to worry about I'm trying to find a creator through reasoning it out due to the mechanics in the universe. The same thing could be said of those who want to deny a creator looking for any excuse to reject the possibility. The fact is still going to be that opinions don't change facts; if something only shows up due to a mind, then when we see similar things, why would we think mindlessness is the cause?

-Removed-

When I'm arguing for a specific deity, then I name that deity and the reasons why I think that one is real, when all I am doing is arguing that mindlessness cannot do the things we see in the universe in life and the fine-tuning in both life and the universe I only need to compare mindlessness to the work of a mind.

@kellyjay said
You want to worry about I'm trying to find a creator through reasoning it out due to the mechanics in the universe. The same thing could be said of those who want to deny a creator looking for any excuse to reject the possibility. The fact is still going to be that opinions don't change facts; if something only shows up due to a mind, then when we see similar things, why would we think mindlessness is the cause?

If "the mechanics of the universe" is the result of a creator entity, then it is human understanding of the nature of the universe - science - that gives us a steadily growing knowledge of the nature of that creator entity.

I don't believe that theology tells us anything about the nature of the universe and the nature of its creator assuming there is one. I think theology is about psychology and anthropology.

You can bandy about the word "mindlessness" as often as you like, as if that reductionist vocabulary justifies your anthropomorphization of the creator entity, but it doesn't work because all you are really doing is peddling your theology by linking it to phenomena that don't need religious narratives superimposed on to them.

@sonship said
I am as excited about what the James Webb Telescope may see as anyone else.

Very! Six months until first pics, I understand.

@kellyjay said
This is true in every eyewitness account, miraculous or not. The event's validity occurs if actual shows miraculous things can, do, and have occurred. We cannot just out of the box reject them because they are miraculous on that basis alone; that would be to reject by definition only; this would keep all miraculous events on the outs without exception. As I pointed out to yo ...[text shortened]... wasn't at all too happy with them, too, considering who they promoted as Lord over all, not Christ.

No. We have concrete evidence that at least one universe began, and that life began and evolved. These things definitely happened. There is no evidence outside these alleged eyewitness accounts of yours which are, of course, not actually eyewitness accounts, that a man turned water into wine, spontaneously healed the sick, carried out instant exorcisms and rose from the dead.

It is therefore a false equivalence to claim that the miracles ascribed to Jesus in your scripture are akin to the beginning of the universe and to the 'miracle' of life.

@kellyjay said
I'm saying that we don't see code that directs systems, processes, error checking to do specialized specific jobs within systems being produced by mindlessness. Still, we see minds behind them every time we see such things as computers, motors, airplanes, cell phones, tv sets, mouse traps, clocks, and things of this nature.

Again you are making a false equivalence here.

@kellyjay said
When I'm arguing for a specific deity, then I name that deity and the reasons why I think that one is real, when all I am doing is arguing that mindlessness cannot do the things we see in the universe in life and the fine-tuning in both life and the universe I only need to compare mindlessness to the work of a mind.

When you point to the 'fine-tuning' and complexity of life and say it must be down to a creator, you are arguing from incredulity, and that is not a sound argument.

@fmf said
If "the mechanics of the universe" is the result of a creator entity, then it is human understanding of the nature of the universe - science - that gives us a steadily growing knowledge of the nature of that creator entity.

I don't believe that theology tells us anything about the nature of the universe and the nature of its creator assuming there is one. I think theology is ...[text shortened]... ur theology by linking it to phenomena that don't need religious narratives superimposed on to them.

The universe is something that appears to have come about through mindlessness, and life does it appear to be something that has come about by mindlessness? If you suggest yes, mindlessness is all that is required, then what properties are you looking at that suggest mindlessness to you? Does error checking suggest mindlessness to you? Does the fine-tuning of any operation, so something works and doesn't fall apart, suggest mindlessness to you? You keep wanting to insert more into the query than I'm putting into it; it is mindlessness vs. design, nothing more. A specific designer is another topic for another day, but if you cannot even get to one required, why bother?

A reductionist viewpoint doesn't address information that requires revelation to understand because it goes way beyond mere chemical makeup. We see words in a book; they carry meaning that cannot be grasped by the composition of the paper and ink on the pages; they can be understood by a mind looking at the work of another mind that meaning is more than simply molecules forming ink and paper.