|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 24, 2018 12:31:38 GMT
What I learned from working for theists:
Satan can cause you to crash. Nothing to do with being a bad driver.
If you have a paid employee who is being pushy and bossy, but is quite manipulative of others, it's not enough to be an excuse to get rid of them, that person is clearly channelling witchcraft.
Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, New Age types, those are all minions of Satan.
The military is absolutely 100% right about what it does. Completely. If of course, it is the military of our own nation, and not evil Satanic Armed Forces of usually Muslim types.
President Trump is God's Chosen One. Any Dems are Satanic lying types.
Seems to be a theist, I have to be a fucking crazy looney tune. 👍
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 12:42:11 GMT
Believing all those things is a prerequisite to stop believing in God. Unless you choose to disbelieve just for the sake of it. In that case that would make you ignorant. Not at all. You dont need to know where the universe came from to not believe in god. You just need to see no good evidence of any god. Saying I dont know is ok for us. Unless you think it's possible for nothing producing everything, non-life producing life, randomness producing fine-tuning, chaos producing information, unconsciousness producing consciousness, and non-reason producing reason. Then God is the best explanation.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 24, 2018 12:44:19 GMT
Not at all. You dont need to know where the universe came from to not believe in god. You just need to see no good evidence of any god. Saying I dont know is ok for us. Unless you think it's possible for nothing producing everything, non-life producing life, randomness producing fine-tuning, chaos producing information, unconsciousness producing consciousness, and non-reason producing reason. Then God is the best explanation. Perhaps it is as mundane and unspectacular as that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 24, 2018 12:55:35 GMT
lowtacks86 The reason we don't apply that standard to God is because the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. The key word is material. God is not a material effect, God is not made of matter. God is a spirit. Abiogenesis is impossible. I know that much. The universe has physical laws and constants inexplicably just right to support life. To say the universe is "hardly fine tuned" is a statement of igorance my friend. When even scientists agree that "the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life"."DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid ) carries design information between generations, and thus accounts for inherited biological traits (phenotypes )." www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/genetics-and-genetic-engineering/dnaAnd where does the sperm cell proceed from? That's right a conscious human being. I'd say you're being very unreasonable. 🙂 "The reason we don't apply that standard to God is because the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. The key word is material. God is not a material effect, God is not made of matter. God is a spirit." So mental gymnastics, gothcha. "Abiogenesis is impossible. I know that much." No you don't because that's never been scientifically proven. "To say the universe is "hardly fine tuned" is a statement of igorance my friend." No that's stating a simple fact, the majority of the universe that we actually know about is unlivable. Again you're just priviledge to live in a very small part of it that's actually habitable. ""DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid ) carries design information between generations, and thus accounts for inherited biological traits (phenotypes )." Simple calling it "information" does not mean you get to just use it in the same context as a computer program. You're trying really desperatly to insert a grand "programmer" for DNA when there's nothing really there to suggest that. Tell me if DNA was created by an all knowing perfect being, why do organisms have useless junk DNA that basically does nothing? Why do organisms have DNA for vestigiality and other useless traits? "And where does the sperm cell proceed from? That's right a conscious human being." If you're referring to the evolution of the human brain, there's tons of research to explain it. You're free to Google it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 24, 2018 13:14:29 GMT
<the same things as usual> Please do not misunderstood me, you are welcome to believe in whatever "science" you like. You are welcome to describe your beliefs however you like; as "in science" or "in god" or in something else of your own description. I would just note that it isn't really an answer from "science" (by others' definition) any longer if you simply believe in it and cannot describe it in any detail. It also isn't really "science" by others' definition if it does not appear in nature, if it is not at all evident in nature. That's the definition "supernatural." We often see a complaint that just because we have no answer what (or who) did it is no good reason to assume a god did it. People who do think so are accused of having some mental defect. However that is exactly how it works, a mystery is indeed a mystery, at least until you otherwise solve it. Again with the waffling though, there are those who say (incorrectly) evolution has shown how life began in the first place and those who say the answers are not all in yet. Then there are the wafflers who say either depending on conditions. As I have noted before in these discussions the whole point of denying the existence of a god is lost when you allow the existence of such "science" as some people do. It is no longer distinguishable from a god. Should you discover some molecule that can sing the choral to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as it assembles a living thing from dead matter, that will be a thoroughly remarkable thing whether you call it a "god" or not. No, I don't care what meanings you attempt to apply to words. All definitions are arbitrary. I always have and always will respect your right to use your own terms. It is essential to communication. I have merely noted, time and time again, that some definitions are more useful in communication than others. None of them are "right" or "wrong." However "gnostic theist" and "gnostic atheist" obviously cannot be useful at the same time. You have failed to assign any real life individuals to your categories on a consistent (useful) basis or with a consistent standard. Meanwhile the definitions I use are readily applied the same. Several people can agree which Democrats are "Christian Atheists." Several people can agree which Republicans are "Military Atheists." It is sometimes the case the individuals indeed self identify as such.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2018 13:54:11 GMT
The reason we don't apply that standard to God is because the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. The key word is material. God is not a material effect, God is not made of matter. God is a spirit. 1. Causality is not a law. 2. Causality needs certain parameters, like spacetime, to function as we know it. Spacetime likely doesn't exist in any meaningful sense on quantum levels, since spacetime is really just a relationship between matter and gravity, which either don't exist or exist very differently in a pre-universe state. 3. You have no proof any God (if one exists) isn't material. 4. All you've basically done is say "some things are allowed to exist without cause," and in doing that you have no way of showing that this only applies to God but not to anything natural that might've existed before the universe. FWIW, if you read the book I linked to in my first post (A Universe from Nothing), we already have a good idea of how nothing but quantum field energy--which, AFAWK, are not caused, spaceless, timeless, and likely eternal--are capable of creating a universe. So if you're looking for the uncaused-cause, then Occam would go with quantum fields. . Abiogenesis is impossible. I know that much. You should join Arlon and let the scientific community in on this fact. Perhaps publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and collect your Nobel while you're at it. Not doing so would lead one to suspect you're full of shit. The universe has physical laws and constants inexplicably just right to support life. To say the universe is "hardly fine tuned" is a statement of igorance my friend. When even scientists agree that "the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life".1. They're not inexplicable, even if they are fine-tuned. For one thing, they rest on the assumption that our universe is singular, when most of the best evidence and models from contemporary physics and cosmology are pointing towards a multiverse. 2. The only way to argue that fine-tuning exists is to make a lot of assumptions, including the completely unfounded notion that carbon-based life is the only life possible. Plus, there have been discoveries that have explained certainly previously-thought fine-tuned parameters through more fundamental laws. 3. The odds against anything happening are not by themselves an argument for design. That's just not how probability works. Scientists use metaphors; was that your point? And where does the sperm cell proceed from? That's right a conscious human being. Is your consciousness in your testicles?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 15:03:19 GMT
Sounds like a lot of hassle to become an atheist. I used a different a method: Step 1: stop believing in God/gods There is no second step. Believing all those things is a prerequisite to stop believing in God. No, it isn't. It's also not required that one "stop believing in god", incidentally. Some of us never believed in god in the first place. So you admit that if one is ignorant, then one can be an atheist and not believe those things? You have just nullified your entire point. All that is required to be an atheist is that when you are exposed to the claim "god exists", you can't come up with any convincing reason to believe it. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 15:30:15 GMT
Believing all those things is a prerequisite to stop believing in God. No, it isn't. It's also not required that one "stop believing in god", incidentally. Some of us never believed in god in the first place. So you admit that if one is ignorant, then one can be an atheist and not believe those things? You have just nullified your entire point. All that is required to be an atheist is that when you are exposed to the claim "god exists", you can't come up with any convincing reason to believe it. It's really that simple. If you don't believe the universe is a product of an intelligent mind. Then by default you're accepting that it's possible for nothing producing everything, non-life producing life, randomness producing fine-tuning, chaos producing information, unconsciousness producing consciousness, and non-reason producing reason. It's no different to you calling theists ignorant for rejecting evolution despite the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 24, 2018 15:42:01 GMT
tpfkar You should have just gone with the banana. Papa S
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 24, 2018 15:43:10 GMT
What I learned from working for theists: Satan can cause you to crash. Nothing to do with being a bad driver. If you have a paid employee who is being pushy and bossy, but is quite manipulative of others, it's not enough to be an excuse to get rid of them, that person is clearly channelling witchcraft. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, New Age types, those are all minions of Satan. The military is absolutely 100% right about what it does. Completely. If of course, it is the military of our own nation, and not evil Satanic Armed Forces of usually Muslim types. President Trump is God's Chosen One. Any Dems are Satanic lying types. Seems to be a theist, I have to be a fucking crazy looney tune. 👍 Uhm....Muslims are theists, as are SOME Buddhists & & New Age types.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 24, 2018 16:11:35 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. The great thing about being an atheist is that you don’t actually have to put faith in anything. Consciousness is a philosophical idea that was invented and has subsequently been redefined over and over again. Like the more religious terminology “soul”, the meaning of it ultimately depends on which definition you use, and what the individual chooses to believe about it, for which there is no proof. The only thing we can say scientifically about it is that it is directly tied to the presence of a biological, living brain, of sufficient size and processing ability to perceive what might arbitrarily be described as awareness. But it cannot be localized or scientifically defined beyond that. And having a brain in and of itself doesn’t necessarily imply that the owner of this brain is conscious. A person who is alive in the sense that they have a working brain that regulates their biological functions is not conscious if they are put under anesthesia, or in a vegetative state. So it is possible to have a brain and still not be conscious. Most people would argue that dogs are have consciousness since they seem to be aware of their surroundings. But what about insects, whose brains are significantly smaller? Does a cockroach know he is alive? Or does it just respond to external stimuli because it’s genetically programmed to react in certain ways (instinct). If a dog can “think”, and a cockroach cannot, then at what point in the animal kingdom does a creature go from being conscious to not conscience? If a cockroach is “conscious”, then what about an earthworm? You see how impossible the question becomes the more layers of the onion you start peeling back. That’s why it remains a philosophical concept, and not necessarily something that demands a supernatural interpretation. Psychology Today (consciousness)Many of the concepts that you assume require faith (nothing, unconsciousness, non-reason, etc) those are not conditions known to exist. They describe the lack of an existing condition. The development of life and consciousness are natural processes, just as the development of stars and planets are. There are scientific theories ( link) that explain how a universe can come from nothing. Believing in religion to fill in gaps of knowledge is the opposite of “reason”. That’s why becoming an atheist is so liberating. You’re no longer restricted to inventing supernatural reasons to explain things that you don’t understand. That’s pretty much what religion has always been. A creation of man to explain things that he didn’t understand, and fill in the gaps of scientific ignorance with superstition and tradition. Science requires no faith, and no beliefs. It only requires ideas that can be tested! Experiments and observations. Hypotheses, theories, and laws that explain facts and observable phenomenon. The concept of a god (or any supernatural phenomenon) is neither testable or falsifiable, nor are they objectively observed, which thereby makes them inherently unscientific. Faith in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist is not “reasonable”, it’s religion!
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 24, 2018 17:05:41 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. The great thing about being an atheist is that you don’t actually have to put faith in anything. Consciousness is a philosophical idea that was invented and has subsequently been redefined over and over again. Like the more religious terminology “soul”, the meaning of it ultimately depends on which definition you use, and what the individual chooses to believe about it, for which there is no proof. The only thing we can say scientifically about it is that it is directly tied to the presence of a biological, living brain, of sufficient size and processing ability to perceive what might arbitrarily be described as awareness. But it cannot be localized or scientifically defined beyond that. And having a brain in and of itself doesn’t necessarily imply that the owner of this brain is conscious. A person who is alive in the sense that they have a working brain that regulates their biological functions is not conscious if they are put under anesthesia, or in a vegetative state. So it is possible to have a brain and still not be conscious. Most people would argue that dogs are have consciousness since they seem to be aware of their surroundings. But what about insects, whose brains are significantly smaller? Does a cockroach know he is alive? Or does it just respond to external stimuli because it’s genetically programmed to react in certain ways (instinct). If a dog can “think”, and a cockroach cannot, then at what point in the animal kingdom does a creature go from being conscious to not conscience? If a cockroach is “conscious”, then what about an earthworm? You see how impossible the question becomes the more layers of the onion you start peeling back. That’s why it remains a philosophical concept, and not necessarily something that demands a supernatural interpretation. Psychology Today (consciousness)Many of the concepts that you assume require faith (nothing, unconsciousness, non-reason, etc) those are not conditions known to exist. They describe the lack of an existing condition. The development of life and consciousness are natural processes, just as the development of stars and planets are. There are scientific theories ( link) that explain how a universe can come from nothing. Believing in religion to fill in gaps of knowledge is the opposite of “reason”. That’s why becoming an atheist is so liberating. You’re no longer restricted to inventing supernatural reasons to explain things that you don’t understand. That’s pretty much what religion has always been. A creation of man to explain things that he didn’t understand, and fill in the gaps of scientific ignorance with superstition and tradition. Science requires no faith, and no beliefs. It only requires ideas that can be tested! Experiments and observations. Hypotheses, theories, and laws that explain facts and observable phenomenon. The concept of a god (or any supernatural phenomenon) is neither testable or falsifiable, nor are they objectively observed, which thereby makes them inherently unscientific. Faith in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist is not “reasonable”, it’s religion! Very well said!
