[split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(09-06-2016 09:31 PM)aserwin Wrote:  But you aren't arguing those things... you (Atheists in general) ARE arguing that the first cause wasn't sentient.

No. Some atheists will point out that no evidence for a sentient cause has been produced.

Don't strawman and don't generalize.

(09-06-2016 09:31 PM)aserwin Wrote:  I mean, this is the problem with "critical thinking"... it doesn't allow for imagination, creativity or even curiosity! It is all about PROVE IT!

That statement proves beyond all doubt that you have absolutely no idea what critical thinking means.

(09-06-2016 09:31 PM)aserwin Wrote:  Empiricism is a fine thing! But if no one is out there thinking about what could be and then looking for the evidence to back it up, eventually there is nothing empirical to look to!

Shocking

(09-06-2016 09:31 PM)aserwin Wrote:  It's like the New Atheist movement has just stopped to let everyone catch up! They don't seem to care about moving forward.

Considering the stupidity that is inflicted by theism on a daily basis, there is alot of catching up to do.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-06-2016, 09:46 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
The idea that atheists all think the same way is so laughable.

Nothing makes me discount a person faster than someone who comes on here and states we are all of the same mind.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
09-06-2016, 09:48 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
I am hesitant to even offer at this, because in my experience when an Atheists (especially those allied with the New Atheist movement) ask for evidence they are either asking for straight up proof, or they see "evidence" as a relative concept... (that is, I will produce my evidence, and you will simply reject it as evidence, thus, there is still no evidence). But, I will give you the befit of the doubt here.

Quote:Where is your evidence that the universe had a first cause?

The universe is expanding and if you run that tape backwards, you get... well a beginning. And, although I am going to use a bit of inductive reasoning here, which I usually am vehemently against, it seems to make sense here... since nothing in our observable universe happens without something else happening before it, I think it is reasonable to assume that the big bang had a cause. That cause would literally exist outside of our universe (since we can reasonably assume it didn't happen from within the universe before it existed)... so, seem at least plausible that there was an initial cause.

Quote:Where is your evidence that a sentience created the universe?

This is where you will argue. You have to because of you a priori world view... you are looking at things from the outside in! You have made a determination, so anything that happens within that determination must conform to that determination... therefore, you will not accept this as evidence, but here goes anyway.

There is apparent fine tuning to the universe. Various ratios that are in some cases hundreds of decimal places and if any of of them were off by that last decimal place, the universe simply could not exist. Smells like design to me.

There is the semiotics of DNA and the genetic code. If you were to see ANY kind of intelligible marking in a cave, any word, or even random letters you would assume a top down causality. Why is it so different with the longest word we know? (DNA is made up of a 4 letter alphabet and consists of around 13.8 billion letters - and whether or not you consider it a "word" or "letters", it executes the exact same function as a word which is to convey information. This is the very definition of semiotic!)

I could go on, and eventually I will probably have to! But to me this is enough "evidence". Is this PROOF? Absolutely not. But, from what I perceive with my own senses, I infer intelligence. If you infer something else, so be it. That is the beauty of the human intellect! We can evaluate evidence without being programmed by it.

[quote[
So let's even allow your unfounded assertion that a god created the universe,
[/quote]

I asserted no such thing. All I said was that waxing semantic and pointing out religious nonsense doesn't prove that there is no first cause.

Quote:Bonus question - Can you define god in a falsifiable manner.

No. "god" is a word. You can call it first cause, or "laws of nature" as Krauss and Hawking do... I don't care. They are words, and words are not necessary or fundamental. They are contingent and immigrant. You can call it whatever you want... I am just asking questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 09:57 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(09-06-2016 09:22 PM)aserwin Wrote:  I am going to require a quote there... because I stated no such thing! I stated that pointing out bad semantics and religious nonsense doesn't prove that there is no first cause. HUGE difference!

The argument about "cause" is proximate cause, (nearest cause), not First Cause.
An omnipotent deity could have made universe makers.

No one has to prove "no cause". First of all, no one can prove a negative.
First Cause implies the principle of Causality is in place already. How can a god, who is the creator OF ALL THINGS, 'cause' Causality unless causality is already in place ? A god that exists, does not "not exist" thus MUST participate in Reality only partially. Nonexistence ALSO existed as long as your god existed. No being can create the very Reality it MUST participate in, only partially. Realty remains unexplained, AND your god *found* itself as only part of Reality before it created anything. "Creation" is an act. Deciding to create requires time. How can a god do something that requires time before it created time.

It's just all religious bullshit.

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
09-06-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Quote:Atheism is a disbelief in any God. No more, no less. It really isn't complicated nor an argument. It's a lack of belief.

That just isn't the truth. That may be your personal world view... just as there are probably certain feminist that truly believe in equality for the sexes... but, overall this just isn't a true statement.

In the old days, classic Atheists held this view, although not as direct (I urge you to read Peter Hume or Spinozza) - Atheism was all about "yeah but there is so much more out there than your god"... today, the New Atheism movement has desecrated that expansive world view with "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist! SCIENCE IS YOUR GOD and PROVE IT!!!"... No more curiosity, no more imagination, no more discussion... it is all just "You are wrong!" or "Bro, do you even science?"...

If it were a negative thing, just a lack of belief, then why even use the title? Why have groups to sit around and talk about it? Why organize Reason Rallies? I don't play golf, but I am not aware of any group that sits around talking about not playing golf.

Also, what the hell does belief have to do with anything anyway?
Isn't belief akin to religion? So if you believe there is no god (yes, I know you didn't say that, and I realize there is a difference between not believing in god and believing that there is no god - just asking a question), isn't that a religion?

Welcome to reality. Atheists IS a religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 10:11 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2016 10:54 PM by aserwin.)
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Quote:The argument about "cause" is proximate cause, (nearest cause), not First Cause.

That is not unreasonable. I will examine that one further.

Quote:An omnipotent deity could have made universe makers.

That is awfully close to the 5th grade Dawkins argument "who designed the designer"... a question that was debunked by Atheists before any theist every got a hold of it!
The problem with omniscience (which is what I assume you were referring to) is in the definition! That is a semantic issue, not a philosophical, religious or scientific one...

Quote:First of all, no one can prove a negative.

That is incorrect. Of course you can prove a negative. The problem is, it requires you first intend to prove the positive... and the absence of that positive, with all other possibilities considered, the negative remains.
So, for Atheists, the problem would be actually looking for evidence of a designer...which very few are willing to do (and, I think it is important to note that the few that have generally end up theists - Lewis, Flew to name a couple)...

Quote:First Cause implies the principle of Causality is in place already. How can a god, who is the creator OF ALL THINGS, 'cause' Causality unless causality is already in place ? A god that exists, does not "not exist" thus MUST participate in Reality only partially. Nonexistence ALSO existed as long as your god existed. No being can create the very Reality it MUST participate in, only partially. Realty remains unexplained, AND your god *found* itself as only part of Reality before it created anything. "Creation" is an act. Deciding to create requires time. How can a god do something that requires time before it created time.

That is a pretty interesting (albeit circular) perspective. Have you read Krauss' A Universe From Nothing? You should! (kind of like religious bullshit, but sold in the science section)

The important thing to note here is that everything we know exists (even time) didn't exist at one time. The Big Bang theory says that space-time itself didn't exist for a couple of plank times after the big bang... so yeah, there WAS something before there was space or time! (I mean, I don't know that as fact, but it is the general consensus). So the question is, how do we even define that? I mean, before the first second ticked, there was no before? So how do we even ask the question? If we are talking about a state (and, we are in the realm of science now) where what we perceive as NOW and BEFORE don't even exist... wow! The possibilities are sort of endless, right? (that is to say, anything was possible EXCEPT a designer... that of course was impossible, even then)...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 11:31 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(09-06-2016 09:48 PM)aserwin Wrote:  I am just asking questions.

JAQing off, IOW.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
09-06-2016, 11:37 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Quote:Atheism is defined as lacking a belief in god.

Do I need to give the dictionary definition of feminism? (you know what I am talking about)

Quote:It is usually a response to a question, but can also be a statement of belief.

Sounds like a religion to me.!

Quote:My atheism is in response to the various gods that have been postulated or presented for worship. It's not an argument per se, more a statement. Concepts of deities have been presented. I remain unconvinced.

You are actually all over the place in this little statement. Are you rebelling against the religions that demand you pray, or the gods that have never asked anything from you? I agree that religion is bad... it is a human construct usually meant to control populations. But even if we prove that every religion is corrupt, we haven't even started the conversation about a designer.

Quote:Every theist, writer or not, has their own personal interpretation of a god.

