RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded.

RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/6/2008 12:00:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic quote: That said, the logical and philosophical arguments I have heard for theism are easily countered. (The same can probably be said of the atheistic or agnostic arguments, but that simply illustrates my point about armchair philosophy. Who is 'right' ends up being based on which arguments you find to be more compelling, rather than who actually is.) Really? You know what a more interesting question than "why should I believe in God" is? It's this: "Why should I believe anything at all"? That's not a very interesting question. I believe in things because I am of a pattern-seeking species. I believe that things can be predicted because things have generally shown, with sufficient starting information, to be predictable. Does this mean I should believe things? No. There's no reason to believe that the earth will continue rotating in order to allow the sun to rise tomorrow other than that it has done so in the past. The earth could be destroyed before tomorrow and my belief that tomorrow will come would be unfounded. However, it's much easier to believe in things that to only accept what has already happened. quote: To me, it's not merely theistic beliefs that you should be "skeptical" of. Let's be consistent with your skepticism here. How are any beliefs "justified", especially atheistic beliefs? How is it that your own beliefs make any sense, including your belief that "logical and philosophical arguments for theism..are easily countered"? How does skepticism avoid the pendulum's swing back into itself? I don't really have an 'atheistic belief'. I have a lack of belief in god. I've seen nothing to convince me that there is a god, and therefore I lack a belief in him. I don't consider myself an agnostic because until I see evidence that god exists, I won't believe in him. This is the same, to me, as saying that I don't believe that gravity will suddenly start repelling instead of attracting objects. I've seen no evidence that this will happen, and have been given no good reason to believe it will happen, therefore I don't believe in it. If gravity suddenly reversed, I would believe it because there would be proof of it. I believe that logical and philosophical arguments for theism are easily countered in the same way that I believe that the same sorts of arguments for atheism are countered. When people are using only words, with no true evidence, then the arguments that one finds convincing are largely subjective. I am willing to reject arguments that theists believe are solid proofs for god simply because I am already an atheist. I've seen the reverse to be true of theists. While I will consider the theist arguments, and can even understand why a theist finds them convincing, there are generally ways to counter non-concrete argument. It becomes a game of who can best weave words and thoughts in an attractive manner. quote: On the one hand, the atheist universe is merely the sum of physics, chemistry and biology, along with the attendant laws of physical causation. So, "beliefs" are merely the natural result of the combination of nature and natural laws. But when we come to the world of reason and argumentation, we aren't speaking of any of these laws at all. Rather, we are thinking about truth values of proposition and laws of inference, both of which stand outside the category of physical causation. Now, if you say that "beliefs" are merely natural occurrences, then it's pointless to speak of debating about anything, since you and I cannot help but have these opposing "beliefs" that we in fact do have. But if we cannot change our beliefs because we are bound by physics, biology and chemistry, then the very idea of "debate", "argument" and "persuasion" is a sham. Why not simply reverse the argument? If an omniscient god knows everything that did, is, and will happen, then everything is set in stone. Everything we do is just as futile in this framework as it is in an atheistic one. If the future is known, it is fixed. If the world is ruled completely by natural law, the future is fixed. Why is one worse than the other in this regard? It only becomes pointless in a philosophical way. All knowledge is worth having. Why? Because all knowledge has its uses. If we are bound completely by the laws of physics, it is as useless for me to attempt to find out how to feed myself as it is to argue about the existence of a god. However, feeding myself has an obvious use. Discussing god also has its value, and so I do it. It's true that, if the universe is deterministic, we were both already determined to hold these beliefs. You can say it's 'pointless' to debate due to this, but the debate is only as useless as the beliefs in this case. If we were predetermined to hold the beliefs, we are also predetermined to argue about them. quote: So when you recourse to saying that scientific explanations offer the only valid explanations for beliefs, in effect, you have lobotomized human reason altogether. But even when you begin to talk of "laws of nature", you aren't speaking of anything that you actually detect by sense perception. Rather, "laws of nature" are explanations of what you sense that perceptible objects behave like. For instance, when you throw a ball in the air and it drops, you only perceive the behavior of the ball rising and falling, and then postulate some notion, like mass and gravitation, as a means of accounting for the behavior. But you don't "see" and "sense" gravity at all. Gravity is merely an umbrella term for repeated experiences that are classed under the explanatory category of "gravitation". As I said, you can reverse the 'lobotomizing' upon a theistic universe (one with an omniscient god, at least). The universe would be not more than a deterministic simulation started by god. We would have no true free will, because all of our actions would already be known. It's true that we don't directly sense the laws of nature. However, I don't believe direct perception the only valid way of knowing about things. In fact, perception is often an invalid way of knowing about things, because our senses can be limited, or tricked. If we're going to argue that gravity can't be seen, simply because it's an observation of repetition, then we can say other interesting but useless things. If I say that no human, in the history of mankind, has touched water, I would be technically correct. The atoms that compose your body never come into direct contact with the atoms of the water. There is always a thin barrier of repulsion, and that is what you're actually feeling. In this manner, water, or anything, can't be said to have ever been tactically perceived, only the repulsion of their atoms. quote: Now, when pressed as to exactly what and how gravity and mass exist and are related to one another at all, your atheism is going to have a Promethean task ahead. And theism is any better? Is "God holds things together" really a fulfilling answer to you? Even if we don't currently know how everything works perfectly, that doesn't mean we should avoid the task of trying to find out. And again, it's not my atheism that would need to figure these things out. My atheism is simply the observation of a lack of convincing (subjective) evidence for god. It postulates nothing further. It is my scientific curiosity that tries to figure out how the universe actually is. quote: But let's extend your category of explanation to include human volition, ethical categories and personal responsibility. How is your "laws of nature", as exhaustive descriptions of the totality of existence, going to avoid deeply counter-intuitive notions of what these interrelated ideas of ethics and choice mean and imply? So when someone tells me that the "theistic" position is easily countered, I can only think that such a person is deeply ignorant of their own ignorance. Why would the laws of nature address ethics and choice? The laws of nature that mankind has devised are models of reality. They describe how matter and energy interact. Ethics and choice are human constructs, human ideas. The laws of nature, from what we can tell, do exist in an objective form, we simply describe them. While I am not ashamed to admit my ignorance on a great many things, including this topic, I made that statement for a reason. I've watched quite a number of atheism/theism debates. It always seems that each side believe that it's every answer completely destroys the opposing argument. Each side always believes itself victorious. The supporters of each side believe their champion won the argument hands-down. In this way, the arguments of both theism and atheism are easily countered. They aren't countered by evidence, or pure logic, but by preconceived notions. No one goes into these debates as a blank slate, fairly tallying the points. Everyone has bias, and it is that bias that defeats the opposing argument. quote: Since you believe that theistic explanation is easily refuted, now you can enlighten us all as to how your atheism/skepticism deals with these important ideas. Let's deconstruct your position now. If you cannot offer some plausible alternative explanation to theism, you really haven't refuted anyone. It's not my job, as an atheist, to refute your position. It's your job (if you so choose), to convince me that god exists. You're the one making the claim, I'm simply saying that I don't believe it. I can, again, reverse the argument on you. If you can't find a plausible explanation in the first place, it's not my job to offer you an alternative that fits my views. I don't find your explanation plausible, so I owe you no alternate. Even if I didn't know about the Raleigh effect, if someone says to me "The sky is blue because pixies color it with magic dust." I don't have to offer an alternative in order to reject their statement. I can simply say I don't see the evidence for their statement being true. If they want to posit pixies, it's not my job to offer the Raleigh effect, it's their job to prove the pixies. quote: I maintain that atheists, skeptics, God doubters, agnostics and God haters do not critically assess their own position and probably don't care to. Their interest in "science", "logic" and "reason" is only an investment aimed at critiquing religious viewpoints. All tools are used at debunking views they dislike and constructing views that help foster their avoidance of thinking about God. So... we're only interested in science because it offers an alternative to theism? Sorry, but that's just wrong. I like science because it's interesting, not because of any metaphysical use it may have. I don't even believe that science can comment on the metaphysical, but only the physical. The only way it can counter religion is if religion first posits something about reality. At that point, science can discredit the thing they posit by finding contrary evidence. The reason I because an atheist was because that's where logic led me. I didn't purposefully use logic to refute god, that's simply where I was led as I learned. quote: And it is to this behavior that atheists, and not theists, foster the "future of an illusion", keeping them pacified in the Nietzchean abyss. Therefore, atheism truly is the opiate of the jaded. When God becomes an unbearable anxiety, the atheist fabricates a position that allows him/her to feel good and cope with their life. The aim of proselytizing theists is to make the atheist feel comfortable; both in the crusade itself, as well as it's results. Just like potheads/junkies only feel comfortable when they are around other potheads and junkies, likewise with atheists. God didn't become an anxiety for me, he became irrelevant. He stopped mattering, and so I stopped believing in him. I did not fabricate a position in order to escape god, I simply found that the position exited, and that I found it more convincing. To accuse all atheists of intellectual dishonesty is quite low. You may be good at debate, or knowledgeable about theism, but your views on atheism are horridly skewed. Atheism at the personal level is something of which you are obviously ignorant. I don't attempt to proselytize theists, I merely hold discussions with them. If these end up changing their mind, so be it. If it ends up changing my mind, so be it. I like to exchange ideas. I like to find new paradigms, and see things from other peoples eyes. It makes me a better person, and the world a richer place. And if I'm only comfortable around the like-minded, why don't I ever hang out with them? Why am I not a member of a non-theistic board? Why surround myself with 'the opposition'? Because I'm not scared of god, or scared of theists. I'm not afraid to attempt to see things from other peoples view, because sometimes they're right, and I don't like being wrong. Atheism, for me, is one step on my journey to find the truth. It is where the search has led me. If I'm wrong, I do hope I find out, because I want my view of the world to be as accurate and open as possible.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/6/2008 1:01:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude I've watched quite a number of atheism/theism debates. It always seems that each side believe that it's every answer completely destroys the opposing argument. Each side always believes itself victorious. The supporters of each side believe their champion won the argument hands-down. That's exactly what I was thinking. I've seen this quite a few times, and I've even caught myself doing it before. It's definitely food for thought.

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/6/2008 7:17:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad Energy was doing something else? Wha? As I said, energy doesn't create itself. It's an effect, just like everything in the universe. That's pretty much what I said too, except that I was saying that nothing creates or destroys energy. Therefore, the energy had to be doing something. It certainly wasn't being the universe, because we know that that happened a finite amount of time ago. If it wasn't the universe, it must have been doing something else. It may have been another universe that experienced a gnab gib, or something that we can't imagine. But the energy had to be there. quote: Oder does not appear when chaos calms down. That's the kind of mystical ****olla that should be beneath science. Sadly, it isn't. Actually, that's pretty much what happened. Immediately after the big bang, it was too hot/dense for even hydrogen atoms to exist. As the universe expanded (and therefore cooled) hydrogen atoms formed, followed by helium. These gases formed clouds, then stars, then planets, etc... etc... etc... Basically, order came out of chaos because chaos calmed down (cooled). I'm no scientist, I'm not even well educated, but I think my understanding of energy and yours are different. If I leave a flashlight on, the battery wears down. The energy is expended. As water exits a hose, it looses momentum. The energy is expended. As to order/chaos, like a battery wearing down and eventually decaying altogether, the universe is running out of steam (so to speak). It's going form a state of order to disorder, not the other way around. It's not a self-sustaining system. By the way, I totally love it that you're hanging out here and testing our beliefs with your own. While I have utter contempt for atheism, I think debate is a great thing and I like your style. I salute you, sir!

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/6/2008 12:10:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic abraxas: I would like to point out that everyone brings different things to the table from their experiences, so you might reconsider using your reading list as the litmus test to who is a UFC champ and who is a couch potato. Well, there's nothing else to go by here. What do you mean? Just discuss. quote: The fact is, I've read those books. Perhaps you and others have not. But that list hardly exhausts all the books that may have some relevance to this topic that I have poured through. Nor the books that others have poured through. That was all I was trying to say. quote: I offered an analogy. Both theists and atheists can "bully" others by unfairly engaging in a debate that is not equally measured. True, and that happens sometimes. It can be a learning experience. But how have you measured the debate? Just discuss, and people can do a little research on the side if they need to. quote: But also, my reasoning, language and approach is not going to be understood by just any person. For instance, if I were to raise questions in the area of epistemology and someone hadn't the faintest idea of what "epistemology" was, does it make any sense to begin that sort of discussion? Likewise with quantum physics, linguistics and historiography. I think your reading list is a good one. But is it a good measuring stick for who does and doesn't have an idea of epistemology, quantum physics, linguistics, and historiography? quote: Unfortunately, we live within the democratic framework of "all men are created equal"; which some have taken to mean that all are equally studied and prepared for debate. But that is patently absurd, and hopefully there won't be any more need for explanation here. Agreed, that's absurd. Not sure who thinks that. I suppose it's an internet message board idiosyncracy. My thoughts: Just discuss stuff and it becomes clear along the way if you need to simplify your arguments, or read up a bit on what the other person is talking about, or abandon the discussion altogether.

Ezra -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 1:20:46 AM)
quote: Basically, order came out of chaos because chaos calmed down (cooled). Let's analyze this statement. Does order necessarily come out of chaos simply because it calms down or cools down? What it order? Does order require an intelligence behind it, or can molecules simply organize themselves if left to themselves? Let's say you have a thick stew cooking at a very high temperature, and thereby creating chaos within the pot. Once it cools down, is that pot necessarily "ordered" and "orderly" or is it simply cold chaos? Order of necessity demands an intelligence behind it. Order means organization, pattern, design, purpose, intricacy, efficiency, etc. None of this can be achieved by molecules (or carrots) on their own. Let's say carrots would have gone into that stew. Could a bunch of haphazard carrots line themselves up neatly, so that they are all parallel to each other and the chef can then efficiently make clean cuts through several carrots at one time, thus hastening the process of preparation? Not in a million years. It would take the intelligence of the chef to achieve this result in minutes (if not seconds). When we come to the creation of life at even the most microscopic level, it is utterly impossible for molecules to organize themselves left to themselves. To even suggest that a soup of molecules could suddenly assume organization and life is to suggest the preposterous. It has never happend and will never happen in 60 billion years. So this whole business of leaving God out of any equation is simply absurd -- laughable in fact. That men try to do so indicates to what length creatures will go to avoid acknowledging the Creator. And thus their hearts and minds are darkened, and they become "fools" inspite of their vaunted intelligence.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 1:33:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra Let's say carrots would have gone into that stew. Could a bunch of haphazard carrots line themselves up neatly, so that they are all parallel to each other and the chef can then efficiently make clean cuts through several carrots at one time, thus hastening the process of preparation? Not in a million years. It would take the intelligence of the chef to achieve this result in minutes (if not seconds). I don't think that's a property of carrots. I'm going to go and research carrots and their properties just to be sure.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 3:29:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad I'm no scientist, I'm not even well educated, but I think my understanding of energy and yours are different. If I leave a flashlight on, the battery wears down. The energy is expended. As water exits a hose, it looses momentum. The energy is expended. As to order/chaos, like a battery wearing down and eventually decaying altogether, the universe is running out of steam (so to speak). It's going form a state of order to disorder, not the other way around. It's not a self-sustaining system. This is true, but you also have to consider the initial conditions. Energy from a pump becomes the potential energy in the water. The potential energy then becomes kinetic energy as the water runs out of the hose, and is then transfered into the earth as the water hits the ground. Batteries and hoses are not closed systems, as they require energy to be input to become useful. Now, the before the big bang, we have this super-massive, super-dense point of energy. It's basically pure potential energy. The big bang is the potential energy becoming kinetic energy. The universe is that kinetic energy becoming less useful over time. The forming of planets, the burning of stars, etc... are all turning that useful energy into useless energy. Eventually all energy should be completely useless, causing as perfect a vacuum as is possible in our universe to exist everywhere.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 4:22:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra quote: Basically, order came out of chaos because chaos calmed down (cooled). Let's analyze this statement. Does order necessarily come out of chaos simply because it calms down or cools down? What it order? Does order require an intelligence behind it, or can molecules simply organize themselves if left to themselves? Perhaps not necessarily, but from what we can tell, that's what happened. Or more specifically, that's not what happened, but it can be a useful analogy. Order, in scientific terms, can be understood as the opposite of chaos (The result of entropy). Chaos is that which appears to be completely random. If, for instance, there is a room half-filled with neatly stacked blocks, this is order. If the blocks are randomly scattered all around the room, this is chaos. Now let's transpose this to the universal scale. The 'room' is the universe. The 'blocks' are energy. Before the big bang, all energy was in one super-massive, super-dense point. This is the highest order, scientifically speaking, obtainable. The big bang was the process of those 'blocks' spreading out all over the place. What we have now is 'less ordered' than at the moment of the big bang. Order did not come out of chaos, order came out of higher order. If you want to talk complexity, that's different. What we generally perceive as order (complexity) can not arise in a super-dense point. You can't have a person in a point the size of an electron. Though the universe is becoming more chaotic (the energy is becoming less useful), that chaos has allowed complexity to arise. Without that chaos, hydrogen couldn't have formed, stars couldn't have formed, planets couldn't have formed, and we couldn't have formed. Strictly speaking, chaos is required for complexity. quote: Let's say you have a thick stew cooking at a very high temperature, and thereby creating chaos within the pot. Once it cools down, is that pot necessarily "ordered" and "orderly" or is it simply cold chaos? Order of necessity demands an intelligence behind it. Order means organization, pattern, design, purpose, intricacy, efficiency, etc. None of this can be achieved by molecules (or carrots) on their own. Gravity is a repulsive force. The sky is green. Happiness is a detriment to society. See how fun it can be to make baseless claims, and then not back them up? Simply stating that order requires intelligence without providing evidence for this claim is useless. As an example of order without intelligence, I present exhibit A. The Universe. Unless you can prove that an intelligence created the universe, we don't have to assume that one did. If an intelligence did not create the universe, then order can come about without an intelligence. If you want something within the universe, let's go to exhibit B. Geological Strata. If you look at, for instance, the grand canyon, you can see many different layered strata. If the rock in the various strata were mixed together, this would be chaotic. However, layers are a form of order. The layers are formed naturally by erosion and accretion(?), but they are a form of order. I already explained my use of order and chaos in the statement I made. That statement would not apply to stew because the stew isn't order becoming chaos in such a way that allows complexity. That's not to mention that you haven't justified the statement that adding heat to the pot creates anything that would be scientifically recognized as chaos. Generally, chaos is things cooling down. The sun is ordered, the heat and light it lets off are more chaotic. The hot stew is ordered, with much energy in one place. As the stew entropies to become cold, it loses order and becomes chaotic. Ostensibly this is what will happen to our universe. It will become less and less ordered, and eventually will die a heat death. quote: Let's say carrots would have gone into that stew. Could a bunch of haphazard carrots line themselves up neatly, so that they are all parallel to each other and the chef can then efficiently make clean cuts through several carrots at one time, thus hastening the process of preparation? Not in a million years. It would take the intelligence of the chef to achieve this result in minutes (if not seconds). When we come to the creation of life at even the most microscopic level, it is utterly impossible for molecules to organize themselves left to themselves. To even suggest that a soup of molecules could suddenly assume organization and life is to suggest the preposterous. It has never happend and will never happen in 60 billion years. Do you know how the carrots got in a line? It took energy to get them there. It took more order to get them there than they produce. It, in fact, took the chef to get them there. How did the chef get there? It took more order to get the chef there than he produces by ordering the carrots (Think about how many carrots the chef has consumed over his lifetime. All of that food he digests is his body stealing order from the carrots; it is order becoming chaos). If we extrapolate this back, we reach a point of perfect oder that is the state of the universe before the big bang. Everything since then has been more order becoming less order. No matter how much more complex it is, it is less ordered. When we come to the organization of molecules into life, it is not utterly impossible for molecules to organize themselves. We see molecules organize themselves all the time. Most things in the universe (planets, starts, etc...) are simply the effects of molecules organizing themselves. Life, it is suggested, is no different. We don't know exactly how it happened that molecules organized themselves into imperfect replicators (life), but there are several promising hypothesizes (Such as formation in motmorillonite clay.) It is not "random" that molecules did this, it is (as abraxas so neatly hinted at) an intrinsic property of atoms to organize themselves into molecules, and for molecules (when conditions are appropriate) to combine. It's simply following physical law. From what we can tell, molecules did organize themselves into life, and it only took 9 billion years for it to do so. quote: So this whole business of leaving God out of any equation is simply absurd -- laughable in fact. That men try to do so indicates to what length creatures will go to avoid acknowledging the Creator. And thus their hearts and minds are darkened, and they become "fools" inspite of their vaunted intelligence. Not only is leaving god out of the problem not absurd, it doesn't help to include him. Even if you posit that the order at the start of the big bang came from an even more ordered source (god), you're still left with the problem of where that came from. To simply say that it always existed doesn't' help, as we can then also posit that the energy that existed at the big bang had also always existed. This is the prime mover argument, and it does not convince me. I'm not an atheist because I am attempting to avoid acknowledging a creator. I'm an atheist because I don't see a creator there to acknowledge. If the time ever comes that I find that there is a creator, then I will acknowledge him (though I imagine that if such a thing ever happens, I will become a deist, or a non-worshiping theist. It would take much more than evidence of a god to convince me of evidence for a specific god.) If your definition of "fool" is "one who rejects that which had not been proven to be true." then I would would rather be an intelligent fool than a mindless believer. If your god set up the universe so that it appears to be billions of years old, who am I to argue? If he set up life to appear evolved, who am I to argue? If he provided pathways for life to form from non-life, who am I do disagree that this is what has happened? Science reveals the testament of nature. If an honest god designed nature, then I am justified in believing that what nature reveals to be true, is true. If there is no god, I am justified in believing what nature reveals to be true. Until such a time as I see nature proclaiming that a god made it, I will not believe the conjectures of a holy book.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 7:07:01 AM)
I wonder how long before the intelligent designer of this site transports this thread through a wormhole to the science folder? Not that it matters--it's interesting stuff, whichever of the multi-verses it's in.

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 9:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad I'm no scientist, I'm not even well educated, but I think my understanding of energy and yours are different. If I leave a flashlight on, the battery wears down. The energy is expended. As water exits a hose, it looses momentum. The energy is expended. As to order/chaos, like a battery wearing down and eventually decaying altogether, the universe is running out of steam (so to speak). It's going form a state of order to disorder, not the other way around. It's not a self-sustaining system. This is true, but you also have to consider the initial conditions. Energy from a pump becomes the potential energy in the water. The potential energy then becomes kinetic energy as the water runs out of the hose, and is then transfered into the earth as the water hits the ground. Batteries and hoses are not closed systems, as they require energy to be input to become useful. Now, the before the big bang, we have this super-massive, super-dense point of energy. It's basically pure potential energy. The big bang is the potential energy becoming kinetic energy. The universe is that kinetic energy becoming less useful over time. The forming of planets, the burning of stars, etc... are all turning that useful energy into useless energy. Eventually all energy should be completely useless, causing as perfect a vacuum as is possible in our universe to exist everywhere. Yes, I'm aware that tap water has a sourse other than the faucet. Yes, they are not closed systems. My point is that the universe does not convert energy at 100% effenciency. It's loosing energy. It's also loosing order (ie the systems within it are all falling apart). When you see a system, like a battery powered light, that's running down you know: 1) someone tuned it on; 2) it's hasn't been there forever or it would have already run our of power. On the origional super tiny, super dense point of matter theory, the problem with this is that, as Newton showed, an object at rest will stay at rest unless something else acts apon it. If all the matter of the universe was in one little spot, something/someone acted apon it to make it move. Unforntuneately, as I understand them, many scientists are claiming it moved itself. That's a fairytale. As to proof of intelligent design, here's where I have a problem with the integrity of the "scientific community". Scientists aknowledge that a sequenced series of signals (adio, visual, etc) are evidence of intelligence. One group is putting their money where their mouth is by spending millions of dollars, pointing a radio reciever at the stars. How will they know if they're hearing ET calling home? Because the radio waves they hear will have a sequnce, an order, like morris code. They know that oder does not ever create itself. Only an intelligence creates it. The problem is, IMO, they are looking at the wrong place. God sent all of mankind a coded message. It's called DNA. There are other sequenced codes all over the place and, like chip marks on a stone, fashioned into a spearhead by an intelligence, they show how objects in the universe have been designed.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 5:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad Yes, I'm aware that tap water has a sourse other than the faucet. Yes, they are not closed systems. My point is that the universe does not convert energy at 100% effenciency. It's loosing energy. It's also loosing order (ie the systems within it are all falling apart). When you see a system, like a battery powered light, that's running down you know: 1) someone tuned it on; 2) it's hasn't been there forever or it would have already run our of power. On the origional super tiny, super dense point of matter theory, the problem with this is that, as Newton showed, an object at rest will stay at rest unless something else acts upon it. If all the matter of the universe was in one little spot, something/someone acted apon it to make it move. Unforntuneately, as I understand them, many scientists are claiming it moved itself. That's a fairytale. Thankfully, while Newton's basic principles are sound for general use, they are far from being perfect descriptions of the universe. Newton didn't know anything about quantum mechanics, or the properties of matter at the nano scale. We do indeed know of things that have no (apparent) cause. Movements that occur without explanation, and energy that enters and leaves the universe seemingly at random. An example of uncaused motion (For some reason, I don't think it's a valid one, but I can't remember why this would be, so I'll use it.), electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom without having to have energy added. Since the point of energy of the big bang was well within the bounds of nano-scale, it could have moved on its own. This is disregarding that none of the laws of physics apply before the Planck Epoch. We can't really speculate on what caused the big bang to happen with any accuracy, as the laws of physics as we know them didn't exist until a little (very little) while after the universe began. This isn't to mention that, no matter where something is, there are always outside forces acting upon it, and conflicting forces at that. From what we can tell, the gravity has infinite range, albeit with reducing effects over longer ranges. The same applies to the electromagnetic force. Everything in the universe has an affect on everything else. quote: As to proof of intelligent design, here's where I have a problem with the integrity of the "scientific community". Scientists aknowledge that a sequenced series of signals (adio, visual, etc) are evidence of intelligence. One group is putting their money where their mouth is by spending millions of dollars, pointing a radio reciever at the stars. How will they know if they're hearing ET calling home? Because the radio waves they hear will have a sequnce, an order, like morris code. They know that oder does not ever create itself. Only an intelligence creates it. The problem is, IMO, they are looking at the wrong place. God sent all of mankind a coded message. It's called DNA. There are other sequenced codes all over the place and, like chip marks on a stone, fashioned into a spearhead by an intelligence, they show how objects in the universe have been designed. I would argue that the SETI experiment is more a result of the observation that radio signals don't tend to be recognizably complex unless from an intelligent source. Radio signals don't self-organize into things that look intelligent. We do know that molecules form when atoms are left alone. We know that nucleotides, nucleotides, and RNA, can all form in montmorillonite clay. Since life is nothing more than compilations of molecules, and we have plausible pathways by which these molecules could have formed and come together naturally we don't need to assume an intelligence to explain life. If DNA is God's message to mankind, then I am completely opposed to your god. He sent a message that took 200,000 years to be even discovered, let alone anything but raw data to be extracted. This message not only codes for all life, but also for all disease, all cancer, all birth deformities. If God sent DNA as a message, it is a violent, hate-filled one. It is also one of a flawed designer, as the design is also imperfect. Even death is coded into the DNA itself (cells being limited in replication by telomeres 'running out'.)

cognitivemagic -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 5:42:44 PM)
quote: That's not a very interesting question. I believe in things because I am of a pattern-seeking species. I believe that things can be predicted because things have generally shown, with sufficient starting information, to be predictable. Does this mean I should believe things? No. There's no reason to believe that the earth will continue rotating in order to allow the sun to rise tomorrow other than that it has done so in the past. The earth could be destroyed before tomorrow and my belief that tomorrow will come would be unfounded. However, it's much easier to believe in things that to only accept what has already happened. It's only an uninteresting question to you because you don't care to address it. Let me summarize your view in this quote: I believe because I just do. quote: I've seen nothing to convince me that there is a god, and therefore I lack a belief in him. compare your statement: quote: There's no reason to believe that the earth will continue rotating in order to allow the sun to rise tomorrow other than that it has done so in the past. The earth could be destroyed before tomorrow and my belief that tomorrow will come would be unfounded. However, it's much easier to believe in things that to only accept what has already happened. You're willing to give nature, most of which (past, present and future) you cannot observe, and her laws the benefit of "faith". In other words, you're willing to believe in propositions that no man can ever "prove" and yet you want to say you disbelieve in God because He is not proven. You're a hypocrite. quote: I don't really have an 'atheistic belief'. I have a lack of belief in god. I've seen nothing to convince me that there is a god, and therefore I lack a belief in him. I don't consider myself an agnostic because until I see evidence that god exists, I won't believe in him. This is the same, to me, as saying that I don't believe that gravity will suddenly start repelling instead of attracting objects. I've seen no evidence that this will happen, and have been given no good reason to believe it will happen, therefore I don't believe in it. If gravity suddenly reversed, I would believe it because there would be proof of it. This is an equivocation and non-sequitur, at best. What you're implying is an analogy between "observing" God and "observing" the reversal of gravity that says: "I don't see God and until I do I won't believe; much like I don't see gravity working in reverse so I won't believe it can until I do." First off, you don't "see" gravity at all. You only "see" material objects behaving in certain ways. Furthermore, you can only "see" objects that are directly before your sense of sight. You don't see objects at all places in all times behaving exactly like what you currently are experiencing. How could you? Nor do you "see" things that you have experienced in the past. You are relying on "memory", which may or may not be wholly accurate; either way, you have no way to directy test your memory for absolute accuracy. And when you appeal to the observations of others, you aren't involved in science at all, but rather testimony and history. But you're interest is in science, isn't it? Maybe Zoology? quote: Why not simply reverse the argument? If an omniscient god knows everything that did, is, and will happen, then everything is set in stone. As I said, you can reverse the 'lobotomizing' upon a theistic universe (one with an omniscient god, at least). The universe would be not more than a deterministic simulation started by god. We would have no true free will, because all of our actions would already be known. No. That's absurd. "Knowing" something is not the same thing as "causing" or "effecting" something. That's like saying that because I "know" that gravity acts like such and such, that I cause it to be so. You've made a category mistake. quote: It's true that we don't directly sense the laws of nature. However, I don't believe direct perception the only valid way of knowing about things. In fact, perception is often an invalid way of knowing about things, because our senses can be limited, or tricked. This is deeply puzzling. So you are not an "empiricist"? What other option do you have? Do you believe that things can be "known" apart from bodily senses? Are you Cartesian? quote: Why would the laws of nature address ethics and choice? The laws of nature that mankind has devised are models of reality. They describe how matter and energy interact. Ethics and choice are human constructs, human ideas. The laws of nature, from what we can tell, do exist in an objective form, we simply describe them Because mankind is part of the matrix of reality. If nature is all there was, is and ever will be, then ethics and volition must be (de dicto) subsumed under some sort of "natural" explanation. Science, ethics and philosophy are all human constructs....or "models of reality", to use your phrasing. This quote is out of touch both with philosophy and science, especially philosophy of science. I suggest reading Bas Von Frassen's "The Scientific Image", John Foster's "The Divine Lawmaker" and Larry Lauden's "Progress and It's Problems". quote: It's not my job, as an atheist, to refute your position. It's your job (if you so choose), to convince me that god exists. You're the one making the claim, I'm simply saying that I don't believe it. This burden of proof argument is a lame horse; Antony Flew doesn't even accept it anymore. What I suggested was that theism and atheism be seen as types of explanation. Overall, I believe that theism has something going for it. You seem to think that you don't have anything to explain at all, from the atheist perspective. I already said this: quote: Since you believe that theistic explanation is easily refuted, now you can enlighten us all as to how your atheism/skepticism deals with these important ideas But you say "I don't have to". So you are only interested in debunking then. That sort of procedure is like the person who says this: "I don't think that the theory of modern particle physics is false because of X, Y and Z...and I don't have anything to offer. But I don't have to." So you just have faith, right? quote: I like science because it's interesting This is a tautology. Of course, science is interesting because you like it. But at the end of the day, there's no ultimate meaning or reason to pursue it other than whim...or as a means of justifying your prejudice against God. quote: To accuse all atheists of intellectual dishonesty is quite low. You may be good at debate, or knowledgeable about theism, but your views on atheism are horridly skewed. Atheism at the personal level is something of which you are obviously ignorant. Is that any different than Richard Dawkins saying that people who reject Evolution, in favor of creation, are: "Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" Am I any less kind than Freud calling religion an "illusion", or Nietszhe and Hitler calling it a "disease". Or atheists calling theists, especially Christians, "irrational", "superstitious", "fanatical" and unmentionable "expletives". No, I've given as good as I've gotten. And I know enough about atheism to know that your arguments are old hat. In fact, none of the "new atheists" offer anything new. They just regurgitate the same tired arguments for the new generation. But lack the nuance, sophistication and civility of the older generation that they borrow from. My observation of atheist behavior, especially in skeptic societies, to be rude, intolerant, bitter and self-righteous. When I asked questions to speakers about their atheism, especially when I mentioned Jesus Christ in a postive and reverent way, the group went ape nuts. I saw in the visages of those people a deep hatred and disgust. Perhaps it was because they were mostly aged and elderly folk. But it left a deep impression on me. You might be of a more friendly persuasion. But atheists are just as fanatical, hostile and reactionary as any of the alleged theists are supposed to be. But that just part of our biological response, right?

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/7/2008 7:28:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude If God sent DNA as a message, it is a violent, hate-filled one. It is also one of a flawed designer, as the design is also imperfect. Even death is coded into the DNA itself (cells being limited in replication by telomeres 'running out'.) Dude, did you just borrow from the Christian world view? If there is no God, as atheist say, and if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, which they are absolutely sure of, then where do you get off with these accusations against Him? Your argument assumes that there is an absolute standard morality. Please pick a side and stick with it. This fence straddling is confusing. As to Steven Hawking, check out what this genius wrote. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html A universe that's both infinate and expanding. Is English a second language for this guy? If it's infinate it can't expand. It's already there! Wise fool.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 1:26:27 AM)
quote: Your argument assumes that there is an absolute standard morality. Why?

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 10:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abraxas quote: Your argument assumes that there is an absolute standard morality. Why? The references to violence, hate, and the tardiness of God are moral values. Secular humanists deny any objective standard of morality. If they condemn a thought, idea or action they are either doing so based on their subjective opinion which has no more weight than anybody elses opinion, or they are admitting that there really is an objective standard of morality.

frankman -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 3:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude Now let's transpose this to the universal scale. The 'room' is the universe. The 'blocks' are energy. Before the big bang, all energy was in one super-massive, super-dense point. This is the highest order, scientifically speaking, obtainable. The big bang was the process of those 'blocks' spreading out all over the place. What we have now is 'less ordered' than at the moment of the big bang. Order did not come out of chaos, order came out of higher order. If you want to talk complexity, that's different. This is an open-ended circular argument that I`ve heard many times before that has no logical platform to build from. One can always ask the question where did those super-massive, super-dense blocks originate from that where there before the big bang? Did God create these blocks? Did they somehow evolve from an pre-orderly big bang before the orderly big bang that we are suppose to have evolved from? So you see, like the creation theory, the evolution theory leaves us with a whole lot of yet unanswered questions. Each theory can not be proven conclusively, so as a result each theory is based on faith alone. To base your belief on whether God exists, or to gamble your eternal destiny on what we know about science and creation at this point would be somewhat foolish and pre-mature to say the least. In order to be at peace about your decision about there not being a God there is one major fact of history you must prove as false. The Bible teaches us this about history from Matt.28:5+6. "The angel said to the women, `Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay." [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] So the key question is did Jesus really arise from the grave and is alive today in heaven as we speak? Your whole theory of there not being a God hangs in the balance on this one question alone. [:)] Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ an authentic fact of history?

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 5:09:11 PM)
quote: MusicianDad: The references to violence, hate, and the tardiness of God are moral values. Secular humanists deny any objective standard of morality. If they condemn a thought, idea or action they are either doing so based on their subjective opinion which has no more weight than anybody elses opinion, or they are admitting that there really is an objective standard of morality. Surely you've heard of: utilitarianism; deontology; rights theory; legal positivism; contractualism; existential-phenomenological communitarian ethics (interpersonal or self-Other theories); etc. The fact that each moral theory claims to objectively describe ethical value, the source of ethical value, and gives prescriptive statements regarding action(s), consequence(s), or intent(s), should be enough to displace the silly notion that without God all morality is "their subjective opinion which has no more weight than anybody elses opinion." The fact that ethical theories have been proven false should, also. Metaethical relativism or pluralism usually assert that morality is contextually based. That is, either certain aporias arise in moral life which cause debate and decision through reason regarding which ethical theory (all of which claim dominance) to apply; or morality is applied pragmatically and with concern and care for the well-being of those involved. Obliterating absolute metaethical theories or reducing all ethical exclamations to contextually prescriptive statements doesn't deny that morality develops socially, for specific reasons, under the watch of goals - that is, it allows for moral teleology. The problem with your argument is the sharp divide between objective and subjective. Subjectivity doesn't imply that one reason has no more weight than any other; on the contrary, it implies that the subject is formed culturally, sexually, etc., such that bias emerges which certain practices (for example, studying ethics) can help to overcome. For example, Carol Gilligan's study of women's ethical development, criticizing Kohlberg, argues that Kohlberg's study of the ethical development of boys wasn't able to encompass all moral development. Now, this isn't a metaethical or normative ethical theory per se, but it shows how the goal of objectivity can overtake simple bias. Similarly in ethics. Rawls, for instance, argues against an entire tradition of right's theorists who denied the status of humanity to slaves (of course there were other's before him), and as well, argues that the principles of justice he elaborates apply equally and always to any similar structure of social organization.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 9:44:42 PM)
I apologize for the egregiously long post in advance. I the future, I shall abandon any points that aren't extremely relevant. Feel free to do the same. quote: ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic It's only an uninteresting question to you because you don't care to address it. Let me summarize your view in this quote: I believe because I just do. Isn't "It's only an uninteresting question to you because you don't care to address it." the same as the other taoism that I used (and you pointed out) below? I don't find the question interesting because the way it's devised leads to useless philosophical musings. It's equivocal to asking "Why should I breathe?" It places undue emphasis on the word 'should'. It automatically implies a higher reason for things. I don't believe (there's that pesky word again) that there is a higher reason for things. I breathe because it keeps me alive. I believe in things, probably, because it kept my ancestors alive. "I believe because I just do." isn't an accurate summary of what I said. I believe in things because it is part of human nature to seek patterns and explanations for those patterns. Knowing when something will happen and what caused it is a very good way to stay alive in a dangerous world. quote: quote: I've seen nothing to convince me that there is a god, and therefore I lack a belief in him. compare your statement: quote: There's no reason to believe that the earth will continue rotating in order to allow the sun to rise tomorrow other than that it has done so in the past. The earth could be destroyed before tomorrow and my belief that tomorrow will come would be unfounded. However, it's much easier to believe in things that to only accept what has already happened. You're willing to give nature, most of which (past, present and future) you cannot observe, and her laws the benefit of "faith". In other words, you're willing to believe in propositions that no man can ever "prove" and yet you want to say you disbelieve in God because He is not proven. You're a hypocrite. In a small way, yes. In the more meaningful sense of the word, no. I believe that the sun will 'rise' because it has done so in the past. I believe that the past is an accurate indicator of the future because it has proven to be. I believe that it will continue to be an accurate indicator for the relevant (my lifetime) future because there is nothing that I know that contradicts this belief. The sun could very well, due to some unknown cause, pop out of existence tomorrow. I do not believe this will happen because it has never happened before, and there is no indication that it will happen. My belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is founded in reality. The comparison of my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow and my belief in god is a misleading one. I do not believe the sun exists, I know it does. There is no sane, truthful person that will disagree with me. I do not believe that the earth follows a predictable pattern around the sun, I know it does. There is no sane, truthful person with relevant knowledge of the solar system that will disagree with me. The only things that would cause the sun to not rise tomorrow would be new things introduced into that predictable system. However, I have not seen god, heard god, felt god, etc... I do not believe in god because I have never seen anything to indicate he exists. I believe that the earth follows a pattern because I have seen and heard things to indicate that it exists. I can not prove, absolutely, that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can give some pretty good reasons to believe that it will. If someone could give me reasons to believe in god that were as good as those I've heard to believe in the regularity of nature, I would undoubtedly be a believer. Proof is a mathematical term. You can not prove a hypothesis in science, merely substantiate it with evidence until the point it becomes well enough accepted to become theory. If a better theory comes along, the old is cast out. I can not prove the sun will rise, but there's enough evidence to suggest it will that it is sound to believe it will. I have seen no such evidence to fuel my belief in god. I am a hypocrite for believing the sun will rise, but not in god in the same way I'm a hypocrite for believing that it's good for your body to drink a glass of water, but bad for it to drink a glass of mercury. quote: This is an equivocation and non-sequitur, at best. What you're implying is an analogy between "observing" God and "observing" the reversal of gravity that says: "I don't see God and until I do I won't believe; much like I don't see gravity working in reverse so I won't believe it can until I do." First off, you don't "see" gravity at all. You only "see" material objects behaving in certain ways. Furthermore, you can only "see" objects that are directly before your sense of sight. You don't see objects at all places in all times behaving exactly like what you currently are experiencing. How could you? Nor do you "see" things that you have experienced in the past. You are relying on "memory", which may or may not be wholly accurate; either way, you have no way to directy test your memory for absolute accuracy. And when you appeal to the observations of others, you aren't involved in science at all, but rather testimony and history. But you're interest is in science, isn't it? Maybe Zoology? I never said I don't see gravity, because gravity is not something that can be seen. I said that I don't see "gravity working." The effects of gravity can be seen. The rest of your argument will need substantiation. Unless you're using some definition I'm not familiar with, when I "know something scientifically" I don't' have to have performed the experiment myself. The knowledge has been verified by those in relevant fields, and only becomes widely available for consumption after it's been peer-reviewed. I suppose it's possible that there was a mass-conspiracy to publish the laws of motion as true, but I have no reason to believe the information is inaccurate. Too many people stand to benefit by disproving things in the scientific community that for an egregious error to slip through is highly unlikely. This is what I was saying about not knowing things only by direct observation. You can know things that others have observed, or things that machines have observed. It's like a modified Johari's Window. There would be three categories on a side instead of two. "Things you know. Things other know. Things you don't know. Things others don't know. Things others know that are false. Things you know that are false." All knowledge would fall within the compilations of those categories. If the category isn't one of the "false" ones, it is a valid form of knowledge, in my opinion. (If you create an actual diagram of this, there's one box that doesn't work. "Things known to you-Things others know that are false." as we can assume that truth is binary. This category could be retained in regards to beliefs [I know magic exists. Other know magic does not exist] but is lost in regards to scientific knowledge, as one person, or both, must be wrong.) quote: No. That's absurd. "Knowing" something is not the same thing as "causing" or "effecting" something. That's like saying that because I "know" that gravity acts like such and such, that I cause it to be so. You've made a category mistake. That only applies if your knowledge is not perfect. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is possible that it will not. If an omniscient being knows that the sun will rise tomorrow, the sun will rise tomorrow. There is nothing in all of existence that can stop the sun rising tomorrow, because the omniscient being can not be wrong. If everything must happen exactly as the omniscient being see that it will happen, and it can happen no other way, there is not choice. There is no free will. Your actions are already known, the probability that you will do anything other than what is known is 0. You are a slave to their knowledge. You 'know' gravity happens because you observed it. For an omniscient being that created the universe, gravity happens because it observed it. Even the omniscient being only has the illusion of free will. This doesn't work if it is inherent omniscience rather than total, but once something is known by an omniscient being, it is fixed. To look at it another way: God is omniscient. God knows everything that exists. Nothing god doesn't know can exist. God does not known that something exists that does not exist, or it would exist. The same applies to time. God knows everything that will happen. Nothing God does not know will happen will happen. Nothing God knows will happen will not happen. Even if God doesn't 'set the course' via omnipotence of what will happen, his knowledge has already locked in place what will happen. There can only be the illusion of free will. There are, of course, refutations to this, and counter-refutations to those refutations. Which side 'wins' ends up being entirely one of opinion, as it usually is in philosophical/theistic debates. quote: This is deeply puzzling. So you are not an "empiricist"? What other option do you have? Do you believe that things can be "known" apart from bodily senses? Are you Cartesian? I'm an "eternal empiricist," I believe is the proper term. All data must inevitably pass through your senses to be known (Eyes or ears mainly), but you are not the one that had to perceive the phenomena. If someone tells me that they tossed a ball in the air, and it fell, I do not have to have seen it to know it to be true. In the manner, some of the data you receive will be false, but you may still receive true data that did not pass through your senses firsthand. quote: Why would the laws of nature address ethics and choice? The laws of nature that mankind has devised are models of reality. They describe how matter and energy interact. Ethics and choice are human constructs, human ideas. The laws of nature, from what we can tell, do exist in an objective form, we simply describe them [Quote]Because mankind is part of the matrix of reality. If nature is all there was, is and ever will be, then ethics and volition must be (de dicto) subsumed under some sort of "natural" explanation. Science, ethics and philosophy are all human constructs....or "models of reality", to use your phrasing. This quote is out of touch both with philosophy and science, especially philosophy of science. I suggest reading Bas Von Frassen's "The Scientific Image", John Foster's "The Divine Lawmaker" and Larry Lauden's "Progress and It's Problems". Perhaps I was not clear. I see ethics and morality to deal with the "why" of things, and science the "how." If you had enough starting data, and a big enough processor, you could tell exactly what someone was going to do next, and what physical interactions caused that decision. Even knowing the cause doesn't tell us "why" something is good, it simply tells us what caused that conclusion and belief. Ethics do not 'actually' exist, they are emergent qualities of the natural construct. In the same manner, I believe, as consciousness. I believe consciousness to be the illusion of an emergent quality of our brains. Due to this, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to create true artificial intelligence eventually. Random Note: For an interesting SF story on truly knowing that consciousness is illusion, Google "What's expected of up." The story is by Ted Chiang. quote: This burden of proof argument is a lame horse; Antony Flew doesn't even accept it anymore. What I suggested was that theism and atheism be seen as types of explanation. Overall, I believe that theism has something going for it. You seem to think that you don't have anything to explain at all, from the atheist perspective. I already said this: quote: Since you believe that theistic explanation is easily refuted, now you can enlighten us all as to how your atheism/skepticism deals with these important ideas But you say "I don't have to". So you are only interested in debunking then. That sort of procedure is like the person who says this: "I don't think that the theory of modern particle physics is false because of X, Y and Z...and I don't have anything to offer. But I don't have to." So you just have faith, right? Anthony Flew is a theist now, he's not exactly a good example to use. Even he accepted god only after being given what he considered to be significant reason to do so. He's shifting the burden of proof to atheists to disprove the things he's found. If you ask someone to disprove evidence, that is valid. If you ask someone to disprove your random hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you to first provide convincing evidence. If you can not do so, there is no onus on me to disprove your hypothesis. If you present evidence, there is. Like I said, it's your job to provide compelling evidence, not mine to provide contrary evidence to your hypothesis. I have seen no evidence for god that has not been debunked. The burden of proof remains on the theist to come up with falsifiable evidence that is true and points to the existence of a god. Your quote was followed by "If you cannot offer some plausible alternative explanation to theism, you really haven't refuted anyone." This is a false statement. To disprove evolution, I only need to find a 'fossil rabbit in the Precambrian.' I do not need to propose an alternate theory. Atheism is no a positive stance, it does not say "X is why we're here." is says, "Theism's X is an incorrect explanation." and leaves it at that. You were originally asking how atheism explains morals; it doesn't. It doesn't have to. Science can explain the reason morals exist via an evolutionary framework, but atheism can't. Your analogy doesn't work because there is convincing evidence presented for particle physics. In order to reject it, I would not have to provide an alternate theory, merely present a piece of evidence that contradicts particle physics. I don't have to replace it, merely debunk it. quote: This is a tautology. Of course, science is interesting because you like it. But at the end of the day, there's no ultimate meaning or reason to pursue it other than whim...or as a means of justifying your prejudice against God. Of course it's a tautology, it has to be. You can only like things because they are interesting/pleasurable/fun etc... It's all personal taste. And I really don't see why there has to be a better reason for pursuing it. I like science because it's fun. I like it it because it's interesting. I like it because it helps people. I like it because it offers a better future. And I don't have a prejudice against God. I used to be a theist, I used to thing God was good. After learning more about science, I learned that some of the things in the Bible (global flood) are false. This sort of thing caused me to stop believing. It's wasn't an unsubstantiated pre-judgment that made me an atheist, it was the things I learned about him and the world. quote: Is that any different than Richard Dawkins saying that people who reject Evolution, in favor of creation, are: "Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" Am I any less kind than Freud calling religion an "illusion", or Nietszhe and Hitler calling it a "disease". Or atheists calling theists, especially Christians, "irrational", "superstitious", "fanatical" and unmentionable "expletives". No, but is your aspiration to be as kind as Hitler? (Cripes, Godwin's law, I lose.) "Ignorant" should never be taken as an insult. As for the rest, it applies to both sides of the isles. Just look up some of the negative things that Dawkins has been called, or atheist in general have been called. Heck, if I wanted to justify it based on frequency of insult, atheists still owe theists for a few thousand years of discrimination. But no matter how rude other people are, that is no justification for rudeness in oneself. quote: No, I've given as good as I've gotten. And I know enough about atheism to know that your arguments are old hat. In fact, none of the "new atheists" offer anything new. They just regurgitate the same tired arguments for the new generation. But lack the nuance, sophistication and civility of the older generation that they borrow from. My observation of atheist behavior, especially in skeptic societies, to be rude, intolerant, bitter and self-righteous. When I asked questions to speakers about their atheism, especially when I mentioned Jesus Christ in a postive and reverent way, the group went ape nuts. I saw in the visages of those people a deep hatred and disgust. Perhaps it was because they were mostly aged and elderly folk. But it left a deep impression on me. You might be of a more friendly persuasion. But atheists are just as fanatical, hostile and reactionary as any of the alleged theists are supposed to be. But that just part of our biological response, right? Are Theists any better? Yes, most of my arguments are old hat. So are most of yours. Point is, there's not really much new to say on this topic. It's been around for centuries, and has been debated to death by many generations. There's nothing truly unique left to say. As for Atheist being rude, I was mocked at my church for wearing a spiked choker. I was called a satan-worshiper by some for accepting evolution to be true. I have had people cease speaking to me for becoming an atheist. Yes, I would argue that most of the hatred we see is biological, or sociologically imbued. People are people. People are a group-animal. People shun out-groups. This applies to most any person, and most any group. If you haven't made this observation, you need to observe more. It only takes one Westboro Baptist church to soil Christianity. It only takes one Dawkins to offend the theist masses. But that doesn't me we shouldn't attempt to better ourselves personally. If we use the lowest common denominator to be what is acceptable, society could not exist. Even if hatred of a group is imbued into you (general 'you') by genetics or society, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't attempt to overcome those barriers in order to live more peacefully with others. Analyze what you hate in others, and attempt to eradicate it from yourself.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 10:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad Dude, did you just borrow from the Christian world view? If there is no God, as atheist say, and if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, which they are absolutely sure of, then where do you get off with these accusations against Him? Your argument assumes that there is an absolute standard morality. Please pick a side and stick with it. This fence straddling is confusing. Even if morals are fluid, I am then using my morality to describe God. My statements stand. Not to mention that even if morals are fluid, each generation has it's own 'absolutes' that apply to that generation. We don't hate Lincoln for keeping slaves, because racism was acceptable at the time. Anyways, I borrowed from society. I don't have to describe the origins of something in order to use the concept. I would argue that morality is fluid in most cases, but remains static in others. The absolute morality is genetically imbued to us, and was evolved via evolution. Things like "Do not kill one of the group" (the group can be a group of friends, a race, a culture.) is universal. The only place these absolutes don't exist are in those with mental imbalances. The absolutes are the basic "Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not lie." ones. Everything else is fluid. But I've made 'my own' moral laws. I think a lot of people would agree with them. That which causes pain without pleasure is evil. That which causes pleasure without pain is good. Everything else is a gray area. Pain is only justified if it reduces pain. (Killing someone who's attempting to kill your family). Pleasure is not acceptable if it comes at the expense of another's pain. Etc... quote: As to Steven Hawking, check out what this genius wrote. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html A universe that's both infinate and expanding. Is English a second language for this guy? If it's infinate it can't expand. It's already there! Wise fool. Not sure where Hawking came from, but an expanding infinite is possible. (This is disregarding that we don't know if the universe is infinite yet.) What is the exact numerical value of 1/3? It's an infinite series of numbers. Now add 1/3 to it. You have added an infinite to an infinite, to create a greater infinite. This is simply an example of Georg Cantor's ideas on sets of greater infinites. A second explanation would be to look at an electron. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle tells us that both the position and exact momentum of an electron can't be simultaneously known. It could be that the universe has a finite size at any given moment that can be known, but is also expanding at velocity X. In that case, the universe can be said to be infinite because it is expanding. (Not sure if this is a valid explanation.) "http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31837" for someone else's explanation. (post 2)

