In regards to atheism.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Oct 15, 2015.

  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,776
    You haven't answered the questions.
    Never mind, I know you can't answer them without altering your world view.

    Anyway thanks for the discussion. I really did enjoy it, and have developed respect for you.

    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,024
    They are both extraordinary, but one of them involves a wizard.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,776
    Which one?

    jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,580
    Enough.
     
  8. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    God is a made up concept.
     
  9. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Until you can give substantial evidence in favor of your god, a timeless, omnipotent, omniscience, and omni-benevolent being will continue to be a substantially extraordinary claim you pulled out of your ass. Heck, I don't see, or notice, any gods on my daily basis.

    Second, something cannot come from nothing as the mere definition of philosophical nothing negates the possibility of any thing coming from it without me saying, "Hey, that wasn't nothing, it was something because something came from it, it just acted like it had no known properties." It is an illogical concept that has no baring on our own physical reality due to its contradictory and ill defined ways. Even talking about nothing implies it is something when it really isn't. How can this concept be in anyway meaningful in reality?
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    This reminds me of the paradox of The Smallest Interesting Number.

    Many mathematicians treat numbers like pets, and numberphiles know that almost every number has something interesting about it (to a numberphile).

    6 is the Smallest Perfect Number. 65,537 is the smallest known Fermat Prime, etc.

    There are interesting things about the first few hundred, if the not first few thousand numbers.

    But at some point, there has to be a number that has nothing interesting about it.
    It would be The Smallest Uninteresting Number.
    Which would be interesting.
    Which would immediately disqualify it from being The Smallest Uninteresting Number.
    Meaning the next highest uninteresting number would now be the The Smallest Uninteresting Number.
    And so, on.
    Thus, the entire set of natural numbers is interesting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,179
    What / who is the smallest uninteresting god?
     
  12. wellwisher

    Messages:
    5,113
    This is not true. If we took two waves that are 180 degrees out phase they will cancel. The result of this wave addition is no wave or nothing. Look up wave addition. If we placed a partition, in the stillness of no apparent waves, two waves will appear from the nothing. The partition has to be of a substance that is different from the medium of the waves.

    We live in space-time, therefore the partition needed to make our modern universe, from nothing, would need to come from something, other than from space-time. Characteristics like eternal and omnipresent come to mind as partition solutions, since these attributes are not possible in space-time, and therefore would be a possible partition.


    Beyond that, not all religions worship deities. Buddhism is a good example. Buddha found a path leading toward enlightenment. This is called a religion, even though it has no deities connected to his method. There something more fundamental, behind religion, which allows both options; deity and non deity based, to be both called religions. Both come from the same places in the brain.

    Atheism is a religion, in the image of Buddhism. Atheism, like Buddhism is not centered on deities, but both have methods leading to enlightenment. Instead of deep medication to discover the inner self, the atheist is more shallow for the ego, with the method based on science and reason. The Age of Enlightenment, in science, was about science seeking logical and natural explanation for nature, apart from the older approaches of science, like alchemy and astrology.

    These new rational explanations started out being worshipped like gods in their day; theory that was thought to be universal and infallible. But as time goes on, new data makes these pillars of the method, obsolete; fallible and limited. Then new gods or pillars are born, infallible; rational polytheism.

    If I was to insult the big bang theory or evolution, this will be heresy to many of the atheists. I have been excommunicated, many times, for challenging these pillar of their methods for enlightenment. That is not being rational. Because of emotions, when in their churches; science forums, one needs to respect their customs and their gods/pillars, which are thought to be infallible and universal; omnipresent and omniscience laws of nature.

    A true non-religious person, in the sense of not worshipping infallible theoretical deities, is someone who can challenge these gods/pillars. The nature of atheism are their gods, which are not called gods, but which assumed infallible like a god, wear out over time, since they are not real gods. They are also not real pillars that can even lead to enlightenment since they will change, while enlightenment is a final state.
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,179
    A non religious person is just that, non religious

    I'm unclear how you could have a FAKE non religious person

    not worshipping infallible theoretical deities

    They don't

    someone who can challenge these gods/pillars

    All of them do all the time

    The nature of atheism are their gods, which are not called gods

    Because they are not

    but which assumed infallible like a god

    They are not assumed infallible and are not compared to god

    wear out over time, since they are not real gods

    They adapt over time based on observations and evidence and never ever claimed to be gods

    They are also not real pillars that can even lead

    They never claimed to be

    enlightenment since they will change

    Yes adapt to observations and evidence

    while enlightenment is a final state

    Above does not compute

    en·light·en·ment
    \in-ˈlī-tən-mənt, en-\
    noun
    • : the state of having knowledge or understanding : the act of givingsomeone knowledge or understanding
    • : a movement of the 18th centurythat stressed the belief that science and logic give people more knowledge and understanding than tradition and religion
    • Buddhism : a final spiritual state marked by the absence of desire or suffering
    Full Definition
    • 1 : the act or means of enlightening : the state of being enlightened
    • 2 capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism — used with the
    • 3 Buddhism : a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering
    First use: 1654

    Mirriam-Webster
     
  14. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Apart from Buddhism being a religion and still being atheistic, this whole post seemed to be a complete straw man. There are numerous problems and unknowns in the big bang theory or evolution and the thing is, if a person decides to defend them as if they are infallible then it is a problem with their mindset. The whole scientific method is mostly based on NOT taking these theories as ever complete, un-questionable truth.

