Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ron

A Few Questions For The Atheists

Recommended Posts

The thing is, you are going to deny anything anyone writes on here with a "Still, it doesn’t provide evidence for atheistic foundations" or "That's equivocation". 

47652[/snapback]

What were the questions in the OP?

Several atheists have answered the questions to how they believe with what is probably their honest opinions. 

47652[/snapback]

What did the questions in the OP ask for, opinion and equivocation or evidence?

If you don't want to hear their opinions than why even start the thread?

47652[/snapback]

I don’t mind hearing your opinion on a subject, and if you want to open a thread to express your unscientific opinion (i.e. bereft of empiricism), by all means, do so. But the OP didn’t ask for mere unsupported opinion did it…

If you don't believe the evidence, then just say "I don't believe it" instead of writing equivocation a dozen times followed by there is no evidence for it. 

47652[/snapback]

If you can provide any evidence to the OP, then by all means, do so (but absolutely none of your posts have done so). You cannot even reconcile your last two sentences. In one you attempt to promulgate an opinion as an evidence, and in the other you say I don’t accept opinion as evidence. You attempt to reconcile the two are logically and rationally fallacious at best.

 

Really you are doing the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and saying "La La La, Equivocation!"  Which really makes me want to take back what I said about no creationists throwing tantrums here. 

47652[/snapback]

So, now, since you have absolutely no cogent answers to the OP, you find baseless and inane troll postings as your only alternative. Don’t you think you time would be better served in attempting to answer the OP?

;) Yeah I know you are a mod and are going to censor what you don't like.  Really proves my own personal theory that most Christians aren't Christlike.  Oh well, getting the ban hammer on Post #3 (oops), maybe it will be a record. :lol:

47652[/snapback]

People only get banned by their own actions. Maybe a perusal of the forum rules would be a good place to get a handle on the reasons for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already said that in and of itself, atheism as a system of beliefs doesn't answer the origins question.

47649[/snapback]

Which I acknowledged martimus. But it is merely an opinion with no substantiation, and in no way answers the questions of the OP. Nor does it, in any real way lend credence to atheistic origins.

 

Hence; where did we come from, and what is our meaning for being here, then, are two questions that the atheist worldview cannot answer with evidentiary substantiation. And these questions cannot even be broached meaningfully without having answer to the atheistic foundations in support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the questions in the OP?

47678[/snapback]

Verbatim:

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?

 

What did the questions in the OP ask for, opinion and equivocation or evidence?

47678[/snapback]

You are right, you did mention you wanted evidence in the original. My apologies.

 

I don’t mind hearing your opinion on a subject, and if you want to open a thread to express your unscientific opinion (i.e. bereft of empiricism), by all means, do so. But the OP didn’t ask for mere unsupported opinion did it…

47678[/snapback]

My question is how scientific can you really be in a forum such as this? Do you want this to be a Google/Copy-Paste arena where we do nothing but cite evidence that others have found? Or would you like at least some responses in our own words and original thoughts about the questions you have asked? I daresay that none of the atheists here do any real scientific work (which means observe, hypothesize or infer, test, and repeat) regarding the origins of the universe. Therefore, the best you are going to get out of us is either opinion or a copy-paste of what someone else has found.

 

If you can provide any evidence to the OP, then by all means, do so (but absolutely none of your posts have done so). You cannot even reconcile your last two sentences. In one you attempt to promulgate an opinion as an evidence, and in the other you say I don’t accept opinion as evidence. You attempt to reconcile the two are logically and rationally fallacious at best.

47678[/snapback]

Like I said above, the best I am going to be able present to you as evidence for my belief is going to be opinion. Do I expect you to accept it as evidence? I would say don't except it at all, I would say dig deeper and discover more for yourself. That's entirely up to you what you do with it. I am neither a cosmologist nor a physicist by profession or hobby. I am however an atheist and was attempting to answer your question to atheists as an atheist.

 

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

A. BBT

Evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/...g.html#evidence

In my own words however, the ones I first learned about where the presence of background radiation and the evidence of an expanding universe. Combine that with my knowledge and other beliefs and that makes me a believer in it. The rest can be found in the link. Is it a cop-out? I guess it could be seen as that, but I would have to say that my belief in my origins have nothing to do with my atheistic beliefs. Before I became an atheist my absolute belief was that everything came from God. Now that I no longer believe in that God I believe BBT is the beginning (of this universe). Yet even if the BBT were disproved tomorrow it would not stop me being an atheist. I did not become an atheist because I started believing in the BBT (although it did help somewhat). Christians have a concrete idea of what their origins are. The same is not true for atheists. Falcone might see differently in terms of origins, but that doesn't make us not atheists because we have differing views on the subject. Xianity cannot do this (to some extent yes). Yes there are guidelines that still remain that cannot be crossed by either, but atheism has a much wider range than Xianity does.

 

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

A. Varies

Evidence: Not applicable

My atheistic worldview (but does not apply to all atheists) is that there is no god or gods that created the universe, that watch over and judge us and that have a plan to end the world at some point in the future. I think our morals come from within us and from the society we live in. Scott stated that these morals all came from the bible. I believe the bible was written by people, so therefore they still came from people. He might believe the bible was written by his god. My retort that is this, society has deemed it immoral to kill witches (and illegal). Yet the bible states that thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

 

Contrast this to Christianity and you have got something else entirely. Similar to comparing a cooking show to a football game (yes the analogy breaks down like all analogies eventually do). A football game is structured, has definite rules, has two sides, has a definite way to quantify victory, while plays vary they are still somewhat fixed, and has a fixed start & end time (super bowl). A cooking show on the other hand is willy nilly in comparison. You can watch a Giants Vs. Chiefs game and they are doing the same thing as the 49's Vs. the Broncos. While Elton Brown is trying to teach you about the benefits of cranberries, Rachael Ray is showing you how to make food fast. The recipes almost always vary in ingredients and preparation style. Also it's a one side deal for the most part (yeah there is Iron Chef and the like, but I am talking more old school). At the end of the game one side is a loser (hell) and the other side is the winner (heaven). At the end of 30 minute meals you only have what she made, maybe someone can use it later, maybe not.

 

As others have stated before and I will reiterate, atheism does not deal with origins. Atheism does not tell us where we began the same way that Xianity does. There is no bible of atheism that says "In the beginning the BB happened".

 

Therefore, I put the evidence for this as Not Applicapable because there are none that apply. Imagine asking me for evidence of my disbelief in UFO's? I would tell you I don't believe in UFO's because the evidence is just not compelling enough. You could show me pictures and give me all sorts of eyewitness accounts, but I just don't believe it for whatever reason. Does that mean I discount the idea that there could be any forms of extraterrestrial life on other planets? Of course not, but I do not believe that they have visited us yet. The same goes for my atheistic beliefs. Do I discount that there could be a god somewhere (or even a super being or beings of some kind)? Of course not, but I do not think that religion gives me enough evidence to believe in any of the gods presented.

 

Another way to think about it, is that I am atheistic towards the Christian god, the same way you are atheistic towards the Muslim god (and as a result the religion). You however fall back on your Christian beliefs as your foundation, I do not. To clarify I am also atheistic against any god, not just the Christian god.

 

You might still say that I am equivocating, but I am presenting my atheistic beliefs the way I believe. They will not be the same as some other atheist such as Falcone. If they are, well that is a bonus and more power to us. If not, that doesn't mean we aren't atheists. Suppose he believes aliens flew by our planet one day, pretended to be gods for a few millennia (thus starting many religions) and then went on their merry way when they got bored. It doesn't conflict with my idea that all religions are man made. Our atheistic beliefs still point to the non-existence of the any god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest martemius

Which I acknowledged martimus. But it is merely an opinion with no substantiation, and in no way answers the questions of the OP. Nor does it, in any real way lend credence to atheistic origins.

 

Hence; where did we come from, and what is our meaning for being here,  then, are two questions that the atheist worldview cannot answer with evidentiary substantiation. And these questions cannot even be broached meaningfully without having answer to the atheistic foundations in support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins question.

47686[/snapback]

Atheists can answer these questions, but the answers aren't inherently part of the atheistic worldview. It's up for each atheist to decide for themselves -- like I said before, an atheist could just as well believe in intelligent design (by a non-supernatural hand) as abiogenesis, although there happens to be preciously few non-religious folk who buy into ID. In and of itself atheism as a system of beliefs doesn't answer these questions -- and if you want you can consider that a failing of atheism, although I don't -- but that doesn't stop an atheist from being able to answer those questions.

 

Atheism isn't a "things work this way" type of belief -- it's only "well, things don't work this one way" -- which doesn't answer how things do work, although it doesn't stop an atheist from answering how things work. His explanation there just wouldn't be a part of the fundamentals of atheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists can answer these questions, but the answers aren't inherently part of the atheistic worldview. 

47722[/snapback]

If that were the case, then the answer would here, or forthcoming. But, seeing that that has not, isn’t currently, nor will be in the foreseeable future, I’m forced to say that you are incorrect on that point. And, the answers are inherently part of everyone’s worldview.

It's up for each atheist to decide for themselves -- like I said before, an atheist could just as well believe in intelligent design (by a non-supernatural hand) as abiogenesis, although there happens to be preciously few non-religious folk who buy into ID.  In and of itself atheism as a system of beliefs doesn't answer these questions -- and if you want you can consider that a failing of atheism, although I don't -- but that doesn't stop an atheist from being able to answer those questions.

47722[/snapback]

It matters not what one believes (materialistically) if they have no empirical evidence to back it up, regardless of their faith in ID or evolution.

One would think that those who claim to believe in science and empiricism, would do all they could to gain knowledge, not run from it by making statements like:

Atheism isn't a "things work this way" type of belief -- it's only "well, things don't work this one way" -- which doesn't answer how things do work, although it doesn't stop an atheist from answering how things work.  His explanation there just wouldn't be a part of the fundamentals of atheism.

47722[/snapback]

The scientist looks for answers, not excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I'll most likely be out of the loop for a few days, as I have to make a trip in bad weather. I'll try to be back on as I can :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest martemius

If that were the case, then the answer would here, or forthcoming. But, seeing that that has not, isn’t currently, nor will be in the foreseeable future, I’m forced to say that you are incorrect on that point. And, the answers are inherently part of everyone’s worldview.

But there isn't one single answer that inherently applies to all atheists. I can tell you my answer, which happens to be the answer of an atheist, namely myself. But it's not the answer of atheism -- which is an important distinction to make.

 

It matters not what one believes (materialistically) if they have no empirical evidence to back it up, regardless of their faith in ID or evolution.

One would think that those who claim to believe in science and empiricism, would do all they could to gain knowledge, not run from it by making statements like:

 

The scientist looks for answers, not excuses.

47732[/snapback]

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that atheists just say one way that nature is not and leave it at that. But that IS all that the fundamental ideas of atheism - in and of itself - say. Most all atheists, myself included, dig further into those questions -- in a process that isn't related to our atheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there isn't one single answer that inherently applies to all atheists. 

47735[/snapback]

Actually, there is, although it does lead to others. Al l atheists say they believe there is no God. They then say there is nothing outside the materialistic. Nothing before we were born, and nothing after we die. But they base this totally on faith, without reason, logic or scientific evidences. Even the probabilities are stacked against them. Yet they dogmatically defend these assertions.

I can tell you my answer, which happens to be the answer of an atheist, namely myself.  But it's not the answer of atheism -- which is an important distinction to make.

47735[/snapback]

I appreciate your candor martimus. And as a former hedonistic atheist I would have agreed with you at one time.

I think you've misunderstood me. 

47735[/snapback]

No, I really don’t think I have. But I will listen to reason. But mostly, I’d like to hear something close to addressing the OP.

I'm not saying that atheists just say one way that nature is not and leave it at that.  But that IS all that the fundamental ideas of atheism - in and of itself - say.  Most all atheists, myself included, dig further into those questions -- in a process that isn't related to our atheism.

47735[/snapback]

Again, I believe you are still over looking the fact that “from nothing, nothing comesâ€ÂÂ. And, at the foundation of atheism seems to loom “nothingâ€ÂÂ. And I don’t mean that in an obstinate and malicious manner. It is more a statement of factual observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verbatim:

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?

You are right, you did mention you wanted evidence in the original. My apologies.

My question is how scientific can you really be in a forum such as this?  Do you want this to be a Google/Copy-Paste arena where we do nothing but cite evidence that others have found?  Or would you like at least some responses in our own words and original thoughts about the questions you have asked?  I daresay that none of the atheists here do any real scientific work (which means observe, hypothesize or infer, test, and repeat) regarding the origins of the universe.  Therefore, the best you are going to get out of us is either opinion or a copy-paste of what someone else has found.

Like I said above, the best I am going to be able present to you as evidence for my belief is going to be opinion.  Do I expect you to accept it as evidence?  I would say don't except it at all, I would say dig deeper and discover more for yourself.  That's entirely up to you what you do with it.  I am neither a cosmologist nor a physicist by profession or hobby.  I am however an atheist and was attempting to answer your question to atheists as an atheist.

 

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

A.  BBT

Evidence:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/...g.html#evidence

In my own words however, the ones I first learned about where the presence of background radiation and the evidence of an expanding universe.  Combine that with my knowledge and other beliefs and that makes me a believer in it.  The rest can be found in the link.  Is it a cop-out?  I guess it could be seen as that, but I would have to say that my belief in my origins have nothing to do with my atheistic beliefs.  Before I became an atheist my absolute belief was that everything came from God.  Now that I no longer believe in that God I believe BBT is the beginning (of this universe).  Yet even if the BBT were disproved tomorrow it would not stop me being an atheist.  I did not become an atheist because I started believing in the BBT (although it did help somewhat).  Christians have a concrete idea of what their origins are.  The same is not true for atheists.  Falcone might see differently in terms of origins, but that doesn't make us not atheists because we have differing views on the subject.  Xianity cannot do this (to some extent yes).  Yes there are guidelines that still remain that cannot be crossed by either, but atheism has a much wider range than Xianity does.

 

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

A.  Varies

Evidence:  Not applicable

My atheistic worldview (but does not apply to all atheists) is that there is no god or gods that created the universe, that watch over and judge us and that have a plan to end the world at some point in the future.  I think our morals come from within us and from the society we live in.  Scott stated that these morals all came from the bible.  I believe the bible was written by people, so therefore they still came from people.  He might believe the bible was written by his god.  My retort that is this, society has deemed it immoral to kill witches (and illegal).  Yet the bible states that thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

 

Contrast this to Christianity and you have got something else entirely.  Similar to comparing a cooking show to a football game (yes the analogy breaks down like all analogies eventually do).  A football game is structured, has definite rules, has two sides, has a definite way to quantify victory, while plays vary they are still somewhat fixed, and has a fixed start & end time (super bowl).  A cooking show on the other hand is willy nilly in comparison.  You can watch a Giants Vs. Chiefs game and they are doing the same thing as the 49's Vs. the Broncos.  While Elton Brown is trying to teach you about the benefits of cranberries, Rachael Ray is showing you how to make food fast.  The recipes almost always vary in ingredients and preparation style. Also it's a one side deal for the most part (yeah there is Iron Chef and the like, but I am talking more old school).  At the end of the game one side is a loser (hell) and the other side is the winner (heaven). At the end of 30 minute meals you only have what she made, maybe someone can use it later, maybe not.

 

As others have stated before and I will reiterate, atheism does not deal with origins. Atheism does not tell us where we began the same way that Xianity does.  There is no bible of atheism that says "In the beginning the BB happened".

 

Therefore, I put the evidence for this as Not Applicapable because there are none that apply.  Imagine asking me for evidence of my disbelief in UFO's?  I would tell you I don't believe in UFO's because the evidence is just not compelling enough.  You could show me pictures and give me all sorts of eyewitness accounts, but I just don't believe it for whatever reason.  Does that mean I discount the idea that there could be any forms of extraterrestrial life on other planets?  Of course not, but I do not believe that they have visited us yet.  The same goes for my atheistic beliefs. Do I discount that there could be a god somewhere (or even a super being or beings of some kind)? Of course not, but I do not think that religion gives me enough evidence to believe in any of the gods presented.

 

Another way to think about it, is that I am atheistic towards the Christian god, the same way you are atheistic towards the Muslim god (and as a result the religion).  You however fall back on your Christian beliefs as your foundation, I do not.  To clarify I am also atheistic against any god, not just the Christian god.

 

You might still say that I am equivocating, but I am presenting my atheistic beliefs the way I believe.  They will not be the same as some other atheist such as Falcone.  If they are, well that is a bonus and more power to us.  If not, that doesn't mean we aren't atheists.  Suppose he believes aliens flew by our planet one day, pretended to be gods for a few millennia (thus starting many religions) and then went on their merry way when they got bored.  It doesn't conflict with my idea that all religions are man made.  Our atheistic beliefs still point to the non-existence of the any god.

47704[/snapback]

Hello menes,

 

I’d like to take more time to read your post, it looks (at first blush) pretty interesting. But, I’ll be gone for a time (I think I mentioned this earlier), so I’ll have to get back with you on this early next week if you don’t mind.

 

I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring or skirting your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Darkness45

I thought I would give my opinions on the subject here. I'll try and be brief (didn't work out too well), especially since I'm not a true atheist.

 

SO…. If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

Well that's a million dollar question. Before the big bang became a respected theory within the scientific community, I don't know if there even was a standard response (curse my young age). But I think that no matter what the answer is, the atheist will always look to nature to try and understand where we came from. And this will be achieved through utilizing the scientific method.

 

Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all. There are several hypotheses with how the big bang started. Ultimately it is an unknown and may always be so. Perhaps many take solace from these hypotheses, one that jumps out at me is from the video on this forum from the 'universe from nothing' thread if you can remember that. In that video some astronomer or physicist talks about how the universe is flat and a flat universe can be created out of nothing due to quantum fluctuations. In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.

 

If you want to discuss the merits of the big bang beyond an abstract state perhaps a new thread is in order. To be brief the main evidence is the cosmic background radiation, the homology of the universe, and redshift with Hubble's equation. There are more subtle evidences, like the distribution of population I and II stars within certain types of galaxies and quasars, but this could be the result of something other than the big bang, but it does co-inside with the big bang theory.

 

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

To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe, scientists can do this for the origin of life as well as the origin of the universe. From the big bang galaxies formed with only stars, no planets. Our Sun is a second or third generation star. How this happened is best explained through the condensation theory, similar to it's precursor the solar nebular hypothesis. From that we have the Earth, and from there abiogenesis and then evolution until life evolved to form us on one of the branches on the evolution tree of life.

 

Again, if you want to discuss these various scientific theories in any detail I suggest a new thread, as it could get cluttered quite fast. For the basic evidence of abiogenesis there is the synthesis of simple cell membranes and trapping amino acids (which form naturally, and from what we know of pre-biotic Earth there were plenty) inside the cell membrane as well as synthesizing several RNA/DNA nucleotides in the lab. There are problems and questions in this field to be sure, but this branch is in its infancy and scientists are learning more and getting closer all the time.

 

For the basic evidence of evolution there is the fossil record, we have yet to find a confirmed, out of place fossil, like bunnies in the Cambrian. The smooth gradient of fossils showing gradual change. There is also DNA evidence, which many contend that even without the fossil record the DNA evidence is enough to prove evolution. Genetics show the similarities and differences within species and see how closely related two or more species are. Life started out in the water, eventually moved onto land with creatures like Tiktaalik, then reptiles, then mammals, and eventually us. Some human evolution evidence is skeletal remains of Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, archaic H. sapiens, modern H. sapien.

 

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

At the heart of atheism is really a disbelief in a God(s). It is neither a philosophy nor a theology. I would say the strongest evidence for atheism comes from the fact we have never objectively verified anything beyond the natural. And psychology has shown us that eye-witness accounts are unreliable as well as our own memory. Really, atheism relies on the absence of positive evidence for a God.

 

In philosophy perhaps the closest thing to atheism is philosophical naturalism, which has been discussed in a previous thread. For any who might not know, philosophical naturalism is essentially a world view in that there is nothing beyond the natural, no gods, goddess, magic, or any supernatural entities or phenomena. Again, the evidence for this is the lack of objective verifiable evidence of the supernatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all.

47760[/snapback]

That’s all well and good, but positing a “natural, unknown process(es) that started it all†is opinion, a priory thought, and presupposition; therefore explains nothing at all. It’s basically a “faith†statement. Further, where did this natural process come from? “Whoâ€ÂÂ, or “what†started it? Where did “Whoâ€ÂÂ, or “what†get the materials to start it?

 

This leads to the conclusion that the questions still have not been close to being answered, and atheism still has been found bereft of foundation.

There are several hypotheses with how the big bang started. Ultimately it is an unknown and may always be so. Perhaps many take solace from these hypotheses, one that jumps out at me is from the video on this forum from the 'universe from nothing' thread if you can remember that. In that video some astronomer or physicist talks about how the universe is flat and a flat universe can be created out of nothing due to quantum fluctuations. In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.

47760[/snapback]

Again, this is an atheistic “faith†based opinion. And I have no problem with atheistic “faith†based opinions; but they are not science, just opinion.

If you want to discuss the merits of the big bang beyond an abstract state perhaps a new thread is in order.

47760[/snapback]

If you read back through, you’ll notice that I brought this up a number of times. In fact, many of the points you’re forwarding here are better suited for a different thread. And, I believe they would be fruitful threads with good discussion.

To be brief the main evidence is the cosmic background radiation, the homology of the universe, and redshift with Hubble's equation. There are more subtle evidences, like the distribution of population I and II stars within certain types of galaxies and quasars, but this could be the result of something other than the big bang, but it does co-inside with the big bang theory.

47760[/snapback]

This evidence works just as well for the Creation origins, and in no way assists the atheists origins foundation.

 

To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe,

47760[/snapback]

A natural “only†universe is an assumption, and therefore ill equipped as an explanation for the atheists origins foundation. As is the balance of your post (other than your appeal to new threads, which is a good idea), and therefore, I didn’t want to waste time (which I don’t have right now) answering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A natural “only†universe is an assumption, and therefore ill equipped as an explanation for the atheists origins foundation. As is the balance of your post (other than your appeal to new threads, which is a good idea), and therefore, I didn’t want to waste time (which I don’t have right now) answering it.

47798[/snapback]

A natural "only" universe isn't an assumption. Natural phenomena are witnessed and studied all the time. Evidence for natural phenomena is abundant. A universe containing or beginning with the supernatural is an assumption. There is no evidence for supernatural phenomena, and when alleged supernatural phenomena is studied a natural explanation is found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think that no matter what the answer is, the atheist will always look to nature to try and understand where we came from. And this will be achieved through utilizing the scientific method.

47760[/snapback]

Hi Darkness 45,

 

Two things are clear to me from your post. One, you don't want to get bogged down arguing the evidence, so I won't. The other is that you rely on the logical methods of science for your worldview. That's fine.

 

However, for one who claims this evidential logical approach, your post is full of logical inconsistencies.

 

You are "looking to nature" for your answers. Nature is everything and every phenomena by definition. As an atheist your philosophy is clearly philosophical naturalism. That's fine also.

 

However, you really need to understand, that the only reason that you cannot see evidence for God, is that you have defined it/Him out of your logical process. If God performed a phenomenon, the phenomenon would be natural under your philosophy. It is simply a matter of definition.

 

Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all.

Yes, that is usually what atheists would say. Now just think about what you are saying for a moment. How can a natural, unknown process(es) start the Big Bang if nature did not exist before the BB? Now remember, nature is all material things and all the phenomena within the known universe. That is the definition. This is a true logical dilemma for you to deal with, and it is not a false dilemma.

 

In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.

Yes, and the theists makes this claim based on faith. Likewise the atheist must make his claim on faith in this "unknown" entity. Faith is belief in something that is unseen and unobservable. If you as an atheist believe that something started the BB then you have faith in that something.

 

To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe, scientists can do this for the origin of life as well as the origin of the universe.

Again, you are clearly affirming your reliance on philosophical naturalism to provide all the answers. That's OK. But it requires faith.

 

There are problems and questions in this field to be sure, but this branch is in its infancy and scientists are learning more and getting closer all the time.

Again in the above statement, you are exhibiting your faith.

 

For the basic evidence of evolution there is the fossil record, we have yet to find a confirmed, out of place fossil, like bunnies in the Cambrian.

I hope you will learn that this is a true logical fallacy of false dilemma. We also do not find bunnies in the middle of the oceans or large lakes. Why? Geography, not Geology. You see, all the Cambrian creatures are aquatic. Bunnies generally don't live in water. The answer to you false dilemma is one of location, not strata.

 

At the heart of atheism is really a disbelief in a God(s). It is neither a philosophy nor a theology.

Well certainly it is not a theology. And technically, you are correct that it is not a philosophy. However, it is the philosophy of naturalism which leads to the disbelief in gods. So the worldview of philosophical naturalism brings the conclusion of atheism. But I have shown you above how irrational that is, because by definition, nature does not exist until after/during the BB.

 

I would say the strongest evidence for atheism comes from the fact we have never objectively verified anything beyond the natural.

Again, this is simply a matter of definition. You have chosen to define everything and every phenomenon as natural. There is no possibility of the supernatural by definition. Theists do not accept this definition.

 

And psychology has shown us that eye-witness accounts are unreliable as well as our own memory.

Really? Do you realize what you are saying? Every scientific experiment is an eye-witness account. Every scientific experiment relies on the scientist's memory. Every peer reviewed paper is eye witness testimony. So by your very own logic, your faith in philosophical naturalism is unreliable. I agree.

 

Again, the evidence for this is the lack of objective verifiable evidence of the supernatural.

And again, the only reason you cannot see the evidence is you have defined it out.

 

Let me give you and example. If I ask you to give me the answer to 2+2, what would you say?

 

Wait, I haven't defined the parameters of your answer yet. The answer cannot be 4. Now I have given you the definition of parameters on your answer.

 

Now certainly, you can provide me with a myriad of answers here, but none of them would be right, because you can't answer 4.

 

This is what philosophical naturalism does. If nature is all that there is, and all that is done, then by definition there is no possibility of the supernatural. Hence, you don't see any evidence of God. He is "4". Your philosophy prevents you from seeing the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent...

 

Gotta think outside the box.

 

Peace

47821[/snapback]

Mastering equivocation and avoiding plain implications by pandering to absurdity rather than allowing an example to be used based on its plainest sense is truly a deceptive art form, isn't it?

 

It's sad knowing how many equivocal arguments we have to wade through with atheists when only a small minority are actually meant as witty levity (which I may give to Jason78 in this case because of past interactions) but still the bulk however, is meant to serve as intellectual distractions to sway the inattentive. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To apply this to what we are talking about though, I think that sometimes a creationist thinks an evolutionist is equivocating and really the evolutionist is still trying to explain using his base.

47829[/snapback]

I've been looking for this base as long as I've been interacting with atheists. Can you please enlighten us with the foundational truism of atheists so we can examine it? Please don't cop out with the lame 'Lack of belief' bit because we are looking for the base. You know the foundational principle that the truth of atheism hinges on so it can be tested to see if it actually makes sense of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest martemius

It would appear that you guys don't really understand the basic tenets of atheism. I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that you guys don't really understand the basic tenets of atheism.  I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

47848[/snapback]

Right, you don't believe in God, or gods, but that still doesn't change the fact the majority of you hold the same World Veiw. You cannot escape the obvious. Try as you may, you will fail each and everytime. Why? Because you have blatantly shown that your World Veiw is almost 99.9% exactly the same as other Atheist.

 

If you say that the only thing you believe in is... a none belief in God, or gods, then you are trying to make the claim that you never think about or share the same views as anyone.

 

We understand what an Atheist is, that you do not believe in God or gods. The fact remains though, that the majority of you hold the EXACT same world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods. That they automatically don't believe in anything else. Which is what they are trying to get at. Strangely.

 

Problem is...

 

1. 99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution

2. 99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang

3. 99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

 

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest martemius

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods.  That they automatically don't believe in anything else.  Which is what they are trying to get at.  Strangely.

 

Problem is...

 

1.  99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution

2.  99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang

3.  99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

 

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

47853[/snapback]

But that was never claimed. Atheists can believe whatever they want, but atheism, in and of itself, only professes a disbelief in the supernatural -- it doesn't say anything for origins or science or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that was never claimed.  Atheists can believe whatever they want, but atheism, in and of itself, only professes a disbelief in the supernatural -- it doesn't say anything for origins or science or anything like that.

47857[/snapback]

Okay, but that still doesn't negate the fact that 99.9% of atheist share the exact same World Veiw. So, your point is absolutely moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods.  That they automatically don't believe in anything else.  Which is what they are trying to get at.  Strangely.

 

Problem is...

 

1.  99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution

2.  99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang

3.  99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

 

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

47853[/snapback]

 

Martemius is trying to dispute this over and over... trying to disprove it, but unfortunately that would be impossible.

 

I would then have to ask the question: Martemius, why in the world are you trying to claim that you have absolutely no World Veiw, as it is shared with millions of Atheist world wide???????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martemius is trying to dispute this over and over... trying to disprove it, but unfortunately that would be impossible.

 

I would then have to ask the question:  Martemius, why in the world are you trying to claim that you have absolutely no World Veiw, as it is shared with millions of Atheist world wide???????????

47861[/snapback]

 

Also, Martemius why are you trying to make the illogical claim that Atheist do not share the same World Veiws, because they do????

 

Why would anyone try to disprove what is taken as common knowledge??? The connection is simply obvious... plain as day obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all atheists have the same world view, this is just pure ignorance on your part. When it comes to science, most atheists agree with each other, this is true. But this really doesn't say much, as most theists agree with these atheists. When you get out of science atheists vary dramatically in their beliefs and world views.

47864[/snapback]

When it comes to science, that's what I strictly said Darkness and YOU KNOW THAT!!!

 

I would like an apology from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods.  That they automatically don't believe in anything else.  Which is what they are trying to get at.  Strangely.

 

Problem is...

 

1.  99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution

2.  99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang

3.  99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

 

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

47853[/snapback]

Look Darkness LOOK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest martemius

Martemius is trying to dispute this over and over... trying to disprove it, but unfortunately that would be impossible.

 

I would then have to ask the question:  Martemius, why in the world are you trying to claim that you have absolutely no World Veiw, as it is shared with millions of Atheist world wide???????????

47861[/snapback]

I'm not proposing that I have no world view, or that I have no opinion on the validity of the standard models of cosmology or biology -- I'm saying that they're very much distinct from my atheism (as they are for all atheists).

 

And I might suggest that the specific views that you mention, such as that the big bang actually happened, are the logical result of scientific inquiry that isn't directed towards validating a pre-determined answer, such as that god did it all 6000 years ago (of course, a moderate percentage of religious people accept the big bang, evolution, etc. too -- I'm not denying that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms