What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Dywyddyr]

How do you know it was deliberate?

Yes. My apologies. As opposed to deliberate I should have written " usual" or "seemingly deliberate". Maybe you're right and Jan thinks that dragging the topic further and further away from the original question, even into trivialities, is valid.
But, then again, that's also something he never bothers to elucidate.

Check this out as a reference: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84494
and get back to us.

Not relevant. Jan dismissed those links as having any worth when I presented them, yet used them for the purpose I posted them as an answer to Phlo. This, at the very least, suggests some sort of conflict, if not dishonesty.

 

[wynn]

What started this off:

To assert that one is God, is a disbelief in God.

Which I illustrated with:

Says he, "There is nobody above me, I am my own person, I control my life!" and then a bird's poo falls straight on his head.

If someone believes A to be B then it is a truism that whatever they think of A they also think of B.

Yes.

"To assert that one is God, is a disbelief in God."
When a human says "I am God", this means that the human is asserting the the human is the Supreme Being, The Highest.

Since bird poo (in its various forms, sometimes literally, but usually in the form of aging, illness and death, and also as getting fired from a job and suffering from unrequitted love) falls on the heads of humans all the time, it is evident that a human is not actually the Supreme Being (because the Supreme Being cannot possibly have a defect like having bird poo landing on His head).

To assert that a human is God is to say that that imperfect being, the human, is the highest there is.
This means that the human asserts that there is nobody higher or better than a human.
This is to deny God (who is the Supreme Being, no bird poo on His head), to disbelieve in God.

If one believes oneself to be God then as long as that person believes themself to exist then they believe God to exist.
Since theism is generally considered to be the belief that God exists then the person, by believing both themself to be God and themself to exist, is a theist.
This is inescapable logic.

But theists do not believe themselves to be God to begin with.

 

[wynn]

Not relevant.

Look. Do you want to discuss the topic, or do you want to preserve your macho dignity?

 

[Yazata]

I have a relative who is a staunch atheist. He claims there is no God.
But he uses the word "God" more often than I do.

Recently, he has been sick and he swears and curses a lot. "Bloody God!" "Damn God!" "F***ing life!" are the most common curses.

Do you think that the fact that the word 'God' forms part of many common English-language expletives (not unlike 'fuck', 'screw' and 'shit') implies that people who swear have subconscious beliefs/fixations on mythical divinities, procreative acts or feces?

Or consider how often Dawkins utters the word "God" (and usually part of what he means by it is "The One Who Is In Control").

Is such verbal behavior the mark of an actual atheist?

Why wouldn't it be?

I think that Dawkins developed his personal interest in and visceral antipathy for theologically conservative Christianity through his experience battling creationists in the cultural wars.

I mean, one has to have quite a belief in God in order to talk about God so much!

Interest and belief aren't necessarily the same things.

I suspect my relative is an atheist in denial, and so is Dawkins.

You've told us that you aren't a theist. But somehow every one of your posts seems designed to engage the atheists/agnostics in the name of traditional (I'm guessing Christian) theism. How would you account for that observation, given your deconstruction of the relative and Dawkins?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Look. Do you want to discuss the topic

Which topic?
That link led to a thread of 5 posts, which appear to boil down to "what's to discuss?" (Quoted from at least two of those posts).
:shrug:

or do you want to preserve your macho dignity?

I thought that you of all people, at least, would have realised the speciousness of that question.
Never mind.

 

[wynn]

Which topic?

The topic of henology, different concepts of God. Which you appear to be interested in.

From there -
Whatever one concludes about the relation between the Ultimate Being of the theistic arguments and the God of religion, it is important to note that what is at stake is not a conflict or correlation between two gods, but between two concepts of god.

I thought that you of all people, at least, would have realised the speciousness of that question.
Never mind.

If we want to discuss philosophy, we need to minimize our whine-factor.

If someone's way to approach a topic is not useful for us, then it's economical to just drop it with them, obviously. Unless, of course, we are defending our honor (eh) and thus feel compelled to get into elaborated and heated discussions with people whom we dislike, who dislike us and with whom we would rather have nothing to do.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The topic of henology, different concepts of God. Which you appear to be interested in.

Well for this discussion I wouldn't say I'm interested in per se but:

From there -
Whatever one concludes about the relation between the Ultimate Being of the theistic arguments and the God of religion, it is important to note that what is at stake is not a conflict or correlation between two gods, but between two concepts of god.

And Jan quibbled over whether "concept" was different from "definition" and effectively denied that there could be (are) differing definitions of god.
The point being, while that thread is interesting, in this case it come s down to Jan's particular stance on this.

If someone's way to approach a topic is not useful for us, then it's economical to just drop it with them, obviously. Unless, of course, we are defending our honor (eh) and thus feel compelled to get into elaborated and heated discussions with people whom we dislike, who dislike us and with whom we would rather have nothing to do.

Now there's a topic for a thread. Or not, if you decide that your answer is "You're right it's not economical".
The highlighted portions give me concern though...
But, overall, as usual, I tend to agree with you.

Au'voir. See you in another thread.

 

[spidergoat]

Let me answer this. God is the un-created source of all creation. God doesn't have a creator. This is why He is God.

Then I can say the universe doesn't have a creator because it's un-created and eternal.

 

[wynn]

Do you think that the fact that the word 'God' forms part of many common English-language expletives (not unlike 'fuck', 'screw' and 'shit') implies that people who swear have subconscious beliefs/fixations on mythical divinities, procreative acts or feces?

I have addressed this earlier, in a reply to James R.

Secondly, when someone is sick, and in relation to their sickness says things like "Bloody God!" "Damn God!" "F***ing life!", it is not unreasonable to suspect that they themselves are making a connection between their sickness and God. Such as "If God would be good and just, then I would not be so sick" or "If God existed, He would not let me be so sick."
Atheists tend to put quite a bit of emotion into their atheism, and this is worth looking into.

Is such verbal behavior the mark of an actual atheist?

Why wouldn't it be?

CS Lewis remarked about his atheist past that he was "angry with God for not existing".

You've told us that you aren't a theist. But somehow every one of your posts seems designed to engage the atheists/agnostics in the name of traditional (I'm guessing Christian) theism. How would you account for that observation, given your deconstruction of the relative and Dawkins?

I account for this observation of yours by replying that this is your observation, coming from your particular background of knowledge of religion.

 

[NMSquirrel]

What is the natural contrary to, say, Barack Obama?

sarah palin? :shrug:

So when the LHC discovers the Higg's Boson, your God disappears in a puff of logic?

i don't think of god as a physical being,
i don't see how god would disappear, i would sooner believe that once science discovered all there is to discover then god would become popular again, but not like he has been, in a better more practical way.

---

and BTW where did jan go?
was reading you guys try and corner her into a definition, (i wanted to see her answer also),
she was basicly every other post..then nothing..

 

[Rav]

i don't think of god as a physical being

Why not? If he exists he has to have substance; a way to physically interact. At some point a physical connection needs to be established and at that moment you can trace it back (theoretically, anyway). Surely you are not saying that there is "nothing" on the other end?

Remember, energy is not always matter but it is always physical. Of course if you admit that God is physical the concept becomes potentially falsifiable so you guys like to hide him where physics can't get to him: in unreality.

Here's a question for you: How is God different from nothing?

 

[Jan Ardena]

A full description of the God you believe in.

I really really don't get where you're going with this.

You may not be satisfied with my answer, but it is an answer to your question.
So please state the point you are trying to make, then let's take it from there.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Here's a question for you: How is God different from nothing?

Define "nothing"?


jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Why not? If he exists he has to have substance; a way to physically interact. At some point a physical connection needs to be established and at that moment you can trace it back (theoretically, anyway). Surely you are not saying that there is "nothing" on the other end?

Remember, energy is not always matter but it is always physical. Of course if you admit that God is physical the concept becomes potentially falsifiable so you guys like to hide him where physics can't get to him: in unreality.

there has been a theory put forth that i can find plausible,
collective conscienceness is the closest that describes such,
as far as how he physically interacts with the world..through ppl..

Here's a question for you: How is God different from nothing?

that first requires a definition of god that could be measured.

I
You may not be satisfied with my answer,

..what about the rest of us who want to know??
you gonna keep us in the dark as to what your definition of God is?

 

[Rav]

Define "nothing"?

Well, the absence of absolutely anything and everything of course.

 

[Rav]

there has been a theory put forth that i can find plausible,
collective conscienceness is the closest that describes such,

But consciousness is a feature of physical reality.

as far as how he physically interacts with the world..through ppl..

So you are saying that he never interacts with the physical universe in a direct way? I'm betting that you're not suggesting that he can't.

that first requires a definition of god that could be measured.

If he's not nothing, he's something. If he's something he has to have substance. If something has substance then it's physical, even if it's physical in a way that physics can't measure yet.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, the absence of absolutely anything and everything of course.

Then my answer would be, the opposite.

How does consciousness differ from nothing?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

NM,

Originally Posted by Signal,
What is the natural contrary to, say, Barack Obama?

sarah palin?

I'd have to go with Alan Keyes on this one.

..what about the rest of us who want to know??
you gonna keep us in the dark as to what your definition of God is?

Then start a thread, and ask question which correspond to the details you wish to know.

jan.

 

[Rav]

Then my answer would be, the opposite.

If physical reality is also the opposite of nothing (which you could certainly argue that it is) then God and physical reality are the same thing. But is that really what you meant to imply?

How does consciousness differ from nothing?

Consciousness is a feature of physical reality. It emerges from a complex architecture of electrical and chemical signaling in the brain. There *may* even be a quantum aspect (or at least influence) but even the quantum world is physical.

 

[NMSquirrel]

So you are saying that he never interacts with the physical universe in a direct way? I'm betting that you're not suggesting that he can't.

i am not saying what is, i am saying what i believe..

If he's not nothing, he's something. If he's something he has to have substance. If something has substance then it's physical, even if it's physical in a way that physics can't measure yet.

but that is exactly why science claims there is no god, because they can't measure him.they keep saying give us something to measure and we will believe (forget the fact that if they measured god, they would not need to believe,for it would be known.)

NM,
Then start a thread, and ask question which correspond to the details you wish to know.

chicken..