Atheists, Deists, and Intelligent Design

[mako]

This morning, I saw a re-run of an exchange between a couple of Christian evangelists (Kirk Cameron was the only one I recognized) and two Atheists on the subject of “Does God Exist”. Kirk tried the normal fundamental Christian attempt to call Evolution a “fairy tale for intellectuals” and gave the standard tired Intelligent Design arguments, such as the complexity of the eye (which really doesn’t prove Intelligent Design merely shows the complexity of life). As a Deist, I do believe in a Creator, but unlike the revealed organized religions, I do not attempt to enclose this Creator into a box (I think that is an charge IamSon leveled the other day) by assigning him such human failings as jealousy, anger and yes, even fear (fear of rejection seems to predicate extreme violence by their deity against those rejecting him). I do not assign him such foibles as lack of understanding of the universe he created (his Word given to man includes such things as 4 legged insects, mammalian birds, flat circular earth with four corners, covered by a dome of the heavens with stars stuck to it) or the lack of foresight in placing the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” where his most recent creations could get to it and eat of it. Full well aware that these creatures had no concept of evil or the consequences of disobeying a divine order! Only a severely limited entity would pull such a bone-headed stunt, well unless it was done to give him a reason to torment and torture these creatures and all of their descendants for all of perpetuity.

Instead, I see a Creator that has assigned us true and total “Free Will”, not that free will with strings attached that the Christian deity seems to have given his followers. I see faint evidence of the possibility of life after death, but see nothing that indicates we must meet certain standards to achieve this “otherworldly” life. I see evidence of a loving Creator. Just look at the delicate and intricate interweaving of the natural laws, the physical aspects of the universe and all life. The very “user friendliness” of our planet, planetary system, galaxy and universe tells the that the very possibility of a Creator is as likely as a “self-starting” universe (even with a self-starting universe, we a left with the question, “whence came the primeval “Big Bang”?), this is also true mathematically. The only problem that I have with the current Intelligent Design (other than the sheer lack of scientific knowledge on the part of it’s proponents) is that it is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific dressing for Christian Creationism. Its very raison d’etre is to push the Christian god, nothing more. It just attempts to do it by “sugar-coating” Creationism (with all it’s warts and scars) with a seemingly scientific explanation. As long as Intelligent Design is married to the Christian religion, it will remain at best an anemic theory, an attempt to pass off a Bronze Age religion as the truth, the sole truth.

To assign human emotions and foibles to the Creator (if he/she/it does indeed exist) is ludicrous. Any entity that can (through whatever mechanics) create universes is so far above us that the comparison between it and us is much akin to the comparison of us to a non-infectious virus! Why would such an entity desire communication with us? Why would this entity elevate us (out of the millions and billions of similar beings that are mathematically probable in this universe) to be his “chosen people”? The very thought boggles the mind of any thinking person. Now that I have exhausted the logic of the matter, I wish to say that I personally wish to have a caring Creator. Maybe not on the line of the Judeo-Christian god, but one that does care for all of his creations, even if he does not, for reasons of “Free Will”, interfere with them. As a Deist, I think I see some small fragile evidence for this, but nothing conclusive; just as the very existence or non-existence of a Creator is beyond proof. Then again, maybe I see this “evidence” because I wish to see this evidence. This I will freely admit, unlike most of those following revealed organized religions.

Atheists have told me that belief in the Creator is a “grievous fault”. And my answer is, “If ‘tis a grievous fault, then grievous shall I answer, when I toddle off to non-existence.” (to paraphrase the Bard). But until you can hand me very strong evidence that there is no Creator, I will continue my belief and study to universe in an attempt to understand the Creator and Creation. - Mako

[rev r]

Pardon the curiosity, when Diests speak of creation do you mean blinked into existence from a vacuum or do you include the possibility of this Creator being more of a Shaper?

Edited May 10, 2007 by rev r

[GoddessWhispers]

As an Atheist I can say I have never said to a believer it is a grievous fault that they believe. It is no one's right to tell someone of faith, that they are wrong for living their personal life , in faith. And it is never wrong for anyone to question what attempts to command the world, to believe.

Atheists simply choose not to accept the answer to randomness, is a god that people imagine themselves so grand as to warrant it's creation in their mythologies of creation. And then worship and praise it that they believe exists, as the answer for why they do.

One is never responsible for proving god does not exist. It is incumbent on those that do believe in such a thing, to prove they worship something other than their own imaginings of what qualifies as divine. Indeed, in the history of religion, that institution of god imagined and contained in a system, if there is a benevolence watching and knowing everything on earth, it would be hard pressed to be pleased at the real life horror humans have wrought against fellow human beings, so as to force others to accept the affirmation there is something super natural that cares about them. It's an odious messenger that levy's bigotry, hatred and violence, so as to make people believe god sent them to prove he exists and loves us.

"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us." Charles Bukowski

[truethat]

I think its ridiculous to scoff at the attributes that believers assign their God and then to go off deciding what attributes your personal version of God "really has"

Since I don't believe in God the entire post is sort of silly to me.

Like so:

"Some people on here like to say that God likes jelly beans. But I think that's nonsense. Because God wouldn't like sweets, he's a natural being and would only eat organic things, not processed sugar. I can't believe that people actually believe that God likes jelly beans! Scoff scoff scoff"

The only appropriate answer regarding any God theory about the origins of life is "We have no idea"

Anything else is utter rubbish. IMO.

[crtDzyn]

Interesting beliefs. I like your outlook mako.

I personally can't associate myself to a religion or even as Atheist. I often refer to myself as religiously unclaimed. I carry no concrete beliefs, but rather know what I don't believe. I don't believe there was a creator of everything. I don't believe in heaven or hell. I don't believe in praying. I don't believe in miracles. However, I am undecided as to whether there could be more to life than the sudden hault that death may be viewed as by Athiests. I am satisfied with the fact that I won't know until the time comes. If there was a magical way I could find out, I would probably doubt that it was reality and still question the fact afterwards.

How can anyone really know? I simply cannot buy into the beliefs of Christians and other religions. I refer to Christianity by name because I find it to be the least plausible in my mind. I feel that if there is more to life than we currently have proof of, I will find out when I die. Otherwise, I won't know the difference because I'll cease to exsist. But as my 'Earthly' self, I can't bring myself to claim a standard form of beliefs. It is unique to me and it is a little ridiculous to claim what I may want to believe, is truely the way things are. Life tends to have a way of straying from what we want, but more towards what we need. The only belief that I'll buy into is that I am in control of where I go to encounter these things and as long as that's the case, I'll make sure things work out for me. As for morals, I don't need a religion-based punishment/reward system to guide my life. I can manage that much on my own.

I guess I'm not really debating anything you have said about your beliefs, because I don't see the point in that. I respect the religions that others claim, because that is what works for them. Rather, I am simply sharing what works for me.

[mako]

Since I don't believe in God the entire post is sort of silly to me.

Yet you put others down for their scoffing at Christianity and disliking the practices persecution by Christians! LOL

[Shadow_Hill]

One is never responsible for proving god does not exist. It is incumbent on those that do believe in such a thing, to prove they worship something other than their own imaginings of what qualifies as divine.

I don't know about Mako, but I don't worship God. I respect his creation (as in, nature, mankind, etc). There is no defined concept of what God is for me - no God Person with a character that is something man can grasp.

Indeed, in the history of religion, that institution of god imagined and contained in a system, if there is a benevolence watching and knowing everything on earth, it would be hard pressed to be pleased at the real life horror humans have wrought against fellow human beings, so as to force others to accept the affirmation there is something super natural that cares about them. It's an odious messenger that levy's bigotry, hatred and violence, so as to make people believe god sent them to prove he exists and loves us.

I wouldn't know if he's pleased or not. Certainly it isn't pleasing to me. But Deists, as far as I'm aware, have not gone about forcing anyone to believe anything. We arrive at belief based in nature, reason, and personal experience. Someone else's experience, when it comes to the Creator, is of no use to us. There is no Deist collective, no one belief system which suits all, no inclination to go out and spread the word. We have no divine message to spread. "God is, and there it lies" (gosh darn it, who said that?).

I think its ridiculous to scoff at the attributes that believers assign their God and then to go off deciding what attributes your personal version of God "really has"

Who is scoffing at one lot of attributes and then assigning others? Deists don't assign attributes. The whole point is that God cannot be defined.

[mako]

Rather, I am simply sharing what works for me.

And it really isn't that far from what works for me. I appreciate your comments...

[truethat]

I do not attempt to enclose this Creator into a box (I think that is an charge IamSon leveled the other day) by assigning him such human failings as jealousy, anger and yes, even fear (fear of rejection seems to predicate extreme violence by their deity against those rejecting him).

Only a severely limited entity would pull such a bone-headed stunt, well unless it was done to give him a reason to torment and torture these creatures and all of their descendants for all of perpetuity.

Instead, I see a Creator that has assigned us true and total “Free Willâ€, not that free will with strings attached that the Christian deity seems to have given his followers. I see faint evidence of the possibility of life after death, but see nothing that indicates we must meet certain standards to achieve this “otherworldly†life. I see evidence of a loving Creator.

To assign human emotions and foibles to the Creator (if he/she/it does indeed exist) is ludicrous.

Any entity that can (through whatever mechanics) create universes is so far above us that the comparison between it and us is much akin to the comparison of us to a non-infectious virus!

I just find this whole argument ridiculous.

Edited May 10, 2007 by truethat

[Shadow_Hill]

The only problem that I have with the current Intelligent Design (other than the sheer lack of scientific knowledge on the part of it’s proponents) is that it is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific dressing for Christian Creationism. Its very raison d’etre is to push the Christian god, nothing more. It just attempts to do it by “sugar-coating†Creationism (with all it’s warts and scars) with a seemingly scientific explanation. As long as Intelligent Design is married to the Christian religion, it will remain at best an anemic theory, an attempt to pass off a Bronze Age religion as the truth, the sole truth.

Very true. I was reading about Phillip E. Johnson, the father of the intelligent design movement... he's not even pretending that the movement's aims are anything other than to turn us all into Christians:

"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus."

Edited May 10, 2007 by Shadow_Hill

[truethat]

Yet you put others down for their scoffing at Christianity and disliking the practices persecution by Christians! LOL

No I put down people who attack Christians. You can believe whatever you want. But when you are an attack dog towards Christians because you were picked on by Christians previously so you think that means you can pick on ALL Christians you are an abusive bully.

What persecution are you talking about? The times you were picked on as a kid?

I can't believe that you say you went to war and are still whining about being picked on as a kid.

I also think that the ID concepts were raised because Evolutionists used the fact that Evolution is a scientific theory in order to push their agenda on kids in the school system. They would not allow any criticism of Evolution to be taught in the classroom and were basically misleading kids to think it was a fact when it not a fact in regard to the origins of the species.

SO that's why ID got started and its why they wanted to "win" to prove it as a science.

Edited May 10, 2007 by truethat

[mako]

I just find this whole argument ridiculous.

Your privilege...As Shadow Hill stated, we do not force our beliefs on others. I only stated them to clarify what many of us believe. If you don't agree, then as Mother of four said, "Move on".

I don't worship God. I respect his creation (as in, nature, mankind, etc). There is no defined concept of what God is for me

I agree 100% with that statement.

But Deists, as far as I'm aware, have not gone about forcing anyone to believe anything. We arrive at belief based in nature, reason, and personal experience.

When debating other Theists, I like to point out that we are the only religion that has never forced our religion on others, especially by force of arms. That we have never used our religion to enslave others, to steal their land or destoy their culture. Too often this has been done by Christian missionaries. An African Chief once stated, " The white man came and taught us to look up at his God and while we were looking up, he stole our lands and beggared our people." This is not something that can be laid at the door of Deism.

Who is scoffing at one lot of attributes and then assigning others? Deists don't assign attributes. The whole point is that God cannot be defined.

I was pointing out how ludicrous it was to assigning attributes to the unknowable. As you said, we don't assign attributes, rather we try to understand the Creator through his creation.

Aside to Goddess - Not all Atheists are as polite as you (as evidenced by some of the comments here) just as not all Deists are as polite as Shadow_Hill. I am known for calling a spade a spade if the occassion warrants it.

[mako]

you can pick on ALL Christians you are an abusive bully.

I pick on only those that warrant it, through their arrogance and sheer ignorance. All others I respect - ask Irish, Jor-el, PA, SomethingLikeLaughter, etc. I pick on arrogance, be it Christian, Deist, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic or ATHEIST! If that makes me a bully, then so be it...although I will admit that more times than not, it is like having a gun fight with an unarmed man! I at least do not stand back and criticize over and over in a litany of arrogance! LOL

[RamboIII]

I think its ridiculous to scoff at the attributes that believers assign their God and then to go off deciding what attributes your personal version of God "really has"

Since I don't believe in God the entire post is sort of silly to me.

Like so:

"Some people on here like to say that God likes jelly beans. But I think that's nonsense. Because God wouldn't like sweets, he's a natural being and would only eat organic things, not processed sugar. I can't believe that people actually believe that God likes jelly beans! Scoff scoff scoff"

The only appropriate answer regarding any God theory about the origins of life is "We have no idea"

Anything else is utter rubbish. IMO.

Scoff, scoff.

[truethat]

I pick on only those that warrant it, through their arrogance and sheer ignorance. All others I respect - ask Irish, Jor-el, PA, SomethingLikeLaughter, etc. I pick on arrogance, be it Christian, Deist, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic or ATHEIST! If that makes me a bully, then so be it...although I will admit that more times than not, it is like having a gun fight with an unarmed man! I at least do not stand back and criticize over and over in a litany of arrogance! LOL

Thank you for admitting you are a bully. They say we become the thing in life that we most resent. So I think this speaks buckets to me about you and your intent.

IamsSon is neither arrogant or ignorant. He absolutely isn't those things and so your argument falters and fails.

You don't have a right to pick on people just because you've made this neat parameter which dictates which people are worthy of your respect.

That's just warped.

[hairston630]

Just thought Id drop in and say hey to everyone!....Havent been in here for a while but seems things are right where I left off when I last posted....anywho I have a vid of an interview by lee strobel with Dr Antony Flew, which whom is considered by many the greatest atheist philosopher that ever lived. He rejected his atheism and took a Deist position but is appearing to take an even further approach with the subject. Heres the link http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christ/strobelT2037.htm and hopefully this will contribute to the original thread of the my friend the great mako

~Hairston

[GoddessWhispers]

". . . the opinions and beliefs of men . . . follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds."

Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps it's a matter of ignorance as to what Deism is, that makes scoffing easier for want of understanding. Deism.Com

[mako]

Thank you for admitting you are a bully.

Okay, you can call me a bully and I will call you arrogant and a jerk...sounds like a fair trade to me. Especially since the old timers here know the truth....

[truethat]

I understand Deism. I was Deist for a while. But its just another way of trying to know the unknowable. A way of chopping it up into bite sized bits.

I don't feel the need to know. To me freedom to say "I don't know" is something most people don't understand.

Why do we so need to feel the need to know, that we will make up answers and give them credence?

I see it as a coping mechanism. I just think its silly for Deists to think they are any different than any other Theist religion out there. Its just making stuff up to try to cope with the fact that you don't know.

[truethat]

Okay, you can call me a bully and I will call you arrogant and a jerk...sounds like a fair trade to me. Especially since the old timers here know the truth....

Cool, I can take "arrogant" and "jerk" and you can keep the "old timers" and their truth because I'm not interested nor impressed in your "clique"

[mako]

Perhaps it's a matter of ignorance as to what Deism is, that makes scoffing easier for want of understanding. Deism.Com

Thanks Goddess...here are three that are a touch less "militant" (that isn't really a good term, but the only one that comes to mind):

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm

http://www.dynamicdeism.org/

http://www.positivedeism.com/

Hey hairston630, missed ya mate. What's going on? You shoulda been here, Jor-el, Seanph and I just had a really good debate, I think we all learned something from each other...isn't that what debates are about?

[truethat]

From your site

The Enlightenment endeavor to purify Christianity, to rid religion of all that was not rational, natural, and moral, and develop a natural religion. An international movement, Deism reflected local religious, philosophical, and social expressions of the Enlightenment. In England, it was critically concerned with the origins of religion, but positive in moral and religious affirmation; in France it was anti-Catholic, shading into skepticism, atheism, and materialism; in Germany it was championed alongside nationalist metaphysics and historical criticism; in America it embraced a revolutionary creed... Though indebted to various European cultural developments, Deism was particularly an early eighteenth century English affair. Important literary productions included John Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity (1695)... and Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as Creation (1730). "

I always think its funny how you tout that Deists have never persecuted anyone nor have been responsible for deaths.

I guess the French and American Revolutions are easy to over look but a large part of the bloodshed that took place during these times was a push to have Deism become the reigning religion.

Edited May 10, 2007 by truethat

[GoddessWhispers]

Thanks Goddess...here are three that are a touch less "militant" (that isn't really a good term, but the only one that comes to mind):

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm

http://www.dynamicdeism.org/

http://www.positivedeism.com/

Hey hairston630, missed ya mate. What's going on? You shoulda been here, Jor-el, Seanph and I just had a really good debate, I think we all learned something from each other...isn't that what debates are about?

OOpsie! I didn't realize there was such a thing as militant Deists. Thanks for the links Mako. Your links add additional flavor to the learning environment, I think. My link appeals to the uppity, yours to the more , shall we say, sedate and non-uppity.

[hairston630]

Thanks Goddess...here are three that are a touch less "militant" (that isn't really a good term, but the only one that comes to mind):

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm

http://www.dynamicdeism.org/

http://www.positivedeism.com/

Hey hairston630, missed ya mate. What's going on? You shoulda been here, Jor-el, Seanph and I just had a really good debate, I think we all learned something from each other...isn't that what debates are about?

Ahh ive been working my butt off here at work : / ......What was the discussion you mention between Jor-el and Seanph?

[Shadow_Hill]

I understand Deism. I was Deist for a while. But its just another way of trying to know the unknowable. A way of chopping it up into bite sized bits.

What little bits? There are no bits. We don't attempt to know the unknowable. You say you understand Deism but demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what it is to be a Deist.

I don't feel the need to know. To me freedom to say "I don't know" is something most people don't understand.

As a Deist, I do not claim to know anything with regards to the Creator. Why do you assume we cannot say we don't know?

I see it as a coping mechanism. I just think its silly for Deists to think they are any different than any other Theist religion out there. Its just making stuff up to try to cope with the fact that you don't know.

You're entitled to see it any way you like I suppose. What are we making up exactly?