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 10:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: frankman This is an open-ended circular argument that I`ve heard many times before that has no logical platform to build from. One can always ask the question where did those super-massive, super-dense blocks originate from that where there before the big bang? Did God create these blocks? Did they somehow evolve from an pre-orderly big bang before the orderly big bang that we are suppose to have evolved from? So you see, like the creation theory, the evolution theory leaves us with a whole lot of yet unanswered questions. Each theory can not be proven conclusively, so as a result each theory is based on faith alone. A few things: There was no "before" the big bang. Time didn't exist. The 'blocks' didn't have to come from anything, as there doesn't have to be a Prime Mover. I've already talked about this. We didn't evolve from the big bang. We evolved from primitive life. That was formed from natural molecular bonding. On to the post: Yes, Big Bang cosmology leaves us with more questions. Yes, Evolutionary theory leads us to other questions. This does not mean neither can be proven. Evolutionary theory has been substantiated fully enough to be seen as true by a massive majority of the scientific community. I'm not sure about the numbers on the BBT followers, but I'm willing to be that the greater majority also subscribes to the theory. The fact that they raise more questions doesn't hinder them. Evolution is a theory about the origin of species, it doesn't answer anything other than where species come from. The answer, for science, to the other questions is "we're working on it." The answer from theism tends to be "God did it." To quote myself from a different thread; " "God did it." is never a good answer, because it is never the answer to a good question. Any question that can be answered in that manner is a bad question. Instead of "What caused the universe to come into being?" the question should be "What can we learn about the universe's beginning?" You might include "God did it." among the answers, but to stop there is clearly an unsatisfying answer to anyone of inquisitive mind." Science is looking for the answer to the important question. quote: To base your belief on whether God exists, or to gamble your eternal destiny on what we know about science and creation at this point would be somewhat foolish and pre-mature to say the least. To base your belief on where Odin exists, or to gamble your eternal destiny on what we know about the Norse and Christian gods at this point would be somewhat foolish and pre-mature to say the least. See how silly I sound? You're proposing a version of Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a bad argument that has been answered many times over. I have seen nothing to indicate god. I have seen nothing to indicate an eternal destiny. Until such a time as evidence for an afterlife is presented to me, I shall not believe in one. Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening a Boa Constrictor with a live mouse. It'll play around with it before choking it to death and devouring it. quote: In order to be at peace about your decision about there not being a God there is one major fact of history you must prove as false. The Bible teaches us this about history from Matt.28:5+6. "The angel said to the women, `Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay." [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] So the key question is did Jesus really arise from the grave and is alive today in heaven as we speak? Your whole theory of there not being a God hangs in the balance on this one question alone. [:)] Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ an authentic fact of history? No, claiming that Jesus was resurrected is not proof of God. Proof of Jesus' resurrection would be proof of God, but that would require physical evidence. All we have is the Bible, as well as many historians, doubt the authenticity of many Biblical stories. Until such a time as it can be proved to me that Jesus resurrected any more than the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama, I'm not going to believe Jesus resurrected solely on the same book that says the Earth was created in six days, and that there was a global flood. So my personal answer to your question is no. This isn't to mention that this only determines whether God exists, not where a god exists.

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 11:06:12 PM)
quote: quote: To base your belief on whether God exists, or to gamble your eternal destiny on what we know about science and creation at this point would be somewhat foolish and pre-mature to say the least. To base your belief on where Odin exists, or to gamble your eternal destiny on what we know about the Norse and Christian gods at this point would be somewhat foolish and pre-mature to say the least. See how silly I sound? You're proposing a version of Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a bad argument that has been answered many times over. Real_Solitude, I general agree with you, but are you trying to imply that any chain of transcendent deities can be equivocated, for example Yahweh/Odin/Zeus/etc.? That we can't be metaphysically discerning in regards to which attributes we discuss and attribute to deities, and hence which we choose to accept and disregard? Its fallacious to say that we can ontologically predicate existence, nonexistence, and properties of gods without the ability to discern the possibilities of existence in relationship to their properties. Of course, if metaphysics is bull, then you're right; but while we - and you - are talking metaphysics, you must make (possible) room for all possible metaphysical entities without exclusions and in their respective "accidents."

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/8/2008 11:15:54 PM)
quote: frankman: In order to be at peace about your decision about there not being a God there is one major fact of history you must prove as false. The Bible teaches us this about history from Matt.28:5+6. "The angel said to the women, `Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay." So the key question is did Jesus really arise from the grave and is alive today in heaven as we speak? Your whole theory of there not being a God hangs in the balance on this one question alone. Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ an authentic fact of history? quote: Real_Solitude:No, claiming that Jesus was resurrected is not proof of God. Proof of Jesus' resurrection would be proof of God, but that would require physical evidence. It still wouldn't be a sound argument. The premise "If Jesus rose from the dead then God exists" is fallacious. A more correct premise would be: "If Jesus rose from the dead, then writings confirming Jesus rose from the dead are true," which is trivial. The problem being that no historical evidence can validate the claim "Jesus rose from the dead," only strengthen its possible truth, and as such, even if we could reformulate an argument which has possible soundness, for example: "If person X rises from the dead, then God exists," the notion that "Your whole theory of there not being a God hangs in the balance on this one question alone...[that] the resurrection of Jesus Christ [is] an authentic fact of history..." isn't the only possible way in which a demonstration or proof of God's existence could occur.

Ezra -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/9/2008 12:03:22 AM)
quote: There was no "before" the big bang. Time didn't exist. And how would you know either of these things, which you so confidently present as near certainties? Since you were not there before the "Big Bang" occurred, neither did you exist before time existed, this is simply your wild guess parading as fact. The only one who could know about these two items is God, who existed before anything else. And He has already indicated that there was no "Big Bang". As to the times and the seasons, He set them up, and He controls them. We should coin a new phrase -- "the Gurus of Guesswork". Guess who these gurus would be?

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/9/2008 3:21:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hammurabi 1st post: With the Odin thing I was just being flippant, not making any real point about his viability. 2nd post: I suppose "If Jesus rose from the dead, this is evidence towards God's existence." would have been better. More specifically, if there were proof that Jesus rose from the death, that would be pretty much good enough for me to believe that the supernatural, and more specifically God, existed. If you get resurrected after a spear to the heart, you must have been doing something right. quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra quote: There was no "before" the big bang. Time didn't exist. And how would you know either of these things, which you so confidently present as near certainties? Since you were not there before the "Big Bang" occurred, neither did you exist before time existed, this is simply your wild guess parading as fact. The only one who could know about these two items is God, who existed before anything else. And He has already indicated that there was no "Big Bang". As to the times and the seasons, He set them up, and He controls them. We should coin a new phrase -- "the Gurus of Guesswork". Guess who these gurus would be? And how do you know that either of your parents were actually born? They could have been created last Thursday, same as you, me, and everything else. Everything we know could be specifically designed, last Thursday, to look like it's been here for billions of years. Obviously the only way we can know something is by having directly observation of it. Since you don't remember observing the creation of everything last Thursday, the Theory of Last Thursday states that you will not remember it due to the false memories created last Thursday, it is now proven that you, and everything else, were created last Thursday. We don't have to observe something directly to know that it happened. We can look at the existing evidence, and since the world functions according to knowable laws, know what happened. We can know that things evolved because of the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetic research, to name a few. We can know that universe is 13.7 billion years old by observing redshifts, spatial distribution of distant galaxies, and the cosmic microwave background radiation to name a few. We did not directly observe these things, but we can know they happened, just as we can know that the U.S. Civil war was actually fought. No one alive today was alive then, so it was not directly observed by any living person, but there's enough evidence to make doubting it an ignorant choice. We know that there was not time before the big bang because, as per Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, space-time and gravity are directly related. To quote; "According to general relativity, space-time is not a static arena, but an aspect of the gravitational field. This field manifests itself as a warping, or curvature, of space-time geometry, and when it comes to the large scale structure of the Universe, such a warping occurs in the form of space being stretched with time." "The key feature of the theory of relativity is that space and time are part of the physical Universe, and not merely an unexplained background arena in which the Universe happens. Hence the origin of the physical Universe must involve the origin of space and time too. But where could we look for such an origin? Well, the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the centre of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backwards in time, the Universe becomes more and more compressed and the curvature or warping of space-time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at a singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin." I recommend the following link, the site I quoted from, for reading on the big bang. Click Here.

frankman -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/10/2008 12:47:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude No, claiming that Jesus was resurrected is not proof of God. Proof of Jesus' resurrection would be proof of God, but that would require physical evidence. All we have is the Bible, as well as many historians, doubt the authenticity of many Biblical stories. Until such a time as it can be proved to me that Jesus resurrected any more than the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama, I'm not going to believe Jesus resurrected solely on the same book that says the Earth was created in six days, and that there was a global flood. So my personal answer to your question is no. This isn't to mention that this only determines whether God exists, not where a god exists. I guess this proves salvation in Christ can only be obtained by faith. To somewhat rephrase your question I`ll reverse it. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] What physical evidence do you have that Jesus` bones are still in a grave somewhere today? There are books out there that confirm to us that a spiritual Rabbi by the name of Jesus Christ was on earth 2000 years ago in the land of Palestine. This is not only confirmed by the Bible writings, but also by secular historians like Josephus who wrote about a man from Galilee who claimed to be the Christ. History also confirms to us that this Christ who claimed He was crucified but arose from from the dead three days later has had a great following of people called "Christians" that exist even today. If you need physical evidence of this I`m sure you`ll find some Christ followers even in your own city. Also throughout history Christians have not been the most loved people in the world. So all the unbelievers then and now would have to do to end this sect and it`s beliefs is to produce the body of Jesus. Now I know this is somewhat not logical to do today because we do not know the DNA of Jesus. Yet looking back at history, as much as the Romans and the Jewish religious leaders detested Jesus and His followers way back then, don`t you think they would have build a monument over Jesus` body to prove to all forever His body is still in the grave. We would have books written today denying the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus that would have made our Bible`s extinct. Yet they can not do this. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] WHY? [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] When Jesus arose from the grave He did not go directly to heaven. He wondered around Palistine for some 40 days before assenting into heaven. Many people who saw Him die later also saw Him alive during those 40 days. This fact of this physical evidence has made it impossible for anybody then and now to logically come up with any physical evidence that Jesus is still in the grave today. [:)] So if Jesus is still alive today, should we take the warning to us in Phil.2:10+11 seriously? "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Just a passing thought!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI