If you beleive in cooks, you must believe in God - Ronald Reagan

[Dingbat]

“I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe there was a cook.” - Ronald Reagan

Atheists have not refuted Anselm so I'm not an atheist - Harold J Sala

Founder of Guidelines International Ministries

https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/

Have atheists responded to these?

[LL LL]





On Dec 7, 2022, at 8:29 PM, 'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Not sure any atheists want to waste their time on such inane questions. 

Assuming a cook has cooked a dinner is nothing like assuming a god created the universe.  We know cooks exist and we know they cook food. We have seen many cooks during our lives and have no doubt they exist. We also know that food does not get cooked on its own. We have objective evidence of cooks and cooked food and that cooks are responsible for cooked food. 

By the same token, we have never seen a god and if there is a god we have never known it to create anything. 

The fact that he can’t think of any other way the universe could have been formed or why humans are “moral” (by his standard) or that he can’t think of any meaning for life is his problem. It is not an atheist problem.  Such questions spring from years of religious indoctrination, not atheism. 

Atheism presents no explanations for the questions he can’t answer. Atheism is a disbelief in a god—a god that’s never been shown to exist, no matter how many unanswered questions theists have. The bottom line is that atheists don’t feel a need to make up answers to questions theists have.  Atheism has no doctrine to answer unanswered questions. Atheists are perfectly content to accept that we have no answers to inane theistic questions. 

L

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/817ecfcf-3c11-4105-be95-43b2112a4d46n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rupert]

My best theory about the world, constructed on the basis of experience, gives me pretty good reason to believe that well-prepared dinners have a human cook. There are a number of reasons why it doesn't necessarily follow that this universe must have had an intelligent creator. The disanalogies are pretty obvious, really. And the theory of evolution by natural selection plays an important role in helping us to understand how ecosystems could have come about from the operation of physical law without the intervention of any intelligence.

Suppose we grant Anselm the premise that we can conceive of a maximally perfect being and also that existence is a perfection. It's still clearly a logical fallacy to infer from the conjunction of those two that a maximally perfect being actually exists. It's a bit of a mystery why smart people put so much effort into thinking about this.

Going to your link, the bit about the beauty and majesty of creation is basically just an expression of incredulity about the idea that it could possibly exist without an intelligent creator. This shouldn't really carry any weight with anyone.

So yes, Dostoevsky said "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". But you see this isn't really true. Quite obviously, even if God does not exist, there are certain things that the legal system does not permit me to do, certain things that my wife does not permit me to do, and certain things that I would end up having a bad conscience if I did. Sure, you can always just do whatever is physically possible if you choose to as long as you're willing to not worry about consequences and also put aside any kind of moral qualms. But that's obviously the case, for the duration of your time on earth at least, whether there's a God or not. So really, how can you make any sense of Dostoevsky's remark? Or, as one might put it, if it's true that if there is no God then everything is permitted, then what difference does it make if we bring God into the picture? How could it *not* be true that everything is permitted? If God will punish those who defy his commands, then okay, if that were so then that would be part of the reality you face, just as one might say that when Winston Smith lived in the totalitarian regime of the novel "1984" the inevitability of the consequences of his rebellion against the Party was part of the reality that he faced too. But I mean, what's that got to do with anything? Is it some kind of point about meta-ethics?

"Atheism offers no standard of right or wrong, of truth or falsehood, and provides no answers to the questions of the searching heart."

Actually, the atheist has just as many resources to offer such things as the theist does. If you find that the answers on offer provided by atheists don't satisfy you for one reason or another, well I mean there it is, that's a problem you have. But you should equally acknowledge that some people are not satisfied with the answers provided by religion either because they find that their reason doesn't permit them to seriously entertain the idea that the teachings are true. So where's the asymmetry here?

"A belief in God alone answers the centuries-old questions of existence:  “Who am I?  Where did I come from and where do I go after I die?” "

An atheistic naturalistic outlook informed by our best science answers those questions too. It's just that you have this hang-up that you feel as though it would be a bit depressing to have to accept these answers.

All that this really amounts to is him confessing that he doesn't feel he has the resources to cope with getting through life without using theistic belief as a crutch. Some of us have what it takes to face reality.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:29:11 PM UTC-8 Dingbat wrote:

“I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe there was a cook.” - Ronald Reagan

Lois said an atheist would not waste time on such questions. You'd find it awkward to not answer the question when the President asks.

One possible answer:

Mr. President, that seems to be an argument that a single God made the Universe. One would expect a chef and several cooks to have cooked up such a dinner. So, Mr. President, it seems that you should believe that several gods cooked up the Universe. As for me, I haven't taken any position on where the Universe came from, since I'm not qualified to state a definitive opinion on the subject.

[LL LL]

On Dec 8, 2022, at 5:49 AM, 'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



I did answer to you, here. If I’d been aware of the question from Reagan at the time I probably would have spoken up. Your response is well written and succinct. 

Lois

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/8d038648-2efd-47e9-8378-9aaee31f264cn%40googlegroups.com.

[LL LL]

On Dec 8, 2022, at 4:59 AM, Rupert <rupertmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

My best theory about the world, constructed on the basis of experience, gives me pretty good reason to believe that well-prepared dinners have a human cook. There are a number of reasons why it doesn't necessarily follow that this universe must have had an intelligent creator. The disanalogies are pretty obvious, really. And the theory of evolution by natural selection plays an important role in helping us to understand how ecosystems could have come about from the operation of physical law without the intervention of any intelligence.

Suppose we grant Anselm the premise that we can conceive of a maximally perfect being and also that existence is a perfection. It's still clearly a logical fallacy to infer from the conjunction of those two that a maximally perfect being actually exists. It's a bit of a mystery why smart people put so much effort into thinking about this.

Going to your link, the bit about the beauty and majesty of creation is basically just an expression of incredulity about the idea that it could possibly exist without an intelligent creator. This shouldn't really carry any weight with anyone.

So yes, Dostoevsky said "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". But you see this isn't really true. Quite obviously, even if God does not exist, there are certain things that the legal system does not permit me to do, certain things that my wife does not permit me to do, and certain things that I would end up having a bad conscience if I did. Sure, you can always just do whatever is physically possible if you choose to as long as you're willing to not worry about consequences and also put aside any kind of moral qualms. But that's obviously the case, for the duration of your time on earth at least, whether there's a God or not. So really, how can you make any sense of Dostoevsky's remark? Or, as one might put it, if it's true that if there is no God then everything is permitted, then what difference does it make if we bring God into the picture? How could it *not* be true that everything is permitted? If God will punish those who defy his commands, then okay, if that were so then that would be part of the reality you face, just as one might say that when Winston Smith lived in the totalitarian regime of the novel "1984" the inevitability of the consequences of his rebellion against the Party was part of the reality that he faced too. But I mean, what's that got to do with anything? Is it some kind of point about meta-ethics?

"Atheism offers no standard of right or wrong, of truth or falsehood, and provides no answers to the questions of the searching heart."

Actually, the atheist has just as many resources to offer such things as the theist does. If you find that the answers on offer provided by atheists don't satisfy you for one reason or another, well I mean there it is, that's a problem you have. But you should equally acknowledge that some people are not satisfied with the answers provided by religion either because they find that their reason doesn't permit them to seriously entertain the idea that the teachings are true. So where's the asymmetry here?

"A belief in God alone answers the centuries-old questions of existence:  “Who am I?  Where did I come from and where do I go after I die?” "

An atheistic naturalistic outlook informed by our best science answers those questions too. It's just that you have this hang-up that you feel as though it would be a bit depressing to have to accept these answers.

All that this really amounts to is him confessing that he doesn't feel he has the resources to cope with getting through life without using theistic belief as a crutch. Some of us have what it takes to face reality.

That’s true, and theists of all stripes break their religious moral codes every day.  So much for belief in god(s). If there is a god that created the universe, it must have given humans the ability to create their own morality. 

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:29:11 AM UTC+1 Dingbat wrote:

“I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe there was a cook.” - Ronald Reagan

Atheists have not refuted Anselm so I'm not an atheist - Harold J Sala

Founder of Guidelines International Ministries

https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/

Have atheists responded to these?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/542f512d-2906-4f94-916e-94539fa3279dn%40googlegroups.com.

[LL LL]





On Dec 7, 2022, at 8:29 PM, 'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



“I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe there was a cook.” - Ronald Reagan

Atheists have not refuted Anselm so I'm not an atheist - Harold J Sala

Founder of Guidelines International Ministries

https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/

Have atheists responded to these?

Not sure any atheists want to waste their  time on such inane subjects. . 

Assuming a cook has cooked a dinner is nothing like assuming a god created the universe.  We know cooks exist and we know they cook food. We have seen many cooks during our lives and have no doubt they exist. We also know that food does not get cooked on its own. We have objective evidence of cooks and cooked food.  

By the same token, we have never seen a god and if there is a god wehave never seen it create anything. 

The fact that he can’t think of a y other way the universe could have been formed or why humans Re moral 

Humans are moral? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/817ecfcf-3c11-4105-be95-43b2112a4d46n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Rich]

The intelligent design argument has been repeatedly refuted.  Just because things in the world appear designed does not mean there was ever a designer.  Evolution by natural selection explains both the diversity and the adaptation by various species to the environment they exist in.  A religious explanation of what we see in nature does not conform to what science has discovered about it.  Absurd and archaic belief systems are an irrational explanation compared to scientific explanations based on sound theories and empirical evidence.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:29:11 PM UTC-8 Dingbat wrote: