Problems w/ Atheism

[josie_L]

Why do you say God isn’t observable? I suppose you could say that God’s not directly observable, but even that claim needs support.

If the Church is right about God, then he’s definitely indirectly observable.

I did use the word “technically” in order for you to understand that God cannot be directly observed unless of course I build myself a time machine and pay a visit to Jesus in the 1st century.

No. My bet is that upon death, we won’t know anything.

Emphasis on “my bet” which makes it a matter of probability not proof.

 

[josie_L]

And then we say that these body’s (saints) are incorruptible, and you say there are scientific reasons for that. And we say that all the prophecy’s in the Bible have come true so far, and you say uhhh… so what? And we say that my cousin wasn’t suppose to walk and now she does, and you say the doctors didn’t know any better. And we say that the bread and wine actually turned into flesh and blood, and you say that didn’t really happen.

Reminds me of the Pharisees who despite having seen the many miracles Jesus performed refused to believe in Him.

 

[humble_maid]

one thing stuck out in your post (i’ll re-quote it, and then respond):

it is also significant that just when many scientists supposed that a belief in a future life had been finally proved an illusion, spiritism, with its doctrines and practices, should have gained such a strong hold not only on the ignorant, but also, and in a much more serious sense, on leading representatives of science itself. This may indeed be interpreted as a reaction against materialism; but it is none the less, at bottom, an evidence of man’s restless desire to penetrate, by any and every means, the mystery that lies beyond death.

what is the author really saying here? Religion, or at least according to the author the christian religion … Is a reaction to our restless desire to “penetrate . . . The mystery that lies beyond death.” in other words – a reaction to our mortality.

I probably wouldn’t frame the causes for religion so narrowly. Certainly fear of death is one obvious motive for religiosity; but there’s the search for meaning, a way to explain things we don’t completely understand yet, etc.

As intelligent creatures we would like to believe we’re not just an accident of nature. In fact religious apologists commonly say things like, atheism reduces us to a cosmic accident, mere intelligent mammals, etc. But what if that’s all we are? Don’t we limit ourselves by illusion?

The fact is atheism, at least intelligent atheism, neither reduces or elevates us to anything. What i say is the only thing we know to be immortal is energy and matter, and we know that because we have evidence. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. So all the energy and matter in our universe, in prior universes (assuming there were any), and in parallel universes (if they exist), as far as we can tell, always existed.

We can say time (at least our reference frame) began at the big bang, but that’s not a useful way to look at it. If the matter that formed our universe always existed, and the space that surrounds our universe always existed, then aren’t our attempts to mark a starting point for time pretty meaningless (at least from a practical and philosophical perspective)?

Dear Yankee I suspect that you have a background in some scientific field; correct me if I am wrong. I kindly ask you if you can elaborate on the paragraph in which you speak of energy and matter being immortal and to continue your thoughts?

 

[gearhead]

I did use the word “technically” in order for you to understand that God cannot be directly observed unless of course I build myself a time machine and pay a visit to Jesus in the 1st century.

Or wait around until the Second Coming, or pray for Him to appear and hope He obliges you.

Emphasis on “my bet” which makes it a matter of probability not proof.

I didn’t say anything about proof. My point was just that if I’m right, there will be no after-death confirmation.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Dear Yankee I suspect that you have a background in some scientific field; correct me if I am wrong. I kindly ask you if you can elaborate on the paragraph in which you speak of energy and matter being immortal and to continue your thoughts?

Sure, glad to.

The first law of thermodynamics is energy cannot be created or destroyed (it can only be transformed). Then, there’s the mass-energy equivalence in physics (I’m sure you’re familiar with the famed E = mc squared), which tells us the mass of any body of matter is a measure of its energy content.

In fact matter and energy can change into each other, and thus nothing (meaning matter or energy, which in its simplest form is what everything we know exists is made of) can be created or destroyed, only rearranged.

There’s a lot of interesting research happening right now. For instance, we’ve discovered asymmetry in the universe. One side of the sky has larger deviations from the average temperature of the cosmic radiation background.

In other words its a lopsided distribution in temperature that suggests (possibly, I emphasize possibly) the remnants of an earlier universe may have collided with the singularity to form our current universe.

There’s also interesting research into multiverses.

If you have anymore questions about this stuff, I’m glad to answer if I can.

 

[josie_L]

Or wait around until the Second Coming, or pray for Him to appear and hope He obliges you.

He has obliged me, so I don’t need to hope.

I didn’t say anything about proof. My point was just that if I’m right, there will be no after-death confirmation.

And my point was that we won’t know if we’re right until we die.

 

[josie_L]

Sure, glad to.

The first law of thermodynamics is energy cannot be created or destroyed (it can only be transformed). Then, there’s the mass-energy equivalence in physics (I’m sure you’re familiar with the famed E = mc squared), which tells us the mass of any body of matter is a measure of its energy content.

In fact matter and energy can change into each other, and thus nothing (meaning matter or energy, which in its simplest form is what everything we know exists is made of) can be created or destroyed, only rearranged.

There’s a lot of interesting research happening right now. For instance, we’ve discovered asymmetry in the universe. One side of the sky has larger deviations from the average temperature of the cosmic radiation background.

In other words its a lopsided distribution in temperature that suggests (possibly, I emphasize possibly) the remnants of an earlier universe may have collided with the singularity to form our current universe.

There’s also interesting research into multiverses.

If you have anymore questions about this stuff, I’m glad to answer if I can.

Then why do you believe that when we die we will cease to exist (a soul can be likened to energy) if matter can be converted and/or rearranged into energy ?

p.s. I always thought it amazing that we’re made up of stardust.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Oh Great Oracle can you tell me what my future holds?

game theory isn’t my thing, but there are some mathematicians who believe they can (I’m not so sure, but maybe … at least eventually, we’ll be able to predict the future with decent accuracy).

 

[josie_L]

game theory isn’t my thing, but there are some mathematicians who believe they can (I’m not so sure, but maybe … at least eventually, we’ll be able to predict the future with decent accuracy).

That’s poppycock, and it sounds rather new age for mathematicians to be saying such.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Then why do you believe that when we die we will cease to exist (a soul can be likened to energy)? I always thought it amazing that we’re made up of stardust.

Because “we” do cease to exist (as intelligent creatures). Moreover, if a soul could be likened to energy (or if it was energy) we would be able to detect it, but we can’t so it’s not (it’s at least not energy, if “it” – our soul – exists at all ).

I’m as sure as we can reasonably be about anything that there is no such thing as an immaterial soul.

 

[AntiTheist]

when we die all of us will know the truth, so all your so-called reasoning won’t make up for your lack of faith if and when you find out God does indeed exist. By the way, what would you do if you find out God did exist, what would you tell him?

And this is really it. “The boogey man is gonna get you if you don’t think like we do.”

“won’t make up for your lack of faith”? What is it that you think this god character is going to do to people who deny him, exactly? From what I’ve heard, his idea of “justice” – you know, eternal torment for thought crimes – sounds pretty much like the textbook definition of “unjust.” Kind of makes Hitler, Stalin, and those who were responsible for the inquisition seem small by comparison.

I’m glad that there’s no actual evidence that such a monster exists. I suppose if he’s real, I’d say, “Hmm, look at that.” Maybe that’s not as elegant as Russell’s “not enough evidence, Lord, not enough evidence.”

 

[yankee_doodle]

That’s poppycock, and it sounds rather new age for mathematicians to be saying such.

it’s not new age in the sense you’re taking it, nor is it predicting the future in a mystical way. It’s applying mathematical formulas to a set of circumstances, using what we know about human history, psychology, the likelihood A will do B and C will react in D way and so on.

I personally agree with you (but probably not for the same reasons). I think there’s too many variables (we just don’t know enough about psychology and the subconscious to predict human response with any useful degree of accuracy). However, in the very remote future, maybe (I say maybe with a little “m”).

 

[josie_L]

Because “we” do cease to exist (as intelligent creatures). Moreover, if a soul could be likened to energy (or if it was energy) we would be able to detect it, but we can’t so it’s not (it’s at least not energy, if “it” – our soul – exists at all ).

I’m as sure as we can reasonably be about anything that there is no such thing as an immaterial soul.

But how do you know this? And furthermore, if matter can’t be destroyed what will become of us, won’t we turn into energy? And if we are to become energy what makes you think we won’t think anymore, as consciousness if you recollect me mentioning this continues to exist (outside of the body) even after death? Why won’t you look at the research being done on consciousness/mind and near death experiences?

 

[yankee_doodle]

And this is really it. “The boogey man is gonna get you if you don’t think like we do.”

“won’t make up for your lack of faith”? What is it that you think this god character is going to do to people who deny him, exactly? From what I’ve heard, his idea of “justice” – you know, eternal torment for thought crimes – sounds pretty much like the textbook definition of “unjust.” Kind of makes Hitler, Stalin, and those who were responsible for the inquisition seem small by comparison.

and add to that the idea that this god created Hitler and Stalin according to theists, and you have perhaps the most monstrous fictional character in history.

 

[josie_L]

And this is really it. “The boogey man is gonna get you if you don’t think like we do.”

“won’t make up for your lack of faith”? What is it that you think this god character is going to do to people who deny him, exactly? From what I’ve heard, his idea of “justice” – you know, eternal torment for thought crimes – sounds pretty much like the textbook definition of “unjust.” Kind of makes Hitler, Stalin, and those who were responsible for the inquisition seem small by comparison.

I’m glad that there’s no actual evidence that such a monster exists. I suppose if he’s real, I’d say, “Hmm, look at that.” Maybe that’s not as elegant as Russell’s “not enough evidence, Lord, not enough evidence.”

Yeah, I’m sure that God who created the Universe and the laws attributed to it really needs to be admonished by likes of you and/or Russell. My point was simply this, either God exists or He doesn’t, and therefore, at our deaths we will know which is correct.

 

[josie_L]

and add to that the idea that this god created Hitler and Stalin according to theists, and you have perhaps the most monstrous fictional character in history.

Are you denying that we have free will?

 

[josie_L]

it’s not new age in the sense you’re taking it, nor is it predicting the future in a mystical way. It’s applying mathematical formulas to a set of circumstances, using what we know about human history, psychology, the likelihood A will do B and C will react in D way and so on.

I personally agree with you (but probably not for the same reasons). I think there’s too many variables (we just don’t know enough about psychology and the subconscious to predict human response with any useful degree of accuracy). However, in the very remote future, maybe (I say maybe with a little “m”).

Wow, you just said you agreed with me, and what’s even more amazing is that I agree with you. I will remember this day forever.

 

[yankee_doodle]

But how do you know this? And furthermore, if matter can’t be destroyed what will become of us, won’t we turn into energy? And if we are to become energy what makes you think we won’t think anymore, as consciousness if you recollect me mentioning this continues to exist (outside of the body) even after death? Why won’t you look at the research being done on consciousness/mind and near death experiences?

I have looked at near death experiences, I didn’t just walk away from religion without giving it years of thought. Neurologists tell us they’re just dreams, and there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[AntiTheist]

Yeah, I’m sure that God who created the Universe and the laws attributed to it really needs to be admonished by likes of you and/or Russell.

Well, when a character is described to me, whether he exists or not, I can’t help but evaluate him on the basis of my values.

I can tell you this – if any earthly dictator developed a mind reading machine and a way to punish his subjects for all eternity for the crime of not loving his rulership, I would judge him to be one of the most detestable human beings ever to live.

 

[josie_L]

and add to that the idea that this god created Hitler and Stalin according to theists, and you have perhaps the most monstrous fictional character in history.

Holy moly, “the most montrous fictional character in history”, really? Are you using hyperbole again?