an ongoing interview
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: an ongoing interview
[Image: theatermove.gif]

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
30-07-2015, 06:44 PM
RE: an ongoing interview
Spectacular, GWG. Siimply spectacular.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
30-07-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: an ongoing interview
1) What religious/nonreligious group or theology do you identify with?
Atheist is a label more so than a group.
An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in god. An atheist doesn't necessarily have scripture, or traditions, or beliefs, doesn't necessarily meet up with other atheists. There is no reason to expect atheists to be aligned regarding political (conservative vs liberal, right wing vs left wing). Trying to assess atheists as a group is like attempting to herd cats.
I lack a belief in gods.

2) You say there is no evidence, historical or otherwise, to support the existence of God or Gods. Yet, the cosmological argument/theory uses science/physics to support the argument that there is a God/Self-Being. Do you believe this argument is flawed? If so, why?
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Regarding 1. the term "begins to exist" is ambiguous and is often (in the context of this argument) used to blur two very different things as if they were the same thing.
"begins to exist" can mean either of the following:
a) a chair began to exist because we took already existing material and reconfigured it into the shape of what we describe to be a chair.
b) matter/energy coming into existence literally from "nothingness"

The "begins to exist" of type a) have been observed to occur all the time. Stars form from gravitationally attracted hydrongen gas. Planets form from gravitationally attracted heavier elements. Animals form from copulation and embriology. These generally fall into a cause/effect realm.
The "begins to exist" of type b) have never been observed. Humans have documented a law "Conservation of energy" which claims that energy cannot be created or destroyed. We know of no cause that can create matter/energy from nothingness.
We shouldn't point at type a) and assume it relates to type b) these are quite different.

3) If the arguments for our existence are flawed, what is the purpose of life?
It's your life, you get to decide whatever you want to make of that. If you want a purpose to focus you then it is up to you to come up with a purpose for your own life. It's no big deal to come up with a purpose, you can change it whenever you want should your situation or values change. Right now my purpose/s are mostly based around my own family.
4) Do you believe that the discovery of Earth 2.0, supports your views?
No, not really.
Atheism or "lack of belief in gods" doesn't require support. The burdon of proof is on the conjecture that their is a god.
In order to do an assessment against that conjecture their first needs to be a properly formed coherent consistent falsifiable definition of what a god is. Then we need to come up with a way to test that idea, we would test it by looking at things that would offer different results if there was a god vs if their wasn't a god. We would also have to investigate the falsifiable criteria where we could observe things that could have easily (and would have expected to) falsify the idea of god but didn't.
However the god conjecture hasn't got that far yet. They haven't formed a coherent consistent and falsifiable definition of god.
As far as I am aware they haven't offered falsifiable criteria stating that if Earth 2.0 exists then that falsifies their god's existence.

5) Is it safe to say Morality and Religion have always been closely entwined? Religion provides a How to be a Decent Person guideline and society enforces it. Yet our world is corrupt and broken. What do you believe is wrong with the human condition?
I don’t religion as having any privileged knowledge regarding how people ought to behave. Most religious organisations appear to consider “oughts” to be a core function of their existence, preaching how their members ought to behave, what they should or should not do and perhaps many of their members want that guidance. Many atheists also preach oughts and shoulds too but they generally don’t claim to be in a privileged position regarding being in communion with the gods or having correctly interpreted scripture.
In my view there are too many preachers (both religious and non religious). Unless you have lived a lifetime in someone else’s shoes you are not in the best position to insist how they ought to behave. Of course we need some enforced laws within society in order to function amicably and thrive but beyond the necessary laws I am fully supportive of tolerance and diversity. I think it is diversity that makes humanity such an interesting thing.

6) How happy are you? How does your outlook on religion impact your life?
I'm not sure how happiness relates to belief or non belief in deities.
I enjoy life, I value my health and family, I am fascinated by the world and the universe, I have love, excitement, wonder, and am looking forword to the future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
30-07-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: an ongoing interview
Goodwithoutgod...

Your answer to question #5 gave me a mind erection.

A 'minection', if you will.

(I was a millisecond away from hitting reply and thought, "that sounds as if I was combining 'mini' and 'erection'". Oh well. I stand by it.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
31-07-2015, 02:27 AM
RE: an ongoing interview
(30-07-2015 09:03 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Goodwithoutgod...

Your answer to question #5 gave me a mind erection.

A 'minection', if you will.

(I was a millisecond away from hitting reply and thought, "that sounds as if I was combining 'mini' and 'erection'". Oh well. I stand by it.)

Never coin a word again Weeping

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
31-07-2015, 05:10 AM
RE: an ongoing interview
(30-07-2015 06:44 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  Spectacular, GWG. Siimply spectacular.

Big Grin

Thank you thank you Bowing


(30-07-2015 09:03 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Goodwithoutgod...

Your answer to question #5 gave me a mind erection.

A 'minection', if you will.

(I was a millisecond away from hitting reply and thought, "that sounds as if I was combining 'mini' and 'erection'". Oh well. I stand by it.)


I gave you a brain chub??? score! Flex hehe thanks, that made my day!

"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
31-07-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: an ongoing interview
I am with Fodder... My brain is going shwing, shwing on #5 and #6.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Iñigo's post
31-07-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: an ongoing interview
(31-07-2015 07:57 AM)Iñigo Wrote:  I am with Fodder... My brain is going shwing, shwing on #5 and #6.

Thanks, I gotta admit I like #5, I may have to save that one.

Thumbsup

"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
31-07-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: an ongoing interview
(29-07-2015 08:08 AM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 06:55 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Question 2 just received, and answered below, time for bed. More to follow I am sure..

2) You say there is no evidence, historical or otherwise, to support the existence of God or Gods. Yet, the cosmological argument/theory uses science/physics to support the argument that there is a God/Self-Being. Do you believe this argument is flawed? If so, why?

GWG: First let’s look at the Cosmological argument:

Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theologica and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God. The argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, everything could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists? This is the epitome of god-of-the-gaps argument. We don’t know…so….god.

One cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric abrahamic god because one has the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How does one arrive at that thought? How does one ascertain ones version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me. 4500 different religions, all of which claim their god is the one, the truth and the light. Christianity alone has over 40,000 strains of their delusion, and each declares all others are not "true christians".

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.

Sigh. Reading this should make me smarter; and it probably does. Alas, it also makes me feel dumb, relatively speaking.

So, you are built like a mountain, decorated with all sorts of military accolades, well-read and intelligent. I hope you won't mind if I imagine that you also have a very small penis. I am not saying you do. I am just saying that I tell myself you do to offset my own personal inferiority complex.

Sorry, back to the interview...

Maybe a nipple job will help your self-esteem.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 09:17 AM
RE: an ongoing interview
Are you going to be able to read her final report? I would like to hear her conclusions, or perhaps the other responses?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: