The truth about Atheism?

[Fluidity]

Re: Re: Flawed perception?

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
First chicken egg appears, then it becomes the first chicken. .

Ahhh..thanks. That always bothered me. So, there was the first <i>almost</i> Universe. It was a temporary thing...then it laid an egg. The logic is flawless

 

[LaoTzu]

Sort of Like "Zen Buddhism"

Originally posted by Fluidity
. . . Puritanistic Catholicism . . . .

Now that's interesting.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: CA

Originally posted by Fluidity
Anyway, above is where you <b>appear</b> to deny Sagan has anti-creationistic views. I would now assume you agree. Yes? No?

I cannot speak to how sentences 'appear' to you. Nevertheless, having proven yourself unable to quote Carl Sagan, you might at least quote where I deny that Sagan has anti-creationist views. After which, you might again try to substantiate/clarify the following absurdity:

But, it would appear there are devout atheists that believe they will prove God(s) does not exist through science, as in the case of Carl Sagan, in his reliance upon the Big Bang theory to disprove creationism.

 

[Fluidity]

CA

You said: "Where exactly does Sagan approach this nonsense."
I don't think it an odd assumption that I would percieve this as a denial of Sagan's anti-creationists views.

I will not go any further in trying to explain what is simple enough to understand. I make a class distinction between atheists and atheism. Atheism is a practice, that I am positive you are aware of, where people of organizational status use science in ridiculous ways to speak against creationism. By suggesting, "all things can be explained through science," is an absurd attempt to deny creationism, deserved as it may be.

By the way, I am not a creationist, which makes it more ridiculous to me that Atheism, not atheists, make any 'attack' on creationism. The mental giants of the world are picking on the mentally ill...

I see both practices, teaching Creationism and Atheism, as a distraction from reality.

That said, let's move on. I have no intention of going to the library to find the section in Hawking's book where Sagan relates the Big Bang to anti-creationism. Frankly, I think you know exactly which passage I am talking about. If so, quit toying with me. If not, I will openly apologize for not using an exact quote, and after BS'ing with you for an hour about it, I'll never do it again.

Close your discussion, if you can.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: CA

Originally posted by Fluidity
You said: "Where exactly does Sagan approach this nonsense."

Actually, that's not what I said, but we'll let it pass ...

Originally posted by Fluidity
Atheism is a practice, ..., where people of organizational status use science in ridiculous ways to speak against creationism.

That's funny.

 

[Cris]

Fluid,

it is one of your assumptions that scientists assume God doesn't exist.

Individual scientists might assume many things, even that gods exist. However, if they are correctly applying the scientific method, as they should as scientists, then it isn't an assumption that a god doesn't exist that occurs but more that if something proposed is unobservable, and undetectable then nothing useful can be said about its alleged existence. In which case for all practical purposes such an undetectable thing does not exist.

 

[Cris]

Fluid,

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
First chicken egg appears, then it becomes the first chicken. .

That always bothered me. So, there was the first almost Universe. It was a temporary thing...then it laid an egg. The logic is flawless

If you are going to quote someone then why not quote within context? Taking something out of context and then implying that was what was said and trying to ridicule them is dishonest.

The quote continued to explain -

Who laid the egg? A kind of bird that very similar to chicken. What happened to the egg? The egg has some small mutation during its creation and becomes a chicken egg. So no need to confuse which one comes first anymore.

This is basic evolution. There is no reason for you to be confused anymore.

 

[Fluidity]

CA all...

Where does Sagan say anything approaching this nonsense?

Where exactly does Sagan approach this nonsense?
<HR>
I suppose there is a disctinct difference in meaning of the two phrases. The one on top is cut and pasted from your post. And, the other was from memory, a bit condensed, same meaning, exactly.

As for it being funny (what you quoted), it is impertive that you understand the difference between the class distinction of being and athiest, one who believes God does not exist, and the function of Atheism, when organized 'like' a religiion. Being an Atheist is a personal choice, one that I support. I have no other term to define the practice of organizing 'against' religion, other than using the word, "Atheism." I do apologize if that offends.
It is most certainly not intended to.

Just one example is: "The American Atheist"
http://www.americanatheist.org/aut02/

Hilarious...why bother, if you're an atheist, to read such crap?
I personally feel like it's a thumb-in-the-face kind of childish intent.

 

[Fluidity]

cris

LMAO

I am not confused. I found the post funny. Genuinely. Sorry to be misinterpreted, again. Sensitive in here, it seems.

 

[Fluidity]

Cris, this is succint

Individual scientists ... In which case for all practical purposes such an undetectable thing does not exist.
<HR>
As long as science, whether being practiced by an atheist or not, is completely objective, it is truly scientific. God has nothing to do with science for the atheist, everything to do with my beliefs. However, I would observe scientific data as objectively as the next person.

It goes without saying that if I was to 'look' for God, it wouldn't be with a microscope, telescope, or any other device. Certainly, those tools are for science. So, when observing nature, I am objective to the content, biased to its source.

It is as useless for the atheist to mention there is no scientific evidence of God, as it is for me to claim that science <i>is</i> the evidence of God. We are both allowed the right to speak our views, but they are irrelevant to science.

I avoid pasting your entire quote, only to save space as JR mentioned in the stickies. My response should be comprehensive.

 

[Cris]

Fluid,

It goes without saying that if I was to 'look' for God, it wouldn't be with a microscope, telescope, or any other device.

Certainly, those tools are for science.

So, when observing nature, I am objective to the content, biased to its source.

It is as useless for the atheist to mention there is no scientific evidence of God, as it is for me to claim that science is the evidence of God.

We are both allowed the right to speak our views, but they are irrelevant to science.

You appear to have placed artificial limitations on what you think science can do and what is meant by science. Science is a search for knowledge and truth using a very systematized approach that has proved itself countless times. If you can demonstrate a better system for discovering truth and knowledge then say so. Science is not limited to any particular set of tools and perhaps is only limited by human imagination. If I can imagine something and form an hypothesis then it is up to me to see if I can turn that hypothesis into knowledge, if I can't then that idea will not become knowledge.

If you claim to KNOW something where such knowledge has not been gained through the scientific method then can you demonstrate that whatever mechanism you use is superior to the methods used in science? So far, and as far as I know, no one has shown a better method for determining truth.

So when an atheist mentions the lack of evidence for gods then the assumption here is that it is impossible to claim to know something when evidence is absent. This is fully consistent with logical thought. Science is fully relevant because that is the only proven method for the establishment of knowledge.

Of course you are free to express your views, opinions and beliefs, but what value are they if they have no factual basis? The issue here is that such opinions and beliefs are being offered as if they represent truth, and that simply cannot be demonstrated.

Atheism is not tied to science but certainly many atheists use science to support their arguments against theist claims, since science does possess a proven method for establishing truth. If the theist does not use science to justify their claims then why should anyone accept such claims as if they are true?

The use of science is fully relevant to the debate between theists and atheists, since such a debate should be about the discovery of truth. The theist tries to downgrade science because they know such methods have not and do not help their claims.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Cris
The use of science is fully relevant to the debate between theists and atheists, since such a debate should be about the discovery of truth.

I would think, on the contrary, that the use of science is relevant only to the extent that the theists make claims about the natural world that conflict with the results of scientific enquiry.

- edited to add the following quote:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

• You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler as quoted in
- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection by Doctor Barbara Forrest

 

[Fluidity]

Science is not limited to any particular set of tools and perhaps is only limited by human imagination.
<HR>
>>>The set of tools I use to determine the existence of God are scientific. The evidence I claim, you will refute, because you are unfamiliar with these tools. For example: In the simple logic of cause and effect, there was an initial cause of the initial cause. The chain of events that led to creating this Universe cannot be fully deterimined, because we have proven already there is no such thing as the destruction of matter, no such thing as the creation of matter. What was once energy became mass, and vice versa. In this simple way, the conservation of energy is my evidence of God. You will refute it as the opposite. We are at a stalemate. The same evidence seen objectively has no solution.
The mass and energy simply is, is your proposition.
And, I say the mass and energy are God, fully conscious, behaving in a strictly designed set of laws, perfect.


So when an atheist mentions the lack of evidence for gods then the assumption here is that it is impossible to claim to know something when evidence is absent. This is fully consistent with logical thought. Science is fully relevant because that is the only proven method for the establishment of knowledge.
<HR>
>>>Again, we see the same evidence. You do not take into consideration the full values of cause and effect. The logic is not consistent or perfect.

The issue here is that such opinions and beliefs are being offered as if they represent truth, and that simply cannot be demonstrated.
<HR>
>>>I believe they have been demonstrated above; you do not.

If the theist does not use science to justify their claims then why should anyone accept such claims as if they are true?
<HR>
>>>Truth is subjective, Cris, when the root cause is unknown. We agree to disagree; we do not disrespect one another, or claim the findings of one another are untruths. I would, however, have a substantial argument if you claim there was proof God does not exist. Scientists know there are millions of nuetrinos bombarding Earth. In an experiment, they spent $25 million dollars on a rare Gallium isotope. They detected no nuetrinos. They do not, however, claim there are none.


The theist tries to downgrade science because they know such methods have not and do not help their claims.
<HR>
>>>Two points here:
1) I am a theist and have never downgraded science for any reason, and I love science.

2) As a theist, I need no science to support my beliefs.

 

[Cris]

CA,

I would think, on the contrary, that the use of science is relevant only to the extent that the theists make claims about the natural world that conflict with the results of scientific enquiry.

I think that reflects an unnecessary confrontational approach. My interest is the discovery of truth rather than just trying to show that theists are wrong. The atheist label that hangs over my head represents only a fraction of who I am.

Science can be used far more than just to show how some theist claims are wrong. It goes further and offers substantial alternatives, e.g. evolution, abiogenesis, inflationary theory, etc.

And why make the qualification of "natural" world? This implies you think there is something else.

 

[Cris]

Fluidity,

The evidence I claim, you will refute, because you are unfamiliar with these tools.

You seem to have judged me before you know what I know. And perhaps slightly arrogant in assuming that I may have already considered your claims and have rejected them for valid reasons. You start from the assumption that you are right and I am wrong.

For example: In the simple logic of cause and effect, there was an initial cause of the initial cause.

That is not evidence or logic. If the claim of cause and effect is true then there cannot be an initial cause. The claim of an initial cause is a non sequitur and an unsupported assertion.

The chain of events that led to creating this Universe cannot be fully deterimined,

You start from an unproven assumption that the universe was created or required a creation event.

because we have proven already there is no such thing as the destruction of matter, no such thing as the creation of matter. What was once energy became mass, and vice versa.

I feel comfortable with that although the current results in quantum physics seem to indicate that spontaneous creation and destruction of matter is occurring continuously at a sub-atomic level. However, doesn't your assertion contradict the claim of an initial cause? If nothing is ever created or destroyed then it must have existed forever.

In this simple way, the conservation of energy is my evidence of God.

So none of this makes sense. You seem to be saying that the universe may have or may not have been created, and that matter is never created or destroyed, and then the concept of an undefined god is introduced.

Are you simply renaming the universe and calling it God?

You will refute it as the opposite.

Well no since you have not proposed something comprehensible for me to be able to propose an opposite.

We are at a stalemate. The same evidence seen objectively has no solution.

I see no evidence. If you want to claim that we do not know the origin of the universe or if it had an origin then I would agree with you. At this time we only have speculations.

The mass and energy simply is, is your proposition.

We know it exists, but we don't know if it has always existed or not. But to quote Stephen Hawking -

But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (A Brief History of Time, pp. 140-141)

And, I say the mass and energy are God, fully conscious, behaving in a strictly designed set of laws, perfect.

OK but why introduce the idea of a god into an already elegant hypothesis. If there is a set of well-behaved laws then a god is unnecessary. And the concept of an infinitely existing set of very simple basic laws is far more credible than accepting some vast complex unfathomable intelligence with omnipotent and omni-everything powers who is required to have set things in motion.

>>>Again, we see the same evidence. You do not take into consideration the full values of cause and effect. The logic is not consistent or perfect.

Which I think you may not have understood.

>>>Truth is subjective, Cris, when the root cause is unknown.

With evidence truth is always objective. I do not need to know the cause of something to observe something that exists. If the topic is related to "cause" which is unknown then of course truth cannot be determined.

I would, however, have a substantial argument if you claim there was proof God does not exist.

This should depend on how you define what you mean by God. At this time I don't know what religion you follow and I have made very few assumptions about what you mean by God. It may well be possible that if you define what you mean by God that I could find conflicting properties that form a potential paradox leading to a definition of something that is impossible. I which case such a god could not and therefore would not exist.

1) I am a theist and have never downgraded science for any reason, and I love science.

Good.

2) As a theist, I need no science to support my beliefs.

Then I suspect your beliefs have no factual basis and are hence irrational.

