To all atheists...?

Question

my fundy brethren....Once asked to explain origins without God, u accuses theists of appealing to the Gaps. Unfortunately this is circular logic which is based on presumption of atheism being true. Atheists could be accused of appealing to the Gaps,if there's God, over time our knowledge of Him will increase, and so theism will be once proven to be true. In this scenario all the attempts to disprove, or show that God is not needed, would be labeled as appealing to the Gaps in your knowledge of God. Ofcourse atheists will appeal to the trend,reality is increasingly explained by natural mechanisms. But is it? And which trend we will choose, life is much more complex than it was thought,what if this complexity is machine-like, not just any complexity? Sure science is great tool to explain reality, but only when it empirical. Historical sciences are much more ambigious. If God was once used to explain all gaps in knowledge, it it was obviously a mistake.Sometimes evolutionary biology is asked to explain how love for music evolved for example. This is somewhat unfair question to ask from biologists. Or is it?

ZERO-Wow, um--have u never read anything longer than a sentence?

ZERO-what "I'm actually suggesting" is that if reality is so mechanistic as atheists claim, if human behaviour can be explained just by chemicals in our brains and sexuality is explained by genes, the question is no longer unfair. This would mean that Darwinism is expected to explain something it was never supposed to,Darwinism was/is based on reductionism, and life being simple. Besides, it is almost funny when Evolutionists appeal to the Gaps by themselves "We don't know enough about evolution". Of course this argument can't be proven wrong,they can always appeal to the lack of knowledge, but still say that "we know that life evolved". Basically everything could be explained with "It evolved. End of discussion.". Funny. When Creationists are unable to explain how Adam was created, Evolutionists complain that Creationism is not science. Talking about double standards.Of course the argument could be reversed to mean "We don't know enough about design, but we know that life was designed

I've read Anna Karenina and the unabridged Les Miserables....even longer :-)

Answer 1

Wow..... um..... you want us to READ that big block of text? Ok, I'll try... but it would've been nice of you to break it into a few paragraphs. And to check your grammar. And capitalization.

Are you actually suggesting that filling a gap in our knowledge with facts and evidenced proof is the same thing as claiming "God did it" to fill a gap?

REALLY?? Or is this another joke? Please tell me it is....

*edit* I've read Jane Eyre... that book is really long!

*edit* I don't expect Darwinian Evolution to explain everything. I expect things like neuroscience, psychology, biology, etc to explain things that evolution doesn't specifically cover.

Evolution is tested. Evolution is verified. Evolution is predictive. If evolutionary theory is used to explain something we previously did not understand, it's because we DO understand evolution and can apply it where applicable. Why be mad about that? Now creationism... not testable, not verifiable, not predictive (unless you want to predict "God will do more stuff"). Applying pure speculation to a gap in our knowledge isn't quite the same as applying an evidenced truth.

Answer 2

I am an athiest simply because the science of evolution is more convincing to me than the idea of creationism. I also beleive now that so much pain has happened throughout the centuries that more and more people are starting to question why such a God would let such painful, distructive events happen to us.

I also beleive that humans are not any more special than any other creature or plant on this planet. In fact we do more evil than good. The animals and plants are not created just for humans. They are created for each other and humans are destroying their habitats with greed and overpopulation.

I don't have anything against those who do beleive in God. God is the explanation for the unknown. Things that people cannot imagine or comprehend.

God can also bring hope to people.

There is too much evil in the world for me to beleive that god could possibly exist. And this quote sums up why I don;t beleive in god.

"I prayed and prayed for a new bike, but never got one.....but then I figured out how god really worked, so I stole a bike and begged for forgiveness."


And the thing about music, various animals such as whales and birds also use song. The use of various pitches and syllables in birds especcially is used to show off against other males. Birds are also known to just sing for the fun of it as well. Whales also have songs, revised songs that change or lengthen over time.

The free will bit always gets me...humans have no more free will than any other animal, it is just that we have more options, more roads to go down, our lives are extremely complex and busy which to us seems like we can make choices.

I see my cat making choices every day. She'll sit there and you could almost see a bubble over her head saying "shall I sit on the chair or shall I sit on that comfy knee i see."

Answer 3

I think you've found a great argument here. Appealing to the gaps can and does go the other way. But I think you've found a good point and taken it too far. It seems (to me) as though many theists do seem to seek evidence against the theory of evolution, but are usually unable to provide substancial evidence in their favor. The reverse is not true here. Although Atheists do try to find evidence against the theory of creation or intelligent design, they also have been able to show evidence in favor of their own theory (not just evidence against a competing theory). This is why, despite the problems, I still have faith :) in the Evolution literature.

Regarding the fellow atheist above who does not believe in god because of all of the bad things that happen in the world-- consider this: perhaps all of the bad things that happen are meant as a test, or as a means for which we are to grow. A person whose mother died of cancer, whose father beat him, whose wife cheated on him, whose daughters were raped, and whose sons killed him may have gone through a lot of suffering. But perhaps that suffering shaped him into someone who can understand what people are capable of, who can understand the pain of others who have been in terrible situations, and who understands the vast amount of energy that is required in seeking out revenge, and the vast amount of energy but greater payoff that forgiveness requires. If I believed in God and heaven, these trials would make sense to me.

Answer 4

Any argument for god from design is a form of the logical fallacy "asserting the consequent". I is also quite unclear what you might mean by "knowledge" if it is not empirical (history is also based on evidence or it is not history). There is, then, no "gap" in the knowledge of god, but a complete lack of anything remotely plausable to pass as knowledge of any god at all. How can our knowledge of something we cannot say even exists increase, given that it has already been shown that no form of evidence would show that any god exists? (1)

Answer 5

There is evidence that music is related to language. An out-of-place chord triggers a part of the brain that recognizes correct syntax. Thus an appreciation of music could have arisen, at least in part, as a side-effect of the evolution of language.

Answer 6

I think Zero was actually complaining about the writing style.

Answer 7

Yes, it is, but I do disagree on some of what you said, it contradicted itself!! But yeah, I agree.

Answer 8

Wow. Did you realize that you're rambling incoherently?

Answer 9

Its love thy neighbor, not Judge thy neighbor.

Answer 10

That's way too much to read.