atheists, what are your opinions on this quote?

[xXXXXXx]

 

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?...Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis, 1952

 

 

 

[ê¹€ìœ ë¯¸]

[milup]

I guess I would say "why do things HAVE to have a meaning?" 

 

why cant science just be science 

[Symphonyâ„¢]

If God is true he is worse than Satan.

[......]

.... Occam's Razor ... Mr. Lewis.... Occam's Razor.

[denizen mars]

that's some metaphysical circular logic right there. isn't he basically reiterating 'I think, therefor I am' ? 

[♥SNS-Shinomiya♥]

hense why I am a polemic

[Girugamesh]

I believe in and worship one Goddess.

[Gloupsidou]

rephrasing old philisophical ideas won't make them any more factual. We're just a species with a bigger brain than other species on our planet. Justice and Injustice are socially constructed ideas.

[Ulmicola]

That explanation is bullshit. Justice and injustice exist because humans decided what's good and what's bad, not because they're some sort of divinely created Platonic ideals. C.S. Lewis was a hardcore Christian, though, so I wouldn't expect a logical answer from him. He was as fanatical as his friend Tolkien, a man that thought trying to find causes, motivations and justifications for the evil of Sauron and his subjects was sinful. >_>

[cowgirlbebop]

The problem here is that he has framed atheism completely wrong. Mr. Lewis had set this up as to demonstrate that the absence of something can only be appreciated by knowing that it is absent, therefore proving its existence in the first place. That type of circular logic doesn't hold water.

[duhleenuh]

I think this sort of undermines the ability of humans and other animals to perceive and feel certain ways about things. Do you have to be told that something tastes good before your taste buds can actually detect that it tastes good? No, it's instinctual, biological, which is the same with pain.

 

The same way we have perceptions due to biological factors, there are psychological and intellectual ticks that make us feel good or bad about a particular stimuli or situation at hand. Sure, we may feel the same about a lot of things, but the fact of the matter is, it's all still very subjective. Someone's idea of justice may differ greatly from that of another, and it isn't something to be shunned. The fact that we have the opportunity to think for ourselves is a beautiful thing, and common practices like religion and some political ideologies try to weaken this.

[sane]

It's okay for things to be meaningless and it's okay for things to not make sense. What's not okay is to fill those empty pockets of knowledge with fantasies and try to pass them off as reality without even trying to objectively prove it as such. One must be willing to back one's claims in such a way that none can deny or discredit.

 

As for morality... humans have a sense of right and wrong due to evolutionary pressures. We're a group species, and things like empathy are extremely useful in group species.

[xXXXXXx]

Justice and Injustice are socially constructed ideas.

Justice and injustice exist because humans decided what's good and what's bad.

based off of what, in you opinion? nothing? whatever made humans feel good or bad at the time? the learned effects of certain things[science]?

[......]

rephrasing old philisophical ideas won't make them any more factual. We're just a species with a bigger brain than other species on our planet. Justice and Injustice are socially constructed ideas.

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 

 

simple as that. We have the mental capacity to create meaning... this is all. 

[Ulmicola]

based off of what, in you opinion? nothing? whatever made humans feel good or bad at the time? the learned effects of certain things[science]?

 

That, and trial and error - "Hm, it seems like doing this thing damages our community, let's forbid it."

[fgt]

I'm more agnostic, so I somewhat believe there MAY be something out there...

 

But my view is that we as humans, due to our intelligence and just how we are, try to create reasons for living. The human population is very self-centred when it comes to situations like these. Because we can think for ourselves, have the intelligence we do, etc, humans think more highly of themselves and assume that they're meant to be that way. That they've been put here (by some figure) for a reason and that they have a purpose as such.

 

Some ideas we form through natural stimuli, but most are controlled. Societies exist all throughout the world. Religions exist. That's just how it is going to be.

 

If we didn't have some of our characterisitcs and features, we would be a completely different species.

[Gloupsidou]

based off of what, in you opinion? nothing? whatever made humans feel good or bad at the time? the learned effects of certain things[science]?

 

Social constructionism, which you clearly never studied, assumes that meaning and understanding are developed through interaction, not within separate individuals. The social interaction of said individuals created the concept of justice over time. It was not spontaneous, just like language is not spontaneous but socially construct. 

[xXXXXXx]

It's okay for things to be meaningless and it's okay for things to not make sense. What's not okay is to fill those empty pockets of knowledge with fantasies and try to pass them off as reality without even trying to objectively prove it as such. One must be willing to back one's claims in such a way that none can deny or discredit.

what would you consider as solid evidence from one who believes there is a god?

 

Social constructionism, which you clearly never studied, assumes that meaning and understanding are developed through interaction, not within separate individuals. The social interaction of said individuals created the concept of justice over time. It was not spontaneous, just like language is not spontaneous but socially construct. 

ah, ok. i get it now. thanks for explaining.

[sane]

what would you consider as solid evidence from one who believes there is a god?

 

Undeniable proof of a god, of course. Currently the concept is impossible to prove or disprove, and many use that as "evidence" for such a being's existence... but tbh it's nothing of the sort. The very fact that it's impossible to prove or disprove just makes it a huge waste of time to even think about.

[mrfox]

the idea of unjust and just is a social phenomenon, initiated by the majority to measure the situation, just like how we measure the width of something. its a gauge, so you can say i'm doing well or i'm not.
 
its what humans do as a community, just like how we are rated on this forum. 
 
collectively humans to give inputs on something, need to measure something, which in this case, that something is reason.
 
why am i being punished, is it because i did something against the will of that almighty being? then if that is his way of telling me that shit is bad, then why are church devotees experiencing hardships which occurs equally to a non-believer
 
they'd say god is testing me, or god is not satisfied with my devotion.. god has planned that i not get that kidney transplant or not get that job.. then you sit and wait until you rot.. work your ass off and try and try and be satisfied with your hard work. 

 

patient dies on an operating table, go blame the doctor.. he lives, hallelujah.. 
 

If God is true he is worse than Satan.

 

(For the LORD your God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake you, neither destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which he swore unto them.

Deuteronomy 4:31

 

the concept of an almighty being playing sims on us. removing that ladder when you're swimming because its fun to see them die believing you that if they swam their stats(sim's happiness) would normalize. yes you've done that, right?

[Regina]

Undeniable proof of a god, of course. Currently the concept is impossible to prove or disprove, and many use that as "evidence" for such a being's existence... but tbh it's nothing of the sort. The very fact that it's impossible to prove or disprove just makes it a huge waste of time to even think about.

 

I believe there is scientific evidence that proves humans were intelligently designed. It comes in the form of DNA. You see, the concept of evolution is the growth, not design. Evolution cannot and does not 'create'. Just as evolution did not 'create' DNA; markers in each and every human being that is different from the next. It has been found that DNA consists of a four bit digital code. The code cannot possibly be changed in a gradual manner as envisioned by Darwin. To alter batches of this code would require either extreme outside intelligence, and even more so, implanted automatic rules (which appears to be the case) that would permit variations without damage. Therefore, to assume DNA was an act of chance and not deliberate is silly. 

[Kyuliss]

I believe there is scientific evidence that proves humans were intelligently designed. It comes in the form of DNA. You see, the concept of evolution is the growth, not design. Evolution cannot and does not 'create'. Just as evolution did not 'create' DNA; markers in each and every human being that is different from the next. It has been found that DNA consists of a four bit digital code. The code cannot possibly be changed in a gradual manner as envisioned by Darwin. To alter batches of this code would require either extreme outside intelligence, and even more so, implanted automatic rules (which appears to be the case) that would permit variations without damage. Therefore, to assume DNA was an act of chance and not deliberate is silly. 

And why not? Little chemical mistakes mean that suddenly, one of the bases is different. If this change doesn't kill or seriously inhibit the organism, it'll just be passed on (assuming it's in the gametes). Over time, the changes build up and we become different from each other.

[Regina]

And why not? Little chemical mistakes mean that suddenly, one of the bases is different. If this change doesn't kill or seriously inhibit the organism, it'll just be passed on (assuming it's in the gametes). Over time, the changes build up and we become different from each other.

 

It's more complex than that. Again, evolution does not create — it's a process. This brings us to a flaw in Darwin’s theory of natural selection. It may be able to explain how living creatures can evolve from one form to another, but it cannot explain how something that was not alive evolved into the first life on Earth. Going back to the subject of DNA, there is no fossil/physical evidence that confirms how DNA began and if it even evolved (because of its size and fragility). Scientists have been able to create artificial DNA in laboratories, but the irony of that is that they had to create it. In other words, they intelligently designed it. (Just like they're trying to intelligently design  a mock big bang to disprove God. Hahahaha.) But to answer your bolded question, if the four bit code were to change gradually with variations that weren't detrimental (like you said, changes that don't kill or seriously inhibit the organism), that would mean there are implanted automatic rules. If there are rules, there is structure. If there is structure, there is a design. If there is a design, there is intelligence.

[mrfox]

It's more complex than that. Again, evolution does not create — it's a process. This brings us to a flaw in Darwin’s theory of natural selection. It may be able to explain how living creatures can evolve from one form to another, but it cannot explain how something that was not alive evolved into the first life on Earth. Going back to the subject of DNA, there is no fossil/physical evidence that confirms how DNA began and if it even evolved (because of its size and fragility). Scientists have been able to create artificial DNA in laboratories, but the irony of that is that they had to create it. In other words, they intelligently designed it. (Just like they're trying to intelligently design  a mock big bang to disprove God. Hahahaha.) But to answer your bolded question, if the four bit code were to change gradually with variations that weren't detrimental (like you said, changes that don't kill or seriously inhibit the organism), that would mean there are implanted automatic rules. If there are rules, there is structure. If there is structure, there is a design. If there is a design, there is intelligence.

 

science is a process onto which one can predict through the available data, they designed it yes but because this is that one tree on which it made sense, how are we sure there were no failures? the protohumans were, thats why they're extinct. they were failures

 

 

 

 implanted automatic rules (which appears to be the case) that would permit variations without damage.

 

the protohumans were signs of variation to the process and that they failed, only giving a contribution to the current product, just like experiments do. and following how it happened with our ancestors, in a few centuries our version will be obsolete due to the global scale sampling that is happening through global crossbreeding.

 

also its quite possible there are more variations before homo sapiens that didn't made it to history due to it failing early and no fossils of them made through. 

 

bill nye said they had a missing link on a creature's evolution pattern, it had to be there since it contributed enough to be predicted its there, past and later data suggest something was there but they haven't found it, until they did. they were right. it was there. it only became a pattern because it was derived from existing data. if not its nothing, its things that grow limbs and things that grow wings. they needed it to live and they didn't want to die that way so evolution took place(not instantly but gradually, until they created a new working version)