Why the belief?

[praty]

I agree that it doesn't have to be, but the type of atheism represented here is, for the most part.

Well, I'll concede that I'm unaware of 'type' of atheism displayed, as I'm relatively new here. Though faith is not the discourse I use.

Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing?

How have you arrived at this conclusion via these disciplines?

That's not disputed.
We are discussing the existence of God.
Where are the scientific papers on this subject matter?
What has science revealed to us, that should convince us that God does NOT exist?

In this vast indifferent universe where our existence and existence of all matter we observe amounts to pollution, we are lucky to be on the billionbillionth planet that can create consciousness, it's a time where we can experimentally verify we are lucky!
Why would there be a god when we don't need her? God was created in ignorance and today it(the belief) remains ignorant. How many theists have looked upon science and said, 'This is better.'?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

You mean Occam's razor?

No.

It is not the idea per se, but the redundancy of the idea.

I don't follow.

For many it is the utter absence of God within what science has produced from its earliest days to the current day that leads them to their conviction.

We've been over this many times.
How do you know God is absent?
Does science have the tools to be able to conclude ''here is God'', or '' so far we have not found God''?

For others, such an absence merely leads them to the rational conclusion not hold the belief that God exists, but are open to the possibility, however remote they might think it is or is not.

Unless you have an idea of what God is, how is it best to conclude one way or the other? What is your idea of God?

But I'm sure the lack of scientific papers on the non-existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy means you still believe in those?

It's quite telling, how you defaulted to ''non-existence''.
But you're quite right, science isn't about discovering things that don't exist to the mundane senses.
So exactly how does it help in providing rational conclusions of God's non-existence?


jan.

 

[praty]

jan,

I'll add this to my previous post: that which can be conjured without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[lightgigantic]

You are in error to believe that jan, faith is never on the driving seat for atheism. Faith isn't required for not believing in supernatural, it requires only logical and scientifically oriented thinking. Science replaces private prejudice with publically verifiable evidence. We have faith in what other scientists say because we know their paper went through changes, revisions, criticism and thorough peer review.

If you think science strengthens supports validates or otherwise drives the atheistic perspective, it is most certainly a perspective driven by belief

 

[lightgigantic]

In this vast indifferent universe where our existence and existence of all matter we observe amounts to pollution, we are lucky to be on the billionbillionth planet that can create consciousness, it's a time where we can experimentally verify we are lucky!
Why would there be a god when we don't need her? God was created in ignorance and today it(the belief) remains ignorant. How many theists have looked upon science and said, 'This is better.'?

so speaks your faith ...
(eg we are pollution, we are lucky, the planet created consciousness, god was created in ignorance, etc etc ... all claims that exist at least a good arms length from anything close to hard science)

 

[spidergoat]

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.

 

[Lori_7]

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.

not in my book. the perfect combination of hope and trust. it's awesome. and i'm awesome for having it.

 

[spidergoat]

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[Sarkus]

No.

You misunderstood me... I'm telling you that Occam's razor is (one of) the answers to your question: "Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing"

I don't follow.

To many the suggestion that god exists is a redundant concept - they consider that it is simply not needed in order to understand. i.e. "God did it" is a valueless answer.

How do you know God is absent?
Does science have the tools to be able to conclude ''here is God'', or '' so far we have not found God''?

I don't know God is absent nor have I ever said as much: I am an agnostic atheist.
As for whether science has the tools:
- If God exists then, simply put, it MUST interact and thus MUST be observable.
- If God does not exist then ANY tool is capable of saying "so far we (the users of the tool) have not found God".

Unless you have an idea of what God is, how is it best to conclude one way or the other?

It's not. Agnostic atheism appears to be the rational position to me, which is why I am an agnostic atheist.

What is your idea of God?

I have no specific idea and am happy to use whatever idea that others bring to the table.

It's quite telling, how you defaulted to ''non-existence''.

There was no defaulting involved - it was used to make a point.
Or should I consider it telling how you default to disingenuousness?

But you're quite right, science isn't about discovering things that don't exist to the mundane senses.
So exactly how does it help in providing rational conclusions of God's non-existence?

You can lay claim to some other senses if you want, and lay claim to God being proven to you/others through these senses and not being provable through the "mundane" senses. You can demonstrate the reality of these claims to others... how, exactly? :shrug:

As for providing rational conclusions... if one considers themself to have no evidence of God, there is only one rational conclusion.
Or do you consider belief in something for which you have no evidence to be a rational position?

 

[NMSquirrel]

A mix of knowledge for its own sake and to improve my understanding of the world and how it works. Trying to get some sense out of it.

experience with you does not confirm that..
you tend to be judgmental to others opinions without(very few times at least) any form of correction..
IE:
No.
Wrong.

this says you want to tell ppl what is and what is not,
it says that you want to be the ultimate authority of everything.

instead of:
why?
(as in 'why do you think that?')

 

[SciWriter]

Jan, your belief in an invisible unknown (faith) has grooved deeply into you and others and so you have become immune to information, such as science and as I have provided all along, ‘neglecting; it’, and so I won’t be putting it out for you again, as I am onto the nature of belief, both through posting and also by observing the behavior of the God believers here.

Wisdom has concluded concluded, about strong believers changing, indeed, is that they don't, they can't, and they won't, and so there is no “could”, "should" or "ought to", and thus diplomacy, discussion, and mediation will fail. Such are Islamic extremists, for example, who bring a bloody end upon themselves.

God believers tried to fool us with false tales of species made intact just a few thousand years ago, a fixed and flat Earth, a solid firmament above, lone and special mammals that only existed here—the whole universe only for them, a Garden and an apple eaten, 50,000 species on a boat during a flood, a strict father figure of fundamental thinking Being of God sending one to blazes, or not, angels and evils as good and evil spirits, a Heaven of an afterlife for the experimented on who pass the test, a virgin giving birth, purgatories, limbos, and all such subsequent inventions, superstition, myths, and dredged up legends falsely layered upon the initial fabrication into an unwieldy structure that couldn’t even hold water in the first place.

It has all been disproved via self-contradiction. Believers continue on, but they are bypassed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

experience with you does not confirm that..
you tend to be judgmental to others opinions without(very few times at least) any form of correction..
IE:
No.
Wrong.
this says you want to tell ppl what is and what is not,
it says that you want to be the ultimate authority of everything.

If you go and check, the "no" and "wrong" replies are to statements that are demonstrably wrong. And already found to be so.

instead of:
why?
(as in 'why do you think that?')

So you haven't read any of my posts where I ask exactly that?

 

[NMSquirrel]

If you go and check, the "no" and "wrong" replies are to statements that are demonstrably wrong. And already found to be so.

thats my point..you don't demonstrate right..you just leave it at No/Wrong..

 

[praty]

so speaks your faith ...
(eg we are pollution, we are lucky, the planet created consciousness, god was created in ignorance, etc etc ... all claims that exist at least a good arms length from anything close to hard science)

Can you possibly be more wrong?
We know for a fact we are pollution, dark matter-dark energy are dominant here.
We know we are lucky cause the physical constants are of exact value required for hydrogen atoms to fuse together to form heavier atoms.
Also it is the time we can study the red shift of different galaxies which won't be possible for a civilization arising few billion years after us.
When we didn't knew how the world works, we created the belief in supernatural. Science works perfectly well without the supernatural.

These aren't faith based, these are facts. Try and think this time.

 

[SciWriter]

Pollution…

THIS TOTTERING EXISTENCE…

So called “empty” space is vital, for that’s where there’s the recital that forms and plays the tunes of reality, the grand cosmic symphony—as existence fluctuates with the non, those causeless waverings of undulation.

It was once thought that the shove of this total energy was of the order of 10**120 orders of magnitude above. Well, if that were so near, then we couldn’t even be here; it was the worst calculation in all of scientification; so, we weighed the universe, summing all of its constituent verses. The universe weighs nothing at all!

This, too, since we found that our universal space was b flat—not just via the 60 degree angles of a very small triangle. Not even using stars, one that went from here to Mars to Venus and back, but all the way back to a degree of the CMBR, which represented 100,000 light years, and measured the curvature: the rays didn’t converge or diverge. The ultimate of this geometry is that being flat is a beautiful symmetry that leads to yet another beauty: zero. The ever returning, conquering hero.

Far from being the Magnificat, we are more insignificant than we ever imagined, extra stuffing, as all is a big nothing, but also, since, considering that all the specs of matter’s amount, for whatever is the measly count, compared to dark matter and dark energy we are but a kind of pollution, irrelevant, really.

That is humility.


(Welcome to SciForums, Praty. We think alike.)

 

[praty]

Pollution…

THIS TOTTERING EXISTENCE…

So called “empty” space is vital, for that’s where there’s the recital that forms and plays the tunes of reality, the grand cosmic symphony—as existence fluctuates with the non, those causeless waverings of undulation.

It was once thought that the shove of this total energy was of the order of 10**120 orders of magnitude above. Well, if that were so near, then we couldn’t even be here; it was the worst calculation in all of scientification; so, we weighed the universe, summing all of its constituent verses. The universe weighs nothing at all!

This, too, since we found that our universal space was b flat—not just via the 60 degree angles of a very small triangle. Not even using stars, one that went from here to Mars to Venus and back, but all the way back to a degree of the CMBR, which represented 100,000 light years, and measured the curvature: the rays didn’t converge or diverge. The ultimate of this geometry is that being flat is a beautiful symmetry that leads to yet another beauty: zero. The ever returning, conquering hero.

Far from being the Magnificat, we are more insignificant than we ever imagined, extra stuffing, as all is a big nothing, but also, since, considering that all the specs of matter’s amount, for whatever is the measly count, compared to dark matter and dark energy we are but a kind of pollution, irrelevant, really.

That is humility.


(Welcome to SciForums, Praty. We think alike.)

Thanks Sci, beautifully written as always!
Is just fascinates me how we measured the degree at the Cosmic Microwave Background.
It is something that permeates how advanced our observational skills are and with this as the base, we are gonna reach pretty far. This alone provides far more hope for humanity, than any other pseudo-skyhookery.
:cheers:

 

[SciWriter]

It is something that permeates how advanced our observational skills are and with this as the base, we are gonna reach pretty far. This alone provides far more hope for humanity, than any other pseudo-skyhookery.
:cheers:

Maybe Me-Ki-Gal, my sometimes nutty friend with occasional dyslexia will have some fun with skies and hookers. He even once got a hooker to give him money!

Science even read "bar-code" type spectrums to learn the component of stars and also validated may separate disciplines to predict neutrinos.

Dogma can only remains in the stone it was carved into all at once.

If anything finds new and radical forms of energy that can be harnessed it will be science, not myth. Myth can't save anything, much less the world.

Thanks for the beer and the clink of our think.

 

[praty]

I'm always up for a beer!
Science is the only way ahead and it would be unwise to cross it's path.
Myth is well, myth, only to be enjoyed and not to be taken literally.
Well said.

 

[wynn]

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.

How touchy. Have you become an Oprah version of an atheist?

 

[Dywyddyr]

thats my point..you don't demonstrate right..you just leave it at No/Wrong..

That's right. Because whoever I'm responding to hasn't bothered to do anything other than make a flat (incorrect) statement: as if it were incontrovertibly true.