Evidence for God from Science

JackEvolution wrote:

StMonicaGuideMe wrote: No child of mine will ever have the message pounded into them that they were born for no reason, will die for no reason, what they do in life is meaningless, who and what they will love in life is meaningless, that what they leave behind doesn't matter, that there is no such thing as their legacy since we all are on our way to entropy, that they are easily replaceable, that they were born only because mommy and daddy are biological machines that made them do it, that love in of itself is an evolutionary process that made mommy and daddy do it, and in fact makes mommy and daddy "love" them and that when mommy and daddy die, they will never see us again.

THAT is the real child abuse and THAT is the message of atheism. It's disgusting.

You did exaggerate a lot but i get your point. Well that is the real world for you. From my point of view it looks like you use religion to turn a blind eye on whats really going on. That's what disgusts me. Sorry to put it that way so bluntly.

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

1995 Scientific American Article, “God’s Utility Function” [pp. 80 - 85]

Stu wrote:Well if it's abuse to teach your kid Christianity. I hate to think what this is
The Magic of Reality

On Youtube.

Of course if Dawkins was honest this is what he would say but it seems the real truth is not as palatable as the sugar-coated version....

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

1995 Scientific American Article, “God’s Utility Function” [pp. 80 - 85]

Murray wrote:It kind of goes both ways I suppose, atheist would HATE for us to call teaching of atheism child abuse, so they why should it be any different for them to call us that. Kind of a treat others the way you want to be treated type thing.

My big thing with vocal atheism, and athirst looking for converts is what does atheism offer? It's clear what Christianity offers, but what exactly does atheism? Freedom? From what? You don't think Christians have free thought? Free thought in Christianity is what caused the renaissance, and what causes division in theory's of creation.

spartanII wrote:Alright so this is what atheism has to hold to if there is no God.

There is no objective purpose to life. All things ever done on this planet, or this universe, or any other universe will be eventually destroyed once all the elements wear out and the universe and it's properties cease to exist.

So therefore, meaning in life is nothing more than an illusion.

If there is nothing like a spirit or some sort of immaterial property that inhibits us (fill in any religion, Buddhism/Hindiusm/Christianity) then there is no choice, ultimately.
The universe started by some means of universal laws/materials and every succeeding action has been a proceeding action of the Big Bang. Our brains are nothing more than a cage of materials that are governed by physical laws. Even if you could find the "conscientiousness" and "choice," that finding would be an illusion because your using the very thing in question, your brain. Atheists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker totally support this idea but would hate to release people from jail, even though they were bound by their chemicals to be there in the first place. Life is a simulation that we have no control over.

Life is just lead by the ancient chemicals, infinite luck, and blind processes.

Morals are an illusion too. Even if you could propose something like evolutionary psychology, there is nothing objectively wrong with not wanting to following that.


I don't understand how people can be atheists, nor do I understand how people can be agnostics and basically give atheists/theists a chance at being right. I think it's best to quote Frank Turek when he says "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."