What are an atheist's assumptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Touchstone said:
I saw the thread, that’s a definition that creates way more problems than it solves, which I don’t like!

What’s an effect?

-TS
Click to expand...
The ability to cause change in something. :ehh:

Inherently, the ability to be detected.

And what problems??😊
 
James_S_Saint said:
The ability to cause change in something. :ehh:

Inherently, the ability to be detected.

And what problems??😊
Click to expand...
I guess I should take it over there if you don’t see where this is going…

How do you know when something has been detected?

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
I guess I should take it over there if you don’t see where this is going…

How do you know when something has been detected?

-TS
Click to expand...
That argumentation would be beyond the concern of the definition as it is with all other definitions concerning existence (ie. How do you know when something is real?).

But yeah, can be discussed over there.
 
The thoughts listed in the OP have little or nothing to do with atheism. The real reasons for human behavior often have little or nothing to do with the reasons we invent, after the fact, to explain our behavior. But you all know that.

The fundamental assumption behind atheism is that the God Who does not exist, the God they argue against, is the same God defined by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.

Atheists have yet to consider the possibility that there is indeed a Creator of the universe, but that He, She, or It has, or They have, nothing in common with the God defined by conventional belief systems.
 
greylorn said:
The thoughts listed in the OP have little or nothing to do with atheism. The real reasons for human behavior often have little or nothing to do with the reasons we invent, after the fact, to explain our behavior. But you all know that.

The fundamental assumption behind atheism is that the God Who does not exist, the God they argue against, is the same God defined by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.

Atheists have yet to consider the possibility that there is indeed a Creator of the universe, but that He, She, or It has, or They have, nothing in common with the God defined by conventional belief systems.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I think that the disbelief in God is generally directed towards the Abrahamic religions for sure. However, I know myself an most other atheists do ponder the possibility of some kind of “thing” out there that is completely different from what most religions claim but could be considered a “God” in many senses. That said, while a possibility (and usually believed to be much more probable than the God of the bible) it’s still in the class of a tea kettle orbiting Mars. Sure, there might be one, but without proof it’s just speculation.
 
liquidpele said:
Yes and no. I think that the disbelief in God is generally directed towards the Abrahamic religions for sure. However, I know myself an most other atheists do ponder the possibility of some kind of “thing” out there that is completely different from what most religions claim but could be considered a “God” in many senses. That said, while a possibility (and usually believed to be much more probable than the God of the bible) it’s still in the class of a tea kettle orbiting Mars. Sure, there might be one, but without proof it’s just speculation.
Click to expand...
Emboldened by a trace of agreement, unexpected coming from you, may I offer several thoughts your reply engendered?

“Proof” is vastly overrated, and its importance in determining beliefs, especially “scientific” beliefs, is negligible. Consider Darwinism. There is not a speck of proof that the mutations which produce useful critters are actually random. Experiments designed to create highly modified beasties via random irradiation are successful, proving an effect of mutations, but when interbred, the modified critters return to their normal state after a few generations, (What would you expect of a fruit fly?) This kind of experiment disproves Darwinism, nonetheless it survives, having become a religion unto itself.

Darwinists go on about their beliefs ignoring the alligator in their bathroom— the origin of the first cell. Cosmologists believe in the Big Bang, but define its precursor to be a “singularity.” Does anyone know what that means? It serves exactly the same purpose as Christianity’s declaration that God is a spirit, something not of this world, and therefore something that cannot be understood or investigated by the methods of science.

A physical singularity cannot exist. It is a meaningless concept, a mere word which tells the non-science rubes that science is in charge. The singularity is to the micropea which blew up at the Big Bang as spirit is to God— words which declare that these concepts cannot be understood by man or investigated by any scientific method.

In my opinion, such concepts are absurd.

An excellent astronomer which whom I worked years ago told me, off the record, “Never let mere data stand in the way of a good theory.”

A half-century ago I ran into the kind of confrontation that often turns devout Catholics into determined atheists, when I was taught the First Law of Thermodynamics. There is no more blatant contradiction between Christianity and science than this simple truth. I’d have become an atheist but for contrary evidence in the form of paranormal phenomena personally experienced, which the “science” of the sixties invalidated. Stuck with evidence of what would seem to be “spiritual” phenomena denied by both Church and science, I developed my own “teapot in a Mars orbit,” a God/soul-concept derived from classical and quantum physics. It is verifiable via scientific method, but has not been accepted and so is some distance from formal experiment.

I hope that you are telling the truth about atheists other than yourself seeking a better God-concept. I will need them come publication time. Unfortunately, my experience with atheists shows them to be as dogmatic as any religionist.
 
greylorn said:
Emboldened by a trace of agreement, unexpected coming from you, may I offer several thoughts your reply engendered?

“Proof” is vastly overrated, and its importance in determining beliefs, especially “scientific” beliefs, is negligible. Consider Darwinism. There is not a speck of proof that the mutations which produce useful critters are actually random. Experiments designed to create highly modified beasties via random irradiation are successful, proving an effect of mutations, but when interbred, the modified critters return to their normal state after a few generations, (What would you expect of a fruit fly?) This kind of experiment disproves Darwinism, nonetheless it survives, having become a religion unto itself.

Darwinists go on about their beliefs ignoring the alligator in their bathroom— the origin of the first cell. Cosmologists believe in the Big Bang, but define its precursor to be a “singularity.” Does anyone know what that means? It serves exactly the same purpose as Christianity’s declaration that God is a spirit, something not of this world, and therefore something that cannot be understood or investigated by the methods of science.

A physical singularity cannot exist. It is a meaningless concept, a mere word which tells the non-science rubes that science is in charge. The singularity is to the micropea which blew up at the Big Bang as spirit is to God— words which declare that these concepts cannot be understood by man or investigated by any scientific method.

In my opinion, such concepts are absurd.

An excellent astronomer which whom I worked years ago told me, off the record, “Never let mere data stand in the way of a good theory.”

A half-century ago I ran into the kind of confrontation that often turns devout Catholics into determined atheists, when I was taught the First Law of Thermodynamics. There is no more blatant contradiction between Christianity and science than this simple truth. I’d have become an atheist but for contrary evidence in the form of paranormal phenomena personally experienced, which the “science” of the sixties invalidated. Stuck with evidence of what would seem to be “spiritual” phenomena denied by both Church and science, I developed my own “teapot in a Mars orbit,” a God/soul-concept derived from classical and quantum physics. It is verifiable via scientific method, but has not been accepted and so is some distance from formal experiment.

I hope that you are telling the truth about atheists other than yourself seeking a better God-concept. I will need them come publication time. Unfortunately, my experience with atheists shows them to be as dogmatic as any religionist.
Click to expand...
Proof is far from overrated, it’s how we make sense of the world. However, you’re correct in that is has limitations. “Random” mutation is only called random because it appears to happen naturally without any specific cause, but I hardly believe the mutations would fall evenly over a set number of possible mutations. Of course we can simulate it in different ways with chemical or radiological methods, but this is not natural and so is not really relevant to compare to the “random” kind unless you prove that all mutations happen because of the same thing you are introducing to the system.

Origin of life is abiogenesis, and not evolutionary theory, and thus it is technically incorrect to label it darwinistic. Abiogenesis is of course much more speculation as not much evidence currently exists for widescale support. Comparing it to the singularity is not quite accurate although not an entirely bad comparison. A singularity is a (near?) infinite curve in spacetime. A black hole is a singularity for instance. The big bang necessitates an unimaginable amount of energy being released from a single point, thus it would essentially be a singularity as that much energy had been compressed into a single point. Of course, that’s only the idea, we actually still know very little about such things, although some evidence of course exists (background radiation, red shifts, black holes, etc). The same is with abiogenesis, while there are several ideas on the origins of life and at least some evidence exists that could support one theory or another, so far it’s ultimately more speculation than not.

Your astronomer friend’s quote is hardly relevant.

May I ask what your experience with phenomena was?
 
liquidpele said:
Proof is far from overrated, it’s how we make sense of the world. However, you’re correct in that is has limitations. “Random” mutation is only called random because it appears to happen naturally without any specific cause, but I hardly believe the mutations would fall evenly over a set number of possible mutations. Of course we can simulate it in different ways with chemical or radiological methods, but this is not natural and so is not really relevant to compare to the “random” kind unless you prove that all mutations happen because of the same thing you are introducing to the system.

Origin of life is abiogenesis, and not evolutionary theory, and thus it is technically incorrect to label it darwinistic. Abiogenesis is of course much more speculation as not much evidence currently exists for widescale support. Comparing it to the singularity is not quite accurate although not an entirely bad comparison. A singularity is a (near?) infinite curve in spacetime. A black hole is a singularity for instance. The big bang necessitates an unimaginable amount of energy being released from a single point, thus it would essentially be a singularity as that much energy had been compressed into a single point. Of course, that’s only the idea, we actually still know very little about such things, although some evidence of course exists (background radiation, red shifts, black holes, etc). The same is with abiogenesis, while there are several ideas on the origins of life and at least some evidence exists that could support one theory or another, so far it’s ultimately more speculation than not.

Your astronomer friend’s quote is hardly relevant.

May I ask what your experience with phenomena was?
Click to expand...
LP,
You might find my posts more interesting if you recognized that they come from a different position than most posters. So, when I say something bad about science’s fundamentals (big bang, Darwinism, etc.) you will not be invited to show up for Sunday mass if you admit that I’m right. On the issues of fundamental beliefs, I’ve concluded that science and religions are equally incorrect. I’m only on this site to explore more interesting ideas when the opportunity presents itself.

In the past, I’ve gotten sucked into pointless arguments which waste time and energy to no effect. In the future I’m going to focus on posts and posters who are conscientious enough to actually read my posts before commenting on them, and those willing to explore ideas rather than defend a position, religious or otherwise.

In that context, before working up a reply to you, I’d appreciate knowing a bit more about your background, specifically, the level of your scientific education, field or fields, as well as the approximate length of time you’ve worked either as a scientist or with them; and again, in what fields.

I accept that this is none of my business, and will happily share the same information upon request. My agenda in asking is to gear my reply appropriately. I don’t care what level of study or experience you have, unless it proves to be inconsistent with your replies.

When I go dancing, for example, I’ll dance with anyone from raw beginner to some teacher with a wall full of trophies. But I like to know who I’m dancing with, so I ask when I don’t know. No point trying multiple turns and pivots with a gal who’s working on basics and just needs a bit of practice and perhaps a few little tips. When I find a dancer better than me, I ask her for permission to experiment, and accept her feedback.
 
greylorn said:
LP,
You might find my posts more interesting if you recognized that they come from a different position than most posters. So, when I say something bad about science’s fundamentals (big bang, Darwinism, etc.) you will not be invited to show up for Sunday mass if you admit that I’m right. On the issues of fundamental beliefs, I’ve concluded that science and religions are equally incorrect. I’m only on this site to explore more interesting ideas when the opportunity presents itself.

In the past, I’ve gotten sucked into pointless arguments which waste time and energy to no effect. In the future I’m going to focus on posts and posters who are conscientious enough to actually read my posts before commenting on them, and those willing to explore ideas rather than defend a position, religious or otherwise.

In that context, before working up a reply to you, I’d appreciate knowing a bit more about your background, specifically, the level of your scientific education, field or fields, as well as the approximate length of time you’ve worked either as a scientist or with them; and again, in what fields.

I accept that this is none of my business, and will happily share the same information upon request. My agenda in asking is to gear my reply appropriately. I don’t care what level of study or experience you have, unless it proves to be inconsistent with your replies.

When I go dancing, for example, I’ll dance with anyone from raw beginner to some teacher with a wall full of trophies. But I like to know who I’m dancing with, so I ask when I don’t know. No point trying multiple turns and pivots with a gal who’s working on basics and just needs a bit of practice and perhaps a few little tips. When I find a dancer better than me, I ask her for permission to experiment, and accept her feedback.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure we’ve gone through this once before. If you recall, I gave you a tip about google during the exchange.
 
tonyrey said:
I am interested in compiling a list of the assumptions on which atheism is usually based. I should be grateful if you would add to the following:

1.The universe exists.
2. Human beings exist.
3. Physical reality is the sole reality.
4. Physical causes are the only causes.
5. Human beings can discover facts about the universe.
Click to expand...
  1. Jesus Christ did not exist.
  2. If Jesus Christ existed he was not Divine.
  3. The miracles worked by Jesus Christ did not happen.
  4. The thousands who witnessed these miracles were simple country peasants and should not be relied upon as eyewitnesses. The evolution of life from rudimentary chemicals hundreds of millions of years ago did happen, however, even though there were and are no witnesses whatsoever.
  5. The documents recounting the life of Jesus Christ are unreliable, having been written by blinkered Christians centuries after the events they set out to describe.
  6. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead that Easter morning. The soldiers at the tomb and the members of the Sanhedrin were wrong to fabricate a tale about the missing body because, quite simply, there was no body in the first place.
  7. There is no such thing as the Holy Spirit.
  8. Jesus Christ did not establish a hierarchical Catholic Church as a body of men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to bring his name to the world.
  9. If God existed he would not send his Son to earth, nor would he establish a Church, nor would he send his Spirit to guide that Church, nor would he allow himself to appear under the guise of bread and wine. We know God does not exist, and we also know what God would be like if he did exist.
  10. etc., ad infinitum.
 
liquidpele said:
I’m pretty sure we’ve gone through this once before. If you recall, I gave you a tip about google during the exchange.
Click to expand...
LP
Kindly accept my apologies. Thanks to your tip, my website is now very difficult to find and no longer appears in incidental searches. I recall that we’d gotten off to an imperfect start but forgot that we fixed that. I am starting a personal white list of CAF posters and putting your name at the top, in case I have another long hiatus from this forum.
 
gerardpatrick said:
  1. Jesus Christ did not exist.
  2. If Jesus Christ existed he was not Divine.
  3. The miracles worked by Jesus Christ did not happen.
  4. The thousands who witnessed these miracles were simple country peasants and should not be relied upon as eyewitnesses. The evolution of life from rudimentary chemicals hundreds of millions of years ago did happen, however, even though there were and are no witnesses whatsoever.
  5. The documents recounting the life of Jesus Christ are unreliable, having been written by blinkered Christians centuries after the events they set out to describe.
  6. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead that Easter morning. The soldiers at the tomb and the members of the Sanhedrin were wrong to fabricate a tale about the missing body because, quite simply, there was no body in the first place.
  7. There is no such thing as the Holy Spirit.
  8. Jesus Christ did not establish a hierarchical Catholic Church as a body of men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to bring his name to the world.
  9. If God existed he would not send his Son to earth, nor would he establish a Church, nor would he send his Spirit to guide that Church, nor would he allow himself to appear under the guise of bread and wine. We know God does not exist, and we also know what God would be like if he did exist.
  10. etc., ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your list! 🙂
 
gerardpatrick said:
  1. Jesus Christ did not exist.
  2. If Jesus Christ existed he was not Divine.
  3. The miracles worked by Jesus Christ did not happen.
  4. The thousands who witnessed these miracles were simple country peasants and should not be relied upon as eyewitnesses. The evolution of life from rudimentary chemicals hundreds of millions of years ago did happen, however, even though there were and are no witnesses whatsoever.
  5. The documents recounting the life of Jesus Christ are unreliable, having been written by blinkered Christians centuries after the events they set out to describe.
  6. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead that Easter morning. The soldiers at the tomb and the members of the Sanhedrin were wrong to fabricate a tale about the missing body because, quite simply, there was no body in the first place.
  7. There is no such thing as the Holy Spirit.
  8. Jesus Christ did not establish a hierarchical Catholic Church as a body of men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to bring his name to the world.
  9. If God existed he would not send his Son to earth, nor would he establish a Church, nor would he send his Spirit to guide that Church, nor would he allow himself to appear under the guise of bread and wine. We know God does not exist, and we also know what God would be like if he did exist.
  10. etc., ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
  1. okay.
  2. okay.
  3. Even with witnesses, it’s anecdotal evidence.
  4. While not all were “centuries” after, many were.
  5. I’ll just point out a few contradictions about that…
At what time of day did the women visit the tomb? (a) “Toward the dawn” (Matthew 28:1). (b) “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2).

What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb? (a) To anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16:1;Luke 23:55 to 24:1). (b) To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28:1). For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the sabbath (John 20:1).

A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived? (a) They saw that the stone was “Rolled back” (Mark 16:4). They found the stone “rolled away from the tomb” (Luke 24:2). They saw that “the stone had been taken away from the tomb” (John 20:1) (b) As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6).

Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus’ body? (a) Yes. “A young man in a white robe” (Mark 16:5). “Two men . . . in dazzling apparel” later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote). (b) No. Mary met no one and returned saying, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:2).

When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react? (a) Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshiped him (Matthew 28:9). (b) On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus’ body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him “Teacher.” Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me . . . " (John 20:11 to 17).
  1. Technically, but it’s more like saying that believing there is not a tea kettle orbiting mars is an assumption. Both are true, but who believe what you’ve never experienced?
  2. Technically the church’s structure was set up by the Roman government…
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#List_of_ecumenical_councils
  3. Those are small fish, I don’t think atheists really care about those particulars very much. I think the thing that bothers atheists about the whole story the most is that God kept talking and doing miracles and sent his Son down and he healed people and walked on water and whatever, and now… nothing. Nothing for 2000 years. Highly suspect in my opinion.
  4. … any beyond! /toystory reference 🙂
 
liquidpele said:
Okay, I’ll bite.
Are you saying that the church had structure before Constantine made it the official government religion?
Click to expand...
:ehh: Constantine never made Christianity the official state religion.

The earliest ECF writings all describe a structured Church.
 
1holycatholic said:
:ehh: Constantine never made Christianity the official state religion.

The earliest ECF writings all describe a structured Church.
Click to expand...
Ah, my bad, he only ended persecution of Christians and started the councils I mentioned earlier, it was made the state religion by Theodosius I.

Can you give a citation regarding the earliest historical reference to church structure?
Edit, ah, it appears you are correct that it had some structure before hand:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Church_of_the_Roman_Empire_.28313.E2.80.93476.29
 
liquidpele said:
Ah, my bad, he only ended persecution of Christians and started the councils I mentioned earlier, it was made the state religion by Theodosius I.

Can you give a citation regarding the earliest historical reference to church structure?
Edit, ah, it appears you are correct that it had some structure before hand:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Church_of_the_Roman_Empire_.28313.E2.80.93476.29
Click to expand...
LiquidPele - Its nice to see you acknowledge someone else’s reality once in a while - even though I know your reality is a moving target and could change moment by moment depending on what point of reference you stand on at that moment. At least you are able to acknowledge what others have acknowledged as historic reality. So now I know you are not an absolute subjective relativist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top