Daniel V 
Member since Aug 12, 2010


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Inside the mind of one atheist

Steve, Manitou Springs says "can any one imagine nature producing a TV, or car, or the Internet without the hand and mind of man? No. Then how can any intellectual person believe DNA just
evolved?"

I agree, it does seem a stretch to think that anything as complex as DNA just evolved.

But we need to be careful here - what we are looking at today is highly developed DNA and highly complex organisms that have had the benefit of millions of years for the slow craftswork of evolution to work. It only takes minute random mutations to be slightly beneficial for any of those changes to be "racheted in" by nature and included in subsequent generations of an organism.

You have to be careful here - just because the understanding of a process is currently beyond our grasp, doesn't imply that a deity had to do it.

You suggest atheism is "intellectually lazy". I'd say that suggesting "God did it" is lazier still.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Daniel V on 08/13/2010 at 12:55 AM

Re: “Inside the mind of one atheist

As an atheist myself, I must respond to posts by Michael Woodson.

Firstly, atheism is not a belief. It is the ABSENCE of belief. Remember, whilst it is possible to LACK belief, it is not possible prove a negative.

To bring up an old saying "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling Bald a Hair Colour".

Michael also says "...believers see the same evidence as indicative of God."

Well, the fact that multiple people can look at the same evidence and see different interpretations is a human trait. The point is, would the evidence posited by believers stand up against scientific scrutiny? This seems difficult, if God is "beyond science" as you seem to suggest.

But what does it mean for something to be "supernatural"? Have we humans EVER encountered anything that would suggest is is "not part of the natural world"? If so, how would one ever CONFIRM such an assertion? To summarize, if phenomena X is beyond our current understanding, that doesn't make it SUPERnatural, it just means we don't YET understand it. By saying that "God is by definition, supernatural" you appear to be invoking magic.

Finally, you suggest that science is good for answering the questions of "How" and "when" but not the "Why", which you suggest religion or faith is good at.

But how do you VERIFY the conclusions that religion or faith itself comes to? How does one ever discard one hypothesis over another? What tools would one use to disprove one idea over another?

There is a reason that the phrase, "scientifically formulated" has always been a good marketing plot in advertising - Science works.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Daniel V on 08/12/2010 at 8:02 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation