Print

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

[Siquo]

The point being that you're just constantly insulting Siquo and in general being a flaming douche, right?

Nah, I've had worse in this thread 

In his defense, he did quote me in his sig. Which is usually considered an honour, so yeah, he has done other things than insult me, and we have gotten along nicely outside of this thread. "What goes on in Atheists, stays in Atheists" 

[Siquo]

Siquo, http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/RevModPhys_80_000633acc.pdf <- Read that please.

Thank you, I will!

[Cyx]

Siquo, if science isn't provable, what does have the "provable" label then ? Even "cogito ergo sum" was kind of disproven by Nietzsche (because even if you know that there are thoughts, you just can't be sure it is actually you thinking them). Only the most basic appearances are truly provable, and then, only separately by everyone. I'd say we skip the skepticism and label as provable what is the most provable of all for humans, and I'd say this is what reason and logic establish, followed by what we can gather by applying them to the world : science !

You're right in saying that science or reason aren't absolute, in the way almost nothing is, but it's no use if you haven't got anything more provable to propose instead : intelligent people are still going to put their faith (if you want to call it that so much) in them, and act as if they were the truth.

I'm also curious about what you think of my last post ? I'm not sure it actually applied to you, but do tell me if it didn't.

[Durin]

You've gone a long way out of your way to try to avoid the simple fact that the first assumption, "The proof is along the lines of, something happens that results in someone being less than satisfied. At that point there is a flaw in the world, if one assumes that a 'god' exists, then its existence would need to be justifiable in the presence of such a flaw," is opinion.  Obviously, Lucifer does not consider God to be perfect, but if God is pleased with the result it hardly matters.

Disliking the state of the universe does not even begin to address the existence of God. You say people cannot come to an agreement on terms, but again this is not true.  Rather, you and folks like you refuse to accept agreed upon terms because doing so results in settling the matter rather amicably.  Atheists are currently at great pains to come to a point where religion can be banned entirely, so assertions like this followed by a lot of noise meant to obfuscate the obvious flow like water.

Facts.  Let's deal in facts.  You cannot rely on logic if what you are dealing with is personal opinion.  What is or is not "perfect" is a matter of opinion.  As Gerard Manly Hopkins once wrote, speaking of God and the nature of the universe, "whatever is, is right." 

People have already been down this road and found it wanting.

Logically, this God figure would either have to not be a God like being, or be incredible ignorant/dumb/shortsighted/evil/etc.  Any being with Godlike powers would have no need for us and would not create a universe of this scale and complexity for our entertainment, or it's own (assuming it can already see what has occurred in the future...)

So, If logic is a bad way to define God... what next?

Your line of thinking here is entirely a subjective assertion.  How do you ascribe logic to it?

The subjectivity of the assertion is almost entirely restrained to the use of the term god, which nobody seems to be willing to accept a definition of. And logic is ascribed to it as an assertion, which is supported elsewhere. The definition of god used here is, in fact, a fairly narrow one, which requires only that god possess absolute power and absolute knowledge, but is one generally accepted by the religions that seem prevalent on this thread.
 The proof is along the lines of, something happens that results in someone being less than satisfied. At that point there is a flaw in the world, if one assumes that a 'god' exists, then its existence would need to be justifiable in the presence of such a flaw. The entity is sufficiently capable that it may choose for there to be no potential for flaws, and that have no value to it. There is nothing it cannot defeat and nothing it requires. So the only possibility is that it chooses to maintain flaws for their own sake. It is quite possible that they are not flaws, but that requires that humans are not valuable to it, it is possible that it chooses to maintain flaws for its own amusement. But people ascribe a positive nature to this god, with respect to humans, so they refuse to accept that it desires these flaws...

I'm not going to go over all of it again, but there's no logical reason for a a god to exist given the attributes we give to gods.  If you really feel like reading it, it's back about 30 pages by now.

I think it's safe to say there is no need to go over it again since it cannot be anything except a subjective assertion.

This is an example of someone choosing not to explore something based upon a preexisting faith in its flaws. It is exactly this willingness to rely upon unfounded claims that makes the flaws in human understanding that allow religion to exist so dangerous. The appearance of a god, or enlightenment, or a cult leader, or any other fixation of blind devotion can be falsified in far more vivid ways than mere perfect visual, auditory, tactile, and aromatic illusions could hope to achieve. I for one do not want people willing to abandon a reliable reality for one that can be assumed to be fictional. It is all but certain that religion would exist in a world devoid of gods.

