Questions for Atheist in America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]talldude wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I am unaware of a single instance in the history of scientific observation which could give credence to the notion that motion, or energy, or matter could have arisen unprompted by an external force.[/quote]

That is because everything in our observable universe has a cause. However, is it possible that something would happen without a cause?

There is absolutely no logical basis for there HAVING to be a cause for the existence of the universe. But we cannot rule out a cause either.[/quote]

My point exactly. Agnosticism.

142

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]

Key word: theories.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.

I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.[/quote]

What theories? I don’t know of a single one.[/quote]

I too am curious as to what specific “theories” are being spoken of here.[/quote]

I know hawking has one where the universe could come from gravity, but that wouldn’t be the beginning, because gravity would have to exist first.[/quote]

Spontaneous matter/anti-matter creation:

http://xphysics.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/spontaneous-creation-of-matter-and-antimatter/\

Steven Hawkings spontaneous creation:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Gravity is a force. A rule if you will. It doesn’t require creation as it isn’t comprised of matter/anti-matter/energy/dark energy. It’s simply how these things react with each other.

143

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.

It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.[/quote]

Then answer the simple question I asked or shut your mouth. You resort to personal attacks when you run out of mental realestate.

Science cannot know everything. That is part of science. Fact. Period. People who contend such are worse than the religious nuts who ignore logic and reason.

144

quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.

Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.

An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”

Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.

This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.

I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]

The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]

Science by definition can’t even pursue metaphysics. Many unknowns must necessarily never be known by science.[/quote]

The scientific method can be used to test any hypothesis, even metaphysical hypotheses. See Scientific method - Wikipedia. Indeed, the scientific method has been applied to prayer. See Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - The New York Times. [/quote]

The belief in a god is defined as something outside the universe. The scientific process can only investigate concepts internal to it.

No, test of the supernatural can have a control. You cannot by definition remove god from the equation.

So answer me a question, why do masses attract one another?

Or even more simply, design me a scientific study to investigate that question.[/quote]

Alright, you’ve convinced me. Gravity proves there is a god.[/quote]
No, but this post proves your an idiot. The claim was made that science will know everyrihing. I possed a simple question science cannot possibly answer. And you make an asinine claim about me trying to prove god, when I’m agnostic. You are one dumb human.n

145

Ravity[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

  1. Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
    ----] That external force, I call God.

[/quote]

  1. Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.

  2. Yes.

  3. Flawed. See 1.

For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]

Key word: theories.

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.

I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.[/quote]

What theories? I don’t know of a single one.[/quote]

I too am curious as to what specific “theories” are being spoken of here.[/quote]

I know hawking has one where the universe could come from gravity, but that wouldn’t be the beginning, because gravity would have to exist first.[/quote]

Spontaneous matter/anti-matter creation:

http://xphysics.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/spontaneous-creation-of-matter-and-antimatter/\

Steven Hawkings spontaneous creation:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Gravity is a force. A rule if you will. It doesn’t require creation as it isn’t comprised of matter/anti-mattenergy/dark energy. It’s simply how these things react with each other.[/quote]
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.

You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.

146

Sorry guys my phone is messing up. Hope that’s readable.

147

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, but this post proves your an idiot. The claim was made that science will know everyrihing. I possed a simple question science cannot possibly answer. And you make an asinine claim about me trying to prove god, when I’m agnostic. You are one dumb human.n[/quote]

Name-calling is the best way to win an argument. What you asked me to do was prove WHY the theory of gravity works the way it does. As far as I know, it remains one of the mysteries of science. That doesn’t disprove my assertion that someday I expect we will know the answer.

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.

It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.[/quote]

Then answer the simple question I asked or shut your mouth. You resort to personal attacks when you run out of mental realestate.

Science cannot know everything. That is part of science. Fact. Period. People who contend such are worse than the religious nuts who ignore logic and reason.[/quote]

Science doesn’t know everything. I don’t know why you’d think I’d insist otherwise. Science is a way to know more, not know everything.

It’s not a personal attack either, it’s a simple statement of facts.

149

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gravity is a force. A rule if you will. It doesn’t require creation as it isn’t comprised of matter/anti-matter/energy/dark energy. It’s simply how these things react with each other.[/quote]

This is not necessarily true. It may be plausible (though it seems to me less plausible than its converse), but it isn’t fact, though you state it as one.

150

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.

You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]

Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.

151

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gravity is a force. A rule if you will. It doesn’t require creation as it isn’t comprised of matter/anti-matter/energy/dark energy. It’s simply how these things react with each other.[/quote]

This is not necessarily true. It may be plausible (though it seems to me less plausible than its converse), but it isn’t fact, though you state it as one.[/quote]

‘Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature’

‘In particle physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another’

  • Wikipedia

Gravity is a consequence of the ‘curvature’ of spacetime as described in Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

152

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.

It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.[/quote]

Then answer the simple question I asked or shut your mouth. You resort to personal attacks when you run out of mental realestate.

Science cannot know everything. That is part of science. Fact. Period. People who contend such are worse than the religious nuts who ignore logic and reason.[/quote]

Science doesn’t know everything. I don’t know why you’d think I’d insist otherwise. Science is a way to know more, not know everything.

It’s not a personal attack either, it’s a simple statement of facts.[/quote]
Then you are agreeing with me and saying guys saying science will know everything are wrong?
t

153

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.

You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]

Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]

No, I have a decent understanding. And a lot of the smart guys agree with me. I studed quantum and modern physics at one of the top engineering schools in the nation. All “creation” theories start with something. Starting with something isn’t the begining.

154

[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]And without God we wouldn’t have THEM OR “funny symbols and numbers and shit”.

155

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.

You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]

Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]
The general public needs to be cautious when theoretical physicist throw the word nothing around as they actually often mean a sea of virtual particles existing in a space time manifold.

If you don’t want to take my word for it you can watch this youtube video I posted in my thread.

156

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.

Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.

An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”

Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.

This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.

I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]

There is a very popular misconception that agnosticism is somehow an “alternative” or a middle ground to atheism/theism. While we all know what is meant when these terms are used, it irks me that they’re used incorrectly as I think semantics are important. Gnosticism and theism are terms that deal with two different subjects; gnosticism is a position that we can know whether a deity exists or not. Theism is a belief that a deity/deities exist (and atheism is a belief that they don’t).

Now let’s clear something up: belief â?  knowledge. Saying “I believe Bob is a criminal.” is semantically very different from “I know Bob is a criminal.” as the latter implies a certainty, while the former doesn’t. When dealing with religious beliefs, there are four possible positions:

gnostic theists (people who are absolutely sure that there is a God, I think many American protestants fit in this category)

agnostic theists (people who are not absolutely certain their belief is right, but believe it because it makes them comfortable - many Catholics are like that in my experience)

agnostic atheists (a large majority of self-described agnostics/atheists fit in here; this actually a very broad category)

gnostic atheists (people who are 100% certain there is no god - this is a relatively rare position)

Note that practical certainty and absolute certainty are not the same thing. I might be 99.9% sure there is no god, but that’s still very different from somebody whose position is that “we can know there is no god (it’s provable)”. A lot of people also say that theism and agnosticism are incompatible by their definitions, but that is simply not true; as stated before, one deals with knowledge, the other with belief.

157

I haven’t read the thread but of course there is a massive agenda going against atheism.

Honestly, it’s like talking to people who’re in their thirties+ about sport or diet.
If you’re open about it and tell them about athletic progression, clean eating, health etc (ie “I’m an atheist, I think religion is a scourge, there’s little to no chance a historical Jesus existed…”) you risk confusion, bewilderment and often reprehension.

The reason?

Most folks want to live in a cozy state of denial.
Like with a diet, they won’t invest time, energy, education to achieve something that might not even lead to an immediate satisfaction (“after reading all these philosophical texts, I have more doubts then ever”).
Eating a Bigmac and pretending to look and feel great is easier then taking a stern look in the mirror (there is a heaven and I shall live there like a princess for a thousand thousand years!)

What’s even suckier: If someone mentiones “Atheism” in front of the lobbys and religous gangs, all they hear is a battlecry. Someone might take away their special rights, their rich prebendaries, their MONEY.
The world’s biggest and oldest lobby, the catholic church, has such immense power, they regularly sodomize children for no apparent reason just to show who’s in charge.

It’s an age old battle and calm atheism cannot ever truly win this because 1) dumbness will always be bigger then enlightment but moreso because 2) something that cannot find a flag under which to assmeble will never be able to face even the lousiest adversery who just happens to deploy a large banner smeared with cozy lies.

158

Hey, you sinners!!!

Don’t ask questions!

Science is the devil’s work!

god created everything. People get sick and die from evil spirits.

Simple. No need to think.

159

(edit: skimming through the pages)
The usual crap here - “how can something just create itself?”.

Essentially, someone here already posted a proper rebuttal - one of many.

“if a god can spontanously appear, why not the universe?”

The issue goes, of course, deeper.
Why stop here? Why so many unnecessary extra leaps [of faith]? "It’s a single entitiy - The one described precisely by jewish donkey herders from 600BC - he had a son from a brief and bizarre relationship who happened to take our “sins away” by letting himself undergo capture, torture and crucifying by an occupying foreign power…
So many absurd hops and bounds…

Even if you do the creationist shtick, why not once admit:
“Yea I guess I belive in some kind of creative force, but I have no clue wether it’s benevolent, omnipotent, how or if it wants to interact with us” and so on.

160

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.

It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.[/quote]

Then answer the simple question I asked or shut your mouth. You resort to personal attacks when you run out of mental realestate.

Science cannot know everything. That is part of science. Fact. Period. People who contend such are worse than the religious nuts who ignore logic and reason.[/quote]

Science doesn’t know everything. I don’t know why you’d think I’d insist otherwise. Science is a way to know more, not know everything.

It’s not a personal attack either, it’s a simple statement of facts.[/quote]
Then you are agreeing with me and saying guys saying science will know everything are wrong?
t[/quote]

Another absolute. I don’t know if science will know everything. I think it’s highly unlikely science will solve everything. If you are saying science knows all, especially at this stage in human history, then you are just as bad as those who fill gaps in knowledge with God.