Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2014, 11:20 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 10:12 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure.

Except for the part where saying "there is no God" is denying the claims of others.

Which is something totally different from making a claim of knowledge...

Actually it is. "I KNOW that YOUR GOD doesn't exist" is a claim of knowledge.
The "I won't believe you until you BACK UP YOUR GOD WITH EVIDENCE" is not a claim of knowledge.

I know, with as much certainty as I know anything, that most putative Gods do not exist. Such claims are not merely on a level of "you can't prove it". They are a matter of "that is provably false".

Falsifying a falsifiable claim is absolutely a claim of knowledge. So what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 11:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 10:12 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Actually it is. "I KNOW that YOUR GOD doesn't exist" is a claim of knowledge.
The "I won't believe you until you BACK UP YOUR GOD WITH EVIDENCE" is not a claim of knowledge.

I know, with as much certainty as I know anything, that most putative Gods do not exist. Such claims are not merely on a level of "you can't prove it". They are a matter of "that is provably false".

Falsifying a falsifiable claim is absolutely a claim of knowledge. So what?

Gods of monotheism's falsifiable how?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 09:05 AM)meremortal Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 09:02 AM)donotwant Wrote:  What is so supreme about that being anyways Big Grin

He comes with sour cream?

Best come back line EVER !!!!

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
02-03-2014, 11:32 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 11:26 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 11:20 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I know, with as much certainty as I know anything, that most putative Gods do not exist. Such claims are not merely on a level of "you can't prove it". They are a matter of "that is provably false".

Falsifying a falsifiable claim is absolutely a claim of knowledge. So what?

Gods of monotheism's falsifiable how?

"Monotheism" is not a specific claim.

Any flavour of interventionist God is falsifiable (lol prayer anyone?).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 11:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 11:26 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Gods of monotheism's falsifiable how?

"Monotheism" is not a specific claim.

Any flavour of interventionist God is falsifiable (lol prayer anyone?).

They can always say he chose not to act.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 11:35 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 11:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Monotheism" is not a specific claim.

Any flavour of interventionist God is falsifiable (lol prayer anyone?).

They can always say he chose not to act.

Dodgy

... in which case he (?) isn't interventionist, and the claim of intervention is false.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
02-03-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 09:58 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  This true. It's when one crosses the line between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

Sure.

Except for the part where saying "there is no God" is denying the claims of others.

Which is something totally different from making a claim of knowledge...

Yes, good point. And here I thought he was on the cusp of understanding that there are different types of atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
There are Buddhists who believe in a god, whose traditions were influenced by exposure to Christianity and Islam in the 14th-20th centuries.

That said, the majority of non-Chinese Buddhists in the US are pretentious yuppies with a head full of woo who buy organic and do crossfit.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(01-03-2014 10:43 PM)Buddhist Alternative Wrote:  “I don’t know what caused the Big Bang and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don’t know either” – Bill Maher. “I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don’t have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position” – Issac Asimov. “You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself” – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.’s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: ‘Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects’. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:

“If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you’re a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time ‘A Priori’ in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

“Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing” – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles ‘pop’ into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss’s reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I’m not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing ‘eventually’ collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – ‘How The Universe Works’) that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss’s assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: ‘What caused the first Big Bang ?’. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: ‘Why is there something instead of nothing ?’

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation’. Since you can’t do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.
To most of us, especially those without an advanced degree in the appropriate scientifc areas, the following 2 statements appear on face value to be true:

1) It is impossible for something to have always existed.
2) It is impossible for something to have come from nothing.

However, logically, one of those must be true. We don't know which one.

In the meantime, there is no reason to assume we have an answer or that we understand. That includes inserting "God", a "supreme being", or any form of a deity as "the answer".

The only intelligent approach to the question is to keep on searching for the correct answer. Right now, big bang and quantum mechanics are providing interesting directions for the searching. No, they haven't given us all the answers yet and yes there may yet be other directions we need to look.

Why should we consider a deity as a legitimate direction to look? It's nothing, but a pure guess based upon exactly nothing except "what else could it be" type of thinking and/or feelings. Science, however, (which is the proper way to approach these questions), bases guesses on solid reasons for those guesses - reasons for which we have evidence.

While we keep searching for the correct answers, I'm perfectly comfortable with "I don't know". These discussions on a message board by people who know little in comparison to the scientists who are spending their lives studying these things, while interesting, aren't going to provide an answer better than "I don't know". Even the dedicated scientists don't have a better answer than that yet.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Hurray for the Atheist Fanatic
(02-03-2014 11:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 11:35 AM)donotwant Wrote:  They can always say he chose not to act.

Dodgy

... in which case he (?) isn't interventionist, and the claim of intervention is false.

Yes but he is not falsifiable either. He always has a place to hide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: