On Atheism vs. Christianity

[jonks]

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak
Meh, this thread make me appreciate being agnostic.

Agnosticism does not preclude atheism or theism. Read up.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
wasting your time posting insults like this is a sign of a mental defect..

you do realize that religious people have created some very important things? there have been many religious scientists in the past...even if you dont agree with their viewpoints on everything its quite ridiculous to marginalize people simply because you dont believe in one thing or another

think about politics...death penalty vs non death penalty ..abortion vs no abortion ...there are good people on both sides and they should be judged on what they do and what they contribute instead of being mocked for their beliefs.....its very tempting to dismiss someone who disagrees with you by saying they are mentally deficient, but its a trap of the mind...the bitterness will harm you

Passing mythology as fact is a mental defect no matter what anyone does with their life. And these childish mythologies we call religions have negative social and psychological consequences.

My best friend is an electrical engineer currently getting his master's degree. He had a female lab partner in some of his classes. She was a really good electrical engineer, but she was a total nutter Christian. She told my friend that he would go to Hell if he didn't accept Jesus. Of course he now and forever thinks of her as a fruitcake, end of story. Of course what happened was her parents taught her all this nonsense and now she is going around spreading it to other people who want nothing of it.

People with strong religious beliefs should be marginalized for the sake of everyone else's sanity.

So, what say you, shira? Should people with strong religious beliefs, however that is going to be objectively measured, be marginalized for the sake of everyone else's sanity, or are you going to vote with me that the very feeling being expressed by Dissipate unmasks a sick fanatic?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
wasting your time posting insults like this is a sign of a mental defect..

you do realize that religious people have created some very important things? there have been many religious scientists in the past...even if you dont agree with their viewpoints on everything its quite ridiculous to marginalize people simply because you dont believe in one thing or another

think about politics...death penalty vs non death penalty ..abortion vs no abortion ...there are good people on both sides and they should be judged on what they do and what they contribute instead of being mocked for their beliefs.....its very tempting to dismiss someone who disagrees with you by saying they are mentally deficient, but its a trap of the mind...the bitterness will harm you

Passing mythology as fact is a mental defect no matter what anyone does with their life. And these childish mythologies we call religions have negative social and psychological consequences.

My best friend is an electrical engineer currently getting his master's degree. He had a female lab partner in some of his classes. She was a really good electrical engineer, but she was a total nutter Christian. She told my friend that he would go to Hell if he didn't accept Jesus. Of course he now and forever thinks of her as a fruitcake, end of story. Of course what happened was her parents taught her all this nonsense and now she is going around spreading it to other people who want nothing of it.

People with strong religious beliefs should be marginalized for the sake of everyone else's sanity.

So, what say you, shira? Should people with strong religious beliefs, however that is going to be objectively measured, be marginalized for the sake of everyone else's sanity, or are you going to vote with me that the very feeling being expressed by Dissipate unmasks a sick fanatic?

My answer is that I disagree with both of you.

All Dissipate is doing is calling the strongly-religious mental defectives. And you're calling him a sick fanatic. I don't see either of you is calling for marginalization of those who hold extreme beliefs. So you and Dissipate are in perfect agreement. Edit: See my edit, below.

My own view is that people believe what they do because of their needs. I apparently need rationality and objectivity more than anything else, so I don't believe in what can't be tested in some way. The strongly religious above all need a just universe, so they believe in God. I can understand both perspectives, and those in between. So although I can be pretty extreme in many of my postings, I'm really pretty accepting when it comes to most real, live people.

However, to the extent that people let their extreme beliefs motivate them mistreat others (such as the religious right's mistreatment of gays), I DO think they should be strongly marginalized.

I'm not sure where that makes my vote fall, but it's the best I can do.

Edit: I missed Dissipate's last sentence. So I guess my vote is a lot closer to you, Moonbeam. But in real life, I wouldn't call someone with fanatical beliefs "sick" or "defective" unless I saw their actions as harming others.

Edit 2: I would, however, call them irrational, deluded, foolish, self-righteous, fanatical, weak, or whatever. But not to their faces (I value my nose).

 

[Moonbeam]

s: All Dissipate is doing is calling the strongly-religious mental defectives.

M: No, that is not all he is doing. He is calling for somebody else to marginalize the strongly religious.

s: And you're calling him a sick fanatic.

M: And it is his call not his belief that make that sick.

s: I don't see either of you is calling for marginalization of those who hold extreme beliefs.

M: No, you don't see me calling for anybody to be marginalized. I am not a fanatic.

s: So you and Dissipate are in perfect agreement.

M: We couldn't disagree more.

s: My own view is that people believe what they do because of their needs. I apparently need rationality and objectivity more than anything else, so I don't believe in what can't be tested in some way.

M: Only in ways that meet your preconceived notions of testing.

s: The strongly religious above all need a just universe, so they believe in God.

M: I can't speak for them personally because I don't hold that belief. I could infer that, but it would be a guess. I know of a state I used to have as a child with a high fever that I can enter only with a fever. My memory of it and my actual experience are totally different. I can not actually experience that state without being in it. My words about it are just words, empty of what it really means to feel it.

s: I can understand both perspectives, and those in between.

M: There are, as I just mentioned, different ways to understand things.

s: So although I can be pretty extreme in many of my postings, I'm really pretty accepting when it comes to most real, live people.

M: Ah, so you don't want the strongly religious marginalized?

s: However, to the extent that people let their extreme beliefs motivate them mistreat others (such as the religious rights mistreatment of gays), I DO think they should be strongly marginalized.

M: Not from what you just said, you don't. What you want to do is make sure they are not allowed to harm the rights of those with whom they disagree. It is not what they believe that is at issue, but their actions. You are judgmental based on what people do not what they think and that's all the difference in the world.

s: I'm not sure where that makes my vote fall, but it's the best I can do.

M: It's good enough for me. You are not a fanatic but Dissipate is from his words because he expresses the wish that people be marginalized for what they believe.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak
Meh, this thread make me appreciate being agnostic.

Agnosticism does not preclude atheism or theism. Read up.

No kidding, that's pretty much the definition of agnosticism and the whole point. Atheists and theists can argue back and forth all they want on the existence of a deity, or the existence of their preferred deity, and I'm fairly certain no proof of either is going to come of it. Heck, I'd venture a guess to say they could kill each other over it, and no proof either way will be revealed.

In the meantime, I'll be enjoying myself. Here, in the now.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak
Meh, this thread make me appreciate being agnostic.

Agnosticism does not preclude atheism or theism. Read up.

No kidding, that's pretty much the definition of agnosticism and the whole point. Atheists and theists can argue back and forth all they want on the existence of a deity, or the existence of their preferred deity, and I'm fairly certain no proof of either is going to come of it. Heck, I'd venture a guess to say they could kill each other over it, and no proof either way will be revealed.

In the meantime, I'll be enjoying myself. Here, in the now.

You misunderstand. You can be an agnostic atheist.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
s: All Dissipate is doing is calling the strongly-religious mental defectives.

M: No, that is not all he is doing. He is calling for somebody else to marginalize the strongly religious.

s: And you're calling him a sick fanatic.

M: And it is his call not his belief that make that sick.

s: I don't see either of you is calling for marginalization of those who hold extreme beliefs.

M: No, you don't see me calling for anybody to be marginalized. I am not a fanatic.

s: So you and Dissipate are in perfect agreement.

M: We couldn't disagree more.

See my edit, above.

s: My own view is that people believe what they do because of their needs. I apparently need rationality and objectivity more than anything else, so I don't believe in what can't be tested in some way.

M: Only in ways that meet your preconceived notions of testing.

You're being silly here. Every word you and I use is based on our preconceived understanding of that word. Do you want me to clutter our interactions with responses like (for example).

