Atheists, what do you believe in?

Theism is derived thru accounts of interactions that offer an explanation for
mans survival in a hostile environment. It has traditionally been accepted as
the truth thru the ages. But less and less are these traditions accepted with
the passing of time.

Atheism is a simple minded choice that bans all of it.
It has all the ingredients of major malfunction.

originally posted by: randyvs

Theism is derived thru accounts of interactions that offer an explanation for
mans survival in a hostile environment. It is traditionally been accepted as the truth
thru time. But less and less are these traditions accepted with the passing of time.

Atheism is a simple minded choice that bans all of it.
It has all the ingredients of major malfunction.

Nice opinion!

Completely wrong, but still a nice opinion.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Completely wrong

And you are welcome to your opinion.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TerryDon79

Completely wrong

And you are welcome to your opinion.

Your definition of atheism is wrong. You made the definition out of your opinion. Nothing is "banned" to an atheist.

It's funny how it's ALWAYS the religious that are unaccepting of atheists, agnostics and other religions, but expects everyone else's o be accepting of them.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Your definition of atheism is wrong. You made the definition out of your opinion. Nothing is "banned" to an atheist.

What makes you think I was writing definitions?

You had it right.But no way in hell is it completely wrong.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TerryDon79

Your definition of atheism is wrong. You made the definition out of your opinion. Nothing is "banned" to an atheist.

What makes you think I was writing definitions?

You had it right.But no way in hell is it completely wrong.

What you wrote was completely wrong.

Atheism is a simple minded choice that bans all of it.
It has all the ingredients of major malfunction.

That is wrong.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Greggers
Heck, if you combine Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, and Big Bang Cosmology, along with steller and planetary formation theories, you have a pretty seamless narrative that explains the entire history of the universe.

I disagree. It details the relationships between observed things, and based on those observations hypothesizes the existence of other as-yet-undiscovered and unnamed things. Of the five journalistic "Ws" needed to create a clear story, science is good at determining maybe two of them.

You seem to have a very limiting view of what science does. Science seeks to explain things. Scientists don't just want to know that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference; they also want an explanation for WHY that is true. Relativity provides that. They don't just want to know that fossils exist, or that certain animals existed at certain times (and in certain areas), but rather they want an explanation that explains why those things are true. Evolution via Natural Selection gives them that.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the five Ws, since this isn't journalism, but since you did, science does a pretty awesome job of nailing all five whenever they are all knowable aspects of the physical world being studied.

Take evolution as an example:

1) What: The origin of species.
2) When: Starting 4 billion years ago with single celled organisms and continuing up to modern times, with very specific timeframes identified for many different creatures in the fossil record
3) Who: Me, you, everyone -- specifically, every living thing that ever existed on earth.
4) Where: Planet Earth, with very specific geographic regions identified for a massive assortment of different plants and animals separated into distinct eco-systems with various environmental pressures.
5) Why: Because of genetic mutation inherent in reproduction and the environmental pressures that determine which traits will be passed along to offspring.

a reply to: TerryDon79

How is it wrong when atheism sights a lack of evidence as reason for
it's choice not to believe? Nevermind the fact that the evidence demanded
may have been dispersed and destroyed over time.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TerryDon79

How is it wrong when atheism sights a lack of evidence as reason for
it's choice not to believe? Nevermind the fact that the evidence demanded
may have been dispersed and destroyed over time.

It's not about not believing or believing. It's about not having a belief. There's a difference between the 3.

originally posted by: randyvs
Theism is derived thru accounts of interactions that offer an explanation for
mans survival in a hostile environment.

How theism was derived is a topic deserving of its own thread, but I assure you it's a lot more complicated than what you've penned here. I would posit that theism arose originally as a way of explaining things, back before the scientific revolution came along and began to give more weight to empirical observation as a way of understanding the physical world.

The pure question of whether there is a God is not technically a scientific question, but wherever God is said to have effected the physical world, it becomes subject to the scrutiny of physical evidence.

It has traditionally been accepted as
the truth thru the ages. But less and less are these traditions accepted with
the passing of time.

Yep. We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano God anymore because now we understand volcanism. We don't believe in the weather gods because we understand meteorology. We don't believe in the spontaneous creationism of all life on earth because we understand natural selection, the fossil record, radiometric dating, and evolutionary biology. I could go on.

Atheism is a simple minded choice that bans all of it.

What does it mean to "ban all of it?" What are we banning, and whom are we banning from these things?

It has all the ingredients of major malfunction.

The above has all the ingredients of a baseless opinion.

a reply to: TerryDon79

It's not about not believing or believing.

You got that much right. And I'm not religious.

a reply to: Greggers

but I assure you it's a lot more complicated than what you've penned here.

Definitely

And I never said it wasn't my opinion. No sources.

a reply to: Greggers

Well composed thoughts sir.

Sorry for my typos this new phone is terrible.

What is your opinion on falsifiability vs inductive empiricism?

A lot of people seem to make the claim an observation is necessary for reason based explanations. I think there are also philosophical tools for determining falacies or error in hypothesis.

I do think psychological evolution most likely required "God" as a first step. I dont think you just go from Lucy to Newton.

I used to read Luke Barnes on cosmology. He seems to have a pretty firm philosophical grasp as well as astrophysics and he is certainly a well respected cosmologist. Sometimes a rarity as one seems to think it means they can so both which isnt true. Someone like Dawkins is a terrible philosopher and a brilliant scientist. Where as imo Sam Harris is both.


I think its impossible science could ever know what the first cause is(prime mover, designer, universe as its own cause etc) therefore it has to be examined philosophicaly with falsifiability. We may only be able to say what it isnt.


Or what created biological evolution? What is the purpose? Why does anything exist at all? Bare with me its my useless philosophy backround talking. I do think some scientist do still ask those questions though, not just pure philosophers.

originally posted by: luthier

What is your opinion on falsifiability vs inductive empiricism?

In my opinion, the two of these things combined form the gold standard of any legitimate scientific theory. Many scientists argue that falsifiability is a basic requirement of all science. Others argue against such strict standards, but generally scientists on that end of the debate operate at the far reaches of what is testable (theoretical physicists are especially prone), and may eschew falsifiability to keep their theories (if you can call them that) within the realm of science rather than science-fiction.

Of course, all legitimate theoretical physics is, at the very least, supported by mathematical models, but sometimes the mathematical justification is so sparse (or so subject to a multitude of possibilities) that it really is more akin to science-fiction than science. Multi-verse theory is a good example.

Although still theoretical, a better example of science from the world of theoretical physics would be string theory. Certain scientists have been calling it "not even wrong" for 40 years, but it is far better supported by mathematical models and makes predictions (such as super-symmetry) which are both testable and falsifiable via particle collision analysis.

Then, of course, if something like super symmetry were proven, it would meet the aforementioned gold standard. So far, however, no dice. I don't follow that as closely as perhaps you do, but the last I checked things weren't going so well for supersymmetry at CERN.

A lot of people seem to make the claim an observation is necessary for reason based explanations. I think there are also philosophical tools for determining falacies or error in hypothesis.

Observation is the gold standard for measuring some specific aspect of the physical world, and scientific models based on such observations should be falsifiable. However, beyond that, there is no question that philosophy informs science in the same way that science informs philosophy.

I think its impossible science could ever know what the first cause is(prime mover, designer, universe as its own cause etc) therefore it has to be examined philosophicaly with falsifiability. We may only be able to say what it isnt.

Good point, and mostly I agree. Unfortunately, what came before the universe may always remain unfalsifiable and therefore beyond the domain of what many would consider to be science, which would leave philosophy as our only functional tool to understand it.

a reply to: Greggers

Thanks for you thoughts and humoring a philosopher. Excellent post.



Cern is the big one but we have some labs as well in the US. My little brother spent two years at fermilabs before he had to get a real job and not just more degree's



In many ways technology is just still further behind some of the mathematical models in quantum mechanics and string theory. Its quite amazing though the artifacts that have been created for observation in the last 30 years. Some of the issues with quantum mechanics observation is creating the expirement itself physically which takes the creative aspect of knowledge.

Something we are heading away from unfortunately.
My wife is a reasearch professor (not physics) and has attended several lectures about the falling number of qualified research graduates who have enough creativity (loose use of the word) to create the necesary expirement models without being led by an authority. The finding is people are great at following directions but critical thinking is often lacking. Possibly our primary education problems mixed with the google trend of having access to tutorials rather than having to work through mistakes.

Thats off topic though.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
i believe that aliens and ghosts may represent different aspects or manifestations/interpretations of the same phenomena.

I feel much the same. Technically if I had to label myself, I am more aligned with the Agnostic philosophies.

I personally have yet to witness the cliche paranormal phenomena that tends to turn one into a "believer".

But I have experienced weird stuff and understand that we barely understand the nature of reality.

I was a die hard atheists before spiritual/paranormal experiences altered my conceptions, But belief in a spiritual world created a conundrum. Couldn't entities in the spiritual world masquerade as GOD. How could little ol' me know the difference. Realising that was an impossible task I took up Buddhism which is perhaps more a philosophy than a religion,

originally posted by: glend
I was a die hard atheists before spiritual/paranormal experiences altered my conceptions, But belief in a spiritual world created a conundrum. Couldn't entities in the spiritual world masquerade as GOD. How could little ol' me know the difference. Realising that was an impossible task I took up Buddhism which is perhaps more a philosophy than a religion,

Oh, of course. And off-planet beings could masquerade as a God or Gods.

I used to "fly" (astral travel) a lot when I was about 5/6. Especially hung out in the "gray place".

One time when I was hanging in the "gray place" - - a very tall man in a long white robe approached me. He told me I was too young to understand living in 2 worlds - - the physical world and the spirit world. He said it was confusing me. He grounded me. Told me I couldn't "fly" anymore.

Now, I could have decided that man was Jesus. But, I didn't.

originally posted by: randyvs
Atheism is a simple minded choice that bans all of it.
It has all the ingredients of major malfunction.

That is such a ignorant and self righteous thing to say, is it any wonder why so many people over time have turned to something other than Religion for the truth???

Because it's Religious Minded people like yourself who speak of things which you clearly don't understand with a false tone of authority that has tainted any appeal that Religious Knowledge may have once had.

If you're any example of what Religious Knowledge does to a person, then it won't be long until such obviously worthless concepts will be discarded for something which might actually benefit humanity.

How sad that you devote your life to something only to sh*t all over it's image for the rest of us to see. You have only yourself to thank for the end of those traditions that you speak so highly of in your posts.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TerryDon79

How is it wrong when atheism sights a lack of evidence as reason for
it's choice not to believe? Nevermind the fact that the evidence demanded
may have been dispersed and destroyed over time.

Are you serious???

What better reason not to believe in something is there than Lack of Evidence for it's existence???

Lack of Evidence is in fact the best reason for not believing something. Only to someone completely insane would believe in something more as evidence for it gets less.

Why don't we believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy??? Because there is Zero Evidence to show that such being are real!!!

Leave it to the Religiously Mind Controlled followers to try and flip that around so that the Less Evidence someone can show means the more you should believe it.