Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GuesssWho]

Whenever I see fundies arguing with atheists I want to smack their heads together.

A book written by weird old guys in the desert thousands of years ago does not have the answers. On the other hand, 'there was nothing and then everything came flying out of it' isn't much of an improvement. What happened to actual philosophy? You know, discussing things in a sensible manner, reasoning out things like good and happiness and shit? Science only defines things, it doesn't really explain them, and religion is impossible to prove.

Religious people don't make sense. Atheists don't make sense in a slightly more technical sort of way. Every arguement between them makes me want to scream.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Whenever I see fundies arguing with atheists I want to smack their heads together.

A book written by weird old guys in the desert thousands of years ago does not have the answers. On the other hand, 'there was nothing and then everything came flying out of it' isn't much of an improvement. What happened to actual philosophy? You know, discussing things in a sensible manner, reasoning out things like good and happiness and shit? Science only defines things, it doesn't really explain them, and religion is impossible to prove.

Religious people don't make sense. Atheists don't make sense in a slightly more technical sort of way. Every arguement between them makes me want to scream.

I feel like you're missing something here, so please excuse me while I try to clumsily explain my thoughts.

First off, atheism is the belief that there are no deities. That's it. You cannot build a set of ethics from a non-belief because the gap between the non-existence of a god and everyday life is too large.¹ You need an entirely separate assumption to build your ethics, at which point you no longer have pure atheism. You have some other -ism hanging out with atheism.² Atheism makes perfect sense when talking about the existence of deities. It doesn't make sense when talking about murder or evil, because the non-existence of god doesn't factor into those things.

Secondly philosophy is still around. The only problem with using it to reason out things like goodness/happiness is that a lot of assumptions get used in the reasoning, and those assumptions are based on cultural understandings. So a philosopher from India, Germany, Mexico and Niger would all come up with different views about goodness/happiness, though that might not be true anymore with modern communications/global culture.³ But that's besides the point. The point is that you need to make a bunch of unscientific assumptions before you can reason about goodness/happiness, and the problem with unscientific assumptions is that they're unscientific. You can't say that one set of assumptions is better than the other, because they're both unproven.⁴

I understand your frustration though. Theism comes with a lot of baggage that atheism is not equipped to deal with, and the perfect set of ethics is something that people have been chasing for ages now. Probably since the beginning of the human race.

Spoiler: Footnotes (click to show/hide)

<sup>1. Obviously theists can easily make up a set of ethics, because if there is a god, and he does cares about what your everyday actions, then you better do things that make him happy else he'll smite you/eternal damnation etc.

2. Possibly sharing a few beers or whatever -isms do in their free time.

3. Though having a global culture wouldn't help in developing a single set of ethics. Just look at the differences of opinion in western philosophy, or even just German philosophy.

4. If you're thinking to yourself 'Why can we make/find a bunch of scientific/proven assumptions to reason about goodness/happiness?' good luck. We've been trying to do that since the Enlightenment, and look how much progress we've made. Same with eliminating assumptions entirely, or starting off with assumptions that every human being in the world would accept.</sup>

Science only defines things, it doesn't really explain them.

Science does explain things, but it explains those things using repeatable and consistent observations/measurements. Human morality is very hard to observe and get the consistent measurements needed to apply the scientific method on them. Which is not to say that science isn't tackling those problems, but we're a long ways away from drawing conclusions about goodness/happiness.

[Reelya]

Yeah, i'm not feeling that fundies = atheists thing either. It's like arguing that people who believe in the tooth fairy are equally valid with people who categorically state the tooth fairy doesn't exist, because the latter can't prove exactly how the entire universe works without invoking tooth fairies.

Existence of God = a positive assertion.

Non-existence of God = a negative assertion. God not existing does not necessitate knowing how anything else came to be.

[Max White]

there was nothing and then everything came flying out of it

This isn't what atheism means. In fact atheism doesn't even say 'I believe there is no god' but rather 'I do not believe in a god', you don't need a doctorate in rhetoric to understand the difference.

[USEC_OFFICER]

there was nothing and then everything came flying out of it

This isn't what atheism means. In fact atheism doesn't even say 'I believe there is no god' but rather 'I do not believe in a god', you don't need a doctorate in rhetoric to understand the difference.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the more narrow definition of atheism ('I believe there is no god'), which is the one that everyone assumes/thinks of when you say atheist.

[Reelya]

there was nothing and then everything came flying out of it

This isn't what atheism means. In fact atheism doesn't even say 'I believe there is no god' but rather 'I do not believe in a god', you don't need a doctorate in rhetoric to understand the difference.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the more narrow definition of atheism ('I believe there is no god'), which is the one that everyone assumes/thinks of when you say atheist.

"nothing and everything came flying out of it" more implies the entire package evolutionary science, abiogenesis, etc, and big-bang cosmology as a unified "atheism", e.g. comparable to how a religion claims to define the history of everything. But that's not really right, since no element of the science package makes claims about the existence or non-existence of deities. Atheism is philosophy, which is (rightly) outside science.

The big difference is that atheism per se, doesn't claim to know how the universe came into existence (atheism isn't the science), but to dismiss specific claims about how it did come into existence. We can dismiss rival theories while not being beholden to any particular theory, like Sherlock Holmes deduction of unworkable possibilities until only one possibility is left..

The principle of Occam's Razor discredits deity creators though. If nothing can come from nothing, then where did "God" come from? If "nothing" could make an infinite entity known as "God", couldn't that same "nothing" just make a much less complex finite entity known as the universe? It doesn't make much sense to say it goes from nothing => infinity => finite, when it could just go straight from nothing => finite. If making the Finite required "Intelligence" then how is it logical that making the Infinite required NO "Intelligence"? Intelligent Design fails since there was no designer for the designer, proving intelligent complexity itself needs no designer.

[Imperial Guardsman]

playing dow soulstorm

as imperial guard

its an 8 person free for all

the sisters of battle player is sending out metric fucktons of stuff

i ask the person how?

response? skill

saved replay and watched

infinate resource sploit

why do people cheat anyway?!

[10ebbor10]

comparable to how a religion claims to define the history of everything.

No I doesn't. It's a mistake that's often made by both fundies and a certain groups of atheits, but it's sadly not based in literary, historically or any other kind of truth.

[PanH]

comparable to how a religion claims to define the history of everything.

No I doesn't. It's a mistake that's often made by both fundies and a certain groups of atheits, but it's sadly not based in literary, historically or any other kind of truth.

This. Fundies are ignorants. I have an aunt which is a theologist, and if you told her the Bible was to be taken in the literal sense, she would laugh. While the stance of the Church in earlier centuries was different (but it was mostly because of political views, etc), it doesn't claim to explain how, but just why.

[GuesssWho]

I'm talking about the sort of super-science people who treat science almost like a religion. Unified Field Theory fucktards who think that soon there will be no more mysteries and all the artists and dreamers will have to get real jobs.

Yes, the problem of where things come from still exists with a God. But at least it simplifies the question a bit. And I'm fairly sure that the universe wouldn't have such a sick sense of humor if no one was in charge. Not to mention that if you go by deduction all possibilities are equally insane.

And the thing I hate about science is that it never accepts the bleeding obvious. All these people trying to prove that animals can't do this that and the other, when anyone who owns a dog can tell you that they damn well can, for example. Or, you know, the fact that they still don't have a clue what caused the Big Bang and probably never will. The human mind is only so good, some questions are unsolvable.

On a related note: morality is wanting to walk away from Omelas. Not everyone can, but wanting to is the first step.

[Devling]

Happiness and good is easy.
Or atleast happiness is.
It's whatever realises chemicals into my brain.

[cerapa]

Yes, the problem of where things come from still exists with a God. But at least it simplifies the question a bit. And I'm fairly sure that the universe wouldn't have such a sick sense of humor if no one was in charge. Not to mention that if you go by deduction all possibilities are equally insane.

And the thing I hate about science is that it never accepts the bleeding obvious. All these people trying to prove that animals can't do this that and the other, when anyone who owns a dog can tell you that they damn well can, for example. Or, you know, the fact that they still don't have a clue what caused the Big Bang and probably never will. The human mind is only so good, some questions are unsolvable.

It simplifies exactly nothing. The universe still exists as it does, people still exist as they do. All you have accomplished is throwing a sentient being into a place that doesn't need to be filled.

And the point of the scientific process is that it doesn't accept the obvious. Human perception is hilariously biased, so if you go by anecdotal evidence and feelings, then you end up with 4 million contradictory opinions.

Plus I don't understand what the cause of the big bang has to do with the validity of the scientific method. Plus it being unanswerable is just an assumption by you. The human mind has limits, yes. But that's why we have math, computers, simulations, methods of investigation and everything else that has helped us get to where we are.

[GuesssWho]

The human mind will not be able to understand everything. It is not built to understand everything. We are still a crazy ape that has neither the innocence of animals nor the goodness of angels.

The scientific method tells us nothing important. It does not tell us where we came from or where we're going. It does not tell us it there is life after death. It does not tell us why pain and evil exist. It does not tell us how to be happy.

Neither does organized religion, mind you, but at least it's trying. Of course the organizing is part of the problem--unregimented spirituality gets a lot closer than either science or religion.

I'll take the feelings and the obvious, thank you so very much. Science is just a tool, we should stop taking it so damn seriously. In any case, experiments are just more anecdotal evidence. The laws of physics could stop working at any moment for all we know.

[Siquo]

There's no spelling without the letter 'A'.

I would like to disehgree. Simple modificehtions cen ehlter little while still ehllowing spelling lehrgley legible. Spelling without the letter 'E' would be fer more difficult.

There you go, a 50.000 word story: http://spinelessbooks.com/gadsby/

[cerapa]

I'll take the feelings and the obvious, thank you so very much. Science is just a tool, we should stop taking it so damn seriously. In any case, experiments are just more anecdotal evidence. The laws of physics could stop working at any moment for all we know.

So could the rules of religion. It doesn't matter. We see what we see. If the laws of physics change, then that is simply another data point that gets us closer to truly understanding the universe.

The funny thing about "where we are going" is that it is not a question, but a decision. The path we will walk is the path we choose. Science is simply a tool for choosing the right path to getting what we want. It actually does tell us why there is pain(because it makes us more likely to survive). It actually does tell us why there is evil(because evil is a concept and not an universal constant). It doesn't tell us how to be happy only because you haven't defined what happy means.

EDIT: I have noticed that this might be a tad off-topic in this thread. If you wish to reply, PM me.