Most non-religious I’ve come across credit their existence to luck (or if you prefer— ‘chance’. But quite frankly you’d have to be in an privileged position to be posting here). Where as the religious credit their existence to some sort of divine plan.

Curious if there’s other views and if atheists see any benefit to viewing their existence as designed?

Myth121:
Most non-religious I’ve come across credit their existence to luck (or if you prefer— ‘chance’. But quite frankly you’d have to be in an privileged position to be posting here). Where as the religious credit their existence to some sort of divine plan.

Curious if there’s other views and if atheists see any benefit to viewing their existence as designed?

This horse has been beaten to death, what's the point of this thread?

Anyway my 2 cents, Atheism is a worldview that posits that there is no God. Most say it is because there is no objective proof of any God.

Atheists reject the notion of intelligent design , some say that they dont know and frankly dont care about things came to be. Others claim everything got here by chance.

However any atheist who believes in intelligent design is by definition a theist cos accepting intelligent design is acknowledgement of God or Gods.

Because the stories don't make any sense.

To understand why, you need to understand why humans create beings(robots) like themselves. Robots do not just appear by chance. They are created created for a reason.

Myth121:
Most non-religious I’ve come across credit their existence to luck (or if you prefer— ‘chance’. But quite frankly you’d have to be in an privileged position to be posting here). Where as the religious credit their existence to some sort of divine plan.

Curious if there’s other views and if atheists see any benefit to viewing their existence as designed?

why does a wolf exist?

let's start from there

Myth121:
Most non-religious I’ve come across credit their existence to luck (or if you prefer— ‘chance’. But quite frankly you’d have to be in an privileged position to be posting here). Where as the religious credit their existence to some sort of divine plan.

Curious if there’s other views and if atheists see any benefit to viewing their existence as designed?

You're asking a loaded question.

Assuming there is a purpose behind anythings existence implies it was "created" and imbued with that purpose from inception.

But that is still just an assumption. You need to provide objective evidence there actually was a creator/intent behind the thing in questions (a persons) creation.

Assuming intent where there is none, it's referred to as hyperactive agency detection and it's manifest because we evolved to favor type 1 errors in cognition, Michael Shermer expounds on the ethos of it here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AjLmU0Sfu4

So what are the effects of this? Cults, religions, UFO sightings, superstitions (black cats, friday 13th), crop circles, conspiracy theories, etc are manifestations of this mechanism.

Why these specific things? Because of the root of this primitive reflex (as shown in Shermers presentation) i.e. we have the predisposition to assume intent. The above are widespread enough, reasonably complex issues and shrouded in enough mystery to be thought provoking, just like lightning as a phenomena was in the past.

And it really is a primitive reflex. How do we know this? Because if you ask a toddler "why does that flower exist?" often times you'll get the response : "because it's pretty". In other words they're assigning agency and assuming the flower was intentionally created so they could find it pretty.

But it gets worse, when you add in the cultural aspect of today's societies (particularly typical education systems). How? Well today's schools equate "not knowing" to "being wrong". Consequently people are forced to answer, but cannot afford to be wrong, so what happens? Subjectivity (opinion, even without evidence / reason) becomes accepted as a form of correctness (political / social / etc).

An interesting thought experiment on this subject is Douglas Adams, sentient puddle:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs

TL;DR Do i think there is a preordained purpose behind my existence? Nope. The only thing that could be inherent as a purpose of "life" is to create more life.

Would there be any advantages for the "ID" model? Other than lazyness / ability to hold apathy, none that i can see. It's like if you were born into a state of "perfect" communism, everything is decided for you (education, job, family, etc) and as long as you stick with the plan you don't have to care about anything.

XxSabrinaxX:

You're asking a loaded question.

Assuming there is a purpose behind anythings existence implies it was "created" and imbued with that purpose from inception.

But that is still just an assumption. You need to provide objective evidence there actually was a creator/intent behind the thing in questions (a persons) creation.

Assuming intent where there is none, it's referred to as hyperactive agency detection and it's manifest because we evolved to favor type 1 errors in cognition, Michael Shermer expounds on the ethos of it here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AjLmU0Sfu4

So what are the effects of this? Cults, religions, UFO sightings, superstitions (black cats, friday 13th), crop circles, conspiracy theories, etc are manifestations of this mechanism.

Why these specific things? Because of the root of this primitive reflex (as shown in Shermers presentation) i.e. we have the predisposition to assume intent. The above are widespread enough, reasonably complex issues and shrouded in enough mystery to be thought provoking, just like lightning as a phenomena was in the past.

And it really is a primitive reflex. How do we know this? Because if you ask a toddler "why does that flower exist?" often times you'll get the response : "because it's pretty". In other words they're assigning agency and assuming the flower was intentionally created so they could find it pretty.

But it gets worse, when you add in the cultural aspect of today's societies (particularly typical education systems). How? Well today's schools equate "not knowing" to "being wrong". Consequently people are forced to answer, but cannot afford to be wrong, so what happens? Subjectivity (opinion, even without evidence / reason) becomes accepted as a form of correctness (political / social / etc).

An interesting thought experiment on this subject is Douglas Adams, sentient puddle:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs

TL;DR Do i think there is a preordained purpose behind my existence? Nope. The only thing that could be inherent as a purpose of "life" is to create more life.

Would there be any advantages for the "ID" model? Other than lazyness / ability to hold apathy, none that i can see. It's like if you were born into a state of "perfect" communism, everything is decided for you (education, job, family, etc) and as long as you stick with the plan you don't have to care about anything.

How does 'why' imply intent? Chance isn't a product of intent.

Can you expand on your conclusion of lazyness and apathy? Religion nearly universally promotes discipline and involvement. Concluding life is just a random bag of tricks with no free will involved seems much more conducive to lazyness and apathy. The given metaphor doesn’t have a choice besides apathy.

Myth121:

How does 'why' imply intent?

My initial response isn't enough? Try reading it carefully again in full? I realize you cherrypick bits of the bible to suit what has parity in modernity, but that's no real excuse.

Myth121:
Chance isn't a product of intent.

You do realize you're saying god doesn't exist because chance does... right?

Myth121:
Can you expand on your conclusion of lazyness and apathy? Religion nearly universally promotes discipline and involvement.

No it doesn't. Example?

When ever there's a homicide regarding guns in the US for instance, what do you hear all over the place? "Thoughts and prayers"... Has anything actually been done to rectify the situation by those people? Nope.

Why? Because the mechanism that promotes this behavior (i.e. religion) proclaims that (wishful) thinking / prayer with no action, is actually doing something / can bring about change in reality.

This is axiomatically false. I can dream all day about having $1 billion, it gets me no closer to actually possessing that wealth.

Furthermore it gets worse, because the people think prayer works / has an effect, they're less likely to do anything to actually do anything that helps, it's a double edged sword i.e. "i've given thought's and prayers / done my bit, that's enough".

Wishful thinking / prayer is just the mechanism of cognitive dissonance people engage when they don't want to feel guilty about doing nothing. It stems from a primitive cultural practice of "scapegoating" (as does the story of Jesus of Nazareth).

Myth121:
Concluding life is just a random bag of tricks with no free will involved seems much more conducive to lazyness and apathy. The given metaphor doesn’t have a choice besides apathy.

Again you're strawmaning that i said life is random / down to chance, and i never said any such thing.

Just because we don't "have a purpose" when we're born doesn't mean we can't decide on one ourselves, that is the free will you're looking for and while it is possible for people to be apathetic, it's axiomatic that people prefer to find out what they/has value (which requires time / study) and work towards goals with respect to them.

XxSabrinaxX:

You do realize you're saying god doesn't exist because chance does... right?

Not really, but regardless I'm responding to your claim that I'm asking a loaded question. I've re-read your comment I still don't see where I'm implying intent.

XxSabrinaxX:
No it doesn't. Example?

Obedience and patience are virtues and evangelization is heavily promoted in Christianity. I'm actually really annoyed that you would claim that discipline and involvement aren't promoted in religion-- that suggests ignorance or denial on the subject. Religious charities always respond to tragedy. Prayer is only sufficient to the helpless.

@op,

Who are the atheists that you met that according to you, claim that they are a product of chance and luck(lucky dube)?

Niflheim:
@op,

Who are the atheists that you met that according to you, claim that they are a product of chance and luck(lucky dune)?

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Myth121:

Not really

Yes really, if god exists and is omniscient, omnipresent and intervening as most religions assert, then chance cannot exist because everything is dancing in gods palm.

By acknowledging chance exists, you are therefore claiming god is not all powerful? In which case why accept the the bullshit that it is all powerful?

Pick one.

Myth121:
I'm responding to your claim that I'm asking a loaded question. I've re-read your comment I still don't see where I'm implying intent.

You are aware of what a loaded question is right? It's a question with a false/disputed presupposition e.g.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which implies "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which implies "I am still beating my wife."

