Atheism is a Mental Illness, a cry for attention.

Was this your tenth-grade term paper in Bible school?

Here, I'm an atheist and you have me on the ropes: explain why "order requires intelligent direction" and give some evidence for this claim. And don't just repeat the statement; that's not very intelligent.

You'll notice that I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm not "really pissed off" because I can't "overcome" this claim...the onus is on you to show that it's true. I'm asking you for an explanation, because having all the time and space you need, you didn't give any in this piece.

You might want to start by defining what you mean by "order".

Rayomatic, I responded to your comments on the original post.

Just keep in mind the fact that I do love you, regardless of your mental illness.

Dude I am religious not an atheist but it seem you are the one with mental illness. Intelligent order.....you came up with this idea to piss atheist which you believe helps you...other than that it has no premise. You yourself say "I dont know" than learn to accept when other people say that...I am not an atheist but When i believe in the one GOD I have my reasons and i try to find when atheist challenge that ....out I am not a christian.

lolcondescending

What was it you said about name calling at the end of your original post? Just because you're not actually calling somebody names doesn't mean you're not engaging in the same type of thing...

The only real argument in the article is that it is "common sense." Please explain.

PS: You also can't back up your argument by saying "It is really nothing more than common sense." One of the reasons science exists as a successful method for learning about the world is that "common sense" can often turn out to be wrong. Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth? Because common sense would indicate it. Common sense also might convince you that the world is flat. If you look at the world of particle physics, you'll see that in that field, common sense is as wrong as it can get. So appealing to common sense won't win your argument.

bah, particle physics. I hated that unit.

While very important, common sense is of no use outside of its daily application in deciding whether or not running a red light is worth saving 30 seconds off your daily trip to work or not. It especially has no place in such complex fields as say, particle physics, which you mentioned.

Good article, because the atheists are usually lefty loonies in this country, and their style of freedom actually is nothing more than bondage. Morality is repugnant to them, and most likely have had few truly intimate relationships because of it - since how in the world can you trust someone whose moral compass is merely whatever "feels good," and if you get hurt in a relationship with me, "that's your problem."

And freedom to foist their "religion," on the rest of the world is also much more vehemently pursued, than even the most evagelical pastor on most of these websites.

Thems Fighten Words! :^)

I'm an Atheist:

I've been married 26 years.
I have a son just graduated University
I've never been arrested
I'm the favourite Uncle to 30 nieces and nephews.
I always vote conservative.
I'm against abortion.
I have fond memories and respect for my old religion and wish them well.
I do not believe in God!

Science is to a point now that if there was a God we would be able to see some sign of him. This does not prove no God exists but makes it unlikely.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator that exists outside of space and time is no longer necessary to explain existence and is a logical contradiction in itself.

Therefore I no longer believe. I've adopted a humanistic outlook.

Humanist:
Morality is not "What Feels Good" it is seeking the path that does the least harm.
Problems can be solved by diplomacy, reason and technology.
Logic & reason tinged with compassion and empathy will produce a better society than hard coded rules written by bronze age barbarians.

bad comment, because the christians are usually right loonies in this country, and their style of freedom actually is nothing more than bondage, eg war in iraq. Morality is repugnant to them, thier bible condones slavery, child abuse, and discourages women's' rights, and most likely have had few truly intimate relationships because of it - since how in the world can you trust someone whose moral compass is merely whatever a 2000 year old book written by and meant for sheep farmers, and if you get hurt in a relationship with me, "that's god's problem."

And freedom to foist their religion on the rest of the world is also much more vehemently pursued, than even the most "militant" atheist on most of these websites.

I am not sure how you can look at yourself in the mirror each morning spouting lies and conjecture like that (although it IS very christian of you).

Atheists are not allergic to morality. We are not the ones denying health care to our children (scientologists), or condoms to aids ridden countries (the pope and Catholics), or forcing our children to feel guilt be cause they can never be good or worthy of salvation without gods "mercy" on them.

We are also not the ones making up statistics and facts merely to deride another group that we clearly have no understanding of merely because they disagree with our beliefs.

Atheism is not a belief or a denial. It is merely not buying into yours.

Peace

How is morality repugnant to atheists? Explain. And I like your resort to generalizations and oversimplifications, presumably because you lack specific instances and facts to support your outlandish claims.

Order? Think about your wristwatch. This represents order. However, that order did not simply happen without intelligent direction. Atheists believe such order can be produced without intelligent direction. That's impossible.

Order? Think about the orderliness of a human being? Or an eagle? What I am saying to you is these things represent ORDER which could not exist without an organizing intelligence.

Atheists, like you, simply choose to ignore common sense, and cry out for attention with your nonsensical arguments. You asked for PROOF?

How about a wristwatch, a human being and an eagle. Of course, there are literally billions of other examples of ORDERLINESS (ORDER) I could cite too. However, you are an atheist, which translates into idiot.

Oh, by the way, does the earth revolve around the sun? Heliocentrists believe it does but Geocentrists believe it does not. I am not sure. But, whatever is actually happening is ORDERLY!

Atheists, like you, are so clearly angry at organized religion for some reason, maybe your catholic priest rejected you after you fell in love with him? I don't know why you have become mentally ill, but to reason that highly complex, super sophisticated forms of ORDER just happened, just created themselves without any intelligence directing the process, is absolutely MENTAL ILLNESS.

Just think about how ridiculous you sound. You act as if I am rejecting science. No, I am simply rejecting your interpretation of science.

Like I asked before, NAME ONE ORDERLY PROCESS OR ORGANISM that did not require some directing intelligence and I'll kiss your atheistic ass.

You are just crying out for attention. Look at me! I'm an atheist. That's why I don't go to church. The universe and all the life in it was the product of NON INTELLIGENCE? Only the mentally ill can ignore this blatant error.

Crystals!

Now pucker up!


I live in a cold climate every winter morning beautiful orderly ice crystals form all by themselves on my bedroom window. Shapes that look like trees and leaves. Outside six sided orderly crystals fall from the sky. All this from the electrostatic properties of a triangular water molecule.

In Britain there are cliffs formed of perfect orderly hexagonal rocks.

In your refrigerator the oil and water in the salad dressings are slowly gaining order as they separate out all by themselves thanks to gravity and the chemical characteristics of oil and water. Just waiting for you to disorder them by shaking them up.

Some present and future products that will be on store shelves. To create highly optimized technological items engineers are making use of evolution software. They use super computers to randomly make changes to a product they're trying to optimize. If the change is beneficial it is kept if it is not it is deleted. After letting the program run day and night for months. It will have tested millions of random changes. The resulting product will be superior to anything that could have been designed. You could even say it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have designed.

So Pucker UP!

You can't just give a bunch of examples of order that is created by intelligence as evidence that there is no other way for order to arise. That's like giving examples of ways fire is started by friction and then concluding there is no other way to start a fire.

An example of one orderly process that does not require directing intelligence is crystallization. It is an example of order arising from the bottom up. It is the properties of carbon atoms that make diamond form under intense heat and pressure, not god's hand putting each in the correct spot. Take some sea water and let it dry out. You will see order in the shape of the salt left behind.

DNA is the most amazing example of bottom-up order. It contains information needed to build the machinery that interprets it and replicates it. I know it seems like the DNA itself could never have come about without being designed, and science still hasn't figured out everything there is to know, but please understand that it is possible for order to emerge without intelligent direction.

If you would like to understand emergent order better, look at the software Breve for examples of complex behavior emerging from simple constraints.

Quotes from the articles

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

"Two essential elements of RNA have finally been made from scratch, under conditions similar to those that likely prevailed during the dawn of life."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Now KISS MY ASS

"Oh, by the way, does the earth revolve around the sun? Heliocentrists believe it does but Geocentrists believe it does not. I am not sure." Dude, you're arguing against geo-centricity? Geo-centricity is trivially provable - all you need is a pair of eyes, a night sky, and a calculator. Actually, forget the calculator. The retrograde motion of mars disproves heliocentricity. If you actually wanna observe Mars for a few months, you'll notice that Mars (and other astral bodies, but Mars is the easiest to notice as it's orbit is the fastest one that's longer than ours) seems to move backwards in the sky (relative to the stars). A traditional geo-centric model can't account for this*, whereas with a heliocentric model, it's simple geometry (and probably some algebra, but you get the idea). "Like I asked before, NAME ONE ORDERLY PROCESS OR ORGANISM that did not require some directing intelligence and I'll kiss your atheistic ass." Protein folding fits pretty much any definition of "order" you can come up with. Photosynthesis. Unless you're deliberately ignoring scientific definitions of "order" (as a synonym for ectropy), there's about a thousand processes under the Second Law of Thermodynamics that take input energy, release heat, and lower their entropy. The obvious response to this post is "But God's directing those!", which highlights the problem with your request: How do I find an example which satisfies you, if you immediate refuse any example based in this world? I'm assuming you'll also refuse fictional, counterfactual, or predicted/hypothetical examples, as they're not real, so let me know what class of example is good enough for you. That seems to be Rayomatic's issue as well. EDIT: So I just read your post, and apparently you want something that's not man-made, and also not "in nature". There's not a thing in the world that not either natural or man-made. * - the only way to account for it is to have Mars not have an orbital path, but rather some strange sort of spiral path, and give the entire rest of the known universe a slight spin in an off-plane direction to counter-act this hypothetical spiral. That works fine, until you realize that hundreds of objects in the solar system exhibit similar motion. By the time you re-design the model for that, you're adding differing spin rates to every object in the universe, which would obviously be detectable through red-shift, if nothing else.

You aren't doing your argument any favours by calling me names. "Idiot"? Is that your brain at work? Win many debates that way in college? Considering you "love" me, it's strange that you imply that I'm an idiot and call me ridiculous and mentally ill. Is this how you treat everyone you "love"? Do you mind if I say "no thanks" to that love?

Let's start with this quote about the earth going around the sun: "Heliocentrists believe it does but Geocentrists believe it does not. I am not sure." I'll help you out: One of these beliefs has overwhelming observational and theoretical evidence to support it, which is why it is accepted by (almost!) everyone, and the other is not. Guess which is which.

I'll name you an orderly process or organism (all of these, actually) that did not require directing intelligence, but only if you define "order" like I already asked you to (and only if you don't kiss anything, ok?). Define it in general terms, without resorting to examples (like watch, eagle, etc. - you have to tell me what it is they have in common that you call "order").

For the record, I didn't ask you for "proof" of anything, just evidence (there's a difference). I never even used the word. You'd do better than put words in your opponent's mouths, as you do when you claim "Atheists believe such order can be produced without intelligent direction" (at issue is whether the universe needed a creator or not...not things like watches, bird nests or spider webs). Atheists and scientists don't talk about "proof" because in the real world, nothing can be "proven" except for mathematical axioms. All we can do is gather evidence until the results are overwhelming. That DNA you talk about is actually a wonderful tool that gives evidence that we all evolved, despite your claim that "Science clearly reveals such ORDERLINESS as DNA could not have possibly been produced via some "mindless" process." Quote me ONE article in a scientific journal that makes this claim. (I'll give you all the Googling time you need.)

You still haven't defined "order". Instead you gave examples of things that you say "represent" order. Well, what is this "order" that they represent? Let's say there are three pennies arranged in a straight line. Would you call this "order"? Because if those pennies fell out of my pocket and happened to land that way, which is entirely possible, then "order" can come about without intelligence behind it. Oh wait, that's not what you mean? Then define it, please, because we can't move forward until you do. If order is just a collection of things that you've decided to call "order", without a precise definition, then your claim is too vague to be the magic bullet for the argument that you think it is. Certainly it's no yardstick for condemning people who don't accept it as being mentally ill. Then again, there's evidence that you've got a little thing for condemnation, don't you?

You and your friend Ross1776 spend a lot more energy attacking the supposed motives of atheists, speculating about their past history or insulting them, instead of dealing with concepts and providing evidence and reasoning. When it comes to that, all you seem to be able to do is repeat your mantras over and over again, in CAPS (save your shouting for children and dogs). It kind of shows the chink in your armour, even to people who might otherwise be inclined to agree with your view like Changez, here.

"Did you realize that Dawkins is not an atheist but really believes in Intelligent Design? He only claims to be an atheist and writes all his books about atheism to make millions off of morons who can't think for themselves." Another claim for which you provide no quotes, no evidence, not a shred. Sorry, but you weaken your position when it seems you're making stuff up on the fly. Here's a news flash: arguments from authority don't work with us atheists. Even if (for e.g.) Einstein on his deathbed denounced all his theories, they would still have influence because science has found so much evidence that they paint an accurate picture of the cosmos (until something better comes along). Einstein is respected because his theories were backed up by evidence and observations, not because he had some kind of authority. He would still be respected even if a better theory came along, just as Newton is still respected as a thinke even though his theory of gravitation has been replaced by Einstein's. So I don't care about Dawkins' sincerity, or his unnamed mentors, your unsubstantiated gossip, etc. In fact I've never read his books, but it's besides the point...this is another one of your red herrings. How can you honestly resort to such tactics and expect people to find you convincing?

You're some piece of work, and I invite anyone to compare our arguments. I never claimed to "love" you then insult you at the same time. I didn't try to disparage your views by implying that you arrived at them because of some personal flaw or a mental illness. All I did was ask for some evidence for your claims, something very specific, and you spout venomous insults, tell me you love me, offer to kiss my "atheist ass", speculate that I'm gay and had unrequited love for my priest, then offer me psychoanalysis???

And your advice to me is to stop telling people what my sincere beliefs are because they will think badly of me. So basically, you're telling me I should be insincere because I might get ridiculed. Is that what Jesus would do?

Wow, I've never been so glad NOT to be someone's child.

Rayomatic, have you fallen in love with Richard Dawkins? Did you realize that Dawkins is not an atheist but really believes in Intelligent Design? He only claims to be an atheist and writes all his books about atheism to make millions off of morons who can't think for themselves.

Rayomatic, prior to Dawkins being perceived as the most famous atheist in the world, one of his mentors at Oxford had the same title. Of course, his mentor changed his mind to believing in intelligent design after he studied the SCIENCE of DNA.

No, Rayomatic, your views are not scientific at all. Science clearly reveals such ORDERLINESS as DNA could not have possibly been produced via some "mindless" process as you and your mentally ill Atheist friends erroneously believe.

Rayomatic, you should stop telling the world that you are an atheist because all you are really saying is, "I am a lost, angry, and confused person only pretending to be an intellectual, but I really need someone to love me."

Oh, by the way, the psychoanalysis is on the house. Why? Because I love you Rayomatic. We are all brothers and sisters in the omnipresent oneness, which just happens to be 100% conscious. Imagine that!

I suggest you read Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative, it explains how DNA came to be incrementally as result of the fundamental atomic nature of its constituents. It is not chance, it is not divinely guided. Please site your scientific reference supporting your position.

Just to start, I am not an atheist. Actually, if you think about it, human beings, eagles etc. do not represent order, they represent chaos. There are 65 billion functions performed in the human body every minute (I am fairly sure, maybe more). Billions of atoms, blood cells, electrical impulses etc. all bouncing around, colliding and interacting to produce a second-by-second incredible event (that we experience) called life. It is very tenuous and the smallest rupture of all those delicate operations can end it. "Of course, I don't know all the answers. Most believe this intelligence we call God has always been here. But this is not the argument, is it?" - this is pretty much where your argument fell to bits. Like I said, I am not an atheist, I simply believe God is infinitely bigger than a just supreme bring. ...and calling someone mentally ill for not agreeing with you is just plain rude.

Changez, what's wrong with telling the truth? If someone is mentally ill, what's wrong with saying it? Calling him an idiot was ugly, I admit. But mental illness is real. Also, you say eagles, humans, etc. don't represent order but CHAOS? I guess it's all in how you define things, but I wouldn't use chaos because this implies a lack of intelligence, doesn't it. And, any system or process involving 65 billion functions every minute had better be intelligently directed or it will soon go break down, right?

Seriously, my 7 year old would poke holes in your failed attempts at logic. Really though, the whole point of your post is just to try to annoy atheists.

And atheists, why are we wasting time on this retard? Would you waste your time arguing with a brick wall? It's really the same thing. The sooner you realize that you can't convert the insane into sane individuals the better off you will be. It's like trying to argue a clinically depressed individual into happiness by explaining that there is no reason to be sad.

Of course in this example, bwinwright is the clinically depressed individual and we would be the individuals wasting our time telling him to be happy.

You are drawing a false dichotomy between order and chaos here. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, but there is a lot of gray in between. That gray is called "natural selection." It is true that the genetic mutations that drive evolution are somewhat random in nature, but only advantageous mutations actually survive the gauntlet that is nature. The surviving organisms change incrementally over generations, getting better and better at adapting to their environment. Over billions of years these changes create wholesale transformations. That is where what you call "orderliness" comes in. It is simply identification of the results of natural selection, which is more like the actions of a blind tinkerer, not a god. If a god did create us, why so much BAD design? Why do we breathe through the same holes that we eat with? Are you aware at how many people a year die from choking? Have you ever looked at a human skeleton? Your entire upper body is supported solely by your back, which looks like a stack of coins with play-doh in between. It is terrible design. Also, a lot of the order you perceive is the type of order that a god would have to be subject to, not the creator of. Even the best Christian apologists admit that God cannot do anything that is logically inconsistent. He can't create a universe in which both an impenetrable shield and an unstoppable sword can exist, for example. Therefore a god would have to subject to some higher order. Where did that order come from?

I don't see how only accepting things for which we have solid evidence (i.e. PROOF) is a mental illness. And if you studied an ounce of thermodynamics you would quickly come to realize that we are merely a small deviation in the universe's inexorable slide into disorder. We only appear to be an ordered system on the microscale thanks to the sun's macroscale decay.

This is exactly why I don't visit the Atheist websites very much. They truly are mentally ill. They simply can not accept the idea that only intelligence can produce orderly things. You can call this intelligence by any name you so choose, but to deny it is to be, yes, an idiot.

But what about when you said: "I sometimes like visiting the James Randi Educational Foundation website just to duel with atheists"?

Someone who contradicts himself so much has no business calling others idiots.

You got it exactly right! Atheists "simply can not accept [an] idea". We accept evidence that can be observed and reproduced! You claim over and over that order can only be made through an intelligent process but never state any proof of your claim (rules of debate clearly state that the person making the positive claim, you in this case, must provide evidence of your claim.) This is akin to me saying that Pink unicorns exist and demanding that you prove me wrong. You can't.

Right above this comment you stated "any system or process involving 65 billion functions every minute had better be intelligently directed or it will soon go break down". I don't assume that this is true. I can imagine that this system might break down or it might not, but I don't know. You claim to know, so, please provide evidence of this. If you evidence is solid, and can be observed, than I will accept it. If you can't provide the evidence, then I will continue to not know.

As long as you continue to make claims with no evidence to back them up, then I will continue to dismiss your arguments with no evidence either.

a

Rayovac, I read your rather lengthy response and you've done it again. You keep dancing around in circles, asking me to define order when I've given you perfectly good examples of order. And, if 3 pennies fell out of your pocket and landed in a perfectly beautiful orderly line, how can we ever know that some part of your consciousness isn't responsible for this orderliness.

I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but you simply aren't serious about this debate. You can not explain how orderliness can be produced without intelligent direction, you simply wish to give me 3 pennies falling from your pocket....a pocket made by intelligent direction, worn by a person possessing intelligent direction too.

Rayovac, just face the facts, you can not support your position. No atheist ever could. After you get over your anger issues, you mental illness, and start thinking clearly and honestly, you will not claim to believe in a "mindless" form of creation or evolution or natural selection.

Like the young priest in the Exorcist, sometimes I just get tired to talking to folks who are irrational. Your argument is irrational. This is the hallmark of delusional thinking, a sure sign of MENTAL ILLNESS.

I still love you, just don't like you very much.

The issue is simple. You failed to define order and only provided examples of things you personally consider ordered. But that is a subjective impression, unless you can provide a rigorous definition of order, your whole argument falls apart as mere wishful thinking.

bwinwright, first off, why do you think atheists are mad? And do you know how a condition comes to be labeled a mental illness? If people simply label anything a mental illness because they hold a contrary opinion, not only is this inane and biased speculation, but the word becomes overused and loses its meaning. There are many people really suffering from genuine mental illnesses like depression, OCD, schizophrenia, autism, dissociative identity disorder, and bipolar disorder and others are trying to help them and I'm sure they would not appreciate you abusing the term. Let's move on.

Rayovac has protested, "
you still haven't defined "order". Instead you gave examples of things that you say "represent" order." Obviously he wants you to explain what is order so you can talk about this reasonably, as do I. A vague word can mean almost anything, or one thing at once and another thing later, or multiple things at once (equivocation). Your few examples, if I understand them correctly, don't imply a certain meaning of "order." As important, you have not made a case that order requires intelligence. And did god's order require an intelligence? You should hope so if your argument is to survive.

Oh well, I'll start with a question from one possible meaning: 'why do living things seem so adapted to their environment?' This is more or less because of their universal property. This property is their replicability, and is usually why we call them alive. Biological organisms are here because they are what they are, they have the property of replication/reproduction.

Yet this reproduction is imperfect, meaning new organisms have randomly changed traits. In humans there are an average of 200-300 mutations per person, most of which are insignificant. Those that are significant typically affect, however indirectly, the organism's ability to reproduce. For example, if an organism received a mutation which improved metabolism, or sense-perception, or heart functioning, or detoxification, or cooperation (if in a social species), then this organism would be slightly more likely to reproduce than others of the same species, and its offspring would each have a 50% or higher chance of carrying this same gene. Over time, the statistics require that this heritable trait to overtake the population.

So, if...
1) Members of thing X replicate
2) There are small changes in these replications
3) These changes affect these members' ability to replicate
4) Then new generations of X over large amounts of time will have universal heritable traits different from previous generations.

Finally, if the environment is too changes significantly, and the species cannot adapt, it will go extinct. In sum, this is (a simplified explanation of) why species are so well adapted to the environment. I don't see why intelligence is "required" for this orderliness. Is there any evidence for this intelligence being used? I suppose you could expand the definition beyond usual to include mechanisms, and then I would agree. I would say this requires a mechanism (like natural selection), but why would an intelligence be necessary (and what mechanism did this intelligence use)? Or do you mean something else by "order"?

Also, I assume you mean a theistic, or personal, god, not a simpler deistic one. So why should anyone believe in a theistic god and why yours?

Thanks.

Harbagorf, here we go again. Rayovac gets his panties in a bunch because I don't define the word Order or orderliness? OK then, let's say that order is any observable process,system, or thing which is clearly the product of some form of intelligence.

I say DNA, an eagle,a human being, an automobile, and a television set are all examples of order because they are CLEARLY the product of some form of intelligence.

This is my total argument. Anyone who wishes to argue that such sophisticated and highly organized systems and processes such as these
things did not require any intelligent direction is, in my opinion, delusional. Isn't that a classical condition representing a form of mental illness?

You see, Harbagorf, to believe that such orderliness did not require any intelligent direction is just as absurd as believing a tornado can pass through a junk yard and leave behind a brand new automobile.

The atheist is too smart to deny what I am saying. However, claiming to be an atheist is so important to them because they are anti-organized religion, that's it! They simply need to admit that.

Or, they need to change the definition of atheism to include the rejection of organized religion. Because to reject fact and reason is
irrational, therefor false. Passionately promoting a false idea like atheism is or should be defined a mental illness, in my opinion.

If Rayovac or anyone else wishes to call themselves ANTI-ORGANIZED RELIGION, I'll support their belief, because it makes sense.

However, to think observable examples of orderliness, which may be far more sophisticated and complex than anything man can produce, just appeared out of some mindless form of energy and matter, without any intelligent direction is illogical, irrational, and clearly false.

bwinwright,

The difference between DNA, an eagle, a human being as opposed to an automobile or a television is that an automobile and television have x amount of parts and technology working together to create the final product. All of these technologies were invented by humans. All of the parts working together as a whole make the machine what it is. A Toshiba 42" LCD Flat Screen w/ Serial Number 555-555-444abc-00 is the same as a Toshiba 42" LCD Flat Screen w/ Serial Number 555-555-444abc-01.

But Jonny Atheist is not the same as Jonny Christian.

DNA was not simply put together by some higher being. It was a natural process of evolution. It makes sense that we are what we are over millions of years of evolution. Are we perfect? Far from it. Now you could use the argument, "Well, cars and TVs aren't perfect either" But if God was so powerful as to create the universe why wouldn't he make his children perfect? We were "created" in His image, so obviously if we are flawed, so is he.

But we weren't created in His image. We arose over MILLIONS of years evolution. The Earth is not 6,000 years old, as you may or may not believe. The reason for this? We have loads of EVIDENCE suggesting that the earth is about 4.4 BILLION YEARS OLD.

The only argument you provide, which is the only argument any fundamentalist can provide when they are stuck in a corner, is "God did it!"

Look at your original argument: "Order requires intelligent design!"

That's more or less the same argument as "God did it!"

If you DEFINE order as something "which is clearly the product of some form of intelligence", then OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to understand a contrary belief, because it actually goes against your very definition of "order."

But don't you see that that is circular logic?

If you define A as always a product of B,
then there will be no case where A is not a product of B.

Challenging someone to find that case will always leave you the winner, because by your own definition, order requires faith that order is created intelligently.

Great. But the problem comes because Atheists reject your premise that order requires intelligent design.


Nature is everywhere and has amazing examples of pattern (which is order in my eyes), with amazing scientific explanations of how it came to be so "ordered".


We're not insane, we are just defining our terms differently. Personally I think it is wonderful and amazing that our universe has order, especially as it came around by accident. It everything all that much more magnificent, and awe-inspiring.

I also am hurt by the accusation that I am immorral because of a lack of theological belief . I have extremely healthy, happy relationships, and value my family and friends more than anything in this world.

Trust is all that much more meaningful when it is really about the person that you trust. Have you ever considered that it "feels good" to treat people well, treat yourself well, and have morality without fear of hell?


The difference here is that I have not attacked any of your beliefs at all. You may have "love" for me, (though I do not insult the ones I love) but you certainly are not showing any respect for me.
You are very welcome to believe that order is defined as "requiring intelligent design". I hope it has made your life better.
You are NOT welcome to call me an idiot or claiming that I have a mental disease for not accepting your premise. I have a wonderful, happy and fulfilled life, and I don't appreciate this sort of defamation.

Dude, Rayomatic, thank you for your kind remark that I might also be a fanatic religious nut, however I'm just someone who happens to believe in something big, like infinite (paradox) big. The resolution of said paradox, as it were. That said maybe i am a religious nut-job and just don't know it yet, but I prefer to think that i'm just in a transitory phase. Honestly, the argument aside (which is totally ridiculous and is pointless to pursue against someone who clearly has no idea about argument, logic or different perspectives and is suffering from the very things he accuses others of) I have no idea about this stuff anymore. I used to be totally agnostic. Now i'm in this weird transitory phase. So any ideas?

Sorry if you got that impression from my reference to you, Changez, but I wasn't trying to lump you in with the fanatics! I was just making the point that bwinright isn't going to win many converts if he takes the tone he does (hmmm...he admits calling me an idiot was "ugly", then goes and does it again and calls atheists idiots a few lines down. I'm not sure why he thinks I care if he loves me or likes me or whatever. In any case he sure doesn't behave as though Jehovah was reading what he writes.)
The majority of people believe in a god or gods, and I don't deny anyone their right to believe what they want, or brand them as crazy like my friend bwinright does here for doing so. Find your own way, use your own mind, and draw your own conclusions. Asking questions is good...imposing answers is bad. Nuff said.

bwinwright: Was my last post tl;dr? I'll try to keep this one shorter.

You defined order as something "which is clearly the product of some form of intelligence," which is equivocating and leads to question begging. You're defining it as your conclusion.

1) If created
2) Then created

And of course you go on to give your examples, which is begging the question (e.g if an eagle is created then it is created). It looks like part of the problem may be that you're illustration - trying to apply your word - than describing the word - which is telling your meaning. If this is your DEFINITION of order, something "which is obviously created," then we must demonstrate that it was created first. It is, by the way, redundant to say order requires intelligence. Your examples, by your definition of order, are not ordered as far as I can see.

As I said in my last post, to say that something was created by a god is not to say that this god is active in human affairs, personal, of a religion, etc. I assume you're not a deist, but tell me if I'm wrong. If you want to say that this is more than a deistic god - a creator god who didn't do anything after he created the universe, and perhaps life in it - then your work has just begun if and after you manage to prove a creator.

Btw, yes I am anti-religious, as well as anti-theistic, non-religious, technically agnostic, and atheistic.



Changez: I think I see why you'd call something that is infinitely big a paradox but could you elaborate? And why do you think this exists?

Here's something to chew on. If you think reality is strange and cannot be explained without some sort of god, you might want to keep this in mind. While it may bog our minds down to try to imagine our universe or reality generally without a god, we're only bogging our minds down further by trying to explain it with something so hugely complex and "paradoxical" as a god. Doesn't it make more sense that we would likely have simple origins, rather than an origin far more complex than our universe itself? It only conflates this already complex idea that this god would have to be far different from anything we know.

What do you think?

Shoot it's a long post again.

infinity as a word employs the paradox of defining something that the concept implies is beyond conception and indefinable.

I just can't define everything. i.e. I have limits in an unlimited universe that is also limited at the same time (if it is expanding then it has borders, but then cannot be separated from what it is expanding into) and therefore it is also able to be two things at once, which I cannot. In fact the Universe is unlimited things all at the same time. I think I just gave it name.

Some people managed to attain harmony with it; their religions are with us today; Indian rishis, buddha, Jesus, Muhammad. Men who simply understood and allowed themselves to exist within this awesome spectacle.

Now before I go off an become all soft and fuzzy, so that you think I'm a nit, let me just explain, this is a spiritual perception or interpretation of scientific fact. The miracle, for me, lies in the timing; e.g. all the billion factors that had to come together in the pre-historic oceanic mud-bath at precisely the right time to create the spark of life. It is miraculous (highly improbable but it happened anyway). But these are just words. The idea is that what religio-types call creation is an ongoing process.

At least I think this is what i'm getting at. like I said, it's a transitional phase.

actually let me put it this way, I believe in God, i just don't know what God is.

Ditto :), these discussions are usually pointless. The main problem is that both sides concieve their beliefs as hard facts which everyone who don't see them are "lower life forms" or other names they choose to apply. I feel that whenever one introduce a point-of-view, one should look at it as subjective interpretation of the topic in discussion. However, I could be wrong.

Here is my view of the situation: It seems probable to me that there is things, or intelligens on a level of existence wich is beyond our comprehencion. Still, one can not proove this by applying a circular deffinition to a term in such a way that is suits your own subjective perception.

Of the many contributions to this discussion, I feel that we should all follow Changez example and try to precicely explain our own viewpoints, and not putting down each other statements by claiming fallacy, since no one can now for sure what is, and what is not.

This is my point-of-view, I am not especially fond of organized religion, although my girlfriend is a chrisitian, I have no problem with personal beliefs.

Harbagorf, How about saying ORDER IMPLIES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION?


Is that better? I mean, how can being so incredibly wordy and confusing be of any value? This is the classic dancing I mentioned in my original post.

You say things like, if it is already created then we have to demonstrate that it was created first? Am I the only one who recognizes the double talk, the utter meaninglessness of your comments?

This is absolutely ridiculous. You get so wrapped up in your definitions, you fail to make sense. You might put the crack pipe down for a few minutes before you contribute here, OK?

How can you twist the meaning of something so incredibly obvious into something so incredibly confusing and meaningless?

When you have an example of something that represents ORDERLINESS, it was clearly created by some form of creative intelligence. Nothing of an orderly nature can exist otherwise. This is my entire argument.

Therefore when you argue that nature and all the observable examples or orderliness within nature just happened to come about, without the need of any creative or directing intelligence, you are in error.

That's it. Take your wristwatch apart, carefully separating each part one from another, place these parts in a brown paper bag, place a rubber band around the top to keep all the parts inside. Now place the bag on a table in a room in which nobody will enter. Then, after some period of time, maybe a week, a month, maybe 10 years from now return to the room, open the bag, and pull out your totally reassembled wristwatch, all having occurred by itself, NATURALLY, without any intelligent direction. How about that? How can you believe in this?

Have you lost your mind? Isn't this what mental illness is?

"Harbagorf, How about saying ORDER IMPLIES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION?"

Obviously not. You want an example of something that "implies intelligent direction" and occurs without intelligence? You're the one who's lost their mind here.

And then there's the serious flaw in your wristwatch example - it requires the parts to actually move independent of any force. That's obviously not going to happen. A word of advice for the next time you decide to go trolling with this, at least have the example include shaking the bag up or something.

But just because I can, I'll give you something exactly analogous to your wristwatch example. Unfold a polypeptide into a random coil. Go to lunch. Come back. Folded protein. Like magic. Except it's not magic, it's a chemical reaction, with no intelligent direction behind it.

I was trying to clarify in specific detail your problems but it seems you do not read my posts anyway. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough but it isn't my fault if you can't understand your own equivocation and question-begging fallacies.

You have been impeccably rude throughout and I will discontinue this horrid discussion.

And you're the only druggie, if there is any, around here.

Have the last word if you like.

Harbagorf, this is very good news. I did read your comments which were completely irrational. I am glad you decided to quit trying to B.S. me because it is tiresome for me to read such confusing and unreasonable ramblings.

You are the classic atheist. You simply love to voice your opinion, just for the attention, not because you have anything of substance to say.

However, I can tell you are intelligent and highly educated. Why don't you apply your high powered intellect to exposing the incredible amount of corruption going on in America today.

Focus on the Vatican, the Rothschilds, the military-industrial complex and the medical-industrial complex. Read my piece on Adolfo Nicolas for starters.

I apologize for being ugly to you, but being patient with the repetition of false ideas is very difficult. Your desire to debate, to find any argument, even ones that don't make any sense whatsoever, become tedious at best. I am glad to end this and I will not address atheism too much in the future simply because of these long and tiresome arguments.

I hope you get some help because claiming to deny that intelligence had anything to do with the formation of the universe and the life within it is absolutely insane. You are mentally ill as long as you hold such a ridiculous view.

ORDER? Webster defines it as a methodical or harmonious arrangement.

Again, my irrational atheist friend, methodical and harmonious arrangements can only be produced by intelligent direction. No matter how hard ANY ATHEIST tries, this is simply the LAW. No matter how smart you think you are, there is no amount of your intellectual B.S, that can change the LAW.

Atheism is a false idea and you would do yourself a favor to simply accept this truth. Be anti-organized religion, but not an atheist.
Claiming to be an atheist is telling the world you are mentally ill.

Dude, bwin; I think what everyone here is getting at is that, you're going around in circles - you claim that order is something that is clearly the product of intelligence (your definition) but at the same time you say that the presence of what you call order is the proof that the intelligence exists (circular logic).

"Of course, I don't know all the answers. Most believe this intelligence we call God has always been here. But this is not the argument, is it?"
As I pointed out to you this is where your argument fell apart. This is precisely the argument since your argument is not that there is order, but that there is intelligence. I say its perfectly possible to call what we see in the observable world order, just like you said it could be called chaos. However, the claim that intelligence exists is what you are trying to prove. You have failed in this since your logic is circular.

Perhaps if we view what bwinwright's putting out there as a defense mechanism, rather than an argument, there could be a chance for real communication. Uncertainty and not-knowing are things everyone has to deal with, each in his or her own way. Attacking a defensive position traditionally engenders redoubled attempts at defense. An offense is often considered the best defense, traditionally. When you beat on a defense, you're not actually getting at what's behind it, are you?

Whether or not I believe in it, evolution's out there. What's far more interesting is the cognitive contortions one has to go to if one chooses to accept things 'on faith' instead of reason, rejecting a huge body of evidence in favor of a theory that only explains what has happened, but doesn't reliably or usefully predict what will happen. I personally cannot fathom going through the mental gymnastics of denying the demonstrable and predictable nature of things.

I don't see a lot of folks stepping out in front of trucks in the honest 'faith' that jesus will protect them. Rather, it seems most people avoid doing so because they've accepted the demonstrable and predictable fact that truck + human = a tragic mess. It seems they weigh the theories of velocity and mass, sensibly not trusting faith in a protective god.

So what is it like to be someone who lives in a state of cognitive contradiction, trying to reject the 'science' that nonetheless demands recognition? I wish I had a book that could tell me everything I want to hear, but then I think, if it seems to good to be true, it probably isn't. I simply cannot imagine believing in a 'god' that either can't or doesn't want to spare me from being mushed by a semi. What's the point? Why would I want to go to such fruitless effort all the time? How would that help me live my life as me?

Actually, I think it would be merely a desperate defense against the uncertainty of life, and ultimately a disadvantage to me. Nothing has ever shown me otherwise.

You will find Darwinism, ORIGIN OF SPECIES full of Atheistic clap trap
because Darwin looked for attention but denied God. 10/6/2009.

Wake up people. Bwinwright is not actually religious, he actually believes in evolution and finds intelligent design to be primitive. He is just writing this dribble in hopes he will gain large amounts of money of of ignorant people who can't think for themselves so just accept that 'god must have done it.' As we know there's far, far more moronic creationists and other religious extremists and moderates who buy into this garbage rather than atheists, therefore his target audience is far more suited towards this nonsense. Despite Bwinwright himself believing in none of it. As anybody who has actually studied DNA would already be perfectly aware it doesn't require any 'intelligence' what so ever. Bwinright knows this but he wants to make money off all you sheeple!

I think someone who believes that a magical sky fairy can hear their lustful thoughts and will punish them for all eternity if they don't repent (but still loves them!) is someone with a true mental illness: delusion.

The natural world is anything but ordered.
In fact, the second law of thermodynamics states that processes naturally tend towards increased entropy (increased disorder).

If humans alone were "designed" with an order in mind, we wouldn't have the useless, but easily broken and painful, coccyx. If you feel a designer was required, he sure did a shitty job by giving us vestigial traits.

Your argument is full of flaws because you don't understand scientific knowledge or the scientific process: you just believe the fairy tales your parents told you as a child.

"orderliness does not require intelligent direction"
"methodical and harmonious arrangements can only be produced by intelligent direction"

Unless you think your god individually makes every single snowflake, then you are dead wrong.

Snowflakes and crystals in general are one of the most orderly things in the universe, all created by predictable natural laws.


How is requiring proof and evidence for an unsubstantiated claim a mental illness?

Just another christians-think-they're-smarter-than-everybody-else-but-fail-to-provide-clear-and-convincing-evidence. Why did anybody else suspect something different?

It must be a lot of fun being able to sit on your high and mighty moral pedestal, spouting "we love you" but at the same time "you're gay" or "you're going to burn in hell!" or "be afraid of this awful thing _insert_wrath_of_god_quote_here". Must make you feel like a real good boy behind that keyboard there (which, btw, was made by atheist scientists -> your welcome).

The reality is that by painting atheists to be a bunch of "isms", you really are doing nothing but showing how sensationally ignorant you are. You spout wild claims and then have nothing to back them up. No evidence, just arguments such as "it's common sense". Have you ever, in the slightest bit, ever considered that maybe your "common sense" is bullshit in light of true facts? Ever cross your mind to google some things up before speaking?

Do you creationists honestly hear yourselves? Does it ever, in the back of your mind, have some sort of "click" of logic that says "well maybe I'm saying something for which I have no real knowledge of"? Do you stop and think before you speak, or do you speak and ridicule because you think it makes you look "cool" and "in with God"?

Do you think that, unless you don't take side with creationists, that you aren't as "worthy" in your religious cult... I mean club?

The reality is that the fear mongering and hate speech tactics do not work on logically centered individuals - it makes YOU look stupid, not them. In order to sway the minds of these people, you will need to use a think called logic, backed by evidence that has survived the scrutiny by others (scrutiny, again, centered in fundamental logic), as well as understand that assumptions and facts are two very different things.


And, btw, people don't need a religion for a moral compass. All people need for a moral compass is experience in life: Ever been bullied by somebody, or called names, or made fun of, or hit, or shot at, or raped, or beaten up? Doesn't take religion to tell people that those experiences are not fun, and that there are reasons why certain acts are considered illegal in modern day society (e.g. killing an abortion doctor). In other words, societies that allow such injustices do not function for very long without significant social strife that forces changes, keeps them behind the curve with other cultures, as well as enslaves others.

If there is anybody who is controlled and manipulated and aren't able to think for themselves, it is the creationists on this thread, who spout the same assumptive crap that gets railroaded over and over again by logically minded folk. Doesn't take belonging to any sort of "ism" to smell the bullshit coming from these people's mouths.

What is disorderly then? Is there anything that is disorderly since god has created everything.

Theism is a mental illness because it is nothing more than a cry for attention. The truth is theism is a false idea because it is based on the false premise that orderliness requires intelligent direction, and that the world around us truly is full of order.

Every argument with a theist ends with this point. They can not overcome this one point, no matter how hard they try.

Most of these theists are extremely intelligent people, highly educated, and passionate about being a theist, enforcing the existence of God, and viciously ridiculing folks like me who challenge their false belief.

In reality, most of these people, claiming to be theists, are really simply protesting against secularism. I can understand their feelings of resentment and hostility towards secularism because secularism is against everything they've been told since they were children, as well as against the Bible, which is, in their eyes, undoubtedly true, contradictions aside.

However, when they enforce the existence of the intelligence necessary to produce the disorder all around us in plain view, I have to challenge this false belief. Sometimes their arrogance and vicious sarcasm makes you want to scream, but I find dueling with theists has made me a more patient, accepting, and loving person. It forces you to work on your ability to be patient in the face of real ugliness.

It's a lot like the old priest counselling the young priest in the movie The Exorcist. He told him the Devil would really try to make him so angry he would lose his cool. Therefore, the old priest advised the young priest to be patient, accepting, and calm in the face of the Devil's vicious ugliness.

Theists like to resort to their superior understanding of creation and intelligent to explain how orderliness was established. They scoff at the notion that the highly disorganized, enormously complex systems and organisms could have possibly happened through a series of random mutations designed to make survival much easier. Please.

I ask them to give me a single example of anything, outside of what they call nature, that couldn't have come into being without intelligent direction. Of course, they can not. Because everything manufactured by man required intelligent direction, right? Of course.

They all believe that nature had to come from an intelligent designer, complete with all its faults. Because black holes, earthquakes, tornadoes, famines, fires, cancers, and every other disease on the planet is proof that there must be a creator of the world around us. And all of the proof of evolution - the multitude of fossils, including transition fossils, as well as the existence of vestigial features in the modern day world including the human appendix, wisdom teeth and tailbone - well, God did it. In the flood. So there.

They are also unable to answer the question, "If there is an intelligent being responsible for the universe, nature, and everything else, then where did it originate? Who or what produced this God of yours?"

Of course, no one knows all the answers. Most theists believe this intelligence we call God has always been here. But this is incredibly improbable, especially considering the idea that - instead of this incredibly flawed universe randomly popping into existence, which to them must be impossible - a perfect, all-powerful omnipotent being must have, and then used his infinite powers to create the incredibly flawed reality. When you have them against the ropes, pounding on them real good, they try to change the argument. I just keep going back to their "strength," the one thing they "know" which is that ORDER "REQUIRES" INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. An argument that really is unfounded.

Being able to argue against this is the key to holding your own with even the most intelligent, well educated theist. This key point really make them proud of themselves because they they think that you simply can't figure out how to overcome it. Therefore, to them, Intelligent Design is the only reasonable explanation for Nature, not some intelligence-free, mindless form of evolution.

So, if you find yourself in a duel with an theist, you cannot lose. Just remain calm and stick to your guns. Generally, if you simply hold their feet to the fire and argue against this one point, the theist will resort to name calling and quit first. It's like throwing holy water on Satan. It's fun!


*FTFY

Why is it "the law" that everything orderly must come from intelligent direction/creation? Is it just because you said it is? Or is it because it was suggested to you by a two-thousand year-old volume written by men who most likely thought the world was flat and that childbirth is God's way of punishing all women for Eve's sin?

Religion is a load of crap! And by the way... who created your god...

This is HILARIOUS. The lack of self-awareness in Bwinwright's argument is stunning.

I suppose he does not remember the Soviet era when not being able to see the superiority and truth of Communism would get you classified as mentally ill and thrown in the loony bin. Anti-Revolutionary Thinkng = Mental Illness.

Now Bwinwright would have those who question the superiority of his deist beliefs categorized as mentally ill. It's the most direct and totalitarian means of attacking a world-view opposed to your own that you cannot overcome with logic and data.

Whether you are a communist trying to deny the obvious fact of how much better liberal capitalism is at providing for material needs, or a deist trying to deny that evolution can explain the development of biological complexity without a designer, the ultimate totalitarian trump card is just to claim what you deem fact (the dialectal imperative of history favors communism, or that order requires intelligent guidance) and label anyone who denies your blinding insight as crazy BECAUSE they do not accept your self-serving "truth".

If you really want to understand what a complete an utter ideologue this Bwinwright person is, you merely have to note that in his second comment, he states that "I am not sure" whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is correct. This is a person so ambivalent about scientific data that he cannot accept the fact that the sun does not revolve around the earth. Who can possibly take such a person seriously in a debate about a subject requiring the acceptance of scientifically derived data, such as evolution?

Science says the universe is infinitely expanding, therefore we can assume that every planet is like a science experiment.

So lets say you have an experiment that has a .000000000000000000000000000001% chance of causing a planet that can support life and create man. Then you repeat that experiment INFINITELY, (Because as far as we know the universe is constantly expanding.) Statistics say that you will get trillions upon trillions of planets that "Can support life and create man."

That's basic math, you cannot deny it.

Erm, no. The universe is expanding, possibly infinitely although opinions vary on that one, but the amount of energy within it (and thus the maximum amount of matter and therefore planets) is finite. I'm really not sure why "every planet is like a science experiment" either. We can't even observe the majority of planets, only infer their existence from what we _can_ observe.
The basic idea that I think you were going for though, that the large number of planets in the universe means that even a small chance of "M class" planets (i.e. capable of supporting Roddenberries) means that we should expect a large number of planets bearing something that we would recognize as life.

This seriously has to be one of the most pathetic attempts for the Christian community to argue for their beliefs.

You notice I said an attempt to argue for your beliefs since we have nothing to justify. The burden of proof is on you. Prove your faith. Oh wait, it's faith, you cannot.

Neither can you. Since, atheism is classified as a religion, in essence belief is required.

Atheism is only classified as a "religion" by desperate, defensive religious people who want to drag it down to their level. In essence, DISbelief is required. That's the whole point.

Bwinwright, it makes no sense to challenge people to name something "outside of what they call nature, that came into being without intelligent direction." You are simply making the point that everything "outside of what they call nature" aka "man-made" is obviously made by man. How does this prove that anything is created by a god? Your challenge only shows that human beings create things intelligently, not a god.

Furthermore, you are suggesting that just because you know of one way orderly things came into being--that is, it is by being created by man--means that all orderly things are created that same way. This is a logical fallacy that can easily be pointed out. It's like saying, just because falling rain is one way the ground can become wet means rain falling on it is the ONLY way the ground can become wet. This is clearly false, and I hope you can at least see this.

What atheists are suggesting is that there is another way for orderliness to come into being that does not involve an intelligent being/designer. No one is denying that man-made objects are made by man; they are saying that scientific research and evidence suggests that eagles and human beings are made through evolution. Evolution is complicated to fully explain, but in short, it gives a very reasonable mechanism for orderliness to evolve out of disorderliness. It simply says that given a group of reproducing individuals with different versions of certain traits, some individuals' versions of the trait give them more reproductive success that others. Therefore, they pass their version of the trait(s) on more than others. This causes the progeny to have a slightly different proportion of versions of the trait(s) than their ancestors. Over time, mutations, genetic drift, natural selection (which I just described) can lead to speciation--the creation of new species. Voila! You get evolution.