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 24, 2018 17:29:27 GMT
What I learned from working for theists: Satan can cause you to crash. Nothing to do with being a bad driver. If you have a paid employee who is being pushy and bossy, but is quite manipulative of others, it's not enough to be an excuse to get rid of them, that person is clearly channelling witchcraft. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, New Age types, those are all minions of Satan. The military is absolutely 100% right about what it does. Completely. If of course, it is the military of our own nation, and not evil Satanic Armed Forces of usually Muslim types. President Trump is God's Chosen One. Any Dems are Satanic lying types. Seems to be a theist, I have to be a fucking crazy looney tune. 👍 Uhm....Muslims are theists, as are SOME Buddhists & & New Age types. The boss in question could learn a lot from you. 😉
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jan 24, 2018 17:32:12 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. If you became an atheist for the reasons that you described, then you would be doing it for the wrong reasons.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Jan 24, 2018 21:51:51 GMT
Not at all. You dont need to know where the universe came from to not believe in god. You just need to see no good evidence of any god. Saying I dont know is ok for us. Unless you think it's possible for nothing producing everything, non-life producing life, randomness producing fine-tuning, chaos producing information, unconsciousness producing consciousness, and non-reason producing reason. Then God is the best explanation. It is possible to be the best explanation (not that god is), and still not be a good explanation. God is not a good explanation, therefore I don't believe in a god. Atheists do not need to believe what you say, and it seems you are just trolling anyway.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jan 24, 2018 22:07:05 GMT
@miccee yet most of you do. you believe the universe is a result of pure accident and random chance. by rejecting the idea of a creator, you're basically blindly accepting that nothing creates everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. what the hell are you babbling about? we are here. we are discovering. we are not afraid of spirit ramblings and makers of voodoo. and we will continue to be here, as gods come and go like the wind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 22:49:16 GMT
Unless you think it's possible for nothing producing everything, non-life producing life, randomness producing fine-tuning, chaos producing information, unconsciousness producing consciousness, and non-reason producing reason. Then God is the best explanation. Dude, god isn't even an explanation, let alone the best one.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2018 0:00:33 GMT
A really annoying thing about many atheists is that they actually believe they are entitled. You are indeed entitled to your own opinions. However, and this is very important, you are not entitled to your own facts. It is your opinion that no god exists. It is only your opinion. It is not more "reasonable" than other opinions. It is not a "default" opinion or a "status quo" opinion and it is certainly not an entitled opinion, that is to say not entitled to be counted as a fact. It is just your opinion and it is not even half as good as you think it is. You can't leave your residence in the morning to face the world without believing in something. You can call it "science" if you like, but it still requires quite much belief on your part in several things throughout the day. You might think it is an especially different sort of belief if it is in science, but it is not. Either you can do the science yourself or you are just a believer. If you are just a believer then it is no longer "science" no matter who else can do whatever science. A terrible problem in the world today is how many things people believe science has proved that it really has not. The problem is blind faith in science. No, claiming you exercise reason when you don't is the opposite of reason. Admitting there are limits to reason is actually somewhat reasonable, and not the opposite at all. Until you, yourself using your own reasoning, not someone else's, can show where in nature is an explanation then that explanation is by definition "supernatural" as far as you are concerned. You need to admit that. You need to keep facts separate from opinions. The boiling point of water is a fact, whether it will snow next month in Oklahoma is an opinion. Yes, science has learned much about weather and has a better idea than it did before whether it will snow next month in Oklahoma, but no, it does not have an answer to how life began, except that nothing in nature is creating life from dead matter even after rather thorough scientific examination.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2018 0:31:55 GMT
It is possible to be the best explanation (not that god is), and still not be a good explanation. We agree on that much. God is not a good explanation, therefore I don't believe in a god. Atheists do not need to believe what you say, and it seems you are just trolling anyway. That all depends what you mean by "good" explanation. "Good" isn't a scientific term. When people believe in a god it is often not because they believe they have found a "good explanation," it is sometimes because they have not found one. Speculation can perfectly reasonable and "scientific" when there is no other choice and the matter is pressing. Also I don't believe you're realizing how very bad your explanations are.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 25, 2018 0:59:02 GMT
A really annoying thing about many atheists is that they actually believe they are entitled. You are indeed entitled to your own opinions. However, and this is very important, you are not entitled to your own facts. It is your opinion that no god exists. It is only your opinion. It is not more "reasonable" than other opinions. It is not a "default" opinion or a "status quo" opinion and it is certainly not an entitled opinion, that is to say not entitled to be counted as a fact. Well, fortunately this is a straw man argument since I never actually claimed that my opinion represented fact in the first place. And THAT is only your opinion (which is why I don’t give a sh!t) I believe in demonstrable facts! I don’t believe in things that are not demonstrated to be true. But here is the part you obviously don’t understand; belief is completely irrelevant! The facts remain facts whether you believe in them or not. There are no facts that demonstrate a god to exist. Now, you can argue that there are no facts that DISPROVE a god either, but there doesn’t have to be. One need not prove a negative, and beliefs are not formulated on negative assumptions, but rather on positive facts. Opinions about what exists should be based on evidence, not assumptions. But I CAN do the science myself, ANYONE can. But here’s the part you are not getting, THERE IS NO SCIENCE that validates your belief. Science is not required to prove a negative! You are the one making the positive claim. Therefore YOU need science validating your claim, otherwise there is no reason to believe it is true. The supposed existence of God is not a scientifically demonstrable fact. And since there is no other reason to believe in a god, I don’t believe in one. Such as? I don’t have blind faith in science; I have a belief in what is demonstrably true. Telescopes work, thermometers work, combustion works! Lasers cut, radar detects, radios call, computers compute, airplanes fly, and medicine heals. Science actually works! Faith becomes irrelevant at that point because we can easily “believe” what we see. The real problem is faith in god (or any religious based dogma) which does NOT work. Beyond acting as a placebo and making people feel better about things they cannot control, faith in something that cannot be demonstrated to be existing or true is a problem. Especially when people go to war over it, and persecute others because of it! No it isn’t. Even IF I was doing that (which I’m not) it still would not be the “opposite of reason” as you claimed. It would just be a lie! But seeing as how your judgement is inherently flawed in this issue, you’re not really in a position to declare what is reasonable in the first place! You keep using the word “reason” but clearly you don’t know what it means. Reason: “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic”. To state something as ridiculous as what you just stated only proves that you don’t know what reason is. The only limits to reason are the person’s inability to understand or make a proper judgment using logic. Religion is unreasonable BECAUSE it is based on a LACK of understanding (of science), and making judgements in the absence of logic. Circular logic is not logic at all! The Bible is not true because God said so, and God does not exist because the Bible says so. And that’s the only reason why you believe either of those things, which makes you an unreasonable person! One need not admit things that are not true. That would be a lie! Because that’s not what supernatural means. Accepting scientific consensus (through peer review) is not accepting the supernatural! I’ve never shot someone else in the head before. But knowing that a gunshot wound to the head will usually kill someone isn’t something I need to accept as a matter of faith. It’s something I accept because I understand the science of projectiles, the operational requirements of the human brain, and the physical limitations of the skull. And because there are numerous documented cases of people dying of gunshot wounds to the head! It would be unreasonable of me to assume a gunshot wound to the head is harmless because I’ve never actually shot a person in the head and seen the results first hand. I do. That the universe began 3.7 billion years ago is a fact. That it was created by an invisible man in the sky is an opinion! See the difference? Actually, ALL life is created from dead matter! When an animal in the wild dies, bacteria consume it, providing fertilizer for plants to grow, which provide food for pregnant animals to develop their offspring. I think what you meant to say is that nothing in nature is creating life from lifeless matter. But you’re wrong there too. Because non-living chemical compounds that exist in nature combine to form amino acids, which form proteins, which comprise the cellular make-up of “living” beings. We know that because all life (the scientific definition of life, not the religious definition) contains DNA which is compromised of proteins, and nothing that’s not alive contains it. The fact that we haven’t observed it happening from scratch before means nothing, because there is enough evidence in hand that it has happened at least ONCE. And if it’s happened once, then under the same conditions it’s logical to assume it’s happened many times, and will happen many more times. Oh, and as it turns out, we’ve been able to duplicate the creation of life artificially, PROVING that life can arise naturally under certain conditions. Scientists create artificial lifeSo, in so many ways...you’re just plain WRONG!
|
|