That is not entirely true... most actual theists (those not affiliated with religion) merely accept the (what we consider) likelihood of a creator. In general we do not attribute any human qualities to it (other than, in most cases, intelligence)... Certainly, everyone is free to draw his/her own conclusion! That is the beauty of the human intellect! We can evaluate evidence without being programmed by it.

Quote:No. That would be the god-of-the-gaps. Way back when, gods caused thunderstorms, disease, earthquakes, etc. Saying "we dunno, goddidit..." is another way of saying "let's remain ignorant".

I think you misunderstood my question. I was not saying "that which we don't understand we call god" - yes, that would be god of the gaps, but I don't buy into that at all! I mean, when Newton figured out the laws of gravity (and, he wasn't even completely right, eh?) did he say "OH! Now I don't need god! I figured it out!!" NO!!! His discovery actually INCREASED his faith! I am not talking about using "god" to explain the things we can't understand... what I am asking is IF we ALL come to a consensus about the ACTUAL beginning (keeping in mind that many believe the big bang was NOT the actual beginning), can we just agree to call that god? And keep in mind, I don't care! We can call it "first cause", we can call it "the alpha event" (I read that somewhere, Atkins maybe), whatever... the real question is, WAS there a FIRST cause? Did something start everything, or has SOMETHING just always been happening... it is a GREAT question, if you ask me!

Quote:A minute ago you didn't know what an atheist was, now you're telling us what we think? Go fuck yourself. Ask us what we think and argue. Don't tell us.

Incorrect on both accounts. I asked a rhetorical question about Atheism was (and, by the way, you answered it)... The simple fact is, there are very few examples of any group of Atheists agreeing with any other gourp of Atheists (which is why I consider it a religion with denominations, just like Christians)... and believe me! I have been trying for 20 years to get an Atheists to discuss this stuff with me one on one... They generally won't, for whatever reason.

Quote:Yes, when you create the argument for the opposition, it is easy to debunk. That is the strawman fallacy. Nice try, but no cookie for you.

If I have misrepresented Atheism here... PLEASE correct me! I made one single post and have had to say AT LEAST 4 times "I didn't say that"... who is responsible for the straw men here? If your perspective is different than what I have represented (or more importantly, responded to), just tell me where I go it wrong! I want to talk about this.
I don't debate because I think I am right; I debate because I KNOW I might be wrong! I am 1 man in a world of 7 BILLION people! There is no way I have a handle on the sum perspective! I get that. I just want to learn.

Quote:If you have something to present, feel free. The fact that a first cause exists does not evidence a god. Define the nature of your First Cause.

You are waxing semantic here. What if we just call first cause "god"? Or what if we just dispose of "god" all together and focus on first cause? Do you think the more scientific minded would be more willing to look into if we didn't use the word "god"? I don't care about the word, personally. I am just asking questions. I want to know about the origin.

Quote:Pointing out glaring logical fallacies is not semantics, however doing so is considered intelligent, rational argument and discussion.

Ummm... it is semantic! If you make an argument like "If god is all powerful (omnipotent), can he make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" (this was not far off from the original question)... that is a question of semantics on the theist side, but logical fallacy on your side. First, you are a assuming a definition of "all powerful" and then you are assuming a definition of "power"... So, can an all powerful being being create a married bachelor? Can an all powerful being create a square circle? Can an all powerful being create an Atheist believer? What about making 1+1=3? These are logical absurdities and you are taking liberties with the word... so yes... it is semantic. Even the MOST powerful being can only work within the realm of logical possibility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 11:51 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 12:09 AM by DLJ.)
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(09-06-2016 10:02 PM)aserwin Wrote:  ...
I urge you to read Peter Hume
...

Next on my reading list after I've finished with his brother, David.

Thread temporarily closed while I split it.

EDIT: Thread re-opened


OK, aserwin, you can carry on with your equivocations now.

Excuse me while I go off to sacrifice something furry and make some New Atheism chanting noises.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
10-06-2016, 12:13 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(09-06-2016 09:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 09:31 PM)aserwin Wrote:  But you aren't arguing those things... you (Atheists in general) ARE arguing that the first cause wasn't sentient.

I am arguing there was no first cause.

Interesting. What is your evidence? What caused the big bang? (oops, would that require a first cause?)

You are saying that our universe had no beginning? OR or are you saying that there may have been universes before ours (which would still require a first cause for our universe)..

I am curious. Tell me more!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: