The Limitations of Atheism.

Look here people...............life is precious.............to those, who are willing to live it!

When I'm on the highway, & some some SOB is blocking traffic in front of me, then I may consider them to be walking paper targets...............but thats frustration & anger, I don't act upon it........too much.

By accident or not.........Charles Darwin is the Science Father apparent, for his observations of the natural Earth (from the observers point of view), reflect EXACTLY every thing, which can conceived by the mammalian brain of the handy man *********habilus*********

SING A SONG OF JUBILATION, FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS arte clear........patterns.........patterns.......patterns..........


FRACTAL GEOMETRY************

- And what is this God! Defy his existance!

- To a student of reasonable scientifica, I dare thee to defy god.
- Who is this GOD supposed.........who lays claim of creation upon the universe!

- To the student of.......,; release all outside interruptions of self existance.

- Go into the deep Woods, away from the masses of confusion............Sit in quite calmness, in the middle of wooded pines on the mountain, with the wind blowing, & the coyotes howling (barely `1/64 mile away! ! !

- Look in to the sky, on a moonless night, and see the stars................

- Forget about the animalistic aspects of humanity!

- See only the stars. See only the possibilities.

- See oneself ((like Darwin) an observer). Maybe right in ones observation, or maybe wrong. What is important is to recognize...............that one is only an observer. A STUDENT OF UNDERSTANDING & LEARNING(and ALL students make mistakes).

- This is why people like us cannot rest with the comforted knowledge, as fed by the mainstream media & science magazines, knowing that there is so much more...........If we only learn to open our minds. And for all you wonderful atheists, open your souls (no I didn't tear my ass on that one)!

- ****************I KNOW that I have found the site ( with the kind of people) that I have been looking for..........Damn! ! ! ! awEsome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where have you people been ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Capable, unthreatened, reasonable.........thinking..........learning & communicating people!

FOR THE FRACTION OF READING, THAT I HAVE DONE SO FAR, I HAVE DECIDED THAT EXOSCIENCE IS THE SITE!

This is where the ideas of technological acheivement in the future will be developed. Not some group of government granted ass kissers, making up names within the cosmos such as BIG WHOOSH!.......JESUS! ! ! !

Interactive argument, communication, & a lot of aggravation........GOD......right or wrong, it's NOT worth killing each other over. Even God would say that! Those who kill others, in the name of God......insult GOD!
U N D E R S T A N D I N G I S D E V I N E !

[This message has been edited by jehovah, the almighty god (edited December 13, 2000).]
 
Ok J, if you calm down a bit and make more sense I suspect you'll do just fine, otherwise I think the rest us might have a slight problem.
 
Originally posted by Bowser:
By definition, you can't go very far with it:

Atheism - "The doctrine that there is no God"
Click to expand...

Yup, truth, death is the end.


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 14, 2000).]
 
Cris,

"Yup, truth, death is the end."

Hmm, so much for the lump of animated meat.

------------------
It's all very large.
 
synaesthesia and Tiassa,

There isn't time for a thoughtful response to your posts. Maybe after Christmas.

Best wishes.

------------------
It's all very large.
 
Originally posted by Bowser:
Cris,

"Yup, truth, death is the end."

Hmm, so much for the lump of animated meat.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

That is why we must make use of our ingenuity and use science to find answers to the disease of aging, improve the quality of our lives, use psychology to discover our reasons for fear and anger, to use genetics and technology to help us evolve, and to use all of science to help us understand the universe and how it was formed. We must first begin to properly understand our environment and ourselves. After that we can then begin to create a purpose for ourselves, both as individuals and as a human race.

Until we can achieve some semblance of organization and accurate knowledge we will appear haphazard, and our lives and society will be largely meaningless. We are just at the beginning. We have yet to reach a point where we can define and create a purpose.

The theist approach is fatalistic; humans are seen as transitory, a short phase before heaven or hell where one stays for eternity. There is no incentive for theists to improve conditions on Earth, they might give the topic lip service, but in the end they believe that God and heaven are the real objectives, and that humans have eternal souls so why try to solve the aging problem on Earth. The theist short-term objective is physical death, the gateway to heaven.

The atheist view is that we must work hard to survive. Death is something to fight against. To survive means effort. The optimistic view of real hope.

The theist view is to give up and die so we can meet God. Death is welcomed, the fatalist attitude, and the end of life on earth.

Cris
 
Question. When looking at things through an atheist worldview what are the initial assumptions? Do you assume no gods exist or do you simply lack belief in them? And, if you simply lack belief in them how does this change any of your views from one in which you believe they do not exist? I am failing to see the diffrence. Its a veiw negating gods either way is it not? Dumb it down for this city boy...

Peace,
Vinnie
 
Vinnie,

Ok that isn’t too difficult.