 

[Cris]

Grey Seal,

If I may help a little here.

atheism is just the belief that god does not exist (generally). however i've heard alot of opinions on what exactly atheism and agnosticism are, it's subjective i guess.

You'll find that most of atheism is not about a belief but a disbelief in the claims made by theists.

Disbelieving something is not the same as believing a proposition is false.

 

[Fluidity]

This goes on forever.

Cris, to quote Stephen Hawking's irrational debate about, if this, then that, really...no room for God.

You call me irrational, and quote some verbage like that. Here is an equally irrational statement:

If my coffe pot doesn't come on, the power must be cut off.
1) It could be unplugged.
2) It could be broken.
3) I could have blown a fuse.

If the Univere is boundless, then God must be boundless.

This statement is far more rational; even an Atheist can see the connection. There is no connection between dimensions of the physical domain of the Universe and its creator, or whether this Universe is in fact God, or not.

Here is a logical progression of possibilities that include the presence of God. Of course, they do not prove it.

If the Universe is infinite, its creator must also be infinite.

If the Universe is finite, its creator made it so.

If we find the beginning of time, we have found the time it was created. (In this case, the creator created the Universe, thereby setting forth the chain of cause and effect we now witness...initial cause of initial cause)
If we find no beginning of time, its creator has always been.

If we find the beginning of time, we have found the time it was created.

Each and every cause and effect is dictated by the laws of Physics defined by the creator at the time of creation. The discovery of each new physical law defines the laws set down in the Universe by the creator. Nature and the super-natural are one an the same thing, not unlike relativity, general relativity, and special relativity. These laws are natural laws, but they define separate frames of reference.

The relavence of believing God is the Universe goes beyond the physical realm. I don't know if you believe in anything besides the physical realm, or not. Here is a fundamental difference between atheists and theist. I believe the Universe is a part of the consciousness of God, and me. I believe that I possess some knowledge arbitrarily, some proprietarily, and that a great deal of my creative nature is part of the consciousness of God. The reason this is so credible for me, is because I am composed of the same fabric as this Universe.

Religion is a separate context of belief. I subscribe to no religion; I find them unnecessary and peculiar. I live in a world of facts.

I cannot 'learn' the Earth is 7000 years old, that Adam and Eve were the first humans, or scarcely any 'miraculous' event. Most miracles that are documented have an explanation. In one example, Jesus is said to have made a blind man see. He spit into his hand, reached down into the river, and mixed some of the fine silt with his spittle. Then, he took his thumbs and rubbed them in the man's eyes. Apparently, he had a bad case of cataracts or something, and Jesus was intelligent enough to polish his corneas...crude and painful, but effective.

Now, I didn't mean to insult you by assuming you would argue the simplest of my points. But, rest assured I understand the logic in what you write.

<HR>
Cris:"So when an atheist mentions the lack of evidence for gods then the assumption here is that it is impossible to claim to know something when evidence is absent. "
<HR>
>>>The reason the logic is flawed in this statement is that you assume <b><i>knowing</b></i> something and <b><i>believing</b></i> something are the same thing. You also assume the person has no evidence for what they believe. I make another point, that evidence for believe is much different than evidence for proof. I will also admit that many religious institutions make outrageous false claims. These irritate me, too.


Cris: "Then I suspect your beliefs have no factual basis and are hence irrational."

They would only be irrational to you if did not accept my belief in God as rational, based on what I call evidence for <i>belief</i>.

When you set your alarm clock at night, I assume you expect it to go off the next morning and wake you. You have only circumstantial evidence to believe this. It could break in the middle of the night, the power could go off, or, it may not wake you up at all. You <i>believe</i> it will work, but you don't <i>know</i> it will. Yet, you function normally each day, depending completely on the alarm clock without fear. Or, do you?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: This goes on forever.

Originally posted by Fluidity
The relavence of believing God is the Universe goes beyond the physical realm.

Utter, baseless claptrap.

 

[Cris]

CA,

Yup I must agree.

 

[James R]

Fluidity:

Regarding the Sagan issue - it is really very simple.

You asserted that Sagan tried to prove the non-existence of God using the big bang theory. CA then asked, quite reasonably, for a reference to where Sagan did that. You then referred to Hawking. CA asked for a quote or reference to Hawking. You then admit that you don't even own a Hawking book.

The bottom line is that you have not been able to back up your statement about Sagan at all.

Would you like to admit that you just made it up, or can you actually provide a real quote or reference to anything which Sagan might have written or said which supports your view?