The absurdity of atheism

[buffalo]

I do. Like i said my standard is higher.

Your standard is foolish. You will not find God in the lab. He exists outside our labs.

Ask a flatlander for proof of a third dimension.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Your standard is foolish. You will not find God in the lab. He exists outside our labs.

Ask a flatlander for proof of a third dimension.

“My standard is foolish” he types on his PC. Oh the irony :nope:

 

[buffalo]

“My standard is foolish” he types on his PC. Oh the irony :nope:

So your claim is that there would be no computers without atheism?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Charles Darwin

I would engage you more fully if each of your posts was not a one-liner. This is not a night-club for stand-up comics. Please try harder.

 

[JDaniel]

http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/CFJ/2412~Hydrogen-Bomb-Posters.jpg

I see a picture of a hydrogen bomb explosion, but, I’m not sure what it has to do with my question.

Now, don’t laugh, but, here is the article on star formation in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation.

Just point out the part where nuclear fusion describes star formation. I’ll take it from there. (If it’s not too deep for me, otherwise I might ask you for (name removed by moderator)ut.)

jd

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I see a picture of a hydrogen bomb explosion, but, I’m not sure what it has to do with my question.

Now, don’t laugh, but, here is the article on star formation in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation.

Just point out the part where nuclear fusion describes star formation. I’ll take it from there. (If it’s not too deep for me, otherwise I might ask you for (name removed by moderator)ut.)

jd

Protostar on

 

[Charles_Darwin]

So your claim is that there would be no computers without atheism?

? No. Computers are a direct result of that “foolish” method. So is every other part of the modern world. So is every part of the accumuated knowledge of mankind. Only a fool could describe that method as “foolish”. I wonder how “foolish” you would find it, if you lived 300 years ago and you contracted something along the lines of TB.

 

[JDaniel]

Protostar on

When the article says,

“In this stage bipolar flows are produced, probably an effect of the angular momentum of the infalling material,”

should, or rather, can I be absoultely certain that bipolar flows are, in fact, produced as an effect of the angular momentum of the falling material? The article says, “probably”, so I’m just wondering. I want to be sure to get it right.

jd

 

[Charles_Darwin]

When the article says,

“In this stage bipolar flows are produced, probably an effect of the angular momentum of the infalling material,”

should, or rather, can I be absoultely certain that bipolar flows are, in fact, produced as an effect of the angular momentum of the falling material? The article says, “probably”, so I’m just wondering. I want to be sure to get it right.

jd

In science there is no such thing as absolutes. So no.

 

[buffalo]

Six Myths of Atheism

 

[JDaniel]

In science there is no such thing as absolutes. So no.

Good. Thank you.

As I read further, I learned that much of what we believe about star formation we gather from computer models by astronomers like Don VandenBerg. So, these are not live manifestations of the fusion actually occurring. How absolutely sure can I be about the hypotheses from these computer models? Are they absolute in any way?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

In science there is no such thing as absolutes. So no.

Charles:

Further reading brought me to this:

“The H-R diagram can be used to define different types of stars and to match theoretical predictions of stellar evolution using computer models with observations of actual stars. It is then necessary to convert either the calculated quantities to observables, or the other way around, thus introducing an extra uncertainty.”

Perhaps you can suggest another example of something that I can regard as true that has a higher standard than the standards the theist uses? This star formation example is not giving me a warm, fuzzy feeling that I can use it against the theists with much winning power, at this point.

Can you suggest something else with perhaps fewer references to hypotheticals and computer models? I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance.

jd

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Good. Thank you.

As I read further, I learned that much of what we believe about star formation we gather from computer models by astronomers like Don VandenBerg. So, these are not live manifestations of the fusion actually occurring. How absolutely sure can I be about the hypotheses from these computer models? Are they absolute in any way?

jd

We can be as absolutely sure of fusion in stars as we can be of anything in science, there is overwhelming evidence. Do you believe in hydrogen bombs?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles:

Further reading brought me to this:

“The H-R diagram can be used to define different types of stars and to match theoretical predictions of stellar evolution using computer models with observations of actual stars. It is then necessary to convert either the calculated quantities to observables, or the other way around, thus introducing an extra uncertainty.”

Perhaps you can suggest another example of something that I can regard as true that has a higher standard than the standards the theist uses? This star formation example is not giving me a warm, fuzzy feeling that I can use it against the theists with much winning power, at this point.

Can you suggest something else with perhaps fewer references to hypotheticals and computer models? I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance.

jd

You’ve lost me, “use it against the theists with much winning power”??

Are you suggecting there is more empirical evidence for the existence of god than there is for fusion in stars?

 

[wanstronian]

And i suppose its your Job to free us from that delusion? The existence of God has been proven numerous times on this Forum. The fact that you don’t understand the arguments does not reflect on the validity of the arguments.

Ah, the good old, “You don’t understand” gambit, I guess it was only a matter of time. Perhaps you can explain the arguments to me?

In my opinion you refuse to understand and take God seriously,

I’m not *refusing *to understand, I have said many times on this forum that I would believe if evidence were presented. I just don’t understand. I don’t think I’m stupid (although you may disagree) - I’m university educated and have an IQ around the 155 mark last time I checked. So unless your arguments are extremely complicated (which would then beg the question, why aren’t all very clever people theists and all stupid people atheists?) I should be able to understand them. To tell you the truth I think I do understand your arguments, which is why I also understand that they do not support a belief in God.

because its not in the best interest of somebody trying to be God

Sorry, are you implying I’m trying to be God? Is that because you feel that someone has to be, so you’re projecting that I feel the same and I want it to be me? I don’t understand your implication, can you explain?

; Pride rules when man tries to be the root of his own purpose meaning and joy. Some people don’t want a God they can’t control and manipulate to their own ends.

That’s possibly true, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. If you believe that atheists are atheists because they have delusions of grandeur, then you are applying as much thought and logic as you do to your underlying belief in God. To wit, not much.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you believe that other minds exist? Well…the thing is…science hasn’t proven that other minds or even that objective reality exists. The scientific method presupposes a valid form of interpretation that can’t be proven by the scientific method. So this must mean that you are deluding yourself!!! You’re walking around talking to people you don’t even know exist.You’re interacting and talking to objects because of the unproven belief that they have minds just like you; and you maintain this belief just because their actions appear ordered toward purposeful and meaningful ends, and on this basis you make the inference to the objective existence of a mind and a will as being responsible for the purpose and meaning being displayed in the object. How weird, that sounds just like intelligent design theory!!!

I think i can rest my case here.

You might as well, you haven’t said anything useful. Your analogy is irrelevant. You seem to be using the fact that science doesn’t know everything as evidence that something arbitrary exists. Do you not see the howling fallacy in that view? If you truly believe that the answer to everything science doesn’t know is ‘God’ then you are truly deluded.

To spell it out: Lack of scientific knowledge DOES NOT necessitate God.

 

[wanstronian]

The fact that you regard physical manifestation as evidence of a person’s existence implies that physical reality is the fundamental reality. How do you justify that assumption?

Okay, I’ll play along, although I’m pretty sure I can see where this is going.

Physical reality is the only reality we know of. There is no evidence for the existence of any other reality.

What do you accept as evidence for your consciousness, rationality and free will? Physical phenomena?

I believe there are probably two schools of thought. The first is that consciousness et al are a product of the incredibly complex bio-chemical processes occurring in our brain. The second is that there is something else, as yet undiscovered by science, that somehow plays a part. I have no real problem with either of those theories. What I have a problem with is the mindless filling of the latter gap with a God for which no evidence exists. If you truly believe that consciousness, free will and so on could only be caused by God (and never mind the follow-on questions regarding God’s origin etc.), then feel free. I know it’s illogical, I suspect that you know it’s illogical, but you are free to believe whatever you like. I’m not trying to stop you, but when you start a thread with the title, “The absurdity of atheism” then that deserves a response. How can it possibly be absurd to fail to believe in something for which no evidence exists?

 

[wanstronian]

Charles Darwin

What standard of proof do you require to prove there is no God? I’ve never heard of such a proof or anyone who ever offered one.

Please enlighten us!

There he goes again

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

why aren’t all very clever people theists and all stupid people atheists?

Be careful what you wish for:

Nicolaus Copernicus: Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler: Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei: Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton: Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.”

• Sir Isaac Newton in “A Short Scheme of the True Religion”.

Benjamin Franklin: Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.”

James Clerk Maxwell: Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin: Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin: Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Louis Pasteur: Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck: Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson: Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton: Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born: Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

George LeMaitre: Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein: Special and General Theories of Relativity

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Now give us your comparable list of clever atheists.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Wanstronian

why aren’t all very clever people theists and all stupid people atheists?

Be careful what you wish for:

Nicolaus Copernicus: Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler: Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei: Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton: Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.”

• Sir Isaac Newton in “A Short Scheme of the True Religion”.

Benjamin Franklin: Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.”

James Clerk Maxwell: Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin: Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin: Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Louis Pasteur: Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck: Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson: Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton: Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born: Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

George LeMaitre: Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein: Special and General Theories of Relativity

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Now give us your comparable list of clever atheists.

Can’t beat a bit of quote mining mixed with scientists who lived in time periods (that for obvious reasons) did not have the understanding of the cosmos we have today.

Now tell me what influence their religiosity has on their futhering of the knowledge of mankind? Oh thats right, NONE. They followed the scientific method for that.