Likewise when you ask "Why do you exist?". The presupposition in dispute here is the why i.e. there is some externally derived reason for your existence i.e. in the context of this discussion presumably this would be assigned by "god"? Thus god has "intent" with regards to your creation / existence. The question is loaded because of the potential responses:
1. "I exist because..." implying there is an externally imbued reason to exist i.e. you were "created with intent".
2. "I do not exist because..." implying hard solipsism.

Obviously most atheists are not going to respond with the latter, because we accept reality as a reasonable presupposition. Thus it's an attempt to strong arm people into answering in a way that you want. If you were being genuine you could have said "What purpose have you found in your life?"

I don't know how to make it simpler than that.

Myth121:
Obedience and patience are virtues and evangelization is heavily promoted in Christianity.

* Obedience... never question.
* Patience... remain content in ignorance. Combined with the former would conclude with "fundamentalism".
* Virtues... Homophobia, Slavery, Genocide, Incest, Arguments from ignorance (lying) is preferable to saying "i don't know"; to name a few.
* Evangelization... basically means proselytizing, keeping your fellow theists in line, etc. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Myth121:
I'm actually really annoyed that you would claim that discipline and involvement aren't promoted in religion-- that suggests ignorance or denial on the subject.

I was Christian till i was about 15-16, which is when i started asking questions, i stopped giving a shit around then but i didn't self identify as atheist until 3 years ago (didn't even know what it meant). Ironically I and many atheists probably know the bible / religion better than most Christians... hence why we're atheists.

Myth121:
Religious charities always respond to tragedy. Prayer is only sufficient to the helpless.

Charities (religious or no) respond to tragedy, in which case there is no point in appealing to this as an argument. Clearly people can be humanists regardless of their theistic standing.

@op,

Why would I believe in the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang a belief?!!!

The Big Bang is backed by evidence, so there is no need to believe in it!!!

XxSabrinaxX:

Yes really, if god exists and is omniscient, omnipresent and intervening as most religions assert, then chance cannot exist because everything is dancing in gods palm.

By acknowledging chance exists, you are therefore claiming god is not all powerful? In which case why accept the the bullshit that it is all powerful?

Pick one.




You are aware of what a loaded question is right? It's a question with a false/disputed presupposition e.g.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which implies "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which implies "I am still beating my wife."

Likewise when you ask "Why do you exist?". The presupposition in dispute here is the why i.e. there is some externally derived reason for your existence i.e. in the context of this discussion presumably this would be assigned by "god"? Thus god has "intent" with regards to your creation / existence. The question is loaded because of the potential responses:
1. "I exist because..." implying there is an externally imbued reason to exist i.e. you were "created with intent".
2. "I do not exist because..." implying hard solipsism.

Obviously most atheists are not going to respond with the latter, because we accept reality as a reasonable presupposition. Thus it's an attempt to strong arm people into answering in a way that you want. If you were being genuine you could have said "What purpose have you found in your life?"

I don't know how to make it simpler than that.




* Obedience... never question.
* Patience... remain content in ignorance. Combined with the former would conclude with "fundamentalism".
* Virtues... Homophobia, Slavery, Genocide, Incest, Arguments from ignorance (lying) is preferable to saying "i don't know"; to name a few.
* Evangelization... basically means proselytizing, keeping your fellow theists in line, etc. Correct me if i'm wrong.



I was Christian till i was about 15-16, which is when i started asking questions, i stopped giving a shit around then but i didn't self identify as atheist until 3 years ago (didn't even know what it meant). Ironically I and many atheists probably know the bible / religion better than most Christians... hence why we're atheists.




Charities (religious or no) respond to tragedy, in which case there is no point in appealing to this as an argument. Clearly people can be humanists regardless of their theistic standing.

Again. If chance and God cannot coexist— wouldn’t that make this not a presuppositional question if that’s a possible answer.

You don’t know what a virtue or evangelization is.

Myth121:

Again. If chance and God cannot coexist— wouldn’t that make this not a presuppositional question if that’s a possible answer.

You don’t know what a virtue or evangelization is.

[img]https://media1./images/fdeecab83731ae6967686b3637db3880/tenor.gif[/img]
Please define both in a context that contradicts any of my previous elaboration.

Niflheim:
@op,

Why would I believe in the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang a belief?!!!

The Big Bang is backed by evidence, so there is no need to believe in it!!!

If you feel there is 100% evidence backing the Big Bang, that's fine. However, I'd love to here you explain how nothing suddenly produces something. Anyways, I'm just discussing the causes and benefits for accepting intelligent design.

Niflheim:
@op,

Why would I believe in the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang a belief?!!!

The Big Bang is backed by evidence, so there is no need to believe in it!!!

If you feel there is 100% evidence backing the Big Bang, that's fine. However, I'd love to hear you explain how nothing suddenly produces something. Anyways, I'm just discussing the causes and benefits for accepting intelligent design.

Myth121:

If you feel there is 100% evidence backing the Big Bang, that's fine. However, I'd love to hear you explain how nothing suddenly produces something. Anyways, I'm just discussing the causes and benefits for accepting intelligent design.

Intelligent design? Okay. Do you believe there are any benefits? Why or why not? Your OP doesn't really say anything to that effect.

XxSabrinaxX:

Intelligent design? Okay. Do you believe there are any benefits? Why or why not? Your OP doesn't really say anything to that effect.

I do. I think an all-encompassing shared purpose is beneficial to humanity. That’s rather broad so I stated the difference of opinions I perceive and said what I’m curious to hear about from an atheists perspective.

Myth121:

I do. I think an all-encompassing shared purpose is beneficial to humanity. That’s rather broad so I stated the difference of opinions I perceive and said what I’m curious to hear about from an atheists perspective.

You think that an all-encompassing purpose is beneficial to humanity, but what happens when not everyone shares the purpose you believe they should have? Historically, the answer is conflict.

You see, the idea that everyone should share the same belief is one rooted in the desire for war, not peace. "If they're not with us, they're against us" is a common trait of this sort of thinking.

Why do you suppose Religions want to spread the idea that an all-encompassing shared purpose is the "right" way to do things? I think, perhaps, that it is a good way to motivate men to do things they would not normally do if they simply accepted that all people are individuals with different ideas and different experiences.

Could we not all live together more peacefully if we simply accept that there is no all-encompassing shared purpose but that we all have a purpose that is our own and should be respected as so? I believe so.

@op,

ERROR NUMBER 1: I do not feel that there is evidence, the evidence is already there!!!

ERROR NUMBER 2: Do you know what a SIGMA-5 means in physics? It stands for something that is backed by 99.995% evidence!!! The Big Bang in physics is labelled SIGMA-5!!!

ERROR NUMBER 3: There is no such thing as "nothing", so the Universe could not have risen from nothing!!!

ERROR NUMBER 4: The only benefit of accepting intelligent design is passing on "imbecility" to future generations!!!

ERROR NUMBER 5: How can Intelligent design have a cause? This is like saying that buttocks eating vampires have a cause!!! As long as buttocks eating vampires do not exist, they can never have a cause in the first place!!!

XxSabrinaxX:

You think that an all-encompassing purpose is beneficial to humanity, but what happens when not everyone shares the purpose you believe they should have? Historically, the answer is conflict.

You see, the idea that everyone should share the same belief is one rooted in the desire for war, not peace. "If they're not with us, they're against us" is a common trait of this sort of thinking.

Why do you suppose Religions want to spread the idea that an all-encompassing shared purpose is the "right" way to do things? I think, perhaps, that it is a good way to motivate men to do things they would not normally do if they simply accepted that all people are individuals with different ideas and different experiences.

Could we not all live together more peacefully if we simply accept that there is no all-encompassing shared purpose but that we all have a purpose that is our own and should be respected as so? I believe so.

Conflict and competition are necessary for human development.

Myth121:

Conflict and competition are necessary for human development.

Human development is not necessarily contingent on competition and conflict at all.
Quite to the contrary, group cooperation and diplomacy have become an invaluable survival tool from our hunter-gatherer days up to the Cuban Missile Crisis and beyond.
Never once has competition and conflict solved more problems than it caused.
There has never been a war that saved more lives than it stole.

You have done nothing to back the assertion that things are such a way you say they are, and so I dismiss your claim without needing to know anything more about "human development" than you do.

Why don't you cough up some evidence that the connection you're making between those three phenomena is just as inextricably linked as you say it is? Something we can measure, a prediction we can test, something you can put in your mouth and eat?

Frankly, I think you're acting like someone who thinks fist fighting is the height of masculinity.
What ever happened to the meek inheriting the earth? Did you forget that part?

Niflheim:
@op,

Why would I believe in the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang a belief?!!!

The Big Bang is backed by evidence, so there is no need to believe in it!!!

What are the "evidences"?
Why then is it called a theory?