Think about it another way. If there was no speciation and only extinction (which I hope you won't dare to deny is a real phenomenon), then wouldn't there just be fewer and fewer species because there would never be any new species. Yet, there is in fact much more diversity in some later parts of the fossil record (like the dinosaurs and plants during the Triassic and Jurassic periods (65 million years ago)) of the fossil record than in the oldest parts (trilobites from 540 million years ago) known. Knowing your beliefs, you might distrust all science, but if you at least believe that the fossil record is not a joke by god, then how would you explain the fact that new species appear in the fossil record through time without believing in the possibility of speciation?

I think YOU are the one who thinks he is all high and mighty because he is NOT atheist. You are the only one resorting to disparaging terms for people with other ideas in this entire discussion. Just something for you to consider, bwinwright.

areyouserious: I take gentle exception to your statement that atheists "are suggesting is that there is another way for orderliness to come into being that does not involve an intelligent being/designer." My own atheism is simply my recognition that a god-centered worldview is of no use to me at all, if I'm being honest with myself. I am, however, fascinated by the phenomenon of, for example, American christianity. But there is nothing in it at all that recommends it to me as useful or correct, except the ability to use it cynically. I don't think it necessary to argue for what to me is obvious and unavoidable. But it is interesting and perhaps instructive to try to understand what it takes to be and what it's like to be someone 'of faith.' It seems to me an awful dishonesty to self, and perhaps a weapon against something.

< Atheist here, I've heard some decent arguments against there being no supreme intelligence that have made me ponder for a moment. bwinwright only further provides an argument against there being such an almighty power.

I must say that, as ironic as it may seem, I feel there is more purpose to my life with out there being a god than there is without one. I have no one to blame, pray to, hope for, etc. than myself. I am the only one responsible for my actions, for better or worse. I find that those who are believers in intelligent design believe that there is "more" to there lives. That there is a "meaning". That's very childish and immature to me, as if believing in Santa Claus.

"God(s)" was/were created by man to strengthen the power of the elite, the leaders and those in power, over their slaves, peasants and farmers to bring order to the chaos around them. "Be good or god will strike down upon you." One day, humans will be smart and powerful enough to claim responsibilities for their own actions. We will one day understand how valuable a life is because there's nothing after this life. We only have what you see here and we should make it count because your name will live on.

We should just love each other without the fear of a "god" or supreme being watching over us. There's no other reason for there to be a great power in the sky to have been fabricated.

Even if there is a god, it doesn't matter. Once people understand that we'll be in okay shape.

Theologists are so eager to argue for their god, but why? Why must you insist that you're opinion (you're kidding yourself if it's more than that) is correct? Atheists simply want to better your lives and bring to light that you are living in a very small room created by man that confines your perception of the universe. There is an irony there as well. Atheists want to open your mind, look to the skies and imagine a greater power and good in the universe that is really more powerful that your god could ever be. We want to set you free.

To bring religion in to the chat, we want you to let go of the confines of your church and be one with us in the universe. One with us who believe that we are equally part of something immense. We are all one. We are small fractions of a universe that is infinite and our lives may or may not mean anything in the long run. Maybe you should consider that your life may mean nothing at all. When I see photos from the moon looking back at earth, I tell myself this is meaningless. At the same time, I look at my neighbor and say that my life means something to them. It does not take a god to make my life meaningful or relevant. It's simply the relationship I have with other people that matter the most in the long run.

God or no god, I live my life as if it's the only one I have and I share it with as many people as I can. All I ask is that you leave your fair tales out of my life so that I continue to be a good and pertinent part of society.

With that said, although I like to question where your god came from that created all the heavens and earth, I also question where a godless universe came from. This is the ultimate question, seemingly two separate questions but really the same. So the truth to all theology is hindered upon the answer to this single question. Without this answer, we will never truly know what is right. But, some of us believe the answer is 42.

"Order requires intelligent design"

Why? Because something can't come out of nothing? Maybe it can, I don't know.

and

Just because the universe may have had a creator, does not mean that it is interventionist, caring or indeed still existing.

and

Surely if the world was chaotic, we would seize to exist. Meaning that we are here to ask the questions, because we are here to ask the questions. That is all.

Truly now.... Logically... SOMETHING CANT COME FROM NOTHING...

First, let me state that I know there is SOMETHING.. Because I AM.

The very idea of NOTHING, doen't allow for SOMETHING... If there ever WILL BE something, then there never was NOTHING...

I think it's fairly obvious that if there ever was TRULY nothing, then you and I wouldn't and couldn't be here today.

Bwinright, I am a doctor and I must say that your definition of mental illness is absurd. You open your essay with the statement "Atheism is a mental illness because it is nothing more than a cry for attention". First you imply that mentally ill people are behaving the way that they do for attention. This is insulting to anyone unfortunate enough to suffer from a true mental illness. Your main criteria for defining mental illness is someone having an opinion different from yours. This is nonsensical. You should think before you speak and give people credit where it is due. Not everyone who does not believe as you do is crazy. Please stop being so self-righteous and try respecting your fellow man. You preach love, but most of your comments to your opponents are angry, spiteful, and irrational. You give good Christians a bad name.

"I ask them to give me a single example of anything, outside of what they call nature, that came into being without intelligent direction. Of course, they can not. Everything manufactured by man required intelligent direction, right?"

And how does this prove your God exists again? Even if you were right, even if the most simplest of natural thing took an intelligence to design, it would still not prove that your God exists. All it proves is that there was something intelligent behind its design. Not necessarily God, just something intelligent.

Why don't you think it was aliens? Or a more advanced human? Or Brahman? Or, maybe the dinosaurs were intelligent and made us before they blew themselves up in a nuclear war...

The leap of faith you take in believing in your God is no different from any above example. The reason you believe in what you do is due to cultural influences. People raised in a culture dominated by a specific religion are more likely to take up that religion.

It is one of the reasons why which God you believe in is greatly location dependent. If you were born in the right parts India, with Hindu parents, you would be arguing the case of Brahman right now. Had you been born in Yemen, to Islamic parents, you'd most likely be arguing the case of Alah.

So then the question is, Why is it the God you think is the right one is greatly dependent on how and where you were raised? Because when a parent of a specific religious denomination raises a child, they help in developing the child's mental disposition towards their parent religion. It is similar to brainwashing.

Which I think, is a mental illness.

...and your ignorance is legion. It would be nice if you could learn some fact that makes you think, and not just support your already predisposed, culturally influenced, and/or parent taught world view.

...and if you think your atheist stopping argument really works because someone can not answer it, and that it proves God, your deductive reasoning and logic are broken. Which would be another mental illness.

Sigh. Freaking Sigh, first time I'm posting a comment anywhere. ANYWHERE. But here we are. Now I am jumping in to the brick wall yelling at a brick wall debate because of the ludicrous thesis presented, which, in BOLD reads: "Order requires intelligent direction." Or, a gross simplification of the watchmakers argument. My counter thesis is this: "Order, as recognized and defined by humans, sometimes relies on intelligent direction." Without writing an essay on the topic, I will refer to one example as a subset of mathematical constructs that do themselves not require intelligent direction. Fractals require recursion. Not intelligent direction. It is the only constant within the subset. Wuh wuh. Take that your thesis. Disproved. Counter arguments’ Fractals require a starting point. (See Big bang hypothesis vs. God Absolutism (Or rather, confirmation bias (Defined as a searching for or disregarding evidence to prove a pre determined conclusion))) Mathematic principles were defined by God. And the famous, “I will ignore this comment and disregard the arguments inside”, which yes dear, you do too. Because no matter what I say, you won’t believe a word of it or you will forget and live your life on one side of the coin. Please stop trying to solve an equation (read: problem) without all the needed variables accounted for. Proof of an intelligent director is required to apply intelligent director (God, Allah, Spaghetti Monster) principles to concrete issues such as the evolution/intelligent design debate, otherwise the only people who will take you seriously are the proverbial choir you preach to. Proof of god’s existence is needed for me to take any Biblical claims seriously. While I’m at it, you can’t disprove a logical argument with faith either. Otherwise the Muslims (one example) will jump in and a global game of “No I’m right” “No I’M RIGHT” will hilariously begin ending with more 9/11’s than you can shake a stick at, performed by both sides. What if the Scientologists are right? We atheists are simply trying to generally live a good life sans doctrine (Except Stalin). And when I get to Valhalla/Elysian Fields/Alighieri’s Heaven/Biblical Heaven, assuming it exists at all, if doctrine is more important than living a good life as defined by yourself, then seriously, what the hell? Ghandi is in hell then, maybe just in the first circle if you buy into Alighieri’s depiction, but it’s still goddamn hell! And if Hitler confessed like a good catholic before he suicide-ed himself and got his last rites, then he may well be in heaven jack booting around and wreaking up Gabriel’s shit. And yes I am Satan trying to test your faith. Booga booga boo. Naw I’m joking. OR AM I?!?!

Apparently This comment system hates paragraphs, heres another try at adding logical spacing:

Sigh. Freaking Sigh, first time I'm posting a comment anywhere. ANYWHERE. But here we are. Now I am jumping in to the brick wall yelling at a brick wall debate because of the ludicrous thesis presented, which, in BOLD reads: "Order requires intelligent direction." Or, a gross simplification of the watchmakers argument.

My counter thesis is this: "Order, as recognized and defined by humans, sometimes relies on intelligent direction."

Without writing an essay on the topic, I will refer to one example as a subset of mathematical constructs that do themselves not require intelligent direction. Fractals require recursion. Not intelligent direction. It is the only constant within the subset. Wuh wuh. Take that your thesis. Disproved.

Counter arguments’
Fractals require a starting point. (See Big bang hypothesis vs. God Absolutism (Or rather, confirmation bias (Defined as a searching for or disregarding evidence to prove a pre determined conclusion)))
Mathematic principles were defined by God.
And the famous, “I will ignore this comment and disregard the arguments inside”, which yes dear, you do too. Because no matter what I say, you won’t believe a word of it or you will forget and live your life on one side of the coin.

Please stop trying to solve an equation (read: problem) without all the needed variables accounted for. Proof of an intelligent director is required to apply intelligent director (God, Allah, Spaghetti Monster) principles to concrete issues such as the evolution/intelligent design debate, otherwise the only people who will take you seriously are the proverbial choir you preach to. Proof of god’s existence is needed for me to take any Biblical claims seriously.

While I’m at it, you can’t disprove a logical argument with faith either. Otherwise the Muslims (one example) will jump in and a global game of “No I’m right” “No I’M RIGHT” will hilariously begin ending with more 9/11’s than you can shake a stick at, performed by both sides. What if the Scientologists are right? We atheists are simply trying to generally live a good life sans doctrine (Except Stalin). And when I get to Valhalla/Elysian Fields/Alighieri’s Heaven/Biblical Heaven, assuming it exists at all, if doctrine is more important than living a good life as defined by yourself, then seriously, what the hell?

Ghandi is in hell then, maybe just in the first circle if you buy into Alighieri’s depiction, but it’s still goddamn hell! And if Hitler confessed like a good catholic before he suicide-ed himself and got his last rites, then he may well be in heaven jack booting around and wreaking up Gabriel’s shit.

And yes I am Satan trying to test your faith. Booga booga boo. Naw I’m joking. OR AM I?!?!

This is a variation of the famous classic "Teleological Argument". A discussion can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

My personal favorite for a long time was this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

What kinds of evidence would you accept that would increase your doubt that your god exists?

Hmmm, the name of this site is all voices but the gist of this article seems to be 'hearing voices'. There is no point in arguing whether or not atheists are mentally ill due to the fact that the author seems to be afflicted with schizotypal personality disorder. (bwinwright, does this sound familiar? social withdrawal, odd perceptual experiences, a tendency towards concreteness, metamagical belief?) He's in good company; what do you call someone who hears voices coming from a burning bush, or someone who says they have spent the night wrestling with an angel or someone who states that they have had a conversation with a person who has risen from the dead? To the atheists trying to make a point with this person; Never argue with pigs, you'll just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it. If you want an overview of how mental illness leads to religiosity check out this video. http://blip.tv/file/2204956/ My favorite quote: "Get it wrong, and we call it a cult. Get it right, at the right time and the right place and maybe for the next couple of millennia, people won't have to go to work on your birthday."
As for me, I'm leaving now, made my point, not coming back, nite y'all. |-)

You're so wrong it's laughable.

You intelligent design people always take the same approach, with the same tired thinking, and the same ridiculous logic applied. You see the theory of evolution of complex life on this planet as some random event that just magically happened, rather than the gradual process that it truly was. You see a cliff, where those who are much MUCH smarter than you see the gentle hill up the back side.

Let's use your eagle example. More specifically, we'll look at an eagle's wings. In your belief, our eagle's wings have been created perfectly just as they are and their design must be intelligent because they are so well adapted to what they do. But isn't half of a wing good enough to serve some purpose as well? Wouldn't half of that wing save the bird from death from a fall of a certain height? This is how flight developed. We start with a wing that would be useless for flight, but is very useful for saving animals from a fall from a small height (early dinosaur wings come to mind). Our endpoint, after millions of years of evolution and natural selection, is our eagle's wing, which is perfectly suited to allowing the eagle to fly. Your entire argument revolves around the idea that anything less than a fully formed part or organism is useless, which is asinine.

good day.

LOL - someone needs to spend some time growing crystals.

It's orderly - where's the intelligence? Oh, wait, there is none? Hmmm...

SCIENCE! It's the way things work!

People who claim to KNOW whether there "is" or there "isn't" a (insert term here) are both delusional and in fact, mentally challenged. The most we can claim to "know" is that we experience and we are (somewhat) intelligent. The fact that we exist, are intelligent and create things that are like us, is a small bit of evidence that points to a higher power..

If you ask ME, I think that all things that do exist, have existed and will exist, are always existing and always have existed. And life/death, creator/nocreator, this DUALITY that we struggle with is only a natural part of setting a "reference point", which is required in order to "experience". When you set a 0 in an infinite plain you automatically create a positive and negative where there once was none... anyway I'm rambling now. As always I could be wrong.


Could you????

F***, I had a long, well thought out, well written post here. Then I hit my mouse's "back" button, and lost it all. I'll leave one point instead:

Your entire post is based upon the central tenant that orderliness is exclusively the product of intelligence, and because order is demonstrated everywhere, the existence of God and intelligent design is undeniable.

I remain unconvinced that orderliness is, in fact, demonstrated everywhere we can look, but as harbagorf pointed out (before losing patience and inclination from your apparent inability to conduct civil, meaningful debate), you fail to define the order you refer to, and as such, I am unable to intelligently evaluate your position on the matter. Meanwhile, you concluded your last response with "atheism is a false idea and you would do yourself a favor to simply accept this truth". Well, maybe I'm crazy, stricken with a horrible "mental-illness", but I prefer to investigate and collect evidence to support conclusions rather than "just accepting" them. To do so undermines the entire premise of debate. I'd point out your argumentative inconsistencies here, but doing so would be the apotheosis of banging one's head against a wall, and the irony in doing so would be laughable.

That said, let's give you the benefit of the doubt here that "order" (whatever form of you are referring to) is in fact everywhere. With that in the clear, let's delve deeper into your premise; What evidence do you have to support the correlation and causation you claim between intelligence and order? The explanations that have been offered so far include "common sense", the "wristwatch-parts-shaken-in-a-bag-and-not-randomly-reassembling-as-a-watch theory", and the "its just true" argument ==> "When you have an example of something that represents ORDERLINESS, it was clearly created by some form of creative intelligence. Nothing of an orderly nature can exist otherwise. This is my entire argument."

Faithful indeed.

So here we go. The first offering of evidence: Common sense. I'm not going to take much time here, I'm just going to copy and paste Rayomatic's earlier post, as it is about as good a refutation of the reliability of 'common sense' as any:

"PS: You also can't back up your argument by saying "It is really nothing more than common sense." One of the reasons science exists as a successful method for learning about the world is that "common sense" can often turn out to be wrong. Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth? Because common sense would indicate it. Common sense also might convince you that the world is flat. If you look at the world of particle physics, you'll see that in that field, common sense is as wrong as it can get. So appealing to common sense won't win your argument."

That brings us to the wristwatch argument. Let's bring others up to speed with your logic:

"Take your wristwatch apart, carefully separating each part one from another, place these parts in a brown paper bag, place a rubber band around the top to keep all the parts inside. Now place the bag on a table in a room in which nobody will enter. Then, after some period of time, maybe a week, a month, maybe 10 years from now return to the room, open the bag, and pull out your totally reassembled wristwatch, all having occurred by itself, NATURALLY, without any intelligent direction."

There are about a dozen different fallacies in this short and sweet "proof" of intelligent design (or disproof of its absence, as it were). I'll tackle what I think will be the easiest for your to understand. Atheists have never (as far as I know) claimed that the wristwatch is not the product of intelligent design. No reasonable atheist would suggest that a bunch of watch parts would randomly assemble themselves into a watch. You see, humans design watches, along with several other.....nevermind


F*** this. I just decided I'm done with the God argument on the internet. For the record, I'm not an atheist; I tend to regard myself as some sort of pantheist, as I am constantly overwhelmed by the awesomeness of everything that has been, and everything that is yet to be explained by science, and at the end of the day, the "why" question remains for me.

Instead of making my argument, and in the spirit of recklessly seeking evidence to support otherwise arbitrary statements, I bring you a humorous, non-inclusive quotational evidence of your retardedness:

So, if you find yourself in a duel with an atheist, you can not lose. Just remain calm and stick to your guns. Generally, if you simply hold their feet to the fire and stick to this one point, the atheist will resort to name calling and quit first. It's like throwing holy water on Satan. It's fun!

Just keep in mind the fact that I do love you, regardless of your mental illness.

Think about your wristwatch. This represents order. However, that order did not simply happen without intelligent direction. Atheists believe such order can be produced without intelligent direction.
(Atheisism: the belief that wristwatches, stoves, computers, and other electronics biologically evolved into existence!)

Atheists, like you, are so clearly angry at organized religion for some reason, maybe your catholic priest rejected you after you fell in love with him?


Rayomatic, have you fallen in love with Richard Dawkins? Did you realize that Dawkins is not an atheist but really believes in Intelligent Design? He only claims to be an atheist and writes all his books about atheism to make millions off of morons who can't think for themselves.

Science clearly reveals such ORDERLINESS as DNA could not have possibly been produced via some "mindless" process as you and your mentally ill Atheist friends erroneously believe.

if 3 pennies fell out of your pocket and landed in a perfectly beautiful orderly line, how can we ever know that some part of your consciousness isn't responsible for this orderliness.

This is absolutely ridiculous. You get so wrapped up in your definitions, you fail to make sense. You might put the crack pipe down for a few minutes before you contribute here, OK?

------Peace.

The poster basically keeps asserting that orderliness requires intelligent direction without defining orderliness and without defending that assertion. What's funny is he calls this "his strength" but he backs it up by saying nothing more than "It is really nothing more than common sense." If that's your strength, I'd hate to hear your weak arguments.

When your theory includes something that says "Others who disagree are wrong because; blah blah", your theory is most likely wrong.
Dismissing theories without examining them and dismissing them because you adhere to another way of thought is wrong.

Example;
Everybody is a space alien, but nobody wants to admit it. They just lie all the time.
Everybody likes American Football, some people just dont know it yet.
Solution;
If everybody is a space alien, everybody is lying about being one.
so either everybody is a space alien and is lying, or everybody is a human and they are not lying. Either way, either theory would have people acting thesame, so what real proof have I got that everybody is an alien ?


There is a distinct difference with a theory which gets proven and then people are still unwilling to accept evidence.
Example;
Person1: The sky is blue. Person2: Nope, its red. Person1: I can prove without a doubt that the sky is blue because of airs chemical composition and I know which wavelengths of light look like blue.

Here someone disagrees because they dont follow thesame logic as you or because they disagree with some of the bases of the theory. (ie; there is no colour blue, or blue and red look thesame)


There is a fine line between these two as this assumes everybody uses thesame kind of logic (which atheists and believers dont) But I tend to take as a general rule; If your theory has a clause in it which automatically disregards opposing theories without examining said opposing theories, it is most likely wrong.


Sure it could be that everybody is lying about what they think/believe, but it is highly unlikely, and also unprovable, hence it should be avoided when trying to explain something.

For the record, I dont believe in god, and neither do 42% of my countrymen (if we are to believe what they say.)

"However, when they deny the existence of the intelligence necessary to produce the order all around us in plain view, I have to challenge this false belief. Sometimes their arrogance and vicious sarcasm makes you want to scream, but I find dueling with atheists has made me a more patient, accepting, and loving person. It forces you to work on your ability to be patient in the face of real ugliness."
Good for you, but now try to actually believe people when they say something about themselves instead of looking down on them and pittying them as if they are lesser people. You dont have to believe there is no god, you just need to believe that others think there is no god.

"I ask them to give me a single example of anything, outside of what they call nature, that came into being without intelligent direction. Of course, they can not. Everything manufactured by man required intelligent direction, right? Of course."

Nature is not man-made, everything else is. I think nature is pretty much the word you use when you mean to say "untouched by man".
If you ask them the question, show me an example of something that's not man-made, except the word which describes everything that's not man-made, what answer do you think you will get ?
Its like me saying footballs don't exist because you cant show me an object which is a football, except for actual footballs.

"Of course, I don't know all the answers. Most believe this intelligence we call God has always been here. But this is not the argument, is it?"
This is an example of the aforementioned rubbish logic. Lets dismiss an argument because the person saying it is wrong anyways. NO ! You can only dismiss an argument if you disprove it.


I bet you find yourself in an argument with atheists constantly, during which you wonder why they are so ignorant and unwilling to accept undenyable truth, which you have found using your kind of logic.
Atheists have the exact same feeling, they feel they have found something which is the truth and believers will come up and counter this with something atheists will mark as faulty logic.

This has been going on for ages, but to assume the person you are debating is not serious, is mentally ill, or doing it for attention is just plain insulting.

If I were to look at this situation as an outsider (which I unfortunatly cant due to my beliefs, but I will try anyways)
I see a person who argues people that disagree with him, and afterwards, thesame person assumes that despite the fact that many people oppose him, those that oppose him must be some form of crazy or lying, because thats the only way someone can disagree with him, since he is always right. Then the person with poor regard for his fellow human beings and their opinions starts to vent out in public about how the people that disagree with him are crazy and stupid.


"So, if you find yourself in a duel with an atheist, you can not lose. Just remain calm and stick to your guns. Generally, if you simply hold their feet to the fire and stick to this one point, the atheist will resort to name calling and quit first. It's like throwing holy water on Satan. It's fun!"

Who is really looking for attention here. You are basically the equivalent of an atheist going to church just to spite religious people.

Though I dont know much about scripture, I know this much;
Tobit 4:15 "Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
Sirach 31:15 "Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

You should not be mean to other people who believe in something different than you, for to those people, you are someone who believes in something different and crazy too.

Theres no reason why you should call atheists attention seekers or mentally ill, they are just people with a different belief system.

I can sympathize with this argument, and most atheists do as well, which is probably why it riles us up so much. It truly seems impossible that order and rules of nature could come out of nothingness. It's hard to even conceive of nothingness. I think that the answer to the mystery of our existence would seem very strange to us, and it might even be impossible to comprehend.

But how does the idea of God really answer this mystery? Haven't you just transferred the mystery over to that of the existence of God? If God has existed forever, and the cause of his existence is truly impossible to comprehend, why can't the same be true of a universe without a god-like creator? God does not answer the question.. it simply puts the mystery onto something which you are happy to leave a mystery.

lol wow... just wow at this debate.

first of all, calling others "mentally ill" for believing something different from you does NOT help your argument or make you sound more believable in ANY way.

That aside... here's a few points that others may or may not have mentioned:

- If I drop 3 coins out of my pocket and they form a straight line, you could say that they are "orderly", but it is obviously highly unlikely. What if I wanted the 3 coins to form a triangle of arbitrary base and height? Then my coins will be "orderly" almost all the time.

- Crystal structures are perfect examples of "order" in nature without the need of intelligence.

- Wristwatches were MADE by humans. Obviously you will not find them in nature.

- When a man ejaculates, about ~250 million sperms enter the female body. 99.999% of them die before even reaching the fallopian tube. Only one MAY or MAY NOT fertilize the egg. Not only is that very chaotic (in a perfectly "ordered" design, only 1 sperm would be needed and it will always fertilize the egg), it shows that your very existence and your genetic makeup is VERY random.

Your wristwatch argument itself is flawed bwinwright, and effectively in every sense that you attempted to use it.
First, we'll delve into the wristwatch is proof of intelligent design argument. The fact that a wristwatch is intelligently designed is in itself ample proof that human beings are likely not. Notice, every piece of the wristwatch has a purpose. There are no extra pieces sitting around doing nothing. Well, I'm not sure how much you know about DNA (and from your posts I'm guessing not a whole lot), but hopefully you know there is a large percentage of "garbage DNA", that is DNA that serves no function. The fact that all this useless DNA exists in high quantities is something that is predicted by random assembly, as there is likely to be far more failures then successes. If something is intelligently designed, it would consist of completely ordered, working parts...not a lot of junk. Furthermore, the processes in our bodies fail routinely. I'm sure you know that many forms of cancer are caused by DNA mutations or transcription/translation errors. In addition, in the billions of cells that we have, such failures are occurring every second in reactions that are only fatal to the individual cell and not overall organism. This too is evidence against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would not create something as complex as life with such a high fail rate built in.
Second, lets examine your argument against random assembly. You state that "you cannot put a disassembled watch in a bag, place it in a room, and leave it for ten years and expect to come back and find it perfectly assembled". As has already been stated, this is a flawed argument, as you are unfair to those you are debating. You fail to include a necessary component for such an event to occur: a force present to allow such an outcome to occur. Thus you win that argument, because it is impossible for such an act to occur in the way that you posed the problem. However, what if we added force to the equation? Lets say you attach the bag to a machine that shakes it continuously. And you don't do this with one bag, but millions of identical bags. Walk away for ten years. Probability states that it is possible you will come back to find the watch perfectly assembled, without any intelligence assembling it.
So thus the argument comes down to that initial force in the universe that started everything. What caused that force? Can I disprove that some sort of intelligence was behind it? I cannot. All I can say is that it is highly unlikely. At the same time, you can in no way state that you have proof of intelligent design either. There is no evidence to this: just because something came out ordered in no way means that something intelligently designed it. It is a debate that may never be answered, but calling the other side of a debate mentally ill is a horrible tactic. Perhaps if you simply choose to argue "design" as oppose to "intelligent design" I may agree, in that something set into motion the creation of the universe. But the intelligence of this is unproven, and unlikely. You show me order, and I can show you chaos: one of the fundamental forces in our universe is the movement of electrons around atoms. This movement is not ordered - it is chaotic. It is impossible to predict accurately, and in fact changes when one simply attempts to measure the movement. Look up the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and tell me where the order is in that.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

which is why I laugh at this mindless dribble.

Hahaha. The stupidity of this article started in the first paragraph when the stupid author made the assertion that atheism is based on a single premise. And a wrong one at that! If anything, the major premise is that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN THINGS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Charles Darwin

I am an atheist. I have many friends who are theists, and I really feel interested to know why they are theists. Time and time again, the reason is their own indoctrination from an early age.

Bwinwright - I would suggest that you examine your own process of indoctrination to better understand why you are so bent on "proving" your various claims. Perhaps you will even grow to become a more tolerant person as a result.

"ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION"

And intelligence is something with extraordinary high degree of order, which by your statement requires an intelligent creator with even higher order, which again would require an even more complex creator. Do you not see this obvious recursion?

It's like saying the world rests on a turtle. You might then ask what the turtle rests on, in which case I might say it's turtles all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

hgj

lol what a load of nonsense:

This "orderliness" you speak of does not exist. Chaos and randomness rule all (quantum theory). Based on that, the rest of your post makes no sense - you are arguing against an atheist that order is intelligently designed, when no intelligent atheist would argue that there was any order anyway! What we call order is the result of randomness. Which, in reality, is more of an argument against god than anything else - it disproves "intelligence" being involved at all.

Do you know where you came from?

Does that satisfy you?

then go about your business and have a splendid day.

You don't need to tell someone else they are wrong. You don't need to prove you are right.

There would be so much less hatred and war in the world if people just got on with their own lives and stopped trying to convince everyone else they are right (or wrong)

It is clear you know next to nothing about what atheism is if you consider it to be a mental illness.

Atheism is merely no belief in a god, nothing more or less.

Most people don't believe there is a god due to the complete lack of evidence. If anything, believing there is something as extraordinary as a god without any extraordinary evidence is a mental illness.

Not a single atheist believe what you claim they do. There was no luck because "luck" is merely a term used to describe what seems like an improbably event. I could roll a million sided die and you would make out there must have been some intelligent force to make it land on the number 1.
However nature itself is more like a rigged die. The forces of the universe make certain things happen in certain ways. When you have a large clump of gas in space, gravity draws it all in together until its compressed enough to be a solid planet. When you have all the matter and energy in the universe in one point held together by its gravity, it would be unable to contain itself and thus the big bang would happen.
This is an incredibly dumbed down version of the science that came to these conclusions because it is clear you can't understand otherwise. You claim that these scientists, these experts who actually studied this stuff, unlike you, are completely wrong and they have a mental illness when you haven't even done any research on the subject and your "evidence" for what you say is a really old book full of contradictions with both itself and reality.

There is no such thing as order in the universe when you think outside your little bubble. Do you claim that disease is order? Are natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes dubbed as "order" by you? Of course thats just limited to our planet, what about the lack of "order" in space?

---

If anything is a mental illness, its believing in extraordinary claims such as god without extraordinary evidence and claiming that the universe has to be a creation based on the teachings of a really old book which can't even get its story straight.

"ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION"

What makes you think that?

Truth of the matter is that we've seen quite the opposite: Often times a simple ruleset and the passage of time can create (local) "order", as happens with crystals, certain geological phenomena, and the development of life (I use the word "local" because somewhere in the universe entropy is increasing. However, entropy can decrease on earth locally because it isn't a closed system).

Beware of trying to apply "common sense" at a cosmic level, that's like trying to explain the origin of life using baseball analogies.

This is either good satyre, or you've been chatting with pretty unefficient atheists. Your main point, that I wonder if you were shouting while typing it(were you?) "orderliness requires intelligent direction" I, and several others, debunked when I was around 16, on a manga discussion board, the good old times, when I was still learning english... It sounded pretty deep at the time, then I turned 17.

I didn't read all of the comments above, but by the size of some of them, I assume reasonable responses were posted alredy, and so I may be repeating stuff people already commented.

The flaw, one of the flaws, in stating that "orderliness requires intelligent direction" is that orderliness doesn't exist objectively. It's a concept to the human psychee, it's a tool our brain uses to help itself compute complex data. And by complex, I don't mean that the data itself is, but that our limited brains classifies it so.

'See where I'm going? You don't see the world as it is objectively, you interpret it subjectively to the means and limitations of perception and data computing at your disposal, your senses and your brain. Which means, all the patterns, and orderliness you talk about aren't out there, we put them out there. And of course, linking those patterns to our life experience, of other man-made complex objects, we tend to want to see a similarity, but it's merely because both natural "patterns" and human engineering fall in the same cerebral folder of "complex stuff you have to break down in smaller elements to understand".

NOW, let's say, I didn't write the above, I'm one of the atheists you mentionned, that had no idea how to go around your argument.
Basically, let's say "ok, you've proved there is intelligent direction" I could agree with that argument, and STILL be atheist.

Intelligence doesn't prove god, it just proves intelligence, and you'd have to seriously lack imagination not to be able to come up with something else: Aliens, godS from, humans from the future coming back to their original system and starting an experiment, the flying spaghetti monster, you're not human you're something else and in a coma, the earth you experience are your dreams, you're in the matrix and some specie you never imagined could exist implants a false reality in your brain so that they can keep draining your life force...etc

These sound like really silly ideas, but trust me, from the point of view of someone not raised in a religious family, god sounds way...way sillier. And they all could be example of intelligence creating the orderly reality, or the illusion of it, which you seem to believe living in.

Then again, you don't, reread my first argument if you must.

Cheers :)

Wow! Clearly I have struck a nerve in the atheist community. However, it is amazing to see how, after some 75 responses to my post, my original message got so twisted around and changed altogether.

I never claimed to be a Christian or religious at all. I honestly believe the main problem is the word atheism itself. There seems to be way too many definitions. As far as not believing in some God like Zeus, Neptune, Apollo, or Venus, I agree with that. I don't even have a problem with people who reject a belief in Yahweh, Allah, or the God of Abraham and Moses.

Personally, the Buddhists, often classified as atheists, believe in a concept called Dharmakaya. Essentially, this is what appears to be the most sensible explanation for the true nature of Reality. I can hear you now screaming, PROVE IT!

Einstein devoted the last 30 years of his life trying to prove his Unified Field Theory, proving scientifically and mathematically that everything is connected or one. While the math problem was too big for Einstein to solve, he did believe in the interconnectedness of all things, an essential component of Dharmakaya.

Like the Buddhists and their concept of Dharmakaya, I believe it is not only connected but this oneness is also intelligent. It's as if we live within a Sea of Consciousness and consist of this stuff 100% too. Now, can I prove it? NO. Nobody can.

However, based on observable PROOF, like that EAGLE, that TIGER, and countless other examples of complex order to serve as my EVIDENCE, and FACT...along with my REASON, I simply haven't found a better explanation for it all.

One thing is certain, in my opinion,atheism, or the denial of such an organizing intelligence is a false idea.

This idea that what I refer to as orderliness in nature is the product of some form of NON-Intelligent RANDOMNESS or CHAOS is simply irrational and obviously false. This idea is just as absurd as believing a tornado can pass through a junkyard and leave behind a newly constructed automobile.

My point in using the wristwatch example is to point out the OBVIOUS need for intelligence in any orderly process. Yet, the folks who wish to argue with me want me to accept their position that far more sophisticated and complex systems and processes, found in LIFE or NATURE, DID NOT REQUIRE any intelligent direction? Absurd!

They act as if you wait long enough, this evolutionary process of natural selection, which does not necessarily require ANY intelligent direction, establishes highly sophisticated order. Again, absurd!

I am not trying to convert anyone to some particular religion, or to a belief in some particular God or gods. I am simply making the point that ALL ORDERLINESS, whether man-made or non-man-made, requires intelligence. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is an error.

I have read EVERY response to my original post, and nobody made a convincing argument that orderliness DOES NOT require intelligent direction. Not one person. If I missed it, please explain it in simple terms, if you can.

You have ignored everything I said, this isn't a reply, you're talking to yourself... Face it, you're "argument" was debunked over and over again. It's ok, it happens.

Now you claim to be non-religious... yet ALL of your arguments come from exactly what a Creationist (mostly Christian) would say against evolution.

So, you have no problem with anybody rejecting all gods, but you have a problem that they don't believe in an intelligent creator (aka. God)?

I am Buddhist, and you didn't even get the definition of Dharmakaya right. It has to do with the eternal existence of Buddha.

That said, I believe Buddhism does have the belief that the universe is somehow connected. However, Buddhism is a "religion" (if you can call it that) of reason. The fundamental beliefs of Buddhism are derived from philosophical ideas, not religious Dogma. Buddha tells us to REJECT religious Dogma, and even his own teachings, if it does not make sense to us personally. That, I believe, sets Buddhism apart from any other religion that claims that the universe is composed of one truth and that they are it. Buddha also says that he is no different from any of us. He is NOT a god. In that essense, Buddhism is an "Atheistic" religion.

EAGLE and TIGER are not observable proof. As endlessly stated already, nature itself is full of chaos, full of mistakes and failures that do not point to an intelligent designer. There are also many natural processes that produce order that do not require any intelligence, such as crystal structures.

A tornado cannot pass through a junkyard and create a brand new car simply because a car is "designed" by a human, which we know as an ABSOLUTE fact. However, if we define "order" any differently (let's say, "order" in a junkyard is when all the junk is spread around the perimeter of the junkyard so the middle is empty), and then we have 1 trillion tornadoes go through 1 trillion junkyards repeatedly for a billion years, I can almost guarantee such "order".

Same thing with the wristwatch. A wristwatch we know for an ABSOLUTE fact was designed and built by a human. It doesn't need to be implied by "common sense", because a wristwatch is not a naturally occuring phenomenon (whereas the rest of "nature" IS).

If you think that all 70+ comments made NO sense, then you might want to think outside the box a bit more. Many of them explain very well how the universe is full of just as much disorder as order, AND gave many examples of "order" without the need for intelligence.

You said "I am simply making the point that ALL ORDERLINESS, whether man-made or non-man-made, requires intelligence."

Please explain how intelligence resulted in the order of:
- crystal structures
- protein folding
- vestigial traits in humans and other animals
- cancer and other mutations

he can't. this guy is hopeless. The only thing we can hope for with respect to him is that he never breeds and never comes into contact with many children.

Religion is a fucking mental illness. Millions of people have died because of religious wars about things that don't exist and don't have any proof of existing. Atheism is about actually reasoning out things. The thing that makes us human is the ability to reason. Religion has no reasoning whatsoever. There is no proof behind any religion. So STFU

The reasons there can be no consensus on this issue:

1. Each of you (atheist or theist) has a different definition and understanding of order, and so each is confused by the way others use it.

2. Each of you has a different definition and understanding of God.

3. Each of you is wrong on several important points and yet unwilling to admit it.

4. Each of you is right about a few minor details and then being an enormous a$$hole about it.

My suggestion? STFU. Each of you. But who asked for my opinion, right?

You know what? You're all wrong, on a very simplistic, elementary level.

Order and Chaos are nothing more than perceptions; subjective ways we describe the world. They are concepts that exist in our heads, not outside them, labels we attach on things so we can categorize them. Where you see order in one set of acts, another sees chaos. Where you demand that 'cause of order must be shown/explained' you only scream out what a blind fool you are, because in truth, the order you claim to be analyzing is only your application of a perceptual slant upon the reality around you.

Order and chaos exist only as ideas in our heads, and you people who bicker over these stupid talking points make all the rest of your respective belief systems look more foolish for it.

The truth is, be good, don't hurt other people, stop thinking you can tell everyone they have to live the way you say they do, and realize that with or without a holy judge, compassion is the ultimate benchmark of whether you succeed or fail as a human. Everything else is cowardice.

there you go colleague :) I made that exact point above, we're awesome, not because we used basic logic and reason to debunk a simplistic religious fallacy, just 'cuz.

Trying to convince the author of reason using well thought out and carefully constructed views is akin to trying to teach a dog calculus. Yeah, maybe you got him to sit and shake, but some things you just cannot do.

You're a moron.

Feeding the troll, I know, but ... here is an orderly thing that doesn't need intelligent direction :

Take some carbon and put it to very high temperature and pressure. Then, let it slowly cool down. Here you go ! The carbon changed to a diamond, that is, atoms very orderly organized into a regular structure - and no "intelligent designer" was required to achieve this.

By the way, I don't care about what you believe in, and neither should you. If believing in god makes you happy, I'm happy for you. But your belief does not give you the right to be judgmental on the others.

Actually, bwinwright does have the right to post mean, judgmental, narrow-minded invective if he wants to (it's like watching someone defamate himself...quite funny!).

Rayomatic, I apologize for hurting your feelings but please try to come up with just one example of ORDER that did not require intelligent direction. All the weak examples listed in the many responses to this post are just that...WEAK.

Nothing happens without intelligence being involved at some level...NOTHING!!!! Remember Einstein's interconnectedness of all things? And the Buddhist concept of Dharmakaya or the Hindu concept of Brahman? This Unified Oneness is CONSCIOUS! Even the smallest sub-atomic particle is conscious. Just as a drop of ocean water contains all the properties and attributes of the OCEAN itself, NOTHING is without consciousness...NOTHING!

So, when you consider a snowflake, like a fingerprint, they are all different and all the product of intelligence. Yes, this forum has some very thick folks responding to this post.

Just like scientists refer to things they don't understand about NATURE as "chaotic", "junk", or "mistakes" the vast majority of responders to this post are denying and insulting the very intelligence of which they consist.

I remember one atheist told me there couldn't possibly be an intelligent creator because MEN had Nipples! That's right, they explained, since men have nipples, this is clearly a mistake!

Well, I am a male and I love having nipples. They provide me with another source of erogenous pleasure. So, I guess I am growing weary of the rather dull witted attempts to prove that intelligence didn't have anything to do with the orderliness of the universe.

I am saying that some super-sophisticated, incredibly complex, and wondrous form of INTELLIGENCE is ALL THAT IS!!!!!!!!!

You can ignore it, abuse it, reject it, try to poison it or kill it if you choose for those of you wondering about cancer and other forms of disease....OR...you can RECOGNIZE IT and appreciate it. It's all up to you. WHY? Because you are made of this stuff, whatever it is, 100%. There is NOTHING else.

If you folks can't handle this, you are, in my opinion, mentally ill. I STILL LOVE YOU because I know what you are made of. When you eventually accept this truth, you too will love yourself and others much more than you can at this time.

Heal thyself!

bwinwright - I have already stated above there is no such thing as "order" in the way you mean it:

This "orderliness" you speak of does not exist. Chaos and randomness rule all (quantum theory). Based on that, the rest of your post makes no sense - you are arguing against an atheist that order is intelligently designed, when no intelligent atheist would argue that there was any order anyway! What we call order is the result of randomness. Which, in reality, is more of an argument against god than anything else - it disproves "intelligence" being involved at all.

ok... please... let's not go into details as to why you love your nipples. TMI, really. Your god doesn't want you discussing your moobs like that.

Even by your definition, 'order' really has no place in this universe. Chaos is life.

I was Christian. It kinda sucked being told I'm going to hell because I thought Jill's bike was neato (coveting). Then I grew up and realized it was all just a story. Everything they droned on and on (and on and on....) about at church was complete fiction. The Bible is the best selling piece of fiction of all time, and it's not even written well... and it's boring as sin (pun totally intended).

To say that atheists are immoral and the religious are is poppycock. Morality has absolutely no place in religion. Even in your bible, your god committed acts of absolute immorality. I can see why you might be confused. Can Christians be moral? Of course, but so can atheists.

and please... stop saying you 'love' atheists. Your entire post and comments show otherwise. Maybe it would be more accurate for you to say "I tolerate you with disdain but refuse to accept you have your own ideas".

In the end... if you don't like atheist thinking, don't go to atheist boards. Why were you there anyway? You're not going to save anyone or change their mind. You just spam up the board and keep us from planning our Festivus party.

so now you're telling us that the most basic "order" such as snow flakes and crystal structures HAS to come from intelligence. Where's the evidence in that? It doesn't even come CLOSE to making "common sense".

Your arguments bring nothing but shame to Buddhists like myself who use reason to understand the world and not blind argument. Please provide evidence of "conscience" or intelligence in snowflakes.

Apology not accepted because you didn't hurt my feelings, although you sure tried. The only thing you've insulted is respectful debate.

"Nothing happens without intelligence being involved at some level...NOTHING!!!!"

How about your typing?

If statements like "This Unified Oneness is CONSCIOUS!" make you feel good, that's great, but it's yet another unprovable claim, as is the claim that "nothing is without consciousness." You might really, really believe these to be true with all your being, but strong belief doesn't make anything true. I won't even ask for evidence or proof of these statements because you won't be able to provide any.

Others already picked it apart, but when you finally gave a definition of order like I asked, it was completely circular (i.e. order is what comes from intelligence....order can't come about without intelligence...poof! goes your argument in a whiff of smoke -- But wait! Does the smoke have intelligence too?).

Let's try your tactics and see how well they work: "Hey everyone! All atoms and all particles and everything that exists is really made of candy floss! It's REALLY REALLY TRUE! In fact, it's obvious! I believe it and if you don't, you're mentally ill!"

Did that convince anyone? I hope not.

And writing in caps doesn't make your arguments stronger. Can you get over this, already?

"When you eventually accept this truth, you too will love yourself and others much more than you can at this time."

Yes, you've shown us by your words how good you are at "loving" others. What a fantastic lover you are. So loving. So full of love for everyone. You're practically a Buddha, a true enlightened being. Sooooooo full of loooove. Pretty much a god in human form, here on the internet! We're all impressed, and deeply honored. Teach us what you know, wise one!

Excuse me, I have to scrape your love from the sole of my shoe now.

Wow. What a disappointment. I thought this would be an intelligent read, but no. Not really. And I'm actually going to tell you that there are things we've created that didn't require intelligent direction. Much like types of food. Some complex foods were created accidentally, when two ingredients combined over a trip or fall. There is no "intelligent direction" here. It was a mere accident. And yet, we have something wonderful, new, exciting. Chocolate cookies and potato chips were both accidents, along with cornflakes and popsicles. Oh, and though some atheists are in fact made at organized religion, I'm not. If anything, I'm mad at people like you. I come here for a good, intelligent read, and you insult me. Along with the first atheist commenter you had, who you called an idiot. People who insult others inside of a debate are usually just trying to make their opponent angry and irrational. You substituted insults for a solid argument. And remember, that in your post you said that the atheist would resort to name calling first, but four or five comments in, you do.

Here is the problem with the intelligent design theory:
http://www.wpbf.com/2007/0927/14220849_240X180.jpg

Lets just end it with, to you your religion , to me mine, and no hard feelings. Just stop the name calling since there is no basis for that.

Liberals and Religious Zealots - always resort to name calling - these are the groups of people that constantly tell us how much they love us, and want to care for us all as part of their own self sacrifice. But nearly always, do these loving, kind hearted people resort to name calling. I do not have a mental illness because I do not believe in something that I can't see.

Consider this, most people would claim that someone who talks to something they can't see and have no proof of it's existence, trusts in it to save them, allows it to direct their life and who uses this invisible friend as an excuse for all their actions....well would be considered mentally ill...

So I suggest rather than the pot calling the kettle black you try using some intelligence yourself and give some sort of actual scientific explanation to back up your claim, rather than just telling everyone that doesn't agree with you that they are stupid.

I'd like to say that microwave ovens didn't come from intelligent design. They were discovered by a complete accident which was chaotic. BuckyBalls, a huge scientific breakthrough was again discovered by complete accident. Actually when it comes down to it, a lot of discoveries made by man are simply the result of chaotic attempts to understand underlying rules governing the world. I can't really think of an example where a person took his first idea and then turned it into a finished product. If you go out into nature you'll find that most of nature is in fact chaos. A forest is not something peaceful it is an incredible struggle to survive in harsh environments. The time scale that we experience makes us think that these things couldn't possibly happen. In our 80 years of tenure on the world we think its impossible that we could have evolved to what we are today from chaos. We look at a rock and say, "no way I came from that." But we don't really have a good grasp of the time scale we are talking about. For example a water molecule will vibrate back and forth on the scale of femtoseconds. Meaning one second for a molecule would be 316 887 646 years to us. These time scales cannot be grasped by us. But when we try to we can find a measure of awe their which is inspirational and will give us pause. This same pause leads to peace and tranquillity. The same peace and tranquillity that those who are religious find in god.

Further examples of humanities delusional capacity:
 
The Aztecs sacrificed virgins for soil fertility, the Christians burnt witches as they communicated with the Devil, rivers and mountains were formed by giant snakes etc in Aboriginal culture and the Egyptian gods expected embalmed Pharaohs to meet them on the other side of the river Styx.
 
It is beyond obvious that none of the aforementioned delusions were anything but that. They were believed in by humans no different from us and with the same amount of sincerity expressed in the belief of today's gods. We have an inbuilt propensity to be brainwashed into believing just about anything that can be proposed.

People, this is what the internet calls a TROLL!
Don't bother fueling it, it was just made to be over looked.
I mean seriously, the guy is a 59 year old conspiracy theorist. Do you really expect him to have anything to say about your intelligence?

but it was so easy to crush, how could I resist?

It's like making fun of former president Bush for not being the brightest man on earth, pointless and mean in a way, but so tempting.

True, but I swear he's just getting views from us.

I had no idea I would trigger such an avalanche of strong emotion from the atheists out there. However, I've got more good news for you. According to Tim Harwood, a breakthrough researcher in the field of evolution theory, intelligent design, etc., the Theory of Evolution is Extinct. He says, "Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils,and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin Was Wrong....The Theory of Evolution may be the worst mistake ever made in science." Wow! And, the truth is the theory of evolution is the very "evidence" most atheists use to justify their atheism. OK, before all of your friends and family members discover your error, why don't you say you are actually somewhere between a classical and natural Pantheist. This way you can appear to be both intelligent and anti-organized religion at the same time. Personally, I like this label too. Of course, I realize many of you are screaming, "Where is your EVIDENCE?" Guess what? I can't even prove heliocentricity. So, my chances of being the first human to prove Dharmakaya or Brahman are slim to say the least. It simply requires a leap of faith, just as claiming to be an atheist does. I really do love all of you, even if I don't happen to like very many of you.

"He says, "Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution is imaginary"
My grand-father says that too... Maybe they know each other.

...bwahaha, I googled your Mr Harwood and found nothing relevant, then added "evolution" look what I found: http://bit.ly/dZp7e You ^^

"I was reading some excerpts from The Divine Cosmos and Divine Nature by David Wilcock in the back of his book entitled The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce and learned that Tim Harwood, a breakthrough researcher in the field of evolution, intelligent design, etc. has hard scientific evidence to support his claim that The Theory of Evolution is wrong"

If it's written in a book called "the divine cosmos and divine nature", I just can't fight it, it has to be serious, scientific and unbiased, and I owe you an apology...

You categorize an entire group of people as insane, then wonder why they're all reacting strongly. Don't be so quick to congratulate yourself on your accomplishment. It's as though you farted at a garden party and now you're proud you got some attention.

Tim who?? Cite an published article by this person in a scientific journal. You seem to believe just about every crackpot theory you come across, but not real, peer-reviewed, evidence-based science.

And give up suggesting to people what they should label themselves, because none of us care to take advice from you.
Why don't you say you're "somewhere between a classical and natural Pan-quack?"

We all know you can't prove heliocentricity. It's just one of your limitations.

And now you're taking the religious way out: "it simply requires a leap of faith!" That's the final shovel that buries your argument once and for all, since it's an admission that your arguments, far from being rock-solid, must simply be believed on faith alone.
As the kids say, EPIC FAIL.

Why then do you keep up the smarmy attitude after you've chucked in the towel? Possibly because you're insane? Delusional?

Being an atheist means having no faith at all. Don't try to twist it, like many religious nuts do, pretending atheism is just another "faith". Is a belief that Santa doesn't exist as much a "faith" as the "faith" that he does exist? Nope...one is faith, the other is lack of faith. They ain't equal standing beliefs.

Now that you've dropped the "order equals intelligence, even snowflakes and crystals" argument, you are now trying to debunk the entire theory of evolution based on what ONE MAN says.

All I have to say is... nice job.

As a side note, even if Evolution is ever be removed from mainstream science (to be replaced by a better theory), it does not have anything to with Atheism... because Atheism = no god, not Atheism = evolution.

I think that many people will agree with me that you're the one "crying for attention", as per the title of your article

Imaoknight, I am beginning to feel like the driver of a short school bus. I am trying to be nice, OK? But proving Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be wrong about the order in nature not requiring intelligence MEANS that INTELLIGENCE WAS REQUIRED.

This point, and this point only, is the whole point of MY argument.

If you want to continue calling yourself an atheist, fine. If you feel that you need this label so everyone will know you do not believe in Zeus, Neptune, Apollo, Venus, or Thor, that's perfectly fine.

However, by calling yourself an atheist, you also throw in with Darwin who believed NATURE just happened, without any intelligence being present to organize things in an orderly fashion.

This organizing intelligence, call it whatever you choose, must have been present. Otherwise, remember the wristwatch example? Mindless matter just can't make it happen.

No. Just... no. Proving Darwin wrong (which you have HORRIBLY failed to do, using your circular logic) does NOT prove intelligent creationism (God) right. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that life on earth was created by an alien race. That does not require the belief of a God, and therefore Atheism (aka. "belief in NO god") is still VERY TRUE, even if evolution is false.

I don't think anyone really cares about the Greek gods anymore... I hardly see your point.

Nature didn't JUST happen. It's been happening for billions of years. Just because you cannot grap the idea doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

The wristwatch example is irrelevant. You're comparing a man-made item to NATURE and concluding that nature must be intelligently made.

"This point, and this point only, is the whole point of MY argument."
Which I personally crushed (and others did too) in my comment above, with you rambling about unrelated stuff as an answer.

Religious people have that curious capacity of rebooting their brains once they're faced with an argument they can't reply to.

ok.. so...

Say Evolution was proved wrong. Who says Creation is right? IF (big BIG IF) Creation is right, who say's it's YOUR god? You, because you say so? Can Creation be concretely proved outside of the church?

What's that got to do with atheism? The origin of humanity is but one part of the equation. Doesn't mean anyone has to believe in a supreme being.

Forgive me. I was raised in Missouri... SHOW ME.

WeeBeastie, I am not saying you need to go to church or worship a Supreme Being. There are only two possibilities here. The orderliness found in nature, birds, bees, trees, eagles, etc., is either the product of intelligence or not.

I say it is. Darwin and Atheists say it is not. I say they are wrong. Tim Harwood now has scientific evidence proving that Darwin and Atheists are wrong, at least about this one point, OK?

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

THERE
IS
NO
ORDER

Can you please try and understand that - you keep harping on about the fact that there is order because of a designer, WHEN THERE IS NO ORDER! It makes your arguments even stupider than they might otherwise be, as is usual when you base assumptions on other assumptions that are incorrect.

I found a mention of Tim Harwood in The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce? By Wynn Free, David Wilcock.

Supposedly he and a few others think we're on the verge of evolving into some sort of psychic beings.

This is your hero, brilliant researcher? He sounds like a kook.

This is your argument? Some unknown guy and a few of his buddies think evolutions extinct and you just bought that hook line and sinker.

You take these guys word over 10's of thousand Phd's? Real researchers in real labs making new discoveries everyday. If you don't believe me check out Project Steve by the NCSE.

Check out the statements on evolution by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Science.

I've been stalking forums like this for years. I have yet to hear a single argument against Evolution that wasn't based on ignorance or faulty reasoning.

Examples abound in nature of order arising from chaos without intelligent agencies.

We are just the culmination of 3.5 Billion years of non random selection.

It's hard to wrap your head around I understand. It defies common sense. But most things in science do defy common sense. Relativity and Quantum theory defy common sense yet they are undeniably correct. If you've ever seen a an LED, that's quantum effects making visible light.

Actually of the three theories evolution is the closest to common sense. I can tell you about relativity and quantum theory but I don't really understand them. Yet when I heard about evolution as a teenager I immediately grasped it and saw the reality of it. Being a farm boy and knowing about how farmers breed plants and animals evolution just made so much sense. Now that I'm older and have studied it I have an even better understanding of how it works. Obviously you don't understand how it works or you wouldn't be making this really really silly argument about order needing intelligence. If you understood the theory would be going "Oh so that's how you get order without intelligence. Boy do I feel dumb I'm so embarrassed. All those people on the forum must think I'm an ignorant jerk."
Your trying to argue with these people about evolution is like me trying to argue the doctrine of the trinity with a bishop. I don't understand the doctrine of the trinity and you don't understand Evolution.

If you really want to argue this better you should at least know what your arguing about. Right now you just sound crazy.

Go to Youtube some scientists there have made some excellent videos.

Aronra has a series called the "Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" he's a little harsh on creationist so you need to have a thick skin. But he destroys all the common arguments creationists make against evolution.

Others are CDK007, Potholer54, ThunderF00t, DonExodus2, Extantdodo

Some of these guys are scientists and Christians. They accept Evolution because they have studied it, understand it, worked with it and have seen the evidence. Things that you have not done.

don't you just love this guy's absolute misquoting?

I am amazed at how words can get so twisted.

As far as any of us can tell, Tim Harwood doesn't exist. Maybe he is God and his existence cannot be proven?

bwinwright:

You keep referring to this enigmatic Harwood character. I've Googled 'Tim Harwood evolution' and find nothing more than other people mentioning him.

I Googled 'worst mistake (ever) made in science evolution' and could not find one quote citing the mythical Mr. Harwood. I did find the following quote attributed to I.L. Cohen

[quote]"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America). [/quote]

If you want to educate us about the teachings of this Mr. Harwood, it would be awfully kind of you to provide us a link for his website.

Atheism does not equal trusting the theory of evolution. They simply refute the motion that there is a God. Many people get that a bit mixed up.

Hey Bwinright,
Even if we grant you the argument that "order" requires an intelligent force behind it, I don't see the connection to believing in god. For all we know if your argument was true, everything could have been "created" by a superior race of extraterrestrials that monitor it all from afar. What about that? There is no proof of intelligent life outside of earth, right? But hey there is no proof of a supernatural god either so although your order=intelligence argument is worthy of debate and exploration, it does not apply whatsoever to atheism vs theism, since your "order" could easily be explained by so many other intelligent things other than god. Now, you may say that it does apply because we need to explain how that alien race came to be, mainly god right? Well I can say another alien race created them and on ans on forever. You may now say well everything had to have a beginning somewhere and you call that god. First, why does everything have to have a beginning? Just because that's what we observe in everything? No, there are many things in the universe we have yet to discover and understand, we cannot say conclusively that everything has to have a beginning or an end for that matter.The thing is why don't you continue asking that question about your god? Why does everything I say have to be created by someone else, but not god? Also, just because none of us really know who or why everything came to be doesn't mean we have to ascribe it to a god. It was a common practice of our ancestors to attribute things they didn't know or didn't understand to some sort of god. Things such as fire, the sun, the moon, illness, the harvest, the ocean, they had a god to explain all these things, yet now we know illness is caused by microorganisms, we know there are no gods in the ocean and we know the sun is a ball of burning gas and not a god. Why then do you repeat the mistakes of the past and say that because you don't understand where or how this "order" came to be it must be a god? The truth is that we do understand where this order came from, it came from natural selection. It seems that is a topic you yourself don't understand completely, you should look seriously study it (and I don't mean browse it, have the patience read through a whole book explaining the process, you will be amazed). What we don't understand or know yet, like I said, is where did this order all begin? You know what? I am glad we don't know, that's why we have science, so we can study what we don't know yet in hopes of one day understanding it. I assure you we will one day discover how all things came to be and I assure you again it will be a natural explanation not a supernatural one.

EBosquet, I agree with you. I've been arguing for the existence of some form of consciousness being behind all the orderliness of the universe. There are only two basic choices, right? I simply can't believe all the orderliness just HAPPENED, without any intelligence behind it. That's my entire argument. Darwin says the orderliness of nature didn't necessarily require any intelligent direction. This was a fundamental error and Harwood has proof. Check out Tim Harwood's website.

This statement of yours is the definition of the Argument from Ignorance.

Your saying you can't understand or believe order can come from disorder with out a guiding intelligence. Therefore since you personally can't understand it. It must be wrong and and all the working scientists that do understand are either mentally ill or lying.

If you don't understand electricity does that mean the lights don't come on when you flip the switch? If you personally don't understand how order comes from disorder without intelligent guidance doesn't mean evolution is false.

Another fallacy is Special Pleading. All the other scientific theories are okay. Just Evolution gets singled out because it conflicts with the bronze age book of myths that you slavishly believe to be true.

It's hilarious that Bwinwrong claims he's not from any single faith and pretends to be Buddhist (just like he accuses Dawkins of pretending to be an atheist! Fair game!), when his post talked about how "fun" it is to throw holy water on Satan (yes, a well-known practice in, er, "Buddhism"...those Buddhists are known for holy-waterboarding Satan on a daily basis). Fascinating to watch him project his dishonesty on Dawkins, like he projects so many of his faults on his enemies!

Actually, the Bronze Age book of myths is also ignorant of all kinds of current science of gravity, cosmology, physics, chemistry, etc, which is strange for a book supposedly written by the god-dude who created the universe in 6 days. Funny that it shares the same worldview of most ancient, Bronze-aged peoples, and couldn't at least have had some general relativity and quantum physics worked in there. If that were the case, I'd be sacrificing a goat to Yahweh right now!

Evolution especially gets these god-botherer's blood boiling though, because the entire premise of their faith depends on it: no Adam+Eve means no Garden of Eden, no snake and apple, and no original sin, which means no reason for Christ to die on the cross in order to "save" us from that sin. No wonder the idea of evolution makes them festoon their undercrackers with shite, whereas other scientific theories that clash with their boring Bible are acceptable.

I've really enjoyed this discussion and the many responses. One must never be complacent when faced with the affrontery of those who think having faith gives them the right to condemn others. Are you reading this, Ross1776?

I would argue that Reeses Peanut Butter cups are substance that was created outside of nature without the direction of intelligent design. Imagine an astronaut, strolling down the hallways of a space station, minding his own business while enjoying a chocolate confection. All of the sudden, a food-service droid carrying some peanut butter, turns the corner and *BAM* they run into each other. The astronauts chocolate flies from his hand landing in the droids peanut butter. Thus creating a completely new tasty treat born from a completely accidental and chaotic interaction in an environment that is completely un-natural. I give you exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hxKtd4CdA&feature=related

Just goes to show you how “nutty” this argument is.

omg. you sir are a moron
"I really do love all of you, even if I don't happen to like very many of you"
f**k off. no one cares about your love. go f**k yourself and your love you sanctimonious, self righteous prick.
your article lacks the slightest bit of intellectual integrity and common sense. and you have theballs to call atheist mentally ill.
surprise a**hole you are mentally ill one.


" you folks can't handle this, you are, in my opinion, mentally ill. I STILL LOVE YOU because I know what you are made of. When you eventually accept this truth, you too will love yourself and others much more than you can at this time"

your tone boils my blood. your claims are silly but your tone makes me wanna slap you across the face


"According to Tim Harwood, a breakthrough researcher in the field of evolution theory, intelligent design, etc., the Theory of Evolution is Extinct"
i guess if tim harwood said it , it must be true
who the f*** is tim harwood and he sounds like a bigger idiot than you if he says evolution is extinct.

" Think about your wristwatch. This represents order. However, that order did not simply happen without intelligent direction. Atheists believe such order can be produced without intelligent direction. That's impossible"
only a mentally ill person would compare a man made wristwatch to a self replicating complex organism .

Intelligence is as a result of the universe not the other way around.

Cynic, calm down. Yes, it is true. I love you, just don't like you.
And, that applies in spades with hateful folks like you.

And yes, Cynic, based on your response, I would say you are anything but the picture of excellent mental health.

Yes, the wristwatch example is absurd, just like accepting the idea that the orderliness in nature just HAPPENED, without any intelligence behind it.

There are only two possibilities, either orderliness requires intelligent direction or it does not. I say it does, you say it does not. Darwin says it does not too. Darwin was wrong. Harwood has SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Instead of showing the world how hateful and abusive you can be, why don't you put the whiskey and crack pipe down and do some research.

And, I repeat, I honestly do LOVE you, just don't like you.

There are only two possibilities, either orderliness requires intelligent direction or it does not. I say it does, you say it does not. Darwin says it does not too. Darwin was wrong. Harwood has SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

direct me to the proof of harwood so i can see for myself.

"that applies in spades with hateful folks like you"
what makes me hateful? i only call you a moron for making moronic claims and i only want to slap you across the face because of your condescending tone while backing up moronic claims with more moronic claims

you are the hateful and abusive one by calling all atheists mentally ill and saying stuff like "i love you but don't like you"

you sir, are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black

take your own advice and "Instead of showing the world how hateful and abusive you can be, why don't you put the whiskey and crack pipe down and do some research"



p.s please don't love me. your love sounds too sinister

I want proof that Tim Harwood exists (the researcher that proved evolution is wrong). You keep directing people to go to his website but no link. A google search will reveal no such site for that Tim Harwood. (There are links to other Tim Harwood's, but none that are any sort of evolution researcher)

guys Google Tim Harwood evolution. Does anyone find anything but people mentioning him?

Great article, as a Pastafarian, I completely agree. I know 100% that The FSM created this world with a magic tough of his noodly appendage. While all of you non-believers will be suffering for eternity, I will be spending my afterlife surrounded by stripper factories and beer volcanoes. If you end up in Heaven as well, come find me by the New Castle beer volcano. Cheers!

Any theist tends to completely over complicate things... First and foremost, I'll start this off with a simple statement. Humans are too convinced of their own superiority to believe that their life on this planet is not meaningless. Yes, go back and read it again to make sure you understood what I meant.

I can simply give one example of order happening "naturally" in the universe. If we take aside from the human-grown naming convention of any number of objects in the world and understand on a very basic level "one object", as opposed to "zero objects" or "twenty-three objects", that will give us a great start to our little exercise.

One is one more than zero, two is one more than one, three is one more than two, and so on. This is one order that happens regularly - AND naturally - in the universe. Zero to Infinity and the reverse is a naturally occurring order.

bwinwright,
Using your definition of "order" .... "order is any observable process,system, or thing which is clearly the product of some form of intelligence", perhaps you can think about and respond to the following two questions:

Did the "intelligent designer" Jackson Pollock utilize "order", or a series of random paint drippings when he created his "product", art?

Did the "intelligent designer" of the human body establish "order" when he created the millions of possible mutations of his "product", a cancer cell?

It doesn't even have to be that complicated. It's easily refuted as a logical proposition.

1) GIven that "order requires an intelligent creator", then
2) is "intelligence" not some kind of "order"?
3) if so, intelligence also requires an intelligent creator
4) therefore, you have a reductio ad absurdam

I love how the author claims that atheists are seeking attention, yet (s)he is the one writing an article about it and getting a thrill out of all the feedback. And visiting the JREF to pick fights. :)

By the way, dear, your bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." You should follow the rules or you'll end up in hell like us atheists. LOL!!

I think my IQ actually dropped reading this article. The writer can't even apply his own logic to his intelligent designer and realise the fallacy of his argument Like a compulsive gambler, the writer imposes order into a system where there is none, easily convinced by a couple of winning streaks and ignoring the overall massive failures of his system, convinced it will actually work in the long run. For your information, I never became an atheist because of the theory of evolution, the absurdity of your arguments lies much deeper than that to me, simply put, the argument that life is so complex it must have a creator is defeated by it's own argument, who created the creator?

This thread is hilarious....

I've rarely seen such delusional logic & thinking. You lot must all be happy to have found one of the last foxholes on the internet to group together & post this creation god-done-it junk. To believe the crap that some of you do you have to disregard every reputable NEWS, History & Science program posted/shown in pretty much any country & language. Good Luck with just burying your heads further into the sand, & patting each other on the back on all these important matters.

People who attack science in this way are indistinguishable from flat earthers in attacks on science, & the scientific method.

These people will never find truth...... Only suffer from indoctrination anger & fear.


HAHAHAHAHA & censorship on here already.... O dear can't even make a 2nd post with the same login......

And to add, christians always go on about having morals, and that atheists have none, I'd like to know what those christian morals are, define one.

The only person with a mental illness here is yourself, writer. If you could get your head out of your bum you'd realize who's the attention wh*re here. I like how you flag others, and pull up ridiculous things like "Human, Bald Eagle, Wristwatch" as an example of Order. If you see, everything originated from one thing, and from that it some how replicated itself (like BLOOD) ... Blood plays a BIG role in life, doesn't it? Well it does it by itself from a chain of reaction. Is there anyone there telling it to replicate? Was there a man who told Cavemans that there were other beings on earth called Humans? Did the Eagle shave its head bald and named itself "The BALD EAGLE"? Unfortunately these came from a very creative mind, and these Species you referred to weren't made because someone directed so. We all came from that one thing, into such an amount of things. Like Water, leave it in one place too long it creates moss with the help of Nature. Water doesn't have a brain, a mind. No orderliness there. So if you're saying you need "Intelligent Direction", is water some how Intellgent? And directs Nature to create moss overtime? Unfortunately, you fail. People who want attention like you need a new hobby.

If you were to tell a stranger that you belong to a religious movement whose adherents believed in demons, the raising of the dead, or the invoking of entities to alter worldly events in accordance with one’s own will, they might logically suspect that you were a member of a Satanic cult. And if you further told that person that your faith practiced rituals patterned on the idea of drinking blood and consuming human flesh, they’d no doubt feel certain that such was the case. Yet all of the ideas just mentioned are precepts fundamental to orthodox Christianity. Beliefs that would seem utterly bizarre or inherently occult in any other context are, for mainstream Christianity, simple articles of faith. Even so simple an act as prayer has roots in ancient occult practice and belief. There was a time in which it was thought that there were hierarchies of angels and demons whose aid and assistance could be enlisted by mortal men. Each particular angel or demon was seen to govern some specific aspect of human existence, and by making entreaties to the correct entity, man could achieve his desires. To invoke a demon, one had only to speak his name aloud, say the right words, and command him to do one’s bidding.

In the Catholic church, the legions of angels and devils have been replaced by saints, but the process involved is essentially identical. Each saint is said to hold dominion over some aspect of daily life, and by offering prayers to them one can receive blessings covering everything from safe travel to baking bread. While asking for blessings obviously seems far more benign than the act of invoking a demon, both practices are rooted in the magical thinking of the far-distant past, and represent different aspects of the same fundamental world-view. In passing, it’s worth noting that the Catholic church is the last Christian institution which still embraces the concept of the malediction, or in common parlance, the curse. While it is well-known that the early church consciously co-opted certain aspects of paganism (including pre-Christian holy days), Christianity is so rife with occult concepts that it is difficult not to imagine them as vestiges of ideas that must have been central to the creed from the very start. After all, some of the most illustrious biblical patriarchs, such as Abraham, Solomon, and Moses, were men said to traffic in the black arts. In the time of Christ it was widely believed by both his enemies and his supporters that he too was a sorcerer.

Wow, seriously, folks.

Bwinwright makes Ray Comfort look like William Lane Craig.

Take some time to read Bwinwright's other articles to get some depth of what kind of person he is, I did. Or you can read his bio-summary text wall. I did that too. I liked your "Jesus supports Marijuana" bit, it was funny.

Quick, put your hands over your ears, blindfold yourself and hysterically shout nonsense... an atheist is voicing an opinion.

What you perceive as order is actually quite the opposite; chaos. To be honest, you seem to misunderstand pretty much every concept you use to rebut atheist arguments. Evolution creates order? No, evolution is contrarily a process of chaos. What you use to describe order is the end result of chaos... now think about how ridiculous that sounds, and then how ridiculous you sound to anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence.

To ignore evolution is ignorance, to ignore natural selection is equal ignorance.... but to call everything that exists today orderliness is the most ignorant of everything. You call it orderliness because you're one of the billions of insecure people who belief in a false being for comfort, and thus you think that everything is designed intelligently... when its not at all. Everything is under chaos even now, and it all resulted from chaos.

To think that you're entire foundation for your counter-argument is a ridiculously naive premise is quite hysterical. It's as if you're still arguing that the world is flat because things fall down.

bdumwright,
You've read all the posts and you feel no one can prove you wrong. Ponder this for one moment in your twisted way of summing up intelligent design. If your so called God created something out of nothing - God must be intelligent. IF God is intelligent, then what intelligence created and designed your God?

Godded: Thor is angry.


Rationalist: No that is just thunder caused by the collision of air masses that were rarified in the presence of electrical heat as a by product of the ionization of the air.


Godded: What is air? What is ionization? Can you make a noise like that? No, that is a god noise, therefor there must be a god. It is common sense. You must be crazy. Can you throw water in the air and make it go boom? No, because you are not a god. You are crazy. This is fun, kind of like heckling imaginary demons.

Understand folks that 'bwinwright' is impermeable to reason.

He doesn't "regularly post at the JREF", rather he trolls the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Please stop by and check out his posts on a number of subjects (he posts under the same name). This gentleman:

- Believes in 9/11 conspiracies.
- Believes in NWO conspiracies.
- Has exhibited anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic prejudice numerous times.
- Has disdain for skepticism in general (i.e. doesn't care at all for evidence based inquiry)
- Believes that the Rothschilds are in a 200 year old family conspiracy to take over the world.
- Is a Global Warming Denialist.
- Questions the cosmological theory of heliocentricity (which I was under the impression was settled 400 years ago).
- Accepts Mentalism.
- Has subtly advocated homeopathy and other scam forms of "alternative medicine".
- Is an intelligent design advocate (obviously).

bwinwright doesn't care about reason, he doesn't care about logically fluid argument, and has a general disdain for anything on which credible bodies have come to a consensus. Please stop by some time and read his posts. They're riddled with fallacy, and his favorite argument seems to be "OPEN YOUR EYES! IF YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT I SEE THEN YOU'RE BLIND! LULZ!"

It's becoming readily apparent to me that bwinwright argues nonsense simply for the sake of starting controversy. He's a troll of the highest degree and is best ignored.

Regards,

Threads began by bwinwright on JREF:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=6323&pp=25

All posts by bwinwright on JREF:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=6330

All of you people who support Atheism should know, The Atheistic teachings come from The Gospel Of Thomas, Doubting Thomas in the New Testament, who saaid, I WILL NOT BELIEVE THAT CHRIST HAS RISEN LESS I PUT
MY FINGERS IN THE NAIL PRINTS OF HIS HANDS AND THE SPEAR HOLE IN HIS HEART. You can read all that in any book titled THE DA VINCI code. I have
two books here, BREAKING THE DA VINCI CODE by DARRELL L. BOCK, PH.D. And
CRACKING DA VINCI'S CODE by JAMES L. GARLOW and PETER JONES. Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Remember in the Bible how Paul admonished Thomas Aquinas for preaching falsehoods? He was preaching Atheism and Agnosticism including that Mary was not a Virgin at Jesus birth. There
are lot of things we don't know because the ROMAN CHURCH (CATHOLIC) as
it is now called suppressed heaps of old writings from the public because they called it heretical. Those things are gradually re-surfacing lately. Like the Goddess Kali the Greeks used to worship,
Catholic church in the Philippines have transformed her to KALI-BUTAN a
male god of fertility that they all pray to. There are published prayer
books full of prayers venerating KALI-BUTAN. 28/6/2009.

Thomas Aquinas was in the bible and also lived 3000 years later as a Catholic theologian? Wow, you blew my mind!

"The Atheist teachings", indeed. It's a laugh-riot with you types, but you should all know that there are no "atheist teachings". Not believing in fairytales is just a reasonable conclusion we've come to as a result of having to listen to your endless claptrap. In fact, the more you spout inanities, the stronger our case looks to those who are on the fence. So thanks for all the "converts" and don't go changin'!

Thomas Aquinas was in the bible and also lived 3000 years later as a Catholic theologian? Wow, you blew my mind!

"The Atheist teachings", indeed. It's a laugh-riot with you types, but you should all know that there are no "atheist teachings". Not believing in fairytales is just a reasonable conclusion we've come to as a result of having to listen to your endless claptrap. In fact, the more you spout inanities, the stronger our case looks to those who are on the fence. So thanks for all the "converts" and don't go changin'!

Even the Catholic church admits now that Thomas was a doubter and teaching wrong. Doubting Thomas of which there are many. While doing my Catholic course, the Catholic church in answer to my question about Thomas Aquinas being an atheistic teacher admitted that he was. They tend to say that Thomas Aquinas was the same Doubting Thomas as in the Bible. Further to it, what you say Rayomatic is impossible. You are saying that Thomas Aquinas of the Bible lived 3,000 years after as a Catholic, who are you fooling? because 3,000 years after Jesus Christ has not yet come. It has been only 2,000 plus the last century of hundred years so what you are saying is a lie. 28/6/2009.

Even most Catholics don't care what the CC 'admits' or not...so why should I? But let's pretend:

The Catholic church admitted that Thomas Aquinas was an atheistic teacher? That's news, because they also made him a saint ages ago. Does that mean I've still got a chance at beatification? Awesome.

Though I find it hard to believe the CC "tends" to say their St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the middle ages, is the same Doubting Thomas as in the bible (At least in the real world, not the one that only exists inside your head. What's going on in there, anyways?).

As for the bible comment, the OT is estimated to date from around 2000 BCE, right? SO by 1200 AD, it was 3000 years old. Although admittedly, the Doubting Thomas bits were written later, in the NT. So ok, I have to concede that you're confusing 2 people who only lived 1000 years apart, not 3000 years. My bad!

pardon me if I am mistaken... but I thought reincarnation is a Buddhist/Taoist/Hindu belief? :P

Reincarnation used to be part of the Catholic teaching also but the church admitts they deliberately left it out as they did the Books Of
Apocrypha, parts of the Book of Ezekiel which they deemed inappropriate,
levitation of humans, psychic communication by using your subconscious mind. All these things were suppressed to protect the people. 28/6/2009.

This is a debate about atheism vs. belief in a divine intelligence, not a quibble over differences in religious doctrines. We're already aware that there are thousands of religious sects that disagree with one another over who-wrote-this and who-said-that. It's irrelevant to the issue.

You might want to bring your ideas to some Catholic discussion groups, where you're sure to get a reaction. Better yet, bring them up during a mass! (Too bad there's no Q&A period in the CC liturgy.)

While religious groups seemed to be split upon insignificant details of their religious history, it appears that atheists are the ones who can all find some common ground.

This is a debate about atheism vs. belief in a divine intelligence, not a quibble over differences in religious doctrines. We're already aware that there are thousands of religious sects that disagree with one another over who-wrote-this and who-said-that. It's irrelevant to the issue.

You might want to bring your ideas to some Catholic discussion groups, where you're sure to get a reaction. Better yet, bring them up during a mass! (Too bad there's no Q&A period in the CC liturgy.)

Orderliness is depicted by the human. Not the world around us.
First of all the universe is no way orderly. It's FUCKING CHAOTIC.
Just because we survived doesn't mean it's orderly, it's like running for an anarchist country and finding peace saying that the whole world is orderly, it's fucking stupid.

for example, my room is a constant mess.

I think there's been enough of that trash so give it up. 29/6/2009.

I think there's been enough of that trash so give it up. 29/6/2009.

Perhaps if bwinwright wants to be taken serious, he should stop declaring his opponents mentally ill, no matter how much he hates/ loves them at the same time.

Just saying.

This is insipid. Bwinright is just trying to get attention. It is working. Ignore it.

This is insipid. Bwinright is just trying to get attention. It is working. Ignore it.

WHY I CANNOT EXPRESS MY OPINION ABOUT GOD , I AM FREE THINKING , EDUCATED MAN AND I CANNOT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING BY GOD INTERVENTION OR MIRALCES .SO MANY CATHOLICS ATTACKS US BECAUSE OF OUR BELIEVES , I DONOT ATTEND TO CHURCH BECAUSE I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT ROLE IN HUMAN LIFE .WE DO NOT EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS IN PUBLIC , BUT WE HAVE TO DEFEND AGAINST CATHOLICS ATTACKING US.

Pfft, theism is mental illness. It's a powerful form of self-delusion.

Here's a very simple reason why Bwinright's claim that orderliness requires an intelligent designer is utterly false: The universe is not orderly. The universe is mostly full of empty space and "space junk". Why would a supreme all knowing being create a universe that is full of so many black holes, nothingness, asteroids, and planets that are incapable of sustaining any lifeforms.

And finally this kind of flawed thinking leads us to an infinite loop: if intelligent life requires an even more intelligent designer, then it's only logical that that designer required an even more intelligent designer, who required an even more intelligent designer, etc.

Theists often feel threatened by atheism because it would mean there's no afterlife- good people don't get a heaven and bad people don't go to hell, we all just die. But subconsciously many theists realize that agnosticism / atheism are based on logic and reason and the fairy tale of an all true all knowing and all powerful creator just doesn't hold up to even cursory scientific scrutiny.

schiz⋅o⋅phre⋅ni⋅a  [skit-suh-free-nee-uh, -freen-yuh]
–noun
1. Psychiatry. Also called dementia praecox. a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.


^^I.E. Believing in God, and talking to yourself while doing it.