    You are a jackass for trying to comment to me without thinking.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    Nicely, done. This is an excellent exemplar of the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

    Destructive interference demonstrates a situation where something that appears to be nothing superficially, is, in fact, something.

    That area where there appears to be no wave, contains the energy of two waves, just with opposite amplitude. The fact that you can't see it is immaterial.
    The fact that two light patterns emerge from it is patent indication that there is energy there.

    Compare to a guitar string, a similar dynamic, but easier to visualize. A vibrating guitar string has nodes of zero amplitude. But the fact that the string does not move up and down at a given point does not mean nothing is happening there. The energy of the vibration is travelling lengthwise through that point. It simply doesn't manifest as a translational movement.

    Well done, wellwisher.
     
  16. wellwisher

    Messages:
    5,113
    In your example of the nodes in the guitar string, the vibration is traveling lengthwise in 1-D at the node, but not in 2-D as a wave. If we extrapolate this with energy waves, at nodes we should get something analogous to a monopole; 1-D affect, which is theorized to be possible, but which we cannot seem to find.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    Every EM wave has an amplitude. One point in every cycle, the amplitude crosses the zero mark.

    Your idea of waves appearing from nothing is tantamount to saying each and every crest of every single cycle of every single wave appears from the nothingness that exists when the wave's amplitude is zero.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,990
    No. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.

    The scientific method has nothing to do with atheism. For example, you'll find any number of believers in "new age" nonsense who are atheists but who have little, if any, knowledge of or respect for the scientific method.

    No. Nobody has ever worshipped the scientific method as a god.

    You speak as if the big bang theory or the theory of evolution are articles of faith for atheists. They are not. Once again, there's no lack of atheists out there who disbelieve in evolution or the big bang theory.

    The only thing atheists can be guaranteed to agree on is that gods (probably) do not exist.

    I think you're confusing atheism with scientism. They are not the same thing. And neither is a religion.
     
  19. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,179
    Agreed

    Unfortunately as I understand the situation, in past times as Science was finding its feet and disproving many long held beliefs, Science was touted as the new religion

    It never was/is

    Sometimes my thought bubbles go to what would a Science church look like

    Would Science priest dress up in fancy garb?

    Who would be the equivalent to pope?

    What would the signal to indicate a new Chief Who Knows All has been elected?

    What could they offer to those who put money in the collection plate?

    Boy do us atheist miss out on a lot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    The more accurate term would be the antidote to religion.

    Good case in point here:
    Science doesn't just substitute existing ritual with a new ritual; it dispenses with ritual. That's why it's an antidote, not just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
     
  21. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,179
    Was thinking more a church of Science in competition to god churches

    Our symbol would be 8 in repose

    INFINITE


    I think a few rituals wouldn't go amiss

    Think of acolytes

    Blue robes for the sea

    Black robes for Black Holes

    White for clouds

    Green plants

    Brown Earth

    Rainbow all inclusive

    helping BIGBANG

    (Boss In Genreal Building Atheist New Greatness)

    I asked before what could church of Science give those who donate to the collection plate?

    Then a thought bubble came

    Not exactly a confession box but a place where congregation members go and get the latest gadgets to test (gadgets donates by commercial interests)

    Counter to the white coated model who tries to tell you science gives you whiter teeth and all your dreams come true

    Church of Science could organise its own holidays

    Promote its own scientist to the equivalent of saints providing they made 3 discoveries

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,776
    Time is basically a measurement of the intervals between sequenced events of matter, witnessed by a conscious agents trapped in material reality. Anything that gives rise to the material world is necessarily timeless. The rest of your list follows. What is extraordinary about that?

    jan.
     
  23. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,776
    People may not construct alters, burn incence, or chant mantras. But they rely on scientists claiming to hold true to the scientific method to justify their worldview. Anything that is outside of their view is considered pseudo, quackery, or as you chose, nonsense.

    Of course acting rational is integral to your public character, so it's not going to come across. or have the common characteristics of belief in a diety, or religion, in the way religion is viewed.
    But it comes out in other ways.

    I can probably agree with that atheist don't believe in the BB, because it favours God. But can you show me where atheists don't believe in the theory of evolution (not just questioning)?

    Is the ''probably'' fixed. Or does it vary amongst individuals?
    Why include it at all?

    jan.
     

Share This Page