Atheism?

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
JSPB22
Online
User avatar
Posts: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:07 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:To Irn-Bru's earlier point, you're confusing religion with God

I do not believe in God or Religion. I do know the difference. Some feel as though God is a representation of theory, not a man in the clouds.

I have some free time today so if anyone would like to defend religion, by all means I would love to hear what you have to say.


You say you know the difference, but you are only arguing against religion, as per your last sentence. As an atheist, you're not saying you don't believe in them but making an assertive statement they don't exist, and you're not backing that up at all.


An atheist doesn't have to prove the non-existence of anything. He doesn't have to make assertions, nor does he have to prove the non-existence of tooth fairies. The burden of proof is on believers in tooth fairies.

Why? They believe, and you're trying to convince them they're wrong.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

ch1
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Postby crazyhorse1 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:07 am

Deadskins wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I have some free time today so if anyone would like to defend religion, by all means I would love to hear what you have to say.


What are people supposed to be defending religion against? I haven't seen any criticisms of it . . . just a guy looking up at the clouds and saying he lives by reality. Not exactly heavy-hitting material there. ;)


I didn't make the thread, not sure why I should have to do the heavy hitting...

Well, I started it, but it was based on a comment you made in another thread. So, in a way, you did make the thread, or at least made it possible.

ATX_Skins wrote:It's funny to me that when an Atheist walks in the room nobody is religious anymore. I am not talking about God anymore. I am talking about religion.

Interesting that some people I have a feeling are hiding their faith behind the term "God".

I cannot argue there is no God, I can argue that anyone's religion is utter crap though.

The origins of this thread were in regards to one of the members becoming a born again Christian and having Jesus Christ in his life. Lets stick to religion then shall we.

I consider myself religious. I am a Christian, not born again, but a Christian no less. I believe that Jesus was the messiah, and he died so that I, and the rest of the world might be saved. I don't proselytize or try to impose my beliefs on anyone else, but I would never deny my beliefs out of embarrassment or concern for some sort of negative retribution, especially on a message board. I often pray that God will reveal Himself to those that don't know His love the way I do. So if you want to try and belittle me for my beliefs, go for it. It won't affect me, because, as I said before, I have personal proof there is a God, and I have a very good relationship with Him. Nothing you can say will change that.


Hypo-mania. Look it up.

kazoo
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:09 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:An atheist doesn't have to prove the non-existence of anything. He doesn't have to make assertions, nor does he have to prove the non-existence of tooth fairies. The burden of proof is on believers in tooth fairies.


Nonsense. If someone is saying they don't believe in God, then sure, I agree. But if someone makes an assertive statement there is no God, the burden of proof is as high for them to prove it as someone who believes there is a God. Any assertive statement of fact needs to be proven.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

JSPB22
Online
User avatar
Posts: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Atheism?

Postby Deadskins » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:13 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:Use your head. If everything has to have a creator, who made the creator--a logical problem that usually occurs to children.

So, you're saying you think like a child? Let's assume for the sake of argument there is no God. Does everything still not have to have an origin? Do you exist? Or are you saying everything has always existed? Why can't it be the same for God? I'm sorry if you haven't experienced Him in your life (though you probably have and just don't realize it or want to admit it), but I certainly have. So, I don't need you to tell me to use my head, when I have never done anything but.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

ch1
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Re: Atheism?

Postby crazyhorse1 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:33 am

Deadskins wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:Use your head. If everything has to have a creator, who made the creator--a logical problem that usually occurs to children.

So, you're saying you think like a child? Let's assume for the sake of argument there is no God. Does everything still not have to have an origin? Do you exist? Or are you saying everything has always existed? Why can't it be the same for God? I'm sorry if you haven't experienced Him in your life (though you probably have and just don't realize it or want to admit it), but I certainly have. So, I don't need you to tell me to use my head, when I have never done anything but.


As I just told you, I have personally experienced a paranormal being that wasn't there; it might well have been an angel, or God, or a talking tree stump. Personal experience matters zip. Perception is a tricky thing. Two people subjected to the same thing can see two different things. As the law is beginning to learn, eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. I am unreliable. You are unreliable. Reality is tentative. In such an environment, to assert that reality is as one perceives it is naive. Considering thus, how can you (or I) say things of importance without humility. Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

JSPB22
Online
User avatar
Posts: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Atheism?

Postby Deadskins » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:37 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

ch1
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Re: Atheism?

Postby crazyhorse1 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:25 pm

Deadskins wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.


No, things do not have to have an origin. See Stephen Hawking. The best evidence that science has now is that the universe could have derived from nothing, summed up in the phrase: "Nothingness is unstable." According to relevant math, there is no need to factor in a creator to account for "creation."
You should keep up with the science. Interesting stuff.
To answer your other questions. Yes, it's possible things have always existed.
Yes, God may have always existed, but in this case there is no reason, scientifically, to think that he has. As to my existence, yes, I may exist. In my case, there is some reason to think that I have, scientifically speaking.

JSPB22
Online
User avatar
Posts: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Atheism?

Postby Deadskins » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:30 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.


No, things do not have to have an origin. See Stephen Hawking. The best evidence that science has now is that the universe could have derived from nothing, summed up in the phrase: "Nothingness is unstable." According to relevant math, there is no need to factor in a creator to account for "creation."
You should keep up with the science. Interesting stuff.

I could say the same. Hawking hasn't been relevant for about 15 years. "Nothingness is unstable" is as good an explanation for the creation as God is. There is no scientific proof for either. As to your points about eye-witness testimony and personal experience, I would say that would decimate all scientific proofs, for what are they without observations of conducted experiments? And just because all eye-witness accounts may not be factual, doesn't mean they all are false either.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

ch1
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Re: Atheism?

Postby crazyhorse1 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:41 pm

Deadskins wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.


No, things do not have to have an origin. See Stephen Hawking. The best evidence that science has now is that the universe could have derived from nothing, summed up in the phrase: "Nothingness is unstable." According to relevant math, there is no need to factor in a creator to account for "creation."
You should keep up with the science. Interesting stuff.

I could say the same. Hawking hasn't been relevant for about 15 years. "Nothingness is unstable" is as good an explanation for the creation as God is. There is no scientific proof for either. As to your points about eye-witness testimony and personal experience, I would say that would decimate all scientific proofs, for what are they without observations of conducted experiments? And just because all eye-witness accounts may not be factual, doesn't mean they all are false either.


There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness. I agree, however, that all "scientific" or other proofs are decimated by the consideration that we are unreliable witnesses. Too bad. Your God is conjecture.

kazoo
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Re: Atheism?

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:56 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness


Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

ch1
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Re: Atheism?

Postby crazyhorse1 » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:03 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness


Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.


Note I put "proof" in quotes. In science, nothing is absolute. However, there is more "logical calculation" behind the "nothingness" concept than the "God" concept, which has as much "proof" as the tooth fairy.

FanFromAnnapolis
Online
Posts: 11032
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:23 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:The Classical arguments for the existence of God have been in the toilet for generations. It's hard to pick up a book featuring them that doesn't offer refutations. Hitchens' last book, his collection of essays from numerous sources, is chock full of refutations that are unassailable.

Are you talking about the atheist reader (or maybe it was the portable atheist)? The selections in that book weren't particularly damning to theism. Some authors, like Lucretius, are just as controversial as the theists they look to refute. Others he included, like Hobbes and Spinoza, were actually theists themselves. Or maybe it's Marx that you find unassailable? :lol:

If you want good arguments against theism, I wouldn't recommend a hack like Hitchens. He is thrilling to listen to as a speaker and a very sharp writer, but he wasn't above BSing when he thought it could win him an argument.

As for the classical arguments themselves; they are holding up fine. I've read and grappled with the critiques but they are not decisive. Thomas Aquinas in particular is alive and well in professional and progressing philosophy. In 500 years, no one will be reading Bertrand Russell, but you can bet they will still be reading Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and the rest.


As a matter of fact, the arguments no longer even merit discussion, except for kids.

I'm sorry you find the idea so unSerious. Maybe you can join your buddy Hitchens in condemning the unSerious people who take a philosophical stance against torturing and bombing Middle Easterners until they submit to Western superiority.

I mean, as long as we are aiming at the unassailable paragon of human rationality, no? ;)
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

ch1
Posts: 3631
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Postby crazyhorse1 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:43 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:The Classical arguments for the existence of God have been in the toilet for generations. It's hard to pick up a book featuring them that doesn't offer refutations. Hitchens' last book, his collection of essays from numerous sources, is chock full of refutations that are unassailable.

Are you talking about the atheist reader (or maybe it was the portable atheist)? The selections in that book weren't particularly damning to theism. Some authors, like Lucretius, are just as controversial as the theists they look to refute. Others he included, like Hobbes and Spinoza, were actually theists themselves. Or maybe it's Marx that you find unassailable? :lol:

If you want good arguments against theism, I wouldn't recommend a hack like Hitchens. He is thrilling to listen to as a speaker and a very sharp writer, but he wasn't above BSing when he thought it could win him an argument.

As for the classical arguments themselves; they are holding up fine. I've read and grappled with the critiques but they are not decisive. Thomas Aquinas in particular is alive and well in professional and progressing philosophy. In 500 years, no one will be reading Bertrand Russell, but you can bet they will still be reading Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and the rest.


As a matter of fact, the arguments no longer even merit discussion, except for kids.

I'm sorry you find the idea so unSerious. Maybe you can join your buddy Hitchens in condemning the unSerious people who take a philosophical stance against torturing and bombing Middle Easterners until they submit to Western superiority.

I mean, as long as we are aiming at the unassailable paragon of human rationality, no? ;)


The Portable Atheist, by Christopher Hitchens. Dozens of essays by world's greatest thinkers and writers. To mention a few: John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Percy Shelley, etc. A huge collection, including definitive refutations of proofs, classical and other wise. Proof by natural order comes under fire, as well as proofs by such as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, none of which are taken seriously now.

kazoo
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Re: Atheism?

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:01 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness


Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.


Note I put "proof" in quotes. In science, nothing is absolute. However, there is more "logical calculation" behind the "nothingness" concept than the "God" concept, which has as much "proof" as the tooth fairy.


"Proof" in quotes didn't fix it when the word was used incorrectly. Hawking doesn't even argue there is no God, he says it's not necessary. He doesn't want the existence of the universe to be proof in itself there is a God.

Steven Hawking: "It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

As for your argument that science is at conflict with God, you're only talking about the creationist ostriches, who while being a large group are a clear minority of Christians. For the rest, that God created science and that was the method he used to create the universe is a viable answer. No, that doesn't prove God exists. But Hawking neither set about proving God doesn't exist nor made that argument.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

FanFromAnnapolis
Online
Posts: 11032
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:07 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:The Portable Atheist, by Christopher Hitchens. Dozens of essays by world's greatest thinkers and writers. To mention a few: John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Percy Shelley, etc. A huge collection, including definitive refutations of proofs, classical and other wise. Proof by natural order comes under fire, as well as proofs by such as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, none of which are taken seriously now.

Nonresponsive.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Return to The Lounge