Reason To be athiest?

LOL - that's a good one, Spidergoat.
A good what?
Most atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists... i.e. both agnostic and atheist.
Do you find that humourous for some reason?

Sciwriter, I used this example to make this clear:
if there is a creator-god, they need not have a beginning within the world we know as our universe. Within the 'devine plane' in which this god resides, time could be absent, or circular, or ...
Yep. Note how you started with "If...". The question is first, whether we know this is true (i.e. whether one knows it is true or false, or whether one is agnostic on the matter), and secondly whether one chooses to believe that it is true (or chooses not to believe that it is true). The second matter may very much depend on your position with regard the first matter.

When you can provide more than a speculation, an "if..." then perhaps you can help people move on from their agnosticism and then their atheism, if that was your intent?
 
How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of our Creation
Jul 9, 2012 1:00 AM EDT

The media-adopted name for the Higgs Boson, believed to be discovered this week, couldn’t be more misleading. Lawrence M. Krauss explains how the particle could finally dispense with the idea of a supernatural creator. Plus, cosmologist Sean Carroll on how the discovery will revolutionize physics.


There has been a lot of hoopla since the July 4 announcement by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that the two largest experiments at the Large Hadron Collider had uncovered evidence for a new elementary particle. The particle in question appears to be the Higgs particle, which scientists have been seeking for almost 50 years and is at the heart of our current best theory of nature. But the real excitement seems to stem from the fact that this long-sought discovery is frequently called, in colloquial circles, “the God particle.” This term appeared first in the unfortunate title of a book written by physicist Leon Lederman two decades ago, and while to my knowledge it was never used by any scientist (including Lederman) before or since, it has captured the media’s imagination.

What makes this term particularly unfortunate is that nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe—and perhaps even before the beginning, if there was a before. The brash notion predicts an invisible field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space and suggests that the properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence, derive from their interaction with what otherwise seems like empty space. Had the magnitude or nature of the Higgs field been different, the properties of the universe would have been different, and we wouldn’t be here to wonder why. Moreover, a Higgs field validates the notion that seemingly empty space may contain the seeds of our existence. This idea is at the heart of one of the boldest predictions of cosmology, called inflation. This posits that a similar type of background field was established in the earliest moments of the big bang, causing a microscopic region to expand by more than 85 orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second, after which the energy contained in otherwise empty space was converted into all the matter and radiation we see today! Alan Guth, the originator of the theory, called it “the ultimate free lunch.”
god-particle-nb10-tease-2ndary

A computer generated image provided by CERN shows the ‘typical candidate’ event (Courtesy of Cern)

If these bold, some would say arrogant, notions derive support from the remarkable results at the Large Hadron Collider, they may reinforce two potentially uncomfortable possibilities: first, that many features of our universe, including our existence, may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth; and second, that creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.
 
spidergoat,

If God existed and was the source of the stories about him, then those stories should have a consistency that is lacking. First he says we shouldn't kill, and then he commands us to commit genocide. Obviously these contradictory ideas are the result of a created mythology, just like all the other religious ideas that no human being no longer believes.


I don't agree with your summation, especially having read the scriptures.

Taken from the Bhagavad Gita,

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.
In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.



"Obviously" you're not interested in developing a better understanding of what and who is God.

jan.
 
spidergoat,




I don't agree with your summation, especially having read the scriptures.

Taken from the Bhagavad Gita,

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.
In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.



"Obviously" you're not interested in developing a better understanding of what and who is God.

jan.

There are two options, God is either speaking to people of different cultures using the images particular to that culture or that people generate images of a deity based on their cultural expectations.

If God is interfering with the universe, wouldn't it be the norm?

jan.

If it were the norm or not, his interference could be distinguished from natural causes.
 
If it were the norm or not, his interference could be distinguished from natural causes.

All we found was the natural, high and low, near and far.

Now, if the Earth stopped and froze in its orbit, with no one flying off, then that would not be natural.
 
Obviously on cannot go on to 'furthers' when the 'initial' is not shown, unless one intends to make up a story.

As I said, "Obviously" you're not interested in developing a better understanding of what and who is God.

Upon doing so, if you believe it to be a made uo story, then so be it, but at
least you will have some kind of reason rather than just blurting stuff out because you want it to be so.

jan.
 
It doesn't matter if the Emperor isn't wearing lace stockings or isn't wearing an Armani suit, he's not wearing any clothes and that's the important thing.
 
It doesn't matter if the Emperor isn't wearing lace stockings or isn't wearing an Armani suit, he's not wearing any clothes and that's the important thing.

Here lies the difference, the Emporers body is his suit. If your worldview dictates that there is nothing but matter, then you cannot begin to understand what and who is God. Your worldview insures that you cannot believe in God, let alone begin to understand Him. I don't see how you can claim agnosticism as your position.

jan.
 
My worldview doesn't dictate that there is nothing but matter, since my worldview is scientific, not dogmatic. Presently I think the material is all there is, because that is all that can be shown to be with evidence. But my view could change.

I'm also agnostic about the prospect that Obama could come up to me at work and shake my hand for doing such a good job. I don't know with 100% certainty that he won't. But I don't believe that he will, since it seems highly unlikely.

The kind of worldview that you describe as necessary to "understand" God is a worldview that believes in God in the first place. That seems like circular reasoning.
 
There are two options, God is either speaking to people of different cultures using the images particular to that culture or that people generate images of a deity based on their cultural expectations.



If it were the norm or not, his interference could be distinguished from natural causes.


Whatever! But that exert explains why God anihilates some peoples, and protects others. In other places it explains what is the body, and what is the the driving force of the body. And while the body is destroyed the the driving force isn't. :rolleyes:

This information should change your position as it shows that God' anihilation serves a beneficial purpose to the souls of mankind, and not a destructive one.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------



How could His interference be distinguished from natural causes, if what you regard as natural causes is His interference?

Or are you assuming that you know what His interference will be, and as yet not been observed by you? A bit like, you know what evidence determines Gods' existence.


jan.
 
This information should change your position as it shows that God' anihilation serves a beneficial purpose to the souls of mankind, and not a destructive one.

One cannot go on about what 'God' does without showing 'God' in the first place unless just making up a story.
 
Natural causes can be traced to their physical origins. Their physical nature explains the entire event. Nothing else was necessary to explain what happened, therefore there is logically no place for a God unless you want to place him at the origin of all matter, and even then the chaos of the early universe must erase all possible planning about how the universe would turn out.

Similarly, the annihilation of civilizations can be traced to naturalistic causes. One of the funniest things I read in the Bible was some moron trying to say that the arrival of a plague of locusts was a direct result of his own sins. Talk about human arrogance! What a confused, anxious, and pathetic person that must be who is constantly trying to ferret out the personal reasons for random natural events. It's like a dog who's owner abuses him randomly trying to figure out which of his actions caused the abuse. And the IQ level is probably similar.
 
spidergoat,


My worldview doesn't dictate that there is nothing but matter, since my worldview is scientific, not dogmatic.
Presently I think the material is all there is, because that is all that can be shown to be with evidence. But my view could change.


Don't you mean the material is all we can observe with our base senses?
Are you saying that we as human being's perceptions are limited to the base senses?


I'm also agnostic about the prospect that Obama could come up to me at work and shake my hand for doing such a good job. I don't know with 100% certainty that he won't. But I don't believe that he will, since it seems highly unlikely.

What would cause you to become agnostic about this?



The kind of worldview that you describe as necessary to "understand" God is a worldview that believes in God in the first place. That seems like circular reasoning.

You don't have to ''believe in God'' to accept that God exists. Theism means simply to believe in God, not whether or not God exists.
It seems like circular reasoning because of your worldview, within which, God cannot exist as He is not material, therefore belief in Him is nothing but a fantasy.

jan.
 
I can't figure out why many atheists need to repress anything religious into a talking point. One gets the impression of something similar to a reformed alcoholic walking by a barroom and having to run the other way, since if he goes in he might start drinking again. All he can think of are the worse images, but never sees people having fun.

I look at religion as part of living human history. There is nothing to fear, since holy water only hurts vampires and other underworld creatures.
 
One cannot go on about what 'God' does without showing 'God' in the first place unless just making up a story.

Taken from the Bhagavad Gita:



Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

And when you have thus learned the truth, you will know that all living beings are but part of Me--and that they are in Me, and are Mine.


jan.
 
Don't you mean the material is all we can observe with our base senses?
Are you saying that we as human being's perceptions are limited to the base senses?

Science, while based on observation, is not limited to human senses. It encompasses all kinds of technological means, telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators, etc...




What would cause you to become agnostic about this?
The fact that I could not say it's impossible to be paid a visit by Obama.




It seems like circular reasoning because of your worldview, within which, God cannot exist as He is not material, therefore belief in Him is nothing but a fantasy.
I have several approaches to the god question, in order of their elemental philosophical relevance.

1. The idea of God is non-sensical. Not because it's immaterial but because no one can define what it is. Most of the many ideas about it are unfalsifiable and can be logically dismissed immediately.
2. If there was a biblical god or one that interacts with people, then it's effects could be observed and even a non-material god could be theoretically detected.
3. All the arguments in favor of a god are flawed so the default position is no god.
4. All the sacred texts attributed to god exhibit nothing that could not have been known by people at the time, and do exhibit logical inconsistencies and other flaws.
5. The people that are religious aren't better people and aren't favored by circumstances any more than atheists.
6. Religion in general sabotages doubt and the power of the human mind to ascertain the nature of it's existence, it is conformist in nature and leads to totalitarianism. When religions are in power, the most innovative thinkers are punished (Galileo) and the gullible are rewarded.
...
 
Back
Top