  Your opinion of what God might like to do is precisely that -- your opinion.  I honestly have no idea how anyone would even begin to assume they can define what a god or gods might reasonable be expected to want or to do.  If there is no God that created us in His own image, then most assuredly we created gods in our own image.  What we choose to do is not dictated by strict logic.  Any god or gods would simply not be constrained by your definitions of what is good, or logical, or useful, or sensible.

Morality may indeed be utterly subjective, but if you happen to be God, your opinion is the one that counts.

But people do assume to know what their gods want, without it religion is futile, as the entire value of religion is that one would be able to adapt to its god. And so people can logically extrapolate from the assumptions presented by religions and prove them to be false.
 Humans do not strictly use logic, but their choices are dictated by logic. Humans can act according to logic, but they can also act according to less analytical methods, but both can be logically deduced. For example, a human steps into quicksand, they begin to sink. sinking is constant, raising one leg causes the other to sink, and causes sinking to increase. It is logical to seek a legless solution to the problem, failing that, one leg should be completely extracted from the sand before the other is moved, anything less than complete extraction is a complete loss. An alternative response is to panic, to struggle, and to sink. This may seem completely devoid of logic, but one can see that the reactions would be highly successful in more common scenarios, such as being bitten, or placing a foot upon a dangerously hot surface. Just because logic is not used does not mean that it is not present.
 Logic requires only patterns, if a god is not beholden to logic then that god is random, and has no effective value, not to mention that its presence would be obvious.
 The only morality that can act, and therefore the only morality that counts, is the morality of the one that acts. If a god's morality is not defensible by humans, then humans should not act upon it.

Being an atheist does not mean you know everything.

Being an atheist means you know everything about your own understanding of gods, which is far more than a religious person who refuses to define their god.

The question of whether God exists is the question of the nature of our own selves.

Error, the nature of the self is defined by the self. If a divine relationship is a component of the self then it can be discerned by studying the self.

  We know we are conscious decision makers, or at the very least that we are aware and perceive some sense of being conscious decision makers.  All of religion evolves from there.  I don't think I overstate the case in saying all of philosophy and ethics also starts from there. 

Perception may perceive a fictional self, memory can be false, expectation can be false, fact can be false, time can be false, thought can be false, experience can be false, only perception itself is certain. Philosophy begins with the assumption that the self is subject to doubt. Ethics begins with the assumption that the self is without value.

you can't just say that you don't believe in anything that cannot be fully explained, because you really have no choice.  There are things in life that are, yet are not fully explained.

Reliable responses are a constant of human, and all other decisions. When an ancient human constructs a solid structure, it is assumed that the structure will not pass through the solid ground or rise into the air, gravity and energy are not required to understand this, explanations are not required to understand this, reliability is sufficient. Gods provide no input upon which to rely.

By the time you start combining Goedel's proof with chaos and fractals, you get to a point where it seems very likely that there is a theoretical limit to knowledge.  We are closer to proving that it is impossible to know everything than we are to explaining everything.

if absolute knowledge is impossible then no entity can possess it. Principals can be deduced and from principals can be deduced any fact from an absolute scope of information. Absolute knowledge would be available in the absence of absolute storage of that knowledge.

This is a world where faith must always play its role.

Internal consistency is sufficient and can exist in the absence of faith.

It's the same either way.  It's, "God did it," or, "that's just the way it is."

Error: "that's just the way it is." is required for "God did it,". An absolutely encompassing scenario is certain, even in the absence of existence.

  I don't believe in God to explain how or why.  I was looking for the truth concerning the nature of myself and, to the best of my ability to ascertain, Christ is the Lord.  It's not something I believe because I can't figure out how the universe began.  It's something I believe because it fits the evidence I have at hand concerning myself, humanity, history, and yes, in many ways even science and mathematics.

I looked into myself and found that a virtuous god was impossible, and an avirtuous god must be opposed, and that the honest view is that there is no god at all. However, the assumption of ignorance is necessary for the pursuit of knowledge, if you would share the ability to ascertain the nature of this christ then it may expose something that I am ignorant of...

[Cyx]

Fact is, if God is so alien to us that somehow a world full of pain, unhappiness and stupidity is perfect to him, the only sensible religious act is praying for Him to let you disappear when you die instead of toying with you for eternity.

[Andir]

Atheists are currently at great pains to come to a point where religion can be banned entirely

Says who?

Atheists are
Rather, you and folks like you refuse to accept agreed upon terms because...

there's no acceptable terms to agree to in religion.  Religion seeks to have total authority over matters.  (ie: Pope deciding is abortion is cool or not.)

In fact, there's no agreed upon terms because everyone has different terms.  For instance, you probably think it's an aberration to allow a man or a woman to mate outside of a lifelong contract.  I don't.

[Electronic Phantom]

Atheists are currently at great pains to come to a point where religion can be banned entirely

Says who?

It's not a matter of who is saying it, it is a matter of who is doing it.  And for that matter, it's been happening for over 60 years now (they won't succeed, man has an innate need for faith of some sort).

In fact, there's no agreed upon terms because everyone has different terms.  For instance, you probably think it's an aberration to allow a man or a woman to mate outside of a lifelong contract.  I don't.

Congratulations.  You have moved back into the realm of opinion.  Let's stick to facts, people.

-(e)EP

[Andir]

Atheists are currently at great pains to come to a point where religion can be banned entirely

Says who?

It's not a matter of who is saying it, it is a matter of who is doing it.  And for that matter, it's been happening for over 60 years now (they won't succeed, man has an innate need for faith of some sort).

Fine, who is doing it?  What happened 60 years ago that started this?  Are you referring to the removal of "God" from US law?  Who put it there in the first place.  Religious zealots... nobody is taking away the ability to follow a religion.  They are trying to take away the forced indoctrination of God in our government though.  It has nothing to do with banning religion.  Whoever told you that is an idiot.

In fact, there's no agreed upon terms because everyone has different terms.  For instance, you probably think it's an aberration to allow a man or a woman to mate outside of a lifelong contract.  I don't.

Congratulations.  You have moved back into the realm of opinion.  Let's stick to facts, people.

Explain how people have different terms(opinions) is not fact.  Explain how your terms are the same as mine then.

Edit:  My argument is that Religion seeks to instill the same terms in everyone.  (10 Commandments, Preachers, Pope, etc.)  Religion has no room for personal opinion.  You are taught (brainwashed?) to accept only one opinion on how thing are.  That opinion comes in the form of what someone standing on a podium thinks and tries to convince you of the same.

[Neruz]

Since at the moment all i can see out of him is dancing around in circles shouting "SCIENCE IS RONG!" which is even less use than dividing by zero.

No, just you. You're claiming that science is something that it's not. Provable, for instance. Science is built upon Assumptions. Things That Cannot be Proven. Therefore everything it claims can never be fully proven, as you'll always end up at those basic assumptions. Even Mathematics has its Axioms that cannot be proven. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is with claiming that everything is provable and True, that lands you in the same category as religious zealots with hands on their ears shouting "lalala I can't hear you".

Also, I'd really like to see one link that shows that the Existence of Planck time has been proven, observed, or otherwise detected.

I'll give you a small primer: Planck time is the smallest amount of time that we could theoretically measure. Any smaller unit of time, whether it exists or not, would be useless. This is, of course, only true with our current knowledge, and within current theories. Alternate theories without discrete units of time, or different ones, also exist.

Now, please come up with some definite proof that it does exist. I know you won't, because A) It cannot be found and B) You never came up with any proof for any of your allegations, so why change now? Just be blunt and call more names, that'll help.
Really, if you're so worried about not having an effect, come with some backup to your statements. Even wikipedialinks are valid. Anything. At all. I have, you haven't, and you really cannot expect people to change their mind if you just call them stupid, and have nothing to show.

Siquo, the only assumption Science makes is that our five senses give us an accurate representation of the reality we live in. And as our senses can be shown to be consistant with each other, it's a very small assumption to make.

Now; are there a number of extremely 'high level' Physics theories that temporarily make use of assumptions so as to further the theory and see how far it goes? Of course there are. When i press 'post' on this forum, i am working on the assumption that it will post what i typed, the difference is, i am only temporarily working on that assumption, as upon hitting post i will immediately know whether or not my assumption was valid.


If you're trying to argue that Science is not founded in facts because scientists temporarily make use of assumptions where facts cannot yet be gathered, then, yeah, i don't know, i cannot respond to that politely, because it is dumb.

[Andir]

Atheists are currently at great pains to come to a point where religion can be banned entirely

Says who?

It's not a matter of who is saying it, it is a matter of who is doing it.  And for that matter, it's been happening for over 60 years now (they won't succeed, man has an innate need for faith of some sort).

Fine, who is doing it?  What happened 60 years ago that started this?  Are you referring to the removal of "God" from US law?  Who put it there in the first place.  Religious zealots... nobody is taking away the ability to follow a religion.  They are trying to take away the forced indoctrination of God in our government though.  It has nothing to do with banning religion.  Whoever told you that is an idiot.

