A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Balerion]

I would agree that Syne is not the villian here, but he could certainly become a hero. There's a mod forum where they discuss us. It is this forum that Syne has an opportunity to air this dirty laundry with the other mods and run roughshod over Tiassa for dumping in his forum.

Syne has no credibility. This is one of the many problems with promoting Syne in the first place. In a more professional, structured environment, Syne's abhorrent beliefs would allow him to do his job as effectively as the natural hypocrisy of an anti-gay bigot telling others how to post would allow. Unfortunately, here at sciforums, he has to deal not only with a membership who knows he has no business telling anyone else how to behave, but he also has to deal with the fact that he has no friends within the moderator community, which renders him virtually ineffective.

I'd still like to see him Cesspool this thread, though. He isn't because he doesn't want to ruffle feathers, which is not acceptable.

 

[leopold]

In the absence of any "clues" that god does exist, it's reasonable to assume it doesn't.

uh, how about life and conscience for a start?
what "natural law" explain these two?

And define god.

in this context god would be the creator of life and the universe.
what god actually is, is anyones guess. i guess.

 

[spidergoat]

uh, how about life and conscience for a start?
what "natural law" explain these two?

in this context god would be the creator of life and the universe.
what god actually is, is anyones guess. i guess.

So you are defending a concept you can't even define. It's too easy sometimes. Abiogenesis and evolution explains why there is life, and why social primates would have a conscience.

 

[leopold]

So you are defending a concept you can't even define.

i'm not defending anything.
i am merely pointing out that we have an interesting problem here.

It's too easy sometimes. Abiogenesis and evolution explains why there is life, and why social primates would have a conscience.

science hasn't proved either of these.

 

[leopold]

We don't have to. See above: "It is never necessary to prove a negative." It is the responsibility of the people who assert that God exists, to provide evidence supporting that assertion. So far, the best they've got is a tortilla (one out of millions fried every year) with a scorch mark they claim is the exact likeness of a figure from the Bible--a person of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it!

as much as you would like to believe the above premise, science doesn't work that way.
science takes a NEUTRAL stance on ANYTHING unknown.
it DOES NOT take a pro or con stance.
for example:
science DOES NOT assume an edge to the universe.
science DOES NOT assume time began or will end.

 

[billvon]

science takes a NEUTRAL stance on ANYTHING unknown.

Nonsense.

it DOES NOT take a pro or con stance.
for example:
science DOES NOT assume an edge to the universe.
science DOES NOT assume time began or will end.

Science DOES assume that gravity exists even though we have no proof of how gravity operates
Science DOES assume an edge to the known (and knowable) universe
Science DOES assume that there was an event before which time in this universe had no meaning
Science DOES assume that it is more likely for a dropped rock to fall than for God to pick it up
Science DOES assume that Maxwell's Equations generally hold for EM phenomena.

Science makes a lot of assumptions. Indeed, science without assumptions is not possible. (Try doing any electrical experiment without assuming your test instruments work, for example.) These assumptions are checked all the time. (Example - periodic calibrations of that test equipment.) But, once checked out, they are used.

 

[Aqueous Id]

what proof has science shown you that leads you to believe god is a myth?

Not me, the world. Science has shown the world that gods are mythical inventions. The proof is everywhere. Here are just a few artifacts. If you need more, just specify what you're looking for:

The stele of Hammurabi, the artifacts from Ugarit, all of the Egyptian religious artifacts and inscriptions, the Rig Veda, the tens of thousands of tablets from Mesopotamia, plus the countless other evidence from the several thousand cites linked to by the wiki article on mythology.

basically i object to people (such as yourself) making factual statements about god

Then you would be objecting to a huge area of academic research which makes such statements.

when in fact you have no clue as to its existence.

Well you can deny the evidence I'm propounding here, I suppose, if that's what you mean--but you can't truthfully say that I have no clues or have propounded none. I've delivered trainloads of clues in just one link. I can get more if that's not enough. What specifically are you looking for?

YOU might find the notion absurd, I might find the notion absurd, BUT absurd IS NOT proof aqueous.

Search on the word 'absurd' and you'll notice that you, not I, have been using that word. I'm not sure why you're suggesting I brought it up.

You'll have to dig through the material to find what you're looking for. I can help you get started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

you present a scientist then present their evidence.
keep in mind this is proof for the existence/ non existence of god.

Yes it is. I gave you a long list of evidence proving perhaps a hundred myths or so which create gods. You want just one? Ok, I'll just pick Tiamat since she precedes western tradition, and since she prevailed in a relatively large area over many different empires and dynasties. I'm just not sure why you're putting me through this exercise. Here goes;

Discoverer: George Smith
Publication: The Chaldean Account of Genesis
Date: 1876
Site: Library of Ashurbanipal
Artifact:The Seven Tablets of Creation
Collection: The British Museum
Text: url=http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

you present a scientist then present their evidence.

Let's start with George Smith above. There are hundreds--thousands of others.

keep in mind this is proof for the existence/ non existence of god.

Ok but you didn't say which god so I picked Tiamat. Let me know if you're looking for evidence disproving the existence of any other.

you keep forgetting that science has been completely unable to prove/ disprove god.

Science has well proven that all of the gods were created in myth, legend and fable. That negates the possibility of their existence, unless you are willing to entertain the notion that one or more of the myths constitutes historical narrative. That would maybe be a suitable topic for a new thread if that's of interest to you, or we can just touch on it here without deviating too far from the topic.

 

[Sarkus]

Science has well proven that all of the gods were created in myth, legend and fable. That negates the possibility of their existence, unless you are willing to entertain the notion that one or more of the myths constitutes historical narrative. That would maybe be a suitable topic for a new thread if that's of interest to you, or we can just touch on it here without deviating too far from the topic.

Time to put my Pedantic-Hat on...
What you say science has proven does not negate the possibility at all. Such deities remain possible. As do an infinite other variations. Due to the oft quoted "fact" that "God works in mysterious ways", He might have put the very ideas for those myths, legends and fables into the minds of people so as to start the ball rolling etc.
Just because someone is paranoid does not mean that They are not out to get him. And all that jazz.

The only way to negate a possibility is to show it is impossible.
Yes, the possibility may be remote, slim, unlikely, irrational to believe in, or whatever else you might think. But it remains a possibility until shown to be impossible.

What science can do is provide for a more rational explanation.
So don't get me wrong, I don't believe in any deity, but I'm just mindful of science's role in the matter.

 

[Balerion]

Time to put my Pedantic-Hat on...
What you say science has proven does not negate the possibility at all. Such deities remain possible. As do an infinite other variations. Due to the oft quoted "fact" that "God works in mysterious ways", He might have put the very ideas for those myths, legends and fables into the minds of people so as to start the ball rolling etc.
Just because someone is paranoid does not mean that They are not out to get him. And all that jazz.

The only way to negate a possibility is to show it is impossible.
Yes, the possibility may be remote, slim, unlikely, irrational to believe in, or whatever else you might think. But it remains a possibility until shown to be impossible.

What science can do is provide for a more rational explanation.
So don't get me wrong, I don't believe in any deity, but I'm just mindful of science's role in the matter.

Time to on my pedantic hat...

He didn't say that science proved the concept of a deity to be an impossibility. He said that science has shown all gods we know of to be fabrications, myths, and legends. Which is true.

 

[spidergoat]

i'm not defending anything.
i am merely pointing out that we have an interesting problem here.

science hasn't proved either of these.

That doesn't open the door to supernatural explanations, which are also unproven, but which have no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

[Sorcerer]

Time to on my pedantic hat...

He didn't say that science proved the concept of a deity to be an impossibility. He said that science has shown all gods we know of to be fabrications, myths, and legends. Which is true.

And scams. Very good ones too. You promise people they can have good stuff when they're dead, or threaten them with a bad place, and bingo! Crowd control!

Hustling god, that's what it is.

 

[Sarkus]

Time to on my pedantic hat...

He didn't say that science proved the concept of a deity to be an impossibility. He said that science has shown all gods we know of to be fabrications, myths, and legends. Which is true.

Oh, so it's a War of Pedantry you want, is it?

What he actually said was: "Science has well proven that all of the gods were created in myth, legend and fable. That negates the possibility of their existence,...."
It is quite possible that even if humanity did create their understanding of those gods through myth, legend, fable etc, it is still possible, however remote, that those gods still also exist in reality.
If I can prove that I created a design for something from scratch, thinking it utterly new, would that preclude the possibility that it already actually exists?
We can prove that the story of Bilbo Baggins is made up by Tolkein. But that does not negate the possibility that somewhere, in the vastness of space, on an Earth-like planet, it did not happen exactly as described. Remote? Sure. Worth believing is true? Well, Pascal would suggest it is, if you want to play his games.

Thus I do strike at thee with my Pitchfork of the Pedant.

 

[Yazata]

I think your [Chris'] reasoning and your conclusion are both incorrect. What you're suggesting is that reason is not enough, that we must also appeal to one's ego to convince them of the truth. I happen to disagree with that. I've had my mind changed about things in the middle of very uncivil debates, and while I probably had no desire to admit it, that fact didn't diminish the impact the new information had on my worldview going forward.

Human beings rarely behave as pure analytical engines.

I think that when arguments descend into ego-contests, and when facts become little more than rhetorical ammo with which to score points against opponents, the chances of those opponents agreeing that we are right and they are wrong descends towards zero. If we really want to win other people over to our side, we mustn't turn disagreements into situations where people will be humiliating themselves if they agree with us. That just hardens them against ever doing it. There needs to be some way for them to come into agreement with us without losing face.

I also don't see heated discussion as being a valid reason to dismiss the atheists here as a brainless cult.

I agree with you on that. I'm one of the atheists here, so I wouldn't be likely to agree with the 'mindless cult' thing.

Tiassa's periodic over-the-top condemnations of atheists are even stronger (and consequently less defensible) than that, since he apparently believes that all atheists everywhere (not just here on Sciforums) are mindless cultists.

But in Chris' defense, I think that he was just suggesting that there's a few of the dim-bulb/loud-voice kind of atheists that make the rest look bad. Of course the same thing is obviously true of our 'religionists' too. It's probably inevitable on a public discussion board. We probably should try to be discerning, so that we can distinguish different voices and various shades of opinion amidst all the cacophany.

What's brainless about being angry, or having no respect for religious bigotry?

There's a danger that we might end up becoming what we hate.

When Tiassa starts hurling incoherent hate-filled rants against atheism in general because he perceives atheists as being incoherent hate-filled ranters, there's obviously a problem. Tiassa ends up doing little more than battling his own image in the mirror.

There's an analogous problem when atheists use intellectually crude and philosophically naive thinking to bash their supposedly intellectually inferior opponents, and when they start loudly and angrily condemning other people for being judgmental.

 

[Sorcerer]

Yazarta, I respect a lot of what you say but I do have a problem here. I don't care what the religionists think but I do have a problem with what they do in public. Refer to the other thread about demonising people and you'll see that they attempt to subjugate women and demonise gay people, and that is simply unacceptable. They cannot deny people their basic human rights, and it is immoral to suggest that they should. Standing up and saying so is not using 'intellectually crude and philosophically naive thinking', it is asserting people's rights.

This has gone way past an intellectual discussion between academics conducted in a gentlemanly manner, and is an issue of whether people are permitted to live a reasonable life or not. Refer to Iran or Saudi for what can happen.

If the religionists kept the issues as a discussion point and let people live their lives in peace, then your comments are justified: but they don't.

 

[Balerion]

Oh, so it's a War of Pedantry you want, is it?

What he actually said was: "Science has well proven that all of the gods were created in myth, legend and fable. That negates the possibility of their existence,...."
It is quite possible that even if humanity did create their understanding of those gods through myth, legend, fable etc, it is still possible, however remote, that those gods still also exist in reality.
If I can prove that I created a design for something from scratch, thinking it utterly new, would that preclude the possibility that it already actually exists?
We can prove that the story of Bilbo Baggins is made up by Tolkein. But that does not negate the possibility that somewhere, in the vastness of space, on an Earth-like planet, it did not happen exactly as described. Remote? Sure. Worth believing is true? Well, Pascal would suggest it is, if you want to play his games.

Thus I do strike at thee with my Pitchfork of the Pedant.

I bow to your masterful pedantry, good sir. You have bested me in this case.



grumble grumble...pedant pitchfork....unfair....grumble grumble

 

[Balerion]

Human beings rarely behave as pure analytical engines.

I think that when arguments descend into ego-contests, and when facts become little more than rhetorical ammo with which to score points against opponents, the chances of those opponents agreeing that we are right and they are wrong descends towards zero. If we really want to win other people over to our side, we mustn't turn disagreements into situations where people will be humiliating themselves if they agree with us. That just hardens them against ever doing it. There needs to be some way for them to come into agreement with us without losing face.

I think you're making a concession that isn't necessary, to a problem that doesn't exist. Who isn't being won over? Even the incendiary Richard Dawkins keeps a "converts' corner" on his website, featuring testimonials from many former theists. I particularly recall seeing a video from a former priest who had come to realize, by reading The Selfish Gene, that he no longer believed in God.

If he can manage to convince people of the truth, I think it's safe to say that vitriol and ridicule aren't preventing people from changing their minds.

And I think it's worth noting that we're not exactly talking about Coke versus Pepsi here.

I agree with you on that. I'm one of the atheists here, so I wouldn't be likely to agree with the 'mindless cult' thing.

I hope it wouldn't take an atheist to see through Tiassa's bullshit.

Tiassa's periodic over-the-top condemnations of atheists are even stronger (and consequently less defensible) than that, since he apparently believes that all atheists everywhere (not just here on Sciforums) are mindless cultists.

But in Chris' defense, I think that he was just suggesting that there's a few of the dim-bulb/loud-voice kind of atheists that make the rest look bad. Of course the same thing is obviously true of our 'religionists' too. It's probably inevitable on a public discussion board. We probably should try to be discerning, so that we can distinguish different voices and various shades of opinion amidst all the cacophany.

I'm not seeing any dim-bulb atheists here. What I do see are a few angry ones, which seems to be what Tiassa and Cris seem to mean when they condemn those who post here. I personally see nothing wrong with an angry atheist. I've never viewed vitriol as distracting from an argument.

There's a danger that we might end up becoming what we hate.

Ideology always carries risk, but I don't see how that danger is manifest in atheist behavior. Intolerance of dangerous ideas isn't a bad thing. We're not fighting religioniats because they're different than us; we fight because they're dangerous. They can have their beliefs, we just refue to let those beliefs influence our governance or the education of our children.

When Tiassa starts hurling incoherent hate-filled rants against atheism in general because he perceives atheists as being incoherent hate-filled ranters, there's obviously a problem. Tiassa ends up doing little more than battling his own image in the mirror.

Tiassa's error isn't his choice of tone, it's that he's wrong. If he had anything of value to say, he would have done so. Lacking that, but brimming with anti-atheist prejudice, he did the only thing he's any good at: making noise.

There's an analogous problem when atheists use intellectually crude and philosophically naive thinking to bash their supposedly intellectually inferior opponents, and when they start loudly and angrily condemning other people for being judgmental.

I disgree. They aren't condemning them for being judgmental. We are all judgmental. It's the absurd basis for that jusgment that is condemned. I mean, our answer to "gays are sinnera" is to say "gays are no different than us," which is a judment itself.

 

[leopold]

Not me, the world. Science has shown the world that gods are mythical inventions. The proof is everywhere. Here are just a few artifacts. If you need more, just specify what you're looking for:

The stele of Hammurabi, the artifacts from Ugarit, all of the Egyptian religious artifacts and inscriptions, the Rig Veda, the tens of thousands of tablets from Mesopotamia, plus the countless other evidence from the several thousand cites linked to by the wiki article on mythology.

i mean no disrespect but i don't care WHAT the people think.
i want to know what science has to say about the concept, outside a philosophical stance.
for example:
science has yet to prove an intelligence without substance. is there such a thing?

Then you would be objecting to a huge area of academic research which makes such statements.

yeah, well i've yet to hear a scientist making any such claims about the unknown.
what kind of scientist would do that? tell me.

Well you can deny the evidence I'm propounding here, I suppose, if that's what you mean--but you can't truthfully say that I have no clues or have propounded none.

where is this evidence that says there is no god? i haven't seen any.

I've delivered trainloads of clues in just one link. I can get more if that's not enough. What specifically are you looking for?

something more than conjecture.

Search on the word 'absurd' and you'll notice that you, not I, have been using that word. I'm not sure why you're suggesting I brought it up.

sorry, i was reading your mind.
i guess i must now ask, do you find the concept of god absurd?

You want just one? Ok, I'll just pick Tiamat since she precedes western tradition, and since she prevailed in a relatively large area over many different empires and dynasties. I'm just not sure why you're putting me through this exercise. Here goes;

Discoverer: George Smith
Publication: The Chaldean Account of Genesis
Date: 1876
Site: Library of Ashurbanipal
Artifact:The Seven Tablets of Creation
Collection: The British Museum
Text: url=http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

oh my, i asked for some kind of scientific evidence and i get, what, a text from "the sacred text archive"????

Ok but you didn't say which god so I picked Tiamat. Let me know if you're looking for evidence disproving the existence of any other.

i already stated what "god is" in this context, the creator of life and the universe.

Science has well proven that all of the gods were created in myth, legend and fable.

science has done no such thing and you know it aqueous

 

[leopold]

The notion of God is an unscientific one from the outset, I'd have thought.

maybe.
life, intelligence, consciousness, the universe, time, riddles wrapped in enigmas.
the closer you look at ANY of them, the more mysterious they seem.
one thing for sure, science cannot solve these riddles by relying on "superstition" or magic.
so, what does that leave us?
probably locked in debates, such as this one, until some bright boy swoops in here and solves it for everybody.

 

[spidergoat]

maybe.
life, intelligence, consciousness, the universe, time, riddles wrapped in enigmas.
the closer you look at ANY of them, the more mysterious they seem.
one thing for sure, science cannot solve these riddles by relying on "superstition" or magic.
so, what does that leave us?
probably locked in debates, such as this one, until some bright boy swoops in here and solves it for everybody.

I know, lets invent a permanent mystery, call it god, say it's the reason for everything, then stop asking questions.

 

[leopold]

I know, lets invent a permanent mystery, call it god, say it's the reason for everything, then stop asking questions.

yes, ALL religious people do this don't they spidergoat.
i'll bet 50 million that kittamaru questions the nature of god and what exactly we are dealing with here.
wanna bet?
portraying religious people as lurching imbeciles is over the top dude.