Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#201 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:52 PM

None, but that didn't stop his publishing testable equations showing how EM waves like light are a propagation of alternating electric and magnetic fields.

View Post


Sorry Tommy, but that not the point. If you read back through the thread, you'd soon realize that. For example: If you attempt to make any factual-type statements from a backward engineering viewpoint (As James Clerk Maxwell was in his experimentation) concerning the origin of EM force, you do so from a “Faith-Based” stance, because you have absolutely NO idea of the origins of that thing you are attempting to backward engineer.

So yes, you can make some "factual" statements about your current observations, but those observations are severely limited to a scope within your observational range. Everything outside that range is strictly speculative. Therefore you cannot make any "factual" and "empirical" statements about "anything" you cannot empirically test. Therefore, your equations are severely limited by the empiricism in which they can be physically tested.

#202 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 08:46 AM

Sorry Tommy, but that not the point. If you read back through the thread, you'd soon realize that. For example: If you attempt to make any factual-type statements from a backward engineering viewpoint (As James Clerk Maxwell was in his experimentation) concerning the origin of EM force,  you do so from a “Faith-Based” stance, because you have absolutely NO idea of the origins of that thing you are attempting to backward engineer.

So yes, you can make some "factual" statements about your current observations, but those observations are severely limited to a scope within your observational range. Everything outside that range is strictly speculative. Therefore you cannot make any "factual" and "empirical" statements about "anything" you cannot empirically test. Therefore, your equations are severely limited by the empiricism in which they can be physically tested.

View Post


Experimentally observed effects tally with Maxwell's hypothesis that propagating fields are intimately connected to c. Maxwell's approach was inductive rather than deductive so I can't see the analogy with applied engineering. The notion that one cannot investigate without knowing primary causes would invalidate all of physics.

I don't consider myself an atheist but I suppose I should throw in my response so I'm not derailing the OP. I think a likely non-theist response to your questions would be"

"From where did we come (what are our Origins)?"

Individually we came from our parents and ultimately life on Earth came from the native matter and energy-driven natural causation of our home solar system (our origins are natural).

"What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?"

A non-theistic foundation would be the premise that we live in a universe of natural causation and can know something about it (whether from a positivist or constructivist outlook, I would favour the latter). Knowledge is better obtained from empiricism, consistent objectivity and experimental rigour than revelation or scriptural authority.

#203 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 February 2010 - 10:20 AM

Experimentally observed effects tally with Maxwell's hypothesis that propagating fields are intimately connected to c.  Maxwell's approach was inductive rather than deductive so I can't see the analogy with applied engineering.  The notion that one cannot investigate without knowing primary causes would invalidate all of physics.

View Post

And, of course, these “experimentally observed effects” are inductive Tommy. On that, you and I agree. And factual statements can be made about those experiments within the context of the environment in which they were performed (and only there). In order for these statements to be factual elsewhere, one must go there and conduct the experiments (even Hume agreed with this purpose of inductive empiricism). And all of physics that are not provided the empiricism of physical experimentation is nothing more than hypothesis. Now, take note, I am not disagreeing with much of physics as posited (that is a mistake that many who I argue with make). I am, although, providing the truth that; unless you provide the inductively empirical data, you are positing nothing more than metaphysical opinion.

Also, no one (least of all me) said “one cannot investigate without knowing primary causes”. You may need to go back and see what I really said.

I don't consider myself an atheist but I suppose I should throw in my response so I'm not derailing the OP. 

View Post

I wouldn’t consider you an atheist either Tommy. If fact, I don’t really believe there is anything as an atheist anymore (as per the original definition, and not todays watered beliefs). If you want to see what a real atheist (as per the undefiled definition), read up on Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (etcetera). Todays atheist is more of an agnostic (but they usually wont admit it).

I think a likely non-theist response to your questions would be"
"From where did we come (what are our Origins)?"
Individually we came from our parents and ultimately life on Earth came from the native matter and energy-driven natural causation of our home solar system (our origins are natural).

"What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?"
A non-theistic foundation would be the premise that we live in a universe of natural causation and can know something about it (whether from a positivist or constructivist outlook, I would favour the latter).  Knowledge is better obtained from empiricism, consistent objectivity and experimental rigour than revelation or scriptural authority.

View Post


That’s all well and good Tommy, but none of it answers the OP, within the context of the OP questions. It is more of a “faith based” set of statements. And that is fine as well, because we can converse upon metaphysics and physics of the above statements.

#204 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 02:08 PM

And, of course, these “experimentally observed effects” are inductive Tommy. On that, you and I agree. And factual statements can be made about those experiments within the context of the environment in which they were performed (and only there). In order for these statements to be factual elsewhere, one must go there and conduct the experiments (even Hume agreed with this purpose of inductive empiricism). And all of physics that are not provided the empiricism of physical experimentation is nothing more than hypothesis. Now, take note, I  am not disagreeing with much of physics as posited (that is a mistake that many who I argue with make). I am, although, providing the truth that; unless you provide the inductively empirical data, you are positing nothing more than metaphysical opinion.

View Post


The purpose of an experiment is to establish a functional relationship that would apply wherever there is no other disruptive variable. Given that we believe EM radiation is indefinite and requires no medium I see no reason not to apply Maxwell's and Feynman's ideas universally.

That’s all well and good Tommy, but none of it answers the OP, within the context of the OP questions. It is more of a “faith based” set of statements. And that is fine as well, because we can converse upon metaphysics and physics of the above statements.

View Post



Looking at the OP, other than your direct questions and the equivocation caveats the thrust seems to be that "you can't get something from nothing". The laws of conservation and momentum back this up within the post-BigBang Universe. The BB marks a beginning to expanding spacetime, the laws of physics and causation as they are known to us. To wonder how something came from nothing presupposes both that there was nothing at some earlier time and that there was time prior to BB.

My first answer in my previous post draws upon the TOE and nebular theory. Exactly how natural autocatalysis emerged on Earth many thousands of millions of years ago is as yet unknown but the Oro and recent Joyce experiments provide insight.

My second answer was necessarily philisophical. Philosophy is the no-man's land between dogma and science and can converse with both. I would not describe my position as faith-based as I do not contend that it contains some dogmatic truth resistant to contradiction or adaptation. I would like to think that the epistomelogical premise I offered is simple and potentially universally applicable.

#205 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 06:42 AM

The purpose of an experiment is to establish a functional relationship that would apply wherever there is no other disruptive variable.  Given that we believe EM radiation is indefinite and requires no medium I see no reason not to apply Maxwell's and Feynman's ideas universally.

View Post


The first sentence, for the most part, is correct Tommy. But, the statement “We Believe” speaks to the metaphysical nature of the experiment, and not the empiricism of the scientific method. Whenever one puts too much emphasis on the “metaphysical”, they are doing so by faith. We can only “empirically” state, what we can empirically prove. Therefore, everything else (defended as fact) is taken on faith. And when these pseudo-facts are promulgated as fact in the popular media (and scholastic indoctrination via the public school system) without actual empirical evidence, it does become a religious-like dogma.

A prime example of this overstating of evidentiary “beliefs” (there are many others) was a July 23, 2001article in Time magazine by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman that claimed a toe bone fragment of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba proved “the creature walked on two legs.” This a priori evidence from the fossilized fragment of a toe bone!! They built the entire case from that “evidentiary belief” (or faith statement) and then go on to say “meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature that stood up and walked 5.8 million years ago”. They from loaded the article with more unfounded statements like “How Apes Became Humans”, and the find was “One Giant Step for Mankind”.

The causal reader will no nothing more than skim over the information, not look at it critically, and say “look, more proof for evolution!”

Looking at the OP, other than your direct questions and the equivocation caveats the thrust seems to be that "you can't get something from nothing".  The laws of conservation and momentum back this up within the post-BigBang Universe. 

View Post


That is incorrect Tommy; the laws of conservation and momentum back this up within the “Universe having a beginning” postulate (which is of far superiority than steady state infinity) and nothing else. The big bang model is just a hypothesis, that when defended dogmatically, is a faith statement because; The big bang model and the second law of thermodynamics reveal that space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning, period. Nothing else!

The BB marks a beginning to expanding spacetime, the laws of physics and causation as they are known to us.  To wonder how something came from nothing presupposes both that there was nothing at some earlier time and that there was time prior to BB.

View Post


The “BB” is nothing more than a tag place on the beginning of the universe. The presupposition is in positing that something can come from nothing, not that something can come from something. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B ) and Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B )… Every effect has a cause; this fact is self-evident, and it is logical, reasoned, methodical and diagnostic. So, unless you can provide evidence of non-being causing being, the above is unassailable.

My first answer in my previous post draws upon the TOE and nebular theory.  Exactly how natural autocatalysis emerged on Earth many thousands of millions of years ago is as yet unknown but the Oro and recent Joyce experiments provide insight.

View Post


Not only that, but your promulgating of time is unknown as well, and is therefore a Non sequitur due to its subjective (and therefore non-empirical) nature.


My second answer was necessarily philisophical.  Philosophy is the no-man's land between dogma and science and can converse with both.  I would not describe my position as faith-based as I do not contend that it contains some dogmatic truth resistant to contradiction or adaptation.  I would like to think that the epistomelogical premise I offered is simple and potentially universally applicable.

View Post


It is only universally acceptable to those of like mind Tommy (epistemologically speaking). And therefore is faith based if defended.

Again, none of the above answers (or even comes close to answering) the OP. But it is insightful none-the less, and good conversation.

#206 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:20 AM

A members attempt to derail this thread by using Non sequitur's, Red Herrings, Argumentum ad Futuris, and argumentum ad numerum was moved to:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3203

To keep this thread in compliance with the OP

#207 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:25 AM

My point is that he didn't.  But he was able to make a lot of factual statements about it.

View Post


If you’re notice the tact of the atheistic mind when cornered with origins, they cannot readily admit the massive faith built into their worldview. I would suggest going back through the thread in this particular conversation, to see how it panned out.

#208 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 May 2010 - 05:13 PM

If you’re notice the tact of the atheistic mind when cornered with origins, they cannot readily admit the massive faith built into their worldview. I would suggest going back through the thread in this particular conversation, to see how it panned out.

View Post


Ron, they believe there is no God. Also their hopes, confessions and aspirations are that there is no God. Just like a positron is the antiparticle of an electron, their's is anti-faith. Just like anti-matter is real--antifaith is real--it's just buddies with naturalism, so ol' 'natty' let's em free, and they know it. Oh well, why should they worry about what some nutty creationist says--they're in the club.

The just ignore the fact that it's for a limited time only. When the club goes out of business where will they be?

#209 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 09:07 PM

Ron, they believe there is no God.

Currently believe yes. Could I be wrong? Sure.

Also their hopes, confessions and aspirations are that there is no God. Just like a positron is the antiparticle of an electron, their's is anti-faith. 

I have no feeling of hope about deities one way or another. With a small exception. I do hope the tyrannical deity of the old testiment or it's Abrahamic cousin Allah aren't real. Which really has nothing to do with not wanting a god. It's just that murderous, unethical deities tend to disturb most atheists. Not because they are real and we know it. Simply, it would be a horrible thing to hope to be real.

Just like anti-matter is real--antifaith is real--it's just buddies with naturalism, so ol' 'natty' let's em free, and they know it.  Oh well, why should they worry about what some nutty creationist says--they're in the club. 

Club? No one told me. Do I get a secret decoder ring?

The just ignore the fact that it's for a limited time only.  When the club goes out of business where will they be?

View Post

Well, "I" won't be anywhere. Unless you are referring to my corpse?

#210 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 12:30 AM

I have no feeling of hope about deities one way or another. With a small exception. I do hope the tyrannical deity of the old testiment or it's Abrahamic cousin Allah aren't real. Which really has nothing to do with not wanting a god. It's just that murderous, unethical deities tend to disturb most atheists. Not because they are real and we know it. Simply, it would be a horrible thing to hope to be real.



I'm curious, why do most atheists then make excuses for their own holy men who founded and contributed much to this world's pure unadulterated atheistic idealogies like Hitler, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Dong, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, Ho Chi Minh, etc, etc, etc who far more tyrannical and brutal than anything mentioned in the biblical record ???????? :blink:



Club? No one told me. Do I get a secret decoder ring?



Actually you get a free life time membership to the virtual make believe superhero gaming "World of Warcraft". There is where you may evolve into whatever character you choose and belief in a truth (knowledge of good and bad) is anything you wish it to be. ;)

#211 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:26 AM

I'm curious, why do most atheists then make excuses for their own holy men who founded and contributed much to this world's pure unadulterated atheistic idealogies  like Hitler, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Dong, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, Ho Chi Minh, etc, etc, etc  who far more tyrannical and brutal than anything mentioned in the biblical record ????????  :blink:

Club? No one told me. Do I get a secret decoder ring?

Actually you get a free life time membership to the virtual make believe superhero gaming "World of Warcraft". There is where you may evolve into whatever character you choose and belief in a truth (knowledge of good and bad) is anything you wish it to be. ;)

View Post


You may have to recant some of that Eocene; at times Hitler pretended like he was a Catholic, and at times Hussein pretended as if he were Muslim (all of the above is said tongue-in-cheek).

Good comparative analogy between the "decoder ring" and "WOW".

#212 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:35 AM

Currently believe yes. Could I be wrong? Sure.

View Post


So, you are open to the evidence then?

Also, I might suggest you read the OP so that you know what this thread is all about.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3001

And, more specifically, the questions of the OP:

Questions:

1- From where did we come (what are our Origins)?

2- What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

View Post



#213 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:38 AM

In fact, I would suggest that anyone who want's to post in this thread, should first read the OP.

#214 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:39 AM

You may have to recant some of that Eocene; at times Hitler pretended like he was a Catholic, and at times Hussein pretended as if he were Muslim (all of the above is said tongue-in-cheek).



Actually both were simply good politicians at manipulating circumstances to fill their needs at the time. Not long ago I was reading something about Saddam's using Islam and the holy war expression of Jihad to further bolster his support against the USA back in the 1990 Gulf War. I remember seeing that 60 Minutes episode where they had actually gone to Iraq and did their first interview back in the late 80s when he was considered a good guy because he was fighting Iran. They made mention of the point then that he was NOT at all a religious man which was unusual because he was immersed in an area of strong religious belief as we all know. Definitely a sort of first mideastern secularist pioneer of sorts.

Research the end of the war years with Hitler and Martin Bormann and Bormann was a staunch hateful atheist who was the biggest influence on Hitler's descision making like the closing of all monasteries. This was even just recently re-run on the History Channel here in Europe about a month ago.

#215 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:43 AM

Club? No one told me. Do I get a secret decoder ring?


View Post



:blink: yes you were supposed to get one, I'll send another out to your address right away. These darned things keep getting stolen, I guess I shouldn't mark the packages "secret decoder ring of Atheism, do not steal".

when you get it decode this message:

on'tday elltay hristiansCay boutay hetay ecoderday ingray roay ouyay ebay ickedkay utoay foay hetay ecretsay theistaay lubcay

;)

#216 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:47 AM

Actually you get a free life time membership to the virtual make believe superhero gaming "World of Warcraft". There is where you may evolve into whatever character you choose and belief in a truth (knowledge of good and bad) is anything you wish it to be.  :blink:

View Post


Where do I sign up for this? I'm still paying ten pounds a month for my subscription.

#217 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 May 2010 - 04:11 AM

Once again, I would suggest that anyone who want's to post in this thread, should first read the OP (and adhere to it).

#218 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 May 2010 - 04:12 AM

Unless, of course, there is no rational answer. In which case the main thrust of the OP answers itself.

#219 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 04:18 AM

In fact, I would suggest that anyone who want's to post in this thread, should first read the OP.

View Post



Well let's go back then. My Thread Topic on Personification of terms to faint evolution as something intelligently directed diliberately and conveniently morphed into Snakes with Goose Bumps as proof of evolution. Okay whatever. ;)

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?



This is a tuffy. You know they don't like this subject. Panspermia is as close as they dare to come. Just ask Richard (alien man) Dawkins. I guess really this is only for the atheists, since I can't begin to fathom what virtual reality world any one of them is coming from at any one time. :blink:

#220 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 May 2010 - 05:05 AM

Well let's go back then. My Thread Topic on Personification of terms to faint evolution as something intelligently directed diliberately and conveniently morphed into Snakes with Goose Bumps as proof of evolution. Okay whatever.  ;)

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

This is a tuffy. You know they don't like this subject. Panspermia is as close as they dare to come. Just ask Richard (alien man) Dawkins. I guess really this is only for the atheists, since I can't begin to fathom what virtual reality world any one of them is coming from at any one time. :blink:

View Post



Either Panspermia or abiogenesis. Both of which are self refuting logically, rationally and scientifically when kept within context of the OP and empiricism.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (1)