And yet you are so willing to accept the supposed explanation of His - shall we say, very human - character.. from a book that isn't even as old as as some trees
Why is that idea so easy for you to accept, yet you have to wonder about the creation of the universe?
Nope- I was unwilling for most of my life. In fact my will still is a problem. And I never accepted an explanation. I believed in a person. The tree might be older but I'm not going to start praying to a tree and expect a reply. *edit* godisnowhere
I hope it doesn't get too rowdy in here. I just don't understand atheists. I'm not trying to attack them, I just don't understand. I thiink that the more we humans know in the way of science and our universe, the more we should realize that it wasn't just a chance that things turned out on this planet like they did without a higher being - God. Oh, and I think I have a little of your religion too and I'm in the human category too.
One can view the cosmos as a harmoniously functioning infinite whole without a creator and without chance. You say you can't understand that view, yet you say the same thing about your god.
I don't wonder about the creation of the universe. I believe that God said it and it happened. Bang. Big Bang? Maybe. Then I believe that God created life as we know it. And it has evolved some but chickens are still chickens. The idea of God always being without a beginning or end is something else I believe. I use time to try and grasp infinity. You could use our universe too though because even if you came to the end of the universe (if there was one), what's on the other side? What was in the space before the universe? My brain tries to relate things to make them easier to understand for me.
Atheists and Theists have trouble understanding each other because their brains are hard-wired differently. I just finished Pierre Schlag's "The Enchantment of Reason," and while he's critiquing the legal realm, it holds equally true here. Both sides are demanding that reason live up to a task it simply cannot. There is at some level, in every argument, a base of unthought that our thinking lies on. Just keep asking yourself 'why' you believe anything and you'll either stay up all night arguing with yourself or end the debate with "well I just do." Arguments about why one does or doesn't believe in God are really not that much different than arguments about whether one prefers vanilla or strawberry ice cream (we just attach more weight to the former than the latter).
You can accept the idea of an eternal god (no beginning or end) but can not fathom how others can accept an idea of an eternal cosmos.
A person who claimed to be God!! And did you even meet Him?? I am thoroughly not getting something here. Maybe I should ask my cosmic creator dog for answers
I meant the root ancestor as the origin of life. I get testy during Evolution debates when its credibility to the other person solely hinges upon the origin theory. My mistake. I don't have a book on me for specifics, but IIRC the common ancestor are single celled organisms that work in colonies. These colonies have special tasks that work like a multicellular being despite each organism having its own DNA. This would be around where plants we know of start to appear onto the earth. After a period when these plants hold abundance, there'd be rudimentary consumers that are the first animals. This is all offhand, so the information might not be as accurate as a class. There's evidence to support every branch on the tree of life and not all of it is based on DNA sequencing. They include cellular structure, embryological formation, physiological structure, and past fossil remains. A human to yeast comparison is a big leap, but it's a step by step process. The window outside holds millions of life forms that people, other than researchers, rarely know or see. The ideas and evolutionary theories that come from these organisms tend to be better than one imagined. Science can't outright claim God's existence, but it can totally be up to a person's interpretation. A politically motivated aversion to established science because of religion forces the two into a realm where they can't co-exist. To me, that's a big chunk of where the hostility comes from.
I am an atheist and I will attempt to answer some of the rhetorical questions that have been offered. Regarding the creation of life and the universe, I don't pretend to have any of the answers. Similarly, I would agree that there are forces at work behind the universe that we have yet to comprehend. However, I am atheist in the sense that I do not believe a sentient deity (or beings) is responsible for these forces. I can't prove I'm right any more than a religious person can prove he/she is right that a god is responsible for everything. We're both working on a gut feeling that comes from the little that we do know. I don't have any problem with anyone believing that there is a god behind everything. Regarding morality, I have no problem using the rules prescribed by any given religion as guidance for my own life. The difference is that I don't believe these rules were handed down by a god or supreme being. But I can recognize the logic and wisdom behind many of these laws and use them to help me live a moral life. On the other hand, I have greater freedom to question those laws that have dubious or outdated logic behind them. Ultimately, I don't think morality is even completely known, but an evolving understanding of what can make the best possible society of humans here on earth. I don't have a problem with someone attributing morality to god, but I think it's often very dangerous. For those of you who would say that I'm being morally arbitrary, I would probably agree, but I would also say that pretty much everyone is guilty of that to some degree or another. For example, the sixth commandment forbids the killing of another innocent human being and I would imagine just about every Christian in here would agree with this on the surface. However, you'd probably find a great deal of disagreement on what constitues innocence (and likewise guilt) and thus each person interprets this commandment based on their own understanding of innocence and guilt. Regarding the "there's no happy atheist" claim, it has been shown in studies that religious people tend to be happier. Of course, it's also been shown that highly intelligent people tend to be less happy than people of ordinary intellect. Does that mean that happiness is the ultimate indicator of correctness and that as long as we're happy, we're doing the right thing? Because not only does that indicate that we should all be dumb as possible, but it also crosses dangerously into hedonism which most people (even atheists) would be wary of. Like I said, I don't claim to have any answers. Just as religious people use their hearts and minds to decide which spiritual path to follow, my heart and mind has led me in a different direction.
Human nature? Your question goes to both the development of religion and science. If you are asking the question as in "what is the point?" then you are dismissing both.
it is called FAITH Faith does not require concrete explaination you may think it is stupid, ignorant or whatever but to those with Faith It is stupid to say you require and explaination then the explaination you get is full of holes, guesses and assumptions then you want to say they are fact It too . . is faith . . . The continuum of logic and facts to faith is a continual one I may have faith my wife's baby is mine but DNA Test would give me the facts of the matter 200 yrs ago . . a man when on faith now . .. he doesn't have too my beleif is simple as we go alone. . we will get more answers and more facts but we still have to have faith Knowing the ways and means of how a thing is done does not belittle the miracle. . .. Just because I know how to make a baby does not make it anything less than spectacular I think alot of people feel atheist and scientist try to minimize the greatest of things The earth is wondrous . .why try to make it nothing more than a listing of facts and figures. . it is more than that we are more than that the universe is more than that Rocket River
in both cases we have to accept that perhaps we cannot comprehend the beginning and the end like the Googleplex [end of numbers?] it is incomprehensible for us now. . but it will not always be so So Remember. . . Less than 1000 yrs ago some beleive the oceans had no end or and abrupt one Rocket River
from what i've learned from a few of my biology courses, life began from a soup of organic materials (carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, hydrogen, sulfur, etc.). from the miller-urey experiment, these group of chemicals simulated under an earth-like atmosphere and lightning yielded many of the basic building blocks of life without requiring life to create them first. this includes amino acids, purines and pyrimidines (composes the DNA structure), sugars, and other molecules. this is called chemical evolution. eventually these building blocks of life will form a membrane and make up a simple organism. then biological evolution takes place.