A positive belief in something requires proof for the belief to be rational.

It is generally considered not possible to prove that something does not exist. A positive belief that claims that God does not exist would be considered irrational which is not acceptable to most atheists.

Note that atheists claim that religious beliefs are equally irrational since no proofs can be offered for the existence of a God.

To have a lack of belief in something is not the same as saying that the something does not exist. If I were to state that I have observed a flying pink elephant, you would expect me to show some evidence before you believed my claim. So until I show some proof you would be quite right to say that you do not believe my claim. But you wouldn’t know for sure because you would not be able to prove me wrong. The result is that you will not know whether there are such things as flying pink elephants or not – you would not have proof one way or the other. Such a conclusion is fully rational and reasonable. Probability is another issue – which we can skip for now.

The case for God is the same argument. Atheists simply say that they do not believe, or have a lack of belief in a God, because no proof has been offered. Atheists simply do not know whether a God exists or not.

To answer your question more directly: To have a positive belief in non-existence is irrational. To not believe is rational where proof is not available.

Show me proof and I’ll believe.

Hope that helps.

Cris



[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 16, 2000).]
 
"It is generally considered not possible to prove that something does not exist. "

You mean that old impossibilty of proving a negative rubbish?

This sentence does not contain any grammatical flaws.

Did I just prove a negative or, as you put it, a positive disproving the existence of something?

"Note that atheists claim that religious beliefs are equally irrational since no proofs can be offered for the existence of a God."

I think that would be more accurately worded as, "Note that atheists [possibly adding in the word "some" before atheists] claim that religious beliefs are equally irrational since [inserting "they believe"] no proofs can be offered for the existence of a God." It could even be more accurate is one added "erroneous" in between "they" and "believe." ;)

"To have a lack of belief in something is not the same as saying that the something does not exist. If I were to state that I have observed a flying pink elephant, you would expect me to show some evidence before you believed my claim. So until I show some proof you would be quite right to say that you do not believe my claim. But you wouldn’t know for sure because you would not be able to prove me wrong. The result is that you will not know whether there are such things as flying pink elephants or not – you would not have proof one way or the other. Such a conclusion is fully rational and reasonable. Probability is another issue – which we can skip for now."

I understand all that. What about when devising some sort of philosophical construct while being categorized as "lacking belief in God." When atheists formulate a worldview how do they view morality? If you lack belief in God the most logical conclusion, IMO, is to view the world primarily through scientific means. How does morality fit in? It goes back to chapter 3 of my book. I may have to change all the places where I put in "atheist" to something different but the logic seems to still stand. It definately applies to someone who says there is no God but should that not, despite your beliefs, or lack thereof, still tell that certain beliefs require a God? It seems to be just a word game. Atheism isn't as I have made it but how does that change what I stated on morality and the futility of thought? Do you understand what I am getting at? If not I'll try to make it clearer.

Peace,
Vinnie
 
Vinnie,

You sound a little tired, you are not making as much sense as I have come to expect of you. But I’ll do my best to give an answer, but I’m not entirely sure I understand your question.

Other than a lack of belief in a god (weak atheism) or a belief that a god does not exist (strong atheism), there is no other reliable connection between atheists. There is no universal answer to any question put to atheists that does not discuss the issue of the existence of gods. For example: The morality of an atheistic serial killer is very different to the morality of an atheistic charity worker.

So it is not possible to provide you with a worldview of atheists or to describe the morality of atheists in generalities. You much ask each atheist individually and collate the possibly millions of different views.

All I can do here is start the process by providing you with my personal views as an atheist, and I’m not even sure that I am a typical atheist.

Ouch! That is going to be a long list. Try asking me specific questions, on morality for example, that you consider important to you, and I’ll provide answers as honestly as I can? But note that my answers will only be relevant for me and cannot be reasonably applied to any other atheist.

I want to give you an answer here, and I have just read your post again, and I’m still not quite sure how best to answer. Please try again.

Take care
Cris
 
"This sentence does not contain any grammatical flaws. Did I just prove a negative or, as you put it, a positive disproving the existence of something?"

We know that it contains no grammatical errors a priori because it follows defined rules of english grammar. We do not define the existence of God.

Furthermore, I cannot even exclude the possibility that mutually contradictory Gods exist. There is no way of doing such a thing because god is in the realm of the nominal. We can only prove or disprove phenomenal realities and even those are subject to the uncertainty principal.
 
Concerning negatives and proofs:

A negative can indeed be proven, both in the nomenal and the phenomenal domains. Every time we disprove a theory, we are proving a negative -- namely, a proposition stating that the theory is not true.

The real question is, what are we trying to prove? If Vinnie thinks there is positive evidence to indicate the existence of God, the the first thing I'd ask is: "what evidence?" If the "evidence" is already explained by established theories that do not mention God, that would make Vinnie's argument rather empty -- wouldn't it?

<hr>

Concerning atheism and morality:

Most would agree that to an atheist an objective world-view is the only acceptable world-view. This implies that a genuine atheist will choose science as a guide. And while physics or biochemistry may not provide much moral guidance, things like sociology, psychology and ecology do.

In general, there are two contrasting approaches to life. The first is geared toward maximizing one's personal good at everyone else's cost. The alternative is aimed at maximizing the common good (and by implication, one's own good, if not to as high a degree.)

The first proposal is attractive at first glance, but fails miserably the moment you bump into someone else who shares your philosophy (you'll probably end up trying to kill each other, which will ultimately make neither of you very happy.) The second proposal is much more acceptable, since if everyone followed it, life would be simply great. So, if one were to make up laws that mandate behavior at large, one would aim to (through those laws) maximize common good. Rather unsurprisingly, one would then end up with a code that is not too dissimilar from the kinds of codes adopted by modern developed countries.

This is a pretty dispassionate argument for morality from an atheistic viewpoint. Of course, we are not dispassionate beings, so our emotions enter the picture as well. It is no coincidence that we like to cohere with others around us -- by evolution, we are social creatures. So it is little surprise that laws aimed at the common good also often evoke that warm and fuzzy feeling.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Boris, it's good to see you back.

"A negative can indeed be proven, both in the nomenal and the phenomenal domains. Every time we disprove a theory, we are proving a negative -- namely, a proposition stating that the theory is not true."

I meant to "prove" in an absolute sense, ie. the kind of proof that theists expect atheists to provide. Even pointing out logical impossibilities doesn't prove that the christian God doesn't exist, since he is of the noumenal realm. (How does that go... "the ways of the wise are foolishness to God"?) All that is really required is belief.

Regards,
Synaesthesia
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Franklin
 
Syn (may I call you syn?),

The reason we (atheists) can't prove God doesn't exist, is because we aren't given any concrete assertion to disprove. See, the theists play a cute game. They say, "disprove my idea to me." You ask, "what is your idea?" And they say, "well, it's <u>my</u> idea, isn't it, so how the hell could you understand it unless you shared it?" See, if they told you something specific, like "[blank] happens because God does [blank] and [blank], followed by [blank]" (fill in the blanks) -- then you could actually have some ammunition to shoot them down with. But they really don't want to be shot down; they'd rather float up there somewhere (don't know exactly where, haven't been there myself, but certainly out of reason's sight.)

P.S. Yep, I'm back -- that is until I get sick of this and leave again... ;) Thanks for the wellcome though.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Boris--

Welcome back ... for however long. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Boris,

"The reason we (atheists) can't prove God doesn't exist, is because we aren't given any concrete assertion to disprove."

Hmm, like God created the heavens and the Earth? Maybe "God" is a though much like anything else we experience in life? "We think, therefor he is?"



------------------
It's all very large.
 
Tell me, who here feels pain, hunger, lust, anger, joy, sadness and all of the other human experiences which exist but have no physical properties? Can we bottle those THINGS as we can water?

Is it possible for one to see brown when many others see green?

------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser,

I think all those sensations are the result of hormonal, chemical, and electrical changes in the brain. In that sense they are very physical.

I don't know about switching colors but I know that there are those that can hear colors. There are recorded cases where due to some interesting sensory 'cross-overs' in the brain people hear what they see. The subjects are quite normal otherwise.

Cris
 
Bowser,

Boris,
"The reason we (atheists) can't prove God doesn't exist, is because we aren't given any concrete assertion to disprove."

Hmm, like God created the heavens and the Earth? Maybe "God" is a though much like anything else we experience in life? "We think, therefor he is?"
Click to expand...

God created the heavens and the earth? As far as I know, the heavens are just a thin veil of gas mostly emitted by Earth's volcanoes, reprocessed and oxygen-enriched by earth life and held close to the surface by gravity, while being protected from solar wind erosion by the magnetosphere. The earth is a ball of dirt that coalesced, along with a number of other celestial bodies, from the solar system proplyd. So... Where's God in all this, may I ask?

God is just a thought allright. Kinda like tooth fairies and flying purple people eaters (and yes, absolutely as childish.) By the way, a lot of "us" think about the literal Hell with fire and brimstone to boot. Does that mean the literal hell, "therefor", "is"?

Tell me, who here feels pain, hunger, lust, anger, joy, sadness and all of the other human experiences which exist but have no physical properties? Can we bottle those THINGS as we can water?
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "no physical properties"? And as far as bottling goes, can we bottle spacetime as we can water? Does that imply that spacetime is supernatural?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top