Atheists are not superior...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2015, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 04:46 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 04:30 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  Lets take WIKI - and stick to those definitions.

'A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.'

As an Atheist I have a collection of beliefs in a cultural system, My world view relates to humanity and the order of existence. So I am religious too.

'Faith is variously defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view.'

As an scientist, I have to have confidence in my theory or my idea. Faith is not a dirty word.

This I regard, as well as spirituality, as the valid elements of theism. We should respect them.

We should not respect dogma, tradition, or assumption.

Blink

Facepalm

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology."

With the exception of public service, atheism (the lack of belief in gods) has none of that. Belief in childish disproven tales does not garner respect. If I told you I worship NORGG the creator of all life who resides in hollow neptune, you should feel free to shake your head sadly and laugh at my ridiculous posit. Like I am laughing at yours now.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
11-07-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. [...]

I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. [...]

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work.

There is a huge difference between using your intuition to guide you in investigating the universe and declaring it to be unassailable truth. You are right that everybody uses their intuition but it is foolish to not recognize that it can be wrong and to not change your beliefs when the evidence contradicts intuition. Intuition and imagination are valuable tools for the scientist; they are the only tools for the theist, at least when it comes to their god claims, and that's the problem.

I also take issue with conflating the unknown with the supernatural. The parts of the spectrum that we can't detect with our eyes is not supernatural. The early experimenters in that area weren't positing anything supernatural when they suspected that the frequencies we see aren't all there is. They had begun to understand the phenomenon and had an evidentiary basis for extrapolating beyond what was known. They then experimented to find the truth. Theists do posit something supernatural when they infer a god as an explanation and then don't investigate to try to prove or disprove their intuition, they just declare it true by fiat.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.

Bullshit.

How many atheists did you poll to cook up this crap ?
Oh. None ?
Atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief in the gods.
Nothing else.

You're wrong about light. Color is emitted from atoms (photons) in discrete energy levels which impart color. That is VERY specific.
Do try to get some science education some day.

Things "outside" of nature is farfetched. Name 10 people who believe in light beyond the visible spectrum before science discovered it ? The fact is your point is irrelevant. They didn't predict that non-visible light was "supernatural" or "outside of nature" only that we couldn't detect it yet.
Thanks for the ''fallacy of the false analogy"

If we need idiots to tell us what to do and what not to do, we'll be sure and ask.
Meanwhile :
Go fuck yourself
.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Until the supernatural can be showed to be true (in any way), then why believe it does exist? Also, like you said, the universe is everything, so everything inside it is natural. What is the supernatural?

Another dimension? Another universe?

To advance. Why try prove something you don't believe in? eg. I think I'll prove God today. This is why we advance - we imagine things outside of the world we understand. The universe is not an object, it is a loose definition of everything we know to be true. Therefore things that we have not yet discovered are outside of this object boundary - the natural world. In that sense they are supernatural, until we prove them - then they become part of the natural world.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Exactly. That's the whole point. Gravity cannot be seen, tasted, touched, heard or smelled, but we take it as granted. Why? Because we can verify its existence with other means. It's not just about the concept of God. Think about unicorns. Do you believe they exist? Until you find a living unicorn or its skeleton, why believe they do?

Glad you agree, but I never mentioned God, but as you did then I would say that there are enough people who do believe that it warrants my attention to consider it. Unicorns are equally as silly I agree, but nowhere near as popular.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Please provide a concrete example of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_R%C3%B6ntgen didn't just stumble on this by accident - he believed xrays were there and manged to find them. Newton had speculated as to the other frequencies of light much earlier.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  If God exists, then he knows what can convince me and many others of his existence, and he has the powers to do so. Why doesn't he?
.

again - I never mentioned God.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  What is an imaginary theory?

Take it in context - theory in itself is a feat of imagination and postulation.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Schrödinger's cat is not about a supernatural state. It's a paradox from our own perspective, because *we* don't know whether the cat is still alive or not, so it could be both simultaneously. But it's a play on concepts and perspective, not actual reality. But as far as the cat's perspective is concerned, everything goes as natural as usual, be it alive or dead.

Your interpretation. The state of neither living nor dead is a supernatural state, check wiki. Again please use the context - the idea is that the supernatural state is percieved by the observer. This is relevant to the experiment.

The rest of your points are trivial and I think people get the idea.

Thanks for the replies - I hope I could expand my OP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 04:42 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. [...]

I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. [...]

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work.

There is a huge difference between using your intuition to guide you in investigating the universe and declaring it to be unassailable truth. You are right that everybody uses their intuition but it is foolish to not recognize that it can be wrong and to not change your beliefs when the evidence contradicts intuition. Intuition and imagination are valuable tools for the scientist; they are the only tools for the theist, at least when it comes to their god claims, and that's the problem.

I also take issue with conflating the unknown with the supernatural. The parts of the spectrum that we can't detect with our eyes is not supernatural. The early experimenters in that area weren't positing anything supernatural when they suspected that the frequencies we see aren't all there is. They had begun to understand the phenomenon and had an evidentiary basis for extrapolating beyond what was known. They then experimented to find the truth. Theists do posit something supernatural when they infer a god as an explanation and then don't investigate to try to prove or disprove their intuition, they just declare it true by fiat.

Both points I agree, although I was trying to make the comparison with the supernatural and the unknown to imply that theists often conflate the two. I purposefully steer clear from god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:04 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Until the supernatural can be showed to be true (in any way), then why believe it does exist? Also, like you said, the universe is everything, so everything inside it is natural. What is the supernatural?

Another dimension? Another universe?

To advance. Why try prove something you don't believe in? eg. I think I'll prove God today. This is why we advance - we imagine things outside of the world we understand. The universe is not an object, it is a loose definition of everything we know to be true. Therefore things that we have not yet discovered are outside of this object boundary - the natural world. In that sense they are supernatural, until we prove them - then they become part of the natural world.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Exactly. That's the whole point. Gravity cannot be seen, tasted, touched, heard or smelled, but we take it as granted. Why? Because we can verify its existence with other means. It's not just about the concept of God. Think about unicorns. Do you believe they exist? Until you find a living unicorn or its skeleton, why believe they do?

Glad you agree, but I never mentioned God, but as you did then I would say that there are enough people who do believe that it warrants my attention to consider it. Unicorns are equally as silly I agree, but nowhere near as popular.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Please provide a concrete example of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_R%C3%B6ntgen didn't just stumble on this by accident - he believed xrays were there and manged to find them. Newton had speculated as to the other frequencies of light much earlier.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  If God exists, then he knows what can convince me and many others of his existence, and he has the powers to do so. Why doesn't he?
.

again - I never mentioned God.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  What is an imaginary theory?

Take it in context - theory in itself is a feat of imagination and postulation.

(11-07-2015 04:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Schrödinger's cat is not about a supernatural state. It's a paradox from our own perspective, because *we* don't know whether the cat is still alive or not, so it could be both simultaneously. But it's a play on concepts and perspective, not actual reality. But as far as the cat's perspective is concerned, everything goes as natural as usual, be it alive or dead.

Your interpretation. The state of neither living nor dead is a supernatural state, check wiki. Again please use the context - the idea is that the supernatural state is percieved by the observer. This is relevant to the experiment.

The rest of your points are trivial and I think people get the idea.

Thanks for the replies - I hope I could expand my OP.

Wiki is your source? Rolleyes Here let me help you, show you how its done...for example, lets discuss how the christian triune concept was established....

A paper I wrote on this....notice I don't use wiki, or "I think blah blah blah"...


The development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity

For a church to be considered a New Testament church it shall accept the biblical New Testament as its sole authority for all matters of faith. A “true” biblical church shall not accept any authority for its faith and daily practice, outside of the New Testament Scriptures. This does not discard the importance of the Old Testament Scriptures by any means. The church is not based on the biblical Old Testament because that is a record of God’s dealing with Israel. In the New Testament, you will find a specific pattern and instructions from God concerning the church. The followers of the New Testament church model believe in the irrefutable word of God, that the Bible is complete as written, and it is, “… Given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

New Testament church parishioners believe that any hierarchy outside of the local church is unsupported by Scripture. They think that Christ is the head and that the New Testament Scriptures are the “true” churches only sole authority. I always find it amusing that with all the religions in the world, multiple versions of God or gods, and various holy books and ideologies of creation, that the believer of each religion thinks the believers of other religions are wrong, and that their own belief is the truth, the will and the way of the one “true” God. Even within Christianity, if every Christian who ever called another Christian, not a “true” Christian was removed from the earth, there would be no Christians.

The Congregational style of a New Testament church is a biblical form of church government. Final authority in the New Testament church rests with the delegation. Each member has an equal democratic vote. They believe that the Bible, specifically the New Testament teaches that churches are to be governed by their congregation following strict biblical guidelines.

In Trinitarian theology, the father gives everything he has, his very being, as a gift to his son. Since the Son has everything that the father has. Then they are, in fact, equal (Albl 139). In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with God’s gift of prophesy. For example, “the Lord took some of the spirit from Moses and gave it to the elders, and they were able to prophesy also (Num 11:25). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with the creation of God’s son in human form. For example, Mary conceived Jesus not through ordinary human means, but “through the Holy Spirit” (Matt1:20). In essence, just as Jesus comes in the father’s name, so the Holy Spirit comes in Jesus’ name (Albl 150). I define the Holy Spirit as God’s breath, his very soul, that of which he can giveth away to create life itself.

The church understands such self-emptying on the part of God as simultaneously the fulfillment of human existence, whose transformative effects are extended in the church in the world through the work of the Holy Spirit (Mueller 44). As such, parishioners of the New Testament church believe that they can follow this example by sharing the Holy Spirit with others. This is “living through Christ” by spreading the good word, in line with a strict interpretation of biblical reference.

In the New Testament, outside of the story of Christ in his teachings, is the insistent belief through Scripture that the end times or transition into the new world in the second coming of Christ to take his place as king of the world would occur at any moment. “That Christ would come soon is an expectation that appears even in the latter writings of the New Testament. It is present in almost every stratum” (Moule 141). A rationalist may posit that today things are going on exactly as they were before, and thus there will never be an end to the world. Believers in the New Testament think that the real mistake here is to make time the determining standard at all. A good analogy of this is that the Christian hope is not measured in terms of time, but in terms of the journey continuing to its completion; the incarnation. The question should not be when is the end of the world, but what can I do to be ready for it? (Moule 148).

Now let’s go back in time to the very formation, fabrication of the Christian faith, the Trinity concept and successful establishment of the Christian religion. We must begin with the immeasurable impact that Emperor Constantine had on the spread of Christianity and successful suppression of incumbent Roman pagan beliefs. Legend has it that Emperor Constantine saw two stars cross in the sky, in which he took to be a sign from God that Christianity was the only true faith. While his conversion to Christianity in 312 was not truly the moment Christianity came to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was one of the major contributing factors for its subsequent acceptance.

Emperor Constantine conducted a religious-based crusade against Licinius in a war to rescue Christians on the east from further persecution. In the years 312 to 313 Emperor Constantine began a systematic policy in which he gave honors, privileges and financial donations to the Christian church and their clergy. In 324, as the unchallenged controller of the East, he prohibited by Royal decree any cultic activities which until then fell under the traditional religions of the Roman Empire, and this is when the status of Christianity as the official religion of the state and its rulers was affirmed (Lieu 7).

Religious scholars concede that Emperor Constantine not only convened important council’s sessions, but also either presided over them or appointed a Royal official to preside in his place. This reduced the very role of bishops and councils such as Nicaea and Tyre to utter insignificance by assimilating them to members of the Imperial consilium, whose advice was not binding on the Emperor. All decisions taken at the Nicene Council were made by Emperor Constantine alone, since he could completely disregard the advisory opinions of the bishops whom he had summoned to the Council (Lieu 8).

Some scholars contend that Emperor Constantine’s influence was minimal, and merely sat in on the councils out of personal interest. However, when we look at the Council of Nicaea of 359, we see that Emperor Constantine again took a prominent role of control in the theological debate. Once the foundation of Christianity as a predominant religion of the Empire had been successfully established, Emperor Constantine later relinquished some of his control and influence by putting a seal of approval on the rulings of bishops declared at councils. The governors of provinces were not even allowed to rescind what they had decided, for he said the priests of God were more trustworthy than any magistrate (Lieu 10).

We can trace back the very beginning of the entitlement mentality by church hierarchy to Emperor Constantine and his enabling policies. No matter what his crime, a bishop could only be deposed and exiled, not legally tortured and executed (Lieu 17). I am sure this was fundamental in developing a culture within the church of dealing with any indiscretions internally, and not invoking the authority of the legal system. This, of course, has led to much abuse throughout history. One has only to watch the news these days to see on a routine basis, some priest or other has been exposed for having performed a plethora of transgressions, hidden by the church by simply moving the clergy member to a new area. This mentality just exposes more people to being victimized.

On the basis of Christian faith and the Trinity concept; the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, the first Council of Nicaea in 325 called together by Emperor Constantine, worked to establish a settlement of the issue of the relationship between father and the son. The focus primarily was on defining Jesus Christ as a deity. Establishment of the Holy Spirit was largely unaddressed until after the father and son relationship was settled in 362. After Nicaea, some bishops continued to prefer a term that had been discussed and rejected by the Council: homoiousios, in the sense of the son ‘being of like substance’ with the father. There were other bishops who were antagonistic to the term homoiousios because it was not biblical (O’Collins 184). Seven years later, the Trinitarian terminology was officially adopted after first Council Constantinople.

In its letter to Pope Damascus, a post conciliar synod confessed ‘one divinity, power or substance’ in ‘three most perfect hypostasesin’ (O’Collins 185). At the Trinitarian level, Constantinople I reaffirmed the Nicene Council confession of faith that the son was ’of one substance’ with the father, as well as teaching the divinity of the Holy Spirit (O’Collins 186). Thus, the official establishment of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit was initiated.

References:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 04:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.

Bullshit.

How many atheists did you poll to cook up this crap ?
Oh. None ?
Atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief in the gods.
Nothing else.

You're wrong about light. Color is emitted from atoms (photons) in discrete energy levels which impart color. That is VERY specific.
Do try to get some science education some day.

Things "outside" of nature is farfetched. Name 10 people who believe in light beyond the visible spectrum before science discovered it ? The fact is your point is irrelevant. They didn't predict that non-visible light was "supernatural" or "outside of nature" only that we couldn't detect it yet.
Thanks for the ''fallacy of the false analogy"

If we need idiots to tell us what to do and what not to do, we'll be sure and ask.
Meanwhile :
Go fuck yourself
.

You are very hostile. It's sad. I suggest you should try to show people a little courtesy in future.

I have been an atheist all my life - and it is exactly this sort of response that give us a bad name.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
You're right. I'm not superior because I'm an atheist. That's only part of the reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hobbitgirl's post
11-07-2015, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 05:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:18 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 04:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit.

How many atheists did you poll to cook up this crap ?
Oh. None ?
Atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief in the gods.
Nothing else.

You're wrong about light. Color is emitted from atoms (photons) in discrete energy levels which impart color. That is VERY specific.
Do try to get some science education some day.

Things "outside" of nature is farfetched. Name 10 people who believe in light beyond the visible spectrum before science discovered it ? The fact is your point is irrelevant. They didn't predict that non-visible light was "supernatural" or "outside of nature" only that we couldn't detect it yet.
Thanks for the ''fallacy of the false analogy"

If we need idiots to tell us what to do and what not to do, we'll be sure and ask.
Meanwhile :
Go fuck yourself
.

You are very hostile. It's sad. I suggest you should try to show people a little courtesy in future.

I have been an atheist all my life - and it is exactly this sort of response that give us a bad name.

Nope.

You got all the respect that you deserve.
Are you are SO stupid you think it courteous to judge people you know nothing about and give advice that was asked for, then on top of that give even MORE advice about "courtesy" ? You presumptuously made a series of false assumptions (ie you LIED) about people you never even met. No one here EVER ONCE said they were "superior", you moron.
You presumptuously decided you patronizingly needed to give us advice that had not been asked for. THAT is FAR more hostile and disrespectful than what I said. I respect myself the members of this forum FAR FAR more than "superior" morons who think we need unsolicited advice.

YOU are the one that is disrespectful.

Fool.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:04 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  To advance. Why try prove something you don't believe in? eg. I think I'll prove God today. This is why we advance - we imagine things outside of the world we understand. The universe is not an object, it is a loose definition of everything we know to be true. Therefore things that we have not yet discovered are outside of this object boundary - the natural world. In that sense they are supernatural, until we prove them - then they become part of the natural world.

So if I imagine something, it's considered supernatural? I don't think that's how it goes.

(11-07-2015 05:04 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  Glad you agree, but I never mentioned God, but as you did then I would say that there are enough people who do believe that it warrants my attention to consider it. Unicorns are equally as silly I agree, but nowhere near as popular.

Oh you didn't say the word God maybe but you spoke of "theism". That's kind of the same thing.

(11-07-2015 05:04 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_R%C3%B6ntgen didn't just stumble on this by accident - he believed xrays were there and manged to find them. Newton had speculated as to the other frequencies of light much earlier.

Wilhelm had intuitions based on his studies. That's not quite the same thing as "believing" in the religious sense.

(11-07-2015 05:04 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  Take it in context - theory in itself is a feat of imagination and postulation.

A scientific theory is a body of knowledge based on supporting evidence. It's more than imagination or a postulation. That would be really downgrade it.

(11-07-2015 05:04 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  Your interpretation. The state of neither living nor dead is a supernatural state, check wiki. Again please use the context - the idea is that the supernatural state is percieved by the observer. This is relevant to the experiment.

The rest of your points are trivial and I think people get the idea.

Thanks for the replies - I hope I could expand my OP.

It's not my interpretation. The state of Schrödinger's cat is not supernatural. It's just a way to show a paradox. If you had an actual cat in a box, assuming you managed to put one in it, and you closed the box, the cat wouldn't be actually both alive and dead.

This is just philosophy. You could theoretically say that the cat is in both states because from your perspective outside of the closed box, you have no way to know. But it's just that, a mind exercise. The cat would be either dead *or* alive in the box, not both.

So when you say "the state of both dead and alive is supernatural" makes no sense because the cat is not actually in those two states.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: