A
AntiTheist
Guest
Your lack of response is noted.
- Status
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
by abstract do you mean muddled to the point where reality is no longer reality, but rather a blithering of sophistic nonsense that assaults our senses
J
Janet1983
Guest
Not every religion does actually have a god… just thinking about buddhism and jainism…
Religion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
To be an atheist one has to believe that there is no god. There is no way to prove the nonexistence of a deity so there has to be a certain amount of faith in this. Atheism is therefore from the onset a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices. The believes are simply that there is no deity and that all that we see evolved beginning with an unknown source. The religious attitudes and practices gravitate towards converting religious people to their beliefs and acting according to their beliefs. Atheism is a principle and system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Those who believe in atheism are themselves confident that they are adhering to the truth in its fullness. In a broader sense they replace any given deity with a conformity to their own intellect and reason, believing in those as if they were absolute and truthful and believing only what they can see and what has been told to them by others who deny the existence of a deity. They claim to be scientific, but they interpret all material only in accordance to their specific beliefs, disregarding other possibilities.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Obviously atheism is not a monolithic belief system. We merely do not believe in a god as he’s traditionally framed by theists (or deists and pantheists for that matter). Not all atheists are naturalists (or materialists) but many are (I would even say naturalism is fast becoming the majority view among atheists).
When you say we can’t prove there’s no god, I would take issue with that statement. For instance, I believe evolutionary science and cosmology very clearly debunks the first six or so chapters of Genesis. The typical response from Christians (these days) is the creation narrative should be taken figuratively (not literally). However, the proposition that Jesus is the new Adam is an important assumption made by Paul in the new testament. Moreover, Jesus himself mentions Adam & Eve in the book of Matthew.
Indeed we can even trace the creation narrative of Genesis to earlier Sumerian mythology; and we know they’re not both relaying the same truth (since science shows neither are even remotely accurate). Archeologists and historians have even shown the Exodus story is outside the range of historical possibility.
So when we say we know there is no god, it’s not a baseless statement made without proof. We do have proof, which shows the Judeo-Christian version of god (and hence the Islamic version) is almost certainly false (I think it’s at least fair to say we can show it’s false to a reasonable degree of certainty, though I’m sure most here will disagree). I think the same can be said with regard to all religious systems practiced in the world today.
Something like deism or pantheism is probably too abstract (and flexible) to disprove in this way. However, the only thing bolstering the idea of a god at all is the philosophical idea of a first cause (i.e. everything requires a preceding cause, infinite regression is impossible, therefore god). The problem is there’s no proof that infinite regression is impossible.
Indeed the idea of a god or gods wasn’t invented by Aristotle (and wasn’t the result of metaphysics at all). Theism originated from mythology (mythology we today know isn’t true). Therefore, it’s logical to assume even if Aristotle was right (and infinite regression is impossible) it doesn’t necessitate a god. Indeed there’s even problems with the idea of infinite regression (given all we know about physics).
You’re right … other possibilities (even far fetched claims like those made by theists) should only be disregarded after finding sufficient evidence debunking them. Many (if not most) atheists believe the preponderance of the evidence weights overwhelmingly in our favor. However, very few atheists will say with any degree of certitude that nothing outside our cognition that may have had a hand in forming our universe could exist. To discount that sort of possibility would indeed be hasty. Nevertheless we also realize it’s always best to assume all natural phenomena has a natural cause.
It’s easy enough to see through the veil of outlandish miracle claims (like 65 out of the millions of sick visitors to Lourdes were somehow miraculously cured, when there hasn’t been a single amputee whose limb has been restored, it’s always diseases that might have reversed themselves anyway, and 65 out of 5 million is so statistically insignificant that it really amounts to no evidence at all).
At the end of the day religion has no logical or scientific ground to stand on. It always reduces to the absurd; and it’s always supported by fallacious arguments from incredulity.
E
exan
Guest
Yeah requires the same kind of proof as not believing in fairies etc. Unable to disprove, yet we all have faith they don’t exist.
Yeah same kind of religious attitudes that tell us fairies do not exist. We atheists and christians are much alike in our religious beliefes about fairies goblins flying apaghetti monsters etc. We just believe in one god less.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The fallacious argument here is your radical misrepresentation of Lourdes. Your sources, whatever they might be, are totally bogus. Perhaps you can reveal how you came up with this information, from what source.
Even Wikipedia knows better than you on this matter:
“To ensure claims of cures were examined properly and to protect the town from fraudulent claims of miracles, the Lourdes Medical Bureau (Bureau Medical) was established at the request of Pope Pius X. It is completely under medical and not ecclesiastical supervision. Approximately 7000 people have sought to have their case confirmed as a miracle, of which only 68 have been declared a scientifically inexplicable miracle by both the Bureau and the Catholic Church.”
I
itinerant1
Guest
Evolutionary science and cosmology cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis is not teaching science. It’s message is a religious one.
You don’t seem to understand how figurative literature works, either. Because a narrative uses figurative language it does not necessarily mean there is no historical basis for elements in the narrative.
Also, the contrast between figurative and literal, though often used is not completely accurate. A literal reading is one that interprets the text as the author intended, figurative language, metaphors, and so on. Only by understanding the genus literarium of the text, and how it works, is one in a position to venture a reasonable interpretation. Your post shows that you have no understanding of the *genus literarium *of various Genesis accounts. Hence, you are hardly in a position to assert anything at all of value about Genesis.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The impossibility of an infinite regress is actually elementary logic, and follows necessarily from the premises. I take it you are not truly familiar with the philosophical arguments your are discounting.
Aristotle’s arguments are independent of the state of the physical sciences. If you had any knowledge of Aristotle’s arguments you would have known that.
L
littarsulum
Guest
Your entire reply supported the original claim that atheist’s have the phenomenal ability to lie to themselves… try reading the original prompt again
S
stenlis
Guest
Nice soundbite. But what is that reflection?
Thinking ‘vertically’ is really not what I’m looking for. It looks to me like a description of thinking up from a dogmatic bottom line.
The context was the “three categories of precedence” that you laid down. One of them was very peculiar to me so I asked for an instance of it. How can something precede another thing in a non-chronological, non-logical manner? Try to look at it as ‘vertically’ as you might, it still does not work.
Very easily - you left out an important qualification from my post:
The universe in its current form (with stars and galaxies) may cease to exist but energy still lives on - in a universe quite different from one that we see now.
It’s not just my mind. It’s what the first law of thermodynamics says. The bulk is quite ‘morphous’ (it changes its internal structure) but yes, it apparently is self-contained and eternally existing. Or to be more precise, there is no evidence whatsoever showing that it ever does increase/decrease in bulk or that it can cease to exist. If this sounds like Star Trek to you, then you’ve been missing out on some pretty basic high-school physics classes.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
Or an introductory physics book in your nearest library.
Well, you’ve got a problem - how did the universe come to be - and you propose a solution. In the solution you posit a ‘higher being’. Qualifying it as ‘necessary’ is a nice embelishment but it only shows your ignorance of other proposed solutions which do not require a ‘higher being’. Here are some instances of those:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
These theories would explain the existence of the universe. However, they clearly cannot be all correct - and that includes your explanation. Currently there is no way to determine which one is right (if any). Or is there? Can you prove that your solution is correct?
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Hi folks (back again, lost my password yet again, forgot the email I used to set this thing up to keep all the junk spam out of my real email, yet again … anyways 
). Anyway, there is some entertainment value in changing your name on these sort of forums.
You can start from scratch and tick people off all over again
My favorite theory is loop quantum gravity (seems to be the best one going, better than string theory I think; and more palatable than the idea of multiverses); and the associated theory of “big bounce” (which essentially postulates our current universe is merely another in a series of universes that continually expand until a certain threshold is reached, at which point it implodes, rewinding back to a point near a singularity, but not quite a singularity, then bouncing back or “re-inflating” to form a new universe).
This idea seems to best correspond with the data we currently have (including some recently discovered data). Under this paradigm no longer is it valid to imagine a “universe from nothing” (where at some point there was a singularity where the laws of physics break down). What we have here is possibly an infinite regression (thought to be impossible by some philosophers, notably Aristotle & Aquinas).
A theist might say defining this as an infinite regression is speculative, but that’s only because the idea is put against the mythological musings of the human imagination. Empirically speaking the idea of a god (and the necessity of a first cause) is not only speculative; but it goes against the evidence.
). Anyway, there is some entertainment value in changing your name on these sort of forums.You can start from scratch and tick people off all over again
My favorite theory is loop quantum gravity (seems to be the best one going, better than string theory I think; and more palatable than the idea of multiverses); and the associated theory of “big bounce” (which essentially postulates our current universe is merely another in a series of universes that continually expand until a certain threshold is reached, at which point it implodes, rewinding back to a point near a singularity, but not quite a singularity, then bouncing back or “re-inflating” to form a new universe).
This idea seems to best correspond with the data we currently have (including some recently discovered data). Under this paradigm no longer is it valid to imagine a “universe from nothing” (where at some point there was a singularity where the laws of physics break down). What we have here is possibly an infinite regression (thought to be impossible by some philosophers, notably Aristotle & Aquinas).
A theist might say defining this as an infinite regression is speculative, but that’s only because the idea is put against the mythological musings of the human imagination. Empirically speaking the idea of a god (and the necessity of a first cause) is not only speculative; but it goes against the evidence.
- Status