interested in the atheist perspective
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:52 AM)dcobranchi Wrote:  It could imply that one is claiming it to ward off lower life-forms when claiming it on a dating site (like TTA).

TTA is a dating site? I better clear my browser history before my wife finds out where I've been.

It is a dating site and DLJ is ignoring my advances. Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
26-11-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 09:06 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  ...
It is a dating site and DLJ is ignoring my advances. Drinking Beverage

I'm waiting for a better offer.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
26-11-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 11:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 09:06 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  ...
It is a dating site and DLJ is ignoring my advances. Drinking Beverage

I'm waiting for a better offer.

Drinking Beverage

I am so disappoint. Weeping

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 11:06 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 11:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm waiting for a better offer.

Drinking Beverage

I am so disappoint. Weeping

Girl can't eat grass. Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:07 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  The first one is a scientific question and is not strictly related to atheism. But maybe you're referring to particles that pop into existence and disappear the same way in a very short time. If I'm not mistaken, this is a matter that is still being investigated.

The fine tuner argument is a weak argument. The universe is not fine-tuned, on the contrary, it's very hostile to life and pretty much fatal to us in any way conceivable. No air, direct sunlight (thank you atmosphere), lack of sunlight (grab a warm coat), black holes, comets, star clusters (very unstable systems). And not just the universe, even on Earth many things are going to kill you: tsunamis, earthquakes, animals, and so on. Everything seems to want to kill us off, that is not really what I would call fine-tuned for life. Tongue

I'm sorry.. I shouldn't have said vacuum energy. What I meant was the energy density of vacuum space.. Cosmological Constant/Dark Energy. I'm no expert on this matter, and my knowledge of why this is put forth is that

1. Very very small number like 1e-30 small
2. Very small deviation from this value would mean nothing forms in the Galaxy. No planets, suns etc..

I'm not an ardent 'fine tuner' believer, but to suggest that it is weak because there are a lot of places which are hazardous to life is short-sighted. You are supposing the intention, or the efficiency of some hypothetical fine tuner. Perhaps its because you are used to Christians using this stance to further an agenda, but this is not where I was trying to go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 05:08 AM)Dom Wrote:  Atheists don't believe in any gods.

The rest has nothing to do with atheism.

There must be a nest of theists someplace trying to come up with ways to discredit science in order to convert us heathens.

Too bad science is not the foundation of atheism in any way. Not believing in any gods is a simple concept. Atheists are not by necessity scientists.

Science is just a method used to learn new things. It has nothing to do with gods or atheists.

Haha.. What are you going on about? I'm certainly not one to discredit science. What you replied makes close to no sense with respect to my OP. I did notice you got some street cred for it though.. hmmm.. fuck uninformed Christians?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 02:52 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I'm sorry.. I shouldn't have said vacuum energy. What I meant was the energy density of vacuum space.. Cosmological Constant/Dark Energy. I'm no expert on this matter, and my knowledge of why this is put forth is that

1. Very very small number like 1e-30 small
2. Very small deviation from this value would mean nothing forms in the Galaxy. No planets, suns etc..

I'm not an ardent 'fine tuner' believer, but to suggest that it is weak because there are a lot of places which are hazardous to life is short-sighted. You are supposing the intention, or the efficiency of some hypothetical fine tuner. Perhaps its because you are used to Christians using this stance to further an agenda, but this is not where I was trying to go.

I'm no physicist so this is all wild speculation which must be taken with several million grains of salt but the first question I'd ask is if it can be any different; perhaps that is the only possible value. If it can be different, how is it tied to other constants? Theists often talk about modifying one value but if modifying one results in a set of complementary changes to other values it may turn out that multiple combinations work so the odds of hitting a good value are higher than claimed.

If the values precluded the formation of suns and planets then could some other structure be formed instead? Whenever theists get to "life could not have appeared" you need to remember to mentally revise it to "life as we know it" or "human life". The chances that the values are what they are given that we are here are 100%. The problem is assuming that suns and planets and people are an intended goal.

Beyond that, if some form of multiverse exists and there are multiple universes then it would not be surprising that we find ourselves in a universe that can support galaxies and life. Again, the odds that the values are such that life can exist given the existence of life are 100%.

We don't know how many universes exist, or if ours undergoes some sort of repeating cycle with different constants, or what sets of values allow for SOME form of life so I don't see how anybody can set odds on how unlikely the combination of values we see really is.

Physicists are working on the questions and maybe someday we will have more to go on. For now the only answer I really have is "I don't know... and neither does anybody else".

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
26-11-2014, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 03:27 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 03:48 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I'm not sure what exactly is meant to be implied when one claims to be an atheist?

Nothing is implied. There does seem like there a lot of assumptions going around though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 08:08 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Fine tuner Consider

I believe you should always use one if you are serious about playing any string instrument.

Cause and effect seem to give people lots of trouble. For instance the Egyptians considered the Nile crocodile a god because they “brought” with them the floods to water their crop fields. For some reason it didn’t occur to them that the rising waters is what brought the crocs in the first place. Facepalm

When creationists say that if our planet wasn’t exactly 93 million miles from the sun, had a mix of 20.9% oxygen in the air we breathe etc. etc. the human species would have gone extinct or it never would have existed in the first place - same mistake the Egyptians made with the crocodiles, putting the “croc” before the cart so to speak Laugh out load

The human species evolved to survive in this environment and not the other way around. The environment did not evolve to fit the human species. Comprende amigo?

Easy peasy nice and easy.

I should have made it more clear.. The energy density of vacuum space(Cosmological Constant) is what I was referring to.

Let me take a stand for the fine tuning argument for a moment.

We both agree that the environment didn't evolve to fit the human species. That is obvious/stupid and I don't think an intelligent fine tuner would suggest so. I don't think that Earth position, climate etc.. have a cause effect relationship like you suggested. Conditions in this case don't cause life to form they allow.

A very slight deviation from the Cosmo constant and nothing would be allowed to form.
----------------------------

Now this doesn't necessarily imply that there is a Fine tuner. The constants could just be some blunt fact, or imply the idea of a Multiverse. I just find it intriguing that at the end of the day the Multiverse concept, and the fine tuner idea both require a 'leap of faith'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: