I am an atheist thread 2

[steve_b]

You also attempt to set up a false dichotomy by implying that if I don’t believe in God then that must mean I know God doesn’t exist or that I have to believe in another hypothesis. I do not, and I do not.

I have no interest in misrepresenting you. I merely quoted you. If you didn’t mean what you said, then what DO you believe?

phooney:

You also beg the question and use circular reasoning again when you say the universe is created. Your logical fallacies are mounting up.

I’m either quoting my sources or the person I’m talking to all along the way in these conversations. My questions and conclusions stem from the responses I’m given.

phooney:

“In your opening statement (highlighted above) you say you do not eliminate God absolutely, but then you say here, there is no such thing as any specific God.”

I apologise for this wording, I can see how it has confused you and resulted in you assuming completely the wrong thing. What I intended to say there is that there is no such thing as a mathematically consistent model for god, let alone a MATHEMATICALLY CONSISTENT MODEL OF any specific God. Emphasis added this time so you can hopefully understand.

As I said earlier, I have no interest in misrepresenting your views. I can only go by how you communicate your thoughts. Thanks for your clarification

phooney:

“When is the last time you saw a self made Tapestry? The very title of his book is a contradiction of terms.”

It’s called metaphor.

Is that what the Author says or is that what you say?

phooney:

“nobody knows what caused the big bang? Carl Sagan?, belief in aliens?, yet you know God doesn’t exist? sheesh!!”

Again putting words in my mouth. When you quote me here your underlining is REALLY erratic… I’m not sure what you have taken exception to. I certainly haven’t said that there is no God, but I still lack the belief in any God.

Would you agree as you admit above, that your thoughts were not clear and it’s easy for someone to get the completely wrong idea about what you’re saying.

phooney:

“Name one effect that wasn’t the result of cause”

Again, this question is the result of quoting part of one of my sentences.

No it wasn’t

I made a statement regarding causality, i.e. the law of cause and effect. I was challenged on that. So I merely asked

• name one effect that wasn’t the result of cause
  I’m still waiting for an answer.

phooney:

Personally, I can’t tell you anything about what happened “before” the planck time, or whether any hypothetical thing in that extreme early universe happened without a cause or not. This doesn’t make any argument for you whatsoever.

Based on the law of causality,

The effect is the universe, what is the cause

phooney:

Thanks for the quote regarding planck time. Please read it and note the limiting condition it puts on the ’beginning’ of the universe, which is “Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today” i.e. they (whoever they are) are measuring the beginning as being from the planck time to now, though clearly the singularity was “before” that, and it still makes no assumptions as to what caused the big bang, as more evidence is needed.

It seems to me that the more science knows the more it knows it doesn’t know. And in this process, is being dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing there is a God without admitting there is a God. I’m enjoying the process

 

[steve_b]

Well, speaking for myself, I love that train of logic, but in the Varghese book I’ve been reading, he speaks of a point of view that Bertrand Russell held which states,** “we shouldn’t ask for a final cause because causes only apply to the things in the universe, not the universe itself.”**
Varghese says that that argument, ie, since there are “laws” there has to be a “lawgiver,” is an anthropomorphic fallacy and “obscures the radical distinction between finite and infinite being.”

Seems Varghese AND Russell are a bit illogical. If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my eyesight on that book, unless there is a specific reason to read it…school assignment etc. But that’s just me.
onto:

Personally, I think the existence of language and consciousness, which scientists still find inexplicable, are more pursuasive indicators of an Infinite Intelligence, who, (perfect ‘personhood’) IS Being Itself, ie God.

Eventually science will discover God. It’s a given.

 

[steve_b]

If God was the singularity, then God no longer exists except as part of everything and everyone.

He creates all, without Him there is nothing. He sustains all, but He is not IN everything in order to sustain everything
not:

.

Therefore there was no separate creation of humans, no fall from grace in the Garden, no need for worship or redemption, no need for priests and popes.

If God was the singularity, then there is no soul, no after life, just recycling of matter and energy all of which is God.

Have I missed somewhere in this thread the definition of singularity? Help me out here.

 

[phooney]

@steveb

You know people can just read back and see for themselves that you just quoted the first PART of my sentence, right? The clarification for your original question was contained in the rest of the sentence that you choopped off. At least read what you are arguing against.

“I have no interest in misrepresenting you. I merely quoted you. If you didn’t mean what you said, then what DO you believe?”

Sure. I have never once told you there is no god, I have never said I believe any of the “pre-big bang” hypotheses. You are wandering around this thread in a cloud of incomprehension and skim-reading and you are coming off as very juvenile. No offence, you may very well be 10 years old, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but you have much more learning to do.

“My questions and conclusions stem from the responses I’m given.”

This has no relevence to whether your questions and conclusions are logically sound or not.

Your questions and conclusions stem in part from some fraction of the responses you’ve been given, sure, but you blatantly ignore much of what is said to you. I also can quote part of your words for my own ends:

Steveb: “I have no interest in…my sources or the person I’m talking to…My questions and conclusions stem from…earlier…views…I can only…communicate…the completely wrong idea about…science…Kicking… God… I am enjoying the process”

“Is that what the Author says or is that what you say?”

You can’t be serious?

"Would you agree as you admit above, that your thoughts were not clear and it’s easy for someone to get the completely wrong idea about what you’re saying. "

I admitted where I could see that my wording wasn’t clear enough. Please ask for clarification instead of posting drivel though. I will explain things to the best of my ability, even though in the question of whether God exists or not, there is no burden of proof on me as I haven’t made a positive claim.

“No it wasn’t”

Yes it was, go back and read the whole sentence.

“I’m still waiting for an answer.”

The question has already been exposed as flawed.

“It seems to me that the more science knows the more it knows it doesn’t know. And in this process, is being dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing there is a God without admitting there is a God. I’m enjoying the process”

I’m glad you’re having fun, I too am enjoying your sideshow, though I wish someone of the calibur and capacity for reason of Socrates4Jesus had enough time to post more. Sure, new evidence means new questions, and this is a great thing, it means there’s more we can learn. There is currently no scientific evidence indicating God (that has ever been presented to me anyway) so I’m not sure where you got this notion that science is starting to recognise God. Scientific consensus won’t be ‘dragged’ that way by anything except evidence. Either back up your claim or admit you simply dreamed it up.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

@Texas Roofer

“Btw Have some questions or maybe I should say an unresolved issue which I have been asking proclaimed atheist to assist me with, so let me know if you can assist me.”

I’m sure that I, or most atheists active in this thread, would do our best to help you with any questions you have. Of course, each of us can only speak for ourselves, seeing as the only thing that Atheists neccesarily have in common is the lack of a belief in a God.

[issue] I have always struggled to understand a plan under which atheists develop a social society.
[question] **In a true atheist society how is the benefit from immoral behavior countered? **

Let me elaborate a little first you should hear I am a big believer in Natural Law theory which teaches God installed right and wrong knowledge in every human soul. Second ever rational attempt I make at this understand of an Atheist society (for now let us assume these are error) concludes the Atheist would best benefit from living under a false pretense of Christian in Christian society! And that Atheist would act immoral when the logic (personal gain verses personal exposure) indicated high probabilities of success. And a Third issue as I believe you and the others have God’s law written in your soul I believe your actual base is a religious base. However any information you could provide on how to reorient this thinking is appreciated.

 

[ontologysue]

@ontologysue

“Personally, I think the existence of language and consciousness, which scientists still find inexplicable, are more pursuasive indicators of an Infinite Intelligence, who, (perfect ‘personhood’) IS Being Itself, ie God.”

**This is simply an argument from ignorance, which puts God in a supposed gap in knowledge. There are plenty of neuroscientists and linguists making headway in these areas of enquiry. What are you saying is inexplicable about language? What do you think consciousness is? **

Actually, it is not an argument from ignorance… In fact, the argument that “minds are what brains do,” is typically called a “naive materialism” in current scientific circles. Consciousness or more technically, “sentience” is inexplicable even to neuro scientists, this, from, for example Steven Pinker, a contemporary brain scientist. It’s like" trying to find time by dismantling a clock," the only explanation is an ontological one.

Language also, has contemporary neuro-scientists baffled. Antony Kenny, an atheist philosopher, states language cannot be explained by natural selection, Richard Dawkins states, nobody knows the how language began, there are no evolutionary forerunners; Chomsky states there are no animal correlations from whence human language can be derived, etc, etc.

In a recent debate between the atheist, Christopher Hitchens(sp?) of, “God is Not Great” fame, and Professor David Alan White, available on a podcast through “Townhall.com”, brings agreement from both on the fact that “language” is inexplicable. I would agree with those scientists who concede that consciousness, for example, the concept of “self” which unifies our existential existence, as Pinker has said, the “I” is not a combination of body parts or brain states, but a unity of selfness over time, a single locus that is nowhere in particular," is a meta-physical reality.

Say you are walking along and you see a snake about to bite you so you stop and run back in the other direction. In reality the space where the snake was, was actually a cliff edge. Thus ‘good’ fruits have been borne of this, and by your rationale I took this to mean that the hallucination was reality.

Yes, in your example a hallucination, could, incidentally, produce a “good fruit” in the sense of preventing the potential catastrophic fall, of course, in itself, it still has to relation to “truth.” However, what I meant by “good fruits” has more to do with “character.” The ability to distinguish a “relvelation” as true or not, and or not, could mean it was a hallucination or morally reprehensible, etc, would be an improvement in character, ie, more virtuous.

 

[notself]

@notself

I think that perspective is called “Pantheism”

My goodness, I thought I had made a case for Animism.

 

[ontologysue]

Seems Varghese AND Russell are a bit illogical. If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my eyesight on that book, unless there is a specific reason to read it…school assignment etc. But that’s just me.

Eventually science will discover God. It’s a given.

Exactly, Varghese’s point, ie the subtitle of the book, “from modern science to the mind of God.” You should read the book!

 

[steve_b]

@steveb

You know people can just read back and see for themselves that you just quoted the first PART of my sentence, right? The clarification for your original question was contained in the rest of the sentence that you choopped off. At least read what you are arguing against.

“I have no interest in misrepresenting you. I merely quoted you. If you didn’t mean what you said, then what DO you believe?”

Sure. I have never once told you there is no god, I have never said I believe any of the “pre-big bang” hypotheses. You are wandering around this thread in a cloud of incomprehension and skim-reading and you are coming off as very juvenile. No offence, you may very well be 10 years old, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but you have much more learning to do.

“My questions and conclusions stem from the responses I’m given.”

This has no relevence to whether your questions and conclusions are logically sound or not.

Your questions and conclusions stem in part from some fraction of the responses you’ve been given, sure, but you blatantly ignore much of what is said to you. I also can quote part of your words for my own ends:

Steveb: “I have no interest in…my sources or the person I’m talking to…My questions and conclusions stem from…earlier…views…I can only…communicate…the completely wrong idea about…science…Kicking… God… I am enjoying the process”

“Is that what the Author says or is that what you say?”

You can’t be serious?

"Would you agree as you admit above, that your thoughts were not clear and it’s easy for someone to get the completely wrong idea about what you’re saying. "

I admitted where I could see that my wording wasn’t clear enough. Please ask for clarification instead of posting drivel though. I will explain things to the best of my ability, even though in the question of whether God exists or not, there is no burden of proof on me as I haven’t made a positive claim.

“No it wasn’t”

Yes it was, go back and read the whole sentence.

“I’m still waiting for an answer.”

The question has already been exposed as flawed.

“It seems to me that the more science knows the more it knows it doesn’t know. And in this process, is being dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing there is a God without admitting there is a God. I’m enjoying the process”

I’m glad you’re having fun, I too am enjoying your sideshow, though I wish someone of the calibur and capacity for reason of Socrates4Jesus had enough time to post more. Sure, new evidence means new questions, and this is a great thing, it means there’s more we can learn. There is currently no scientific evidence indicating God (that has ever been presented to me anyway) so I’m not sure where you got this notion that science is starting to recognise God. Scientific consensus won’t be ‘dragged’ that way by anything except evidence. Either back up your claim or admit you simply dreamed it up.