"Only, Moonbeam, based on your preconceived notions of what 'preconceived'" means. And only, by the way, based on your preconceived notions of 'only' means."

If you really want to get in for that level of discourse, I'm going back to sleep.

Do try to behave.

s: The strongly religious above all need a just universe, so they believe in God.

M: I can't speak for them personally because I don't hold that belief. I could infer that, but it would be a guess. I know of a state I used to have as a child with a high fever that I can enter only with a fever. My memory of it and my actual experience are totally different. I can not actually experience that state without being in it. My words about it are just words, empty of what it really means to feel it.

Everything you and I say about others is based on what we infer from what they say, write, or do (or don't say, write, or do). So this, again, is an example of you just being silly. Behave!

s: I can understand both perspectives, and those in between.

M: There are, as I just mentioned, different ways to understand things.

s: So although I can be pretty extreme in many of my postings, I'm really pretty accepting when it comes to most real, live people.

M: Ah, so you don't want the strongly religious marginalized?

Of course not, except as outlined below.

s: However, to the extent that people let their extreme beliefs motivate them mistreat others (such as the religious rights mistreatment of gays), I DO think they should be strongly marginalized.

M: Not from what you just said, you don't. What you want to do is make sure they are not allowed to harm the rights of those with whom they disagree. It is not what they believe that is at issue, but their actions. You are judgmental based on what people do not what they think and that's all the difference in the world.

What I just said was "don't marginalize EXCEPT . . ." You DO understand the meaning of "except," don't you?

s: I'm not sure where that makes my vote fall, but it's the best I can do.

M: It's good enough for me. You are not a fanatic but Dissipate is from his words because he expresses the wish that people be marginalized for what they believe.

Good.

Shanti shanti shanti

 

[IcePickFreak]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak
Meh, this thread make me appreciate being agnostic.

Agnosticism does not preclude atheism or theism. Read up.

No kidding, that's pretty much the definition of agnosticism and the whole point. Atheists and theists can argue back and forth all they want on the existence of a deity, or the existence of their preferred deity, and I'm fairly certain no proof of either is going to come of it. Heck, I'd venture a guess to say they could kill each other over it, and no proof either way will be revealed.

In the meantime, I'll be enjoying myself. Here, in the now.

You misunderstand. You can be an agnostic atheist.

Ahh you're right, my misunderstanding on what you were saying. In that case I'll clarify:

Meh, this thread makes me appreciate being an apathetic agnostic.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Belief in an Almighty God is just a mental defect, as proof I recommend you read the posts in this topic.

wasting your time posting insults like this is a sign of a mental defect..

you do realize that religious people have created some very important things? there have been many religious scientists in the past...even if you dont agree with their viewpoints on everything its quite ridiculous to marginalize people simply because you dont believe in one thing or another

think about politics...death penalty vs non death penalty ..abortion vs no abortion ...there are good people on both sides and they should be judged on what they do and what they contribute instead of being mocked for their beliefs.....its very tempting to dismiss someone who disagrees with you by saying they are mentally deficient, but its a trap of the mind...the bitterness will harm you

To play devil's advocate, all of that doesn't mean that unfounded belief is not evidence of some mental defect. That is, just because someone has done great things with their life doesn't mean they don't have something wrong with them. For example, those amazing true stories portrayed in the films Rain Man and Forrest Gump.

if 90% of the population has the "defect"..is it really a defect anymore?

i certainly understand the line of thinking, but its quite ignorant once you really think about it

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

And if god created all of this, who/what created him?

You're trying to use science again.

I'm glad I stepped into this thread to read miniMUNCH's post. I like it.

It basically represents what I have come to as well. When I read these arguments elsewhere some years ago it opened my mind away from the tunnel-vision science had given me for years. Even if the Big Bang, for example, is absolutely accurate and true it doesn't say what created it. Science can measure change and transition but never creation. This is why it is a tool and ought to be seen as such, not an end in and of itself.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

And if god created all of this, who/what created him?

You're trying to use science again.

I'm glad I stepped into this thread to read miniMUNCH's post. I like it.

It basically represents what I have come to as well. When I read these arguments elsewhere some years ago it opened my mind away from the tunnel-vision science had given me for years. Even if the Big Bang, for example, is absolutely accurate and true it doesn't say what created it. Science can measure change and transition but never creation. This is why it is a tool and ought to be seen as such, not an end in and of itself.

No, miniMUNCH's post is every bit as much of a red herring as all the rest, and it completely misrepresents atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in a deity, and it is founded upon the complete absence of any evidence for one. While some atheists may ALSO believe that science will someday 'solve all the mysteries of the universe' (although I have yet to meet one and I know a lot of atheists), that belief is certainly not a tenet of atheism, nor would it ever be.

This is why if you talk to an informed atheist about these things he will talk to you about what is most probable, not what is. The concept of supernatural sky beardo creation of the universe is vastly less probable than any of the other explanations and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Other ideas for the existence of the universe have slightly more evidence and are less complex, therefore more probable. Atheists may believe that naturalistic explanations are by far the most probable, but that's because every single explanation for anything that we've ever discovered has been naturalistic. It's certainly not unreasonable or 'religious' in nature to assume that the pattern of discovery that has governed all knowledge throughout the entirety of human history will continue.

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence, and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Modern religion my ass.

 

[Moonbeam]

s: My own view is that people believe what they do because of their needs. I apparently need rationality and objectivity more than anything else, so I don't believe in what can't be tested in some way.

M: Only in ways that meet your preconceived notions of testing.

s: You're being silly here. Every word you and I use is based on our preconceived understanding of that word. Do you want me to clutter our interactions with responses like (for example).

"Only, Moonbeam, based on your preconceived notions of what 'preconceived'" means. And only, by the way, based on your preconceived notions of 'only' means."

If you really want to get in for that level of discourse, I'm going back to sleep.

Do try to behave.

M: I wasn't being silly on purpose which means I don't think I was being silly at all, I guess.

To me 'only' just means 'only' but what I mean by preconceived is important and we may indeed need to check up on that. We share an English language and assume some ability to relate, but when I said that your thinking is determined by what you think thinking to be, I think that's fundamental. You questioned God and found doubt. I did the same, but I questioned also, even my ability to know. I could say you have more self confidence than I do or that I questioned deeper. Hehe.

At any rate, I do not fancy reason as highly as you do. Like you said, people seem to use reason to wind up believing exactly what they want to believe so if you deify your reason you build your own cage. The cage, in this case, is the cage of the left brain. I believe there is a different kind of knowing a person can have, a knowing so profound no questions exist. It is the realization of Being by fully entering the now. In the now the future and the past do not exist. To enter the now is to create everything that exist. Is it possible for a mind to stop time? You think it can't but I know it can.

s: The strongly religious above all need a just universe, so they believe in God.

M: I can't speak for them personally because I don't hold that belief. I could infer that, but it would be a guess. I know of a state I used to have as a child with a high fever that I can enter only with a fever. My memory of it and my actual experience are totally different. I can not actually experience that state without being in it. My words about it are just words, empty of what it really means to feel it.

s: Everything you and I say about others is based on what we infer from what they say, write, or do (or don't say, write, or do). So this, again, is an example of you just being silly. Behave!

M: I thought to behave one doesn't infer or at a minimum not take ones inference too seriously.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
s: Everything you and I say about others is based on what we infer from what they say, write, or do (or don't say, write, or do). So this, again, is an example of you just being silly. Behave!

M: I thought to behave one doesn't infer or at a minimum not take ones inference too seriously.

Assuming you are making an attempt to decipher another's meaning, how is it possible to not infer? And once you make up your mind about what someone means, how can you take your understanding other than seriously?

That's not to say you must be invested in your inferences - you can certainly be open to the possibility that you haven't understood what the other person intended. But at the moment of decision, you've made inferences that (at least for that moment) you're taking seriously, if only for the purpose of responding.

