"The western "scientific" materialist worldview couldn't be more alien to being human. I go so far as to call it anti-human. It is like knowing a tree by chopping it down and counting its rings."
There's nothing about the origin of humanity that requires magic as an explanation you Silly. God doesn't explain human origins, and fails as an explanation for anything else. So one can dive very little into the technical details of evolutionary theory to understand that supernatural intervention isn't required for human origins.
The point is that through the process of wanting to understand the world as it is, god becomes less and less necessary as an explanation for things.
"The moment you claim there is no need for 'supernatural intervention' you've injected your own opinion."Actually my friend, that's simply a statement of fact. Nothing about what we know about the universe actually indicates there is a god. I argue that reserving belief in such things is more reasonable than belief without reservation. So atheism occurs naturally when one is being reasonable.
"Materials, recipes and processes are associated with agency/intelligenc"Recipes, yeah sure there is some association. But the materials and processes, these are things that occur naturally.
"I think if you look again, and consider that processes are associated with intelligence God becomes more and more necessary as an explanation for why anything occurs at all and why inanimate forces including energy acts as an intelligent operation. .Don't give me the old "God of the gaps" baloney either lol, the correlation is much more than guesswork, no one has to guess because there's strong indication. When you consider that mixed the abundant supply of spiritual observations we have a damn good shot at being correct."Haha, then don't give ME that god of the gaps baloney either. The correlation is just a correlation, not causation. These spiritual observations, how are they evidence of a god?
Evolutionary theory is a model that describes how life diversifies. That's not an "interpretation", that's just a description of reality.
Actually my friend, that's simply a statement of fact.
Nothing about what we know about the universe actually indicates there is a god.
I argue that reserving belief in such things is more reasonable than belief without reservation. So atheism occurs naturally when one is being reasonable.
There has simply never been a demonstrated event of supernatural intervention, so why assume it's so?
The correlation is just a correlation, not causation.
These spiritual observations, how are they evidence of a god?
You are reading intelligence into processes
so you can draw the false analogy to god creating things intelligently.
How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?
"What I mean is that the theory does not necessarily suppose materialism or atheism..."
"Not so, it's an assumption."
"'Nothing about what we know about the universe actually indicates there is a god.'That's an opinion, I gave you the alternative interpretation."
"No, atheism is not a neutral position nor is it any more reasonable than a theistic interpretation. Atheism is an interpretation and one that requires a positive assertion. This is why I made the argument I made."
"The very products of what the universe produces through processes is the demonstration, or better put interpretation. It's commonsense really, even though it's an interpretation because we know from our own observations that inanimate materials don't construct things on their accord. Bricks don't build houses, logs don't build cabins, metal and electrical components don't build automobiles ect ect...there is always a constructor of a construction, a builder for buildings, a producer for productions, a manufacturer for manufacturing ect ect.."
"You have to be aware of how evidence is defined and what constitutes evidence."
"'How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?'I'll let you think on that for a bit lol. "
TO do so - is an example of someone who has not actually thought through her position but someone who has just jumped in by "blind faith".
"God is Dead" is a widely quoted statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God.
If God is alive, how come he doesn't go on the Jim Bakker Show and speak to the world from a burning bush?
The theory doesn't contain any fact that indicates anything other than materialistic causes. So it doesn't have to be an assumption if every fact indicates that material causes are driving the processes of evolution.
It's simply the case that there isn't any indication that supernatural intervention is needed to describe the processes of evolution. That doesn't require assumption, as it's a statement of fact.
God isn't an explanation of anything in the universe
unless you can describe the mechanism by which he intervenes in whatever he intervenes in in the universe. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume a superfluous agent in otherwise accurate descriptions of reality.
Nope, there are degrees of atheism.
Some assert that there is no god and that they can prove it, but i don't align with them.
I am simply relaying my thought process. Suppose I told you there was a magical elf that always stood behind you when you tried to look at him. Would you believe that without reservation, or would you reserve belief in the elf until some fact indicates its possible?
These inanimate objects listed do not possess the quality of being reproductive organisms. There are established mechanisms of evolution that describe how populations diversify. So why "interpret" agency onto otherwise material processes?
I define evidence as a body of facts that positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with, one conclusion above all others.
The point is that it isn't. Every argument for god I have ever encountered has had critical flaws.
TO do so - is an example of someone who has not actually thought through her position but someone who has just jumped in by "blind faith".It takes ZERO faith to NOT believe in something you've never seen or heard.How much faith does it take for you to NOT believe in the almighty NANABOZHO?
You are reading intelligence into processes so you can draw the false analogy to god creating things intelligently. How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?
It also dismantles your assertion that spending time arguing against something somehow indicates that I really really really believe in it.
You just want to define terms to make you have a non-faith.
theism is NOT a dogma or a creed.Atheism literally means "NOT a Theist".It's the same as calling yourself "NOT a space alien" or "NOT an champion swimmer".It isn't a description of what you ARE, but of what you are NOT.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "God".