My posts on this thread are few, starting I think on p 17. This is the 19th. post. I’ll pray for you in your journey. In this case, I think that’s much better than debate. I’ve enjoyed the repartee.

 

[_A]

God is the uncaused cause.

Looking at steve b’s signature, I think it is clear that he would not EVER doubt, for fear of insulting divinity.

 

[phooney]

@Texas Roofer

Hi again,

As mentioned, I will do my best to impart my views on this to you.

I must admit, I find the issue and elaboration a bit confusing, though the question itself looks reasonably straightforward.

First of all, there is no true Atheist Society as far as I’m aware. The closest might be Sweden, which has some statistics indicating an 80+% level of disbelief in a personal God. Other statistical surveys have given different results of course, so that’s always important to remember. Perhaps China might be one as well, I’m not sure, though the political oppression might have to be considered as a different kind of super-human power imposing its will on the population. Let’s not go down the road of confusing Atheism with Communism however, Atheism is a lack of belief in God and nothing more. Atheism is not a political point of view, Atheism itself has nothing to say about morals, Atheism has nothing to do with physics, biology etc. However, I have tended to notice that the skepticism Atheists apply to the notion of god is often used in many different aspects of life.

So about the development of a social society. At the moment, the best explanation I have come across is evolutionary morality. We had the basics for our morality as part of our genetic make-up from before the time when we were even humans. So in a way I guess I partially agree with you in that a very basic form of our morality is ‘written’ in us. In an extreme nutshell, an entirely innately immoral ‘society’ would wipe itself out before it could even get started. We literally couldn’t BE social animals while simultaneously everybody stole everything from everybody else, and raped and killed everybody else. Stephen Pinker in his book “How the mind works” gives examples of why our species generally gets along, why and how some individuals act immorally or deceptively for immediate personal gain, and describes why and how we detect such individuals and as part of the consensus of the “society” (to use your wording) impose penalties on them, all in evolutionary perspective. Primitive penalties were reasonably limited to death or expulsion from the group etc. Reciprocal Altruism is abundant in the animal kingdom as well. Richard Dawkins mentions a couple examples in “The Ancestor’s Tale” I think. Carl Sagan gives many examples in his book “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” which is mostly about primate evolution. The parallels between ourselves and our closest relatives, Chimpanzees and Bonobos is absolutely amazing, I’d recommend anybody read this one. Again, Stephen Pinker gives some examples in his book “How the Mind Works” The most basic example that I can remember off the top of my head is the one regarding ‘cleaner fish’ and their ‘clients’. In coral reefs there are certain places that a weary fish can go when it needs to have itself cleaned of any parasites that have latched on. Anywhere else but these places, it’s a fish eat fish world, but those that eat the cleaner fish there are refused service afterwards and thus get riddled with parasites and are less likely to pass on their genes. Cleaner fish go about their business, even removing parasites from INSIDE the mouths of their ‘clients’. Occassionally they get eaten because sometimes a fish has just GOT to eat This is all explained by evolution quite tidily.

While I have read the books I mention above, I am planning on reading some books specifically about this topic, such as “The Moral Animal” by Robert Wright, and also some books specifically against it (no examples come to mind, but I would guess they are probably out there). That being the case, this is a belief I hold reasonably tentatively at the moment, but I can’t see any flaws in it yet.

So I hope this helps clarify some things for you, the benefit from immoral behaviour is countered by the rest of the society or not at all. If the person dies having never been penalised, then there is no evidence to suggest that there is any punishment, though it is a long shot that one would get away with it, even powerful leaders of entire countries can be brought to ‘justice’. Is this always fair? No, but you would be begging the question to assume that the universe is ‘fair’ no matter how much we might all like it to be.

I think I am running out of space for this post, so in the next post, then copy and paste a couple of things I have written in other threads to give a brief couple of reasons why I don’t think that god or religion are our basis for morality.

 

[phooney]

continued @texas roofer

“Of course there are still problems with saying that God (any of the gods postulated by modern monotheistic religions anyway) is our moral benchmark. This ‘model’ for morality asserts that an unchanging, eternally perfect law giver is what we base our morality on. This fails to match the reality that our morality has demonstrably changed over the course of our evolution, and development of our cultures.”

"In a nutshell, the best explanation I can come up with is that our morality evolved with us, destructive behaviour towards the society is generally legislated against, and the legislation is the codified representation of our morality. ‘Wrong’ behaviour hurts other people, and the evolutionary mechanism that usually stops us from doing that is a neurochemical reaction that causes us to feel ‘bad’ about it or to empathise with the people we have hurt. Of course, I realise that people still do go around killing people all the time. Naturally, it must be noted, many of these examples are over religion, but I’m sure those aren’t the examples you were meaning to dredge up. In many cases, I think it is probably a matter of perspective (as in “I’m so poor and I can’t think of any other way to get some money/food” or “these foreigners want to take away my country”) that causes people to go around killing.

The golden rule, as in treating others as you would like to be treated yourself of course predates Christianity by quite some time, forms of it being in the Code of Hammurabi and perhaps the Ur-nammu code, though I haven’t read the latter."

I’m reasonably sure that I have missed some of the point of your question due to the fact that I was a bit confused by your elaboration, but I hope that some of this will give you some material to help clarify your question for me.

 

[steve_b]

Looking at steve b’s signature, I think it is clear that he would not EVER doubt, for fear of insulting divinity.

It’s not about doubt in general, it’s about doubting God.

 

[_A]

(Also, on an earlier question about knowing if personal relvelations are true or hullucinations–“only by the fruits will you know them,” the Islamic terrorist’s did not produce charity,

…according to you, but you are an infidel, and possibly guilty of apostasy - so we cant accept your judgement on this matter of faith - you don’t have the right faith.

they acted according to the horror of pure evil. If a personal relvelation increases true humility and charity, it was a valid relvelation.)

Humility? Vatican City is humble enough for you, then? Charity? When I was a kid, I asked a priest why they couldn’t sell the gold and art in Vatican City to feed the hungry kids in Ethiopia. I was told that they were ‘priceless holy relics’, and since I didn’t know what ‘priceless’ meant, all I could think was ‘I could get some money for that gold, I am sure.’
The vatican still has gobs of money, and still there are children starving.

Back to time, since there is no unified theory in physics, yet, scientists are unable to square the quantum particle world with the general theory of relativity world, because of this it is as yet unknown if or what laws governed reality before the big bang before the universe was billions of times smaller than a hydrogen atom.

Which is why I said that the statement ‘15 billion years ago’ might be meaningless.

 

[_A]

For starters the question is a bad question, in that it can only be answered accurately if the assumptions used to form the question are correct and thus the problem. One assumption I think you will eventually find as false is – Can the hallucination (or lack of) be proven.

I would not require rigorous proof, so should not be using that phrasing. What I mean is, how do you know that one ‘yahweh experience’ is true while another ‘Allah experience’ is false? One must be, for the doctrines are quite opposed. How would you know that islam is not the true faith…or hinduism…?

A second assumption is the existence (or lack of) of God can be proven. Additionally, from reading many posts in this thread it seems the definition of the word ‘prove’ or ‘proof’ maybe inadequate as used.

I don’t like ‘prove’ or ‘proof’ either. There is not much proof around relating to the real world. What would you suggest to improve the clarity of the discussion in this respect?

Moving on from that another poster has tried to explain it appears this whole thread is really a version of Agnostic thoughts.

Agnostic means that they don’t know something. Are you an agnostic with respect to leprechauns? How about the flying spaghetti monster? I am atheist with respect to those, and all gods which I have had a description for. Yahweh is a ridiculous caricature of a god, and it is quite easy to arrive at the conclusion that he is completely invented. All it took for me was a read of the bible.

I think that poster is correct, however you may a reason for not wanting to address that, so please share that with us.

I am an atheist. What more do I need to say?
If you don’t believe that I am an atheist, it must be because you don’t truly believe in your god. If you had real faith in your god, you would have no reason to doubt my claims.

Btw Have some questions or maybe I should say an unresolved issue which I have been asking proclaimed atheist to assist me with, so let me know if you can assist me.

I will try. I am just middling smart, though…if an average guy can help, I will.

 

[_A]

Sounds to me like you’re trying to reason your way into accepting God.

Sounds to me like you enjoy evangelicalism more than you enjoy thinking.

Reason leads away from the notion of gods.

 

[_A]

OK, whatever - you who has no faith. How did you become an expert?

I have seen people join a church and get some faith. Took a couple of weeks.

I have seen people become a doctor and get a Phd. Took hundreds of weeks, and there were fees to pay, and tests to take.

I am no expert, but you can see that anyone can get faith, the same group can get Phd’s. Why are so many **more **getting faith? Because it’s easier.

 

[phooney]

@ontologysue

Hi again, glad to see you continuing to post. Your posts clearly have some substance to them.

“Actually, it is not an argument from ignorance”

It is truly a textbook argument from ignorance, and going further into detail about how inexplicable it is only demonstrates the point more. For the sake of argument let us say that these things are things that nobody knows about or is making any headway on. If “sentience” and “language” are “inexplicable” to current scientific circles that ignorance cannot possibly be an argument FOR god. As I mentioned in a previous post to somebody else, “ignorance cannot be evidence for anything except that ignorance.”

Could you explain “naive materialism” a bit more? I find this confusing, seeing as Science kind of revolves around testing of the material world, and I’ve not yet seen any methodology for testing the immaterial, as I think you might be suggesting.

I thought Stephen Pinker was more of a Psychologist and Linguist rather than a Neuroscientist? If you’re a fan of his work, you might also like this from him: “For anyone with a persistent intellectual curiosity, religious explanations are not worth knowing, because they pile equally baffling enigmas on top of the original ones.” This is on page 560 of my copy of “How the mind works” immediately after he outlines such problems of philosophy/science as “sentience” and “morality”

Richard Dawkins also says “Language evolves in a quasi-biological way and the direction its evolution takes looks undirected, pretty much like random drift” This comes from his book “The God Delusion”, where was your quote from? I myself can think of evolutionary forerunners to our language, as detailed by study of primates, and I think the context of your Dawkins quote might need to be looked at.

I’ve not heard of Antony Kenny, is he also an evolutionary biologist? I have heard of Chomsky, but have not read much of his works, so I can’t comment there.

Thanks for the link to the recent Hitchens debate, I will hopefully be able to listen to it at some point over the weekend, but I have my work Christmas party tomorrow so I might be feeling a bit rough . I’m getting a bit wary about Hitchens at the moment though, I sometimes think he just likes to argue only for arguments sake, and he’s sometimes drinking vodka during debates, so not the greatest for clear thinking. I think he has a fantastically quick wit though, and he is at least entertaining to listen to.

“However, what I meant by “good fruits” has more to do with “character.” The ability to distinguish a “relvelation” as true or not, and or not, could mean it was a hallucination or morally reprehensible, etc, would be an improvement in character, ie, more virtuous.”

Thanks for this clarification. But by who’s version of “morally reprehensible” and “improvement in character” and “virtuous” are you going by? The basic model of evolutionary morality I outlined above (as a poor layman) takes into account how our morality changes with time and consensus and encompasses why different cultures have developed similar, but slightly differently in terms of what they think is “virtuous” or “reprehsnsible” and all the shades in between.

 

[_A]

I can only speak for Christianity (and my experience of it), but I believe it is actually about transcending reason.

I think this is a good thing, because I believe human reasoning can be flawed, limiting, and self-serving.

Why don’t you show us how your faith is superior to reason. Use the computer, internet, and any other contributions of science and technology to do it, if you like.

 

[_A]

I presume that your sweetheart is a bully.

You can presume that, and you may be right, but she doesn’t bully me, which is the key difference. Your imagined god fits the definition of bully MUCH better than a mere human could.