Generally curious as to what the heck you're talking about I began searching.  I hope you aren't referring to this:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/fcc.asp

[Durin]

Atheists are currently at great pains to come to a point where religion can be banned entirely

Says who?

It's not a matter of who is saying it, it is a matter of who is doing it.  And for that matter, it's been happening for over 60 years now (they won't succeed, man has an innate need for faith of some sort).

Fine, who is doing it?  What happened 60 years ago that started this?  Are you referring to the removal of "God" from US law?  Who put it there in the first place.  Religious zealots... nobody is taking away the ability to follow a religion.  They are trying to take away the forced indoctrination of God in our government though.  It has nothing to do with banning religion.  Whoever told you that is an idiot.

The Constitution states that the government shall neither establish a religion, nor pass any law limiting its free exercise.  By interpreting the establishment clause to indicate that the government cannot allow free exercise in certain circumstances where public and private life overlap, the supreme court has in essence nullified the first amendment. 

The fact that atheists frequently resort to threats and name calling when this topic arises further supports my personal belief that we are on the cusp of an attempted totalitarian takeover by such people.  Why you would fling the word "idiot" around so freely is a mystery to me unless it were to shut down all attempt at even discussing such issues, and you are far from the only atheist I have ever seen using this tactic.  Hate has taken over the "free thinkers" movement at this point.

[Andir]

The Constitution states that the government shall neither establish a religion, nor pass any law limiting its free exercise.  By interpreting the establishment clause to indicate that the government cannot allow free exercise in certain circumstances where public and private life overlap, the supreme court has in essence nullified the first amendment. 

What case are you referring to where The Supreme Court has said someone can't practice their religion?  Are you referring to the aspect that you cannot disrupt class to start chanting as loud as you can to some god?  Why sure.  Take that outside.  That's no different than freedom of speech.  You can't just go into a movie theater and start disrupting everyone else or shouting.  Your rights extend up to the point where those right interfere with another persons rights.  Apply that to all situations and you have a peaceful free society.

The fact that atheists frequently resort to threats and name calling when this topic arises further supports my personal belief that we are on the cusp of an attempted totalitarian takeover by such people.  Why you would fling the word "idiot" around so freely is a mystery to me unless it were to shut down all attempt at even discussing such issues, and you are far from the only atheist I have ever seen using this tactic.  Hate has taken over the "free thinkers" movement at this point.

I'm not attacking anyone.  Sure, idiot may have been a strong word, but don't even start ad hominem attacks on me to try to discredit my posts.  I'm merely stating that anyone that thinks religion is about to be banned is either delusional, irrationally defensive, or sub-intelligent.  The Constitution protects religion.  It's as plain and simple as that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody will be taking that away from you and there's no "totalitarian" aspect to it at all.  In fact, I'd argue it's the opposite.  If anything, it's a freeing movement whereby people are not forced at youth to recite a Pledge of Allegiance with words that don't make sense to them.  It's a freeing of people to use money which makes sense to them.  It's the removal of the religious oppression of other religions brought on by... Catholicism and Christianity.

If anything, my right to defend myself (Second Amendment) is slowly being eroded more than someone's ability to practice their religion.

It has nothing to do with hate.  It's about being repressed.

[kuro_suna]

The fact that atheists frequently resort to threats and name calling when this topic arises further supports my personal belief that we are on the cusp of an attempted totalitarian takeover by such people.  Why you would fling the word "idiot" around so freely is a mystery to me unless it were to shut down all attempt at even discussing such issues

Their probably calling you a idiot because you seem to think separation of church and state is a conspiracy to take over the world and not implemented to preserve freedom of belief or because theist often have trouble coming to a consensus on the true meaning of bible passages.

[Grakelin]

I watched somebody's undergraduate thesis performance last night. He brings up an old story that actually applies well to this debate (though it wasn't used in the same context):

A man is led by an angel to Heaven. The angel tells him that this place is going to be the man's playground. There will be no pain here, no distress, every pleasure the man desires will be his, and everything he doesn't will cease to exist (also, I assume he has Battlecruiser 3000AD, and will never desire anything else). He will not age, but will get all of this splendor until he asks to die.

The man laughs and say "Really? Why would anybody ask to die? This place is great!"

And the angel says "Everybody asks to die."

And the man says "But why? I don't understand."

And the angel says "After 500 years of nothing but happiness, you won't realize what it is anymore. You won't realize what you have. After 500 years of happiness, you will beg for an end. For a release."

[Neruz]

I'm failing to see the reason why you told us that story Grakelin.