To "behave" in this context means to not knowingly be difficult in your responses. To not respond in ways that sidetrack the discussion.

When I wrote that I apparently value beliefs based on testable hypothesis, that was a serious example intended to move the discussion forward. When you responded regarding my "preconceived notions" of what "testing" means, you were sidetracking our discussion. You were letting your ego interfere. And you know EXACTLY what I mean by this.

Nope. Don't say it. Don't start getting into "exactly" and "mean" and the million other digressions. You know exactly what I mean. Period.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

And if god created all of this, who/what created him?

You're trying to use science again.

I'm glad I stepped into this thread to read miniMUNCH's post. I like it.

It basically represents what I have come to as well. When I read these arguments elsewhere some years ago it opened my mind away from the tunnel-vision science had given me for years. Even if the Big Bang, for example, is absolutely accurate and true it doesn't say what created it. Science can measure change and transition but never creation. This is why it is a tool and ought to be seen as such, not an end in and of itself.

No, miniMUNCH's post is every bit as much of a red herring as all the rest, and it completely misrepresents atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in a deity, and it is founded upon the complete absence of any evidence for one. While some atheists may ALSO believe that science will someday 'solve all the mysteries of the universe' (although I have yet to meet one and I know a lot of atheists), that belief is certainly not a tenet of atheism, nor would it ever be.

This is why if you talk to an informed atheist about these things he will talk to you about what is most probable, not what is. The concept of supernatural sky beardo creation of the universe is vastly less probable than any of the other explanations and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Other ideas for the existence of the universe have slightly more evidence and are less complex, therefore more probable. Atheists may believe that naturalistic explanations are by far the most probable, but that's because every single explanation for anything that we've ever discovered has been naturalistic. It's certainly not unreasonable or 'religious' in nature to assume that the pattern of discovery that has governed all knowledge throughout the entirety of human history will continue.

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence, and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Modern religion my ass.

Surely the brand of thinking you so cogently and forcefully express here is a modern invention and the latest trend, no? I mean, you do believe what you say, no?

 

[StageLeft]

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence [as deemed by science], and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Science by its very nature cannot even conceive of anything that isn't simple cause and effect, measurable, eminently quantifiable; i.e. it has no room for super natural in any way, and thus of course if you continue to define reality entirely by its tenets anything supernatural would be completely invisible to you. You already trust and, yes, have faith that demonstrable this causes this causes this causes this causes this and there is no room in that paradigm for anything else.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence [as deemed by science], and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Science by its very nature cannot even conceive of anything that isn't simple cause and effect, measurable, eminently quantifiable; i.e. it has no room for super natural in any way, and thus of course if you continue to define reality entirely by its tenets anything supernatural would be completely invisible to you. You already trust and, yes, have faith that demonstrable this causes this causes this causes this causes this and there is no room in that paradigm for anything else.

Please define "supernatural" in a meaningful, coherent way. Until you do that, any use of the term by you is totally meaningless.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence [as deemed by science], and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Science by its very nature cannot even conceive of anything that isn't simple cause and effect, measurable, eminently quantifiable; i.e. it has no room for super natural in any way, and thus of course if you continue to define reality entirely by its tenets anything supernatural would be completely invisible to you. You already trust and, yes, have faith that demonstrable this causes this causes this causes this causes this and there is no room in that paradigm for anything else.

Please define "supernatural" in a meaningful, coherent way. Until you do that, any use of the term by you is totally meaningless.

Check a dictionary.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence [as deemed by science], and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Science by its very nature cannot even conceive of anything that isn't simple cause and effect, measurable, eminently quantifiable; i.e. it has no room for super natural in any way, and thus of course if you continue to define reality entirely by its tenets anything supernatural would be completely invisible to you. You already trust and, yes, have faith that demonstrable this causes this causes this causes this causes this and there is no room in that paradigm for anything else.

Please define "supernatural" in a meaningful, coherent way. Until you do that, any use of the term by you is totally meaningless.

Check a dictionary.

Dictionaries don't define words, brainiac.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence [as deemed by science], and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Science by its very nature cannot even conceive of anything that isn't simple cause and effect, measurable, eminently quantifiable; i.e. it has no room for super natural in any way, and thus of course if you continue to define reality entirely by its tenets anything supernatural would be completely invisible to you. You already trust and, yes, have faith that demonstrable this causes this causes this causes this causes this and there is no room in that paradigm for anything else.

Please define "supernatural" in a meaningful, coherent way. Until you do that, any use of the term by you is totally meaningless.

Check a dictionary.

Dictionaries don't define words, brainiac.

?!?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?

Ok, I'll explain a bit.

Dictonaries don't define words. They record word usage.

People define words. Definitions are not "true" or "false," either. They are simply common or uncommon, useful or unuseful, rigorous or not.

I asked Skoorb to define his usage of "supernatural." I believe that the very idea is an incoherent concept.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence [as deemed by science], and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Science by its very nature cannot even conceive of anything that isn't simple cause and effect, measurable, eminently quantifiable; i.e. it has no room for super natural in any way, and thus of course if you continue to define reality entirely by its tenets anything supernatural would be completely invisible to you. You already trust and, yes, have faith that demonstrable this causes this causes this causes this causes this and there is no room in that paradigm for anything else.

Faith is defined as 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof'. I do not have faith that 'demonstrable this causes this', I accept it because it is in fact demonstrated, upon proof and evidence. Therefore my acceptance of these things is the exact opposite of faith.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?

Ok, I'll explain a bit.

Dictonaries don't define words. They record word usage.

People define words. Definitions are not "true" or "false," either. They are simply common or uncommon, useful or unuseful, rigorous or not.

I asked Skoorb to define his usage of "supernatural." I believe that the very idea is an incoherent concept.

Believe, based on what evidence?

I do not have faith that 'demonstrable this causes this', I accept it because it is in fact demonstrated, upon proof and evidence. Therefore my acceptance of these things is the exact opposite of faith.

I know what I want to say but frankly cannot fashion it into words. Perhaps somebody smarter can

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?

Ok, I'll explain a bit.

Dictonaries don't define words. They record word usage.

People define words. Definitions are not "true" or "false," either. They are simply common or uncommon, useful or unuseful, rigorous or not.

I asked Skoorb to define his usage of "supernatural." I believe that the very idea is an incoherent concept.

Believe, based on what evidence?

Every forumlation of the concept that I have encountered is incoherent. Please feel free to falsify this hypothesis for me.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?

Ok, I'll explain a bit.

Dictonaries don't define words. They record word usage.

People define words. Definitions are not "true" or "false," either. They are simply common or uncommon, useful or unuseful, rigorous or not.

I asked Skoorb to define his usage of "supernatural." I believe that the very idea is an incoherent concept.

Believe, based on what evidence?

Every forumlation of the concept that I have encountered is incoherent. Please feel free to falsify this hypothesis for me.

It's a very simple concept. Its hypothesis may be only touted by people who are otherwise incoherent but it's saying there is something other than natural laws.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a very simple concept. Its hypothesis may be only touted by people who are otherwise incoherent but it's saying there is something other than natural laws.

I don't understand how that makes any sense. Maybe you would understand what I mean better if I clarified that I think that the term "natural" isn't really a meaningful term, either. I think it's better to simply talk about things that are real or not real.

Think about it like this: Christians regularly talk about God's "nature." The things that God does consistent with his "nature" should therefore be "natural" for God, right? But at the same time they tell us that God is "supernatural." So which is it? How do I distinguish "natural" things from "supernatural" ones, non-arbitrarily? That is really the question I'm asking.

And if you can't distinguish supernatural things from natural things non-arbitrarily, you have no basis to assert that anything is supernatural. Consequently, it becomes equally meaningless to call everything natural. That's why I think it's more useful to talk about things that are real and things that are not.