Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.


Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.


Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.


Then that would imply they had a previously determined destination.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.


Then that would imply they had a previously determined destination.

What would?
Explain



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.


Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.


It is random in the sense that it has no particular direction. It merely opts for the path of least resistance.

How were the laws of physics set in motion when the elements they are composed of were not there?

The elements and factors that comprise many of those laws weren't even around yet, it was just a massive expansion of energy without form. The laws came afterward. After the dust settled and variables began to come together accordingly, based on relativity and a myriad of other things.

It is basically like demolishing a building. You can't predict exactly where every single piece of debris will land until you calculate every single parameter of the initial boom. Including possible wind gusts, subsequent tremors, blast-wave, etc.

----

My point is that the layout of the universe was directly proportional to the unfolding of its birth. The birth of which seems to have no other reason other than matter being at the right place at the right time and coming together just right in order to yield the aforementioned results.

It is randomized. It is one of the major differences in our belief systems. Some people dislike faith because it seemingly implies lack of control, or fate.

Some people hate science because it implies random occurrence, or lack of control.

I'm not saying it is as random as like ... a particle bumps into another one and an elephant explodes in outerspace.

I'm saying it is random in the sense that it doesn't have an apparent rhyme or reason beyond the same reason that billiard balls bounce off one another.

Things were in motion, and stuff was just right for them to happen.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
The belief that there is no creator?


No. the absence of a belief in a deity.

To talk about how we came to be here, you'd have to talk to each atheist and ask what he or she believes about creation because we all have different beliefs and ideas as to how we got here, including having no belief at all about it.


Originally posted by Conclusion
In order for something to exist it has to be created. Show me anything that is not created.


You have said that this God you believe in was not created. You have provided your own proof.


Originally posted by Conclusion
Then that would imply they had a previously determined destination.


Implications, just like assumptions and suspicions, are NOT proof.

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.


Sorry read it wrong. That would mean that they were created with a specific purpose. They were not led to their qualities by random events is true.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Atheism is a religion like any of the main stream culprits...It starts as a matter of 'faith'...that there is no 'God'. There once was an international center for atheism, in I believe, San Antonio, TX. You could commit blasphemy in this place by ordering a tuna sandwhich, and a coke, and sitting down (in the basement cafeteria) and saying 'Grace'. A mercurial 'prophet' (O'hare) died of mysterious circumstances... and even if you searched the known universe, finding no 'God', you still couldn't be sure that 'God' wouldn't pop up in a place you had visited several billion years in the past with a Jimmy Cagney sneer, saying, "Looking for me, asshole?) Zen mind, beginner's mind, would be my guess...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
How were the laws of physics set in motion when the elements they are composed of were not there?


*headsmack*

The laws of physics are not composed of elements.

I'll let that go for now and get to the heart of our discussion. Yes, many things in the universe operate without reasoned intention. I'm sure you can see this in all manners of the sciences. Why then would you expect, say, the beginning of the universe or the appearance of life to be something of reasoned intention: one that may require a creator?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





You have said that this God you believe in was not created. You have provided your own proof.


No I did not say that.




Implications, just like assumptions and suspicions, are NOT proof.


Lol. That is the ground work of science.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by webpirate
 



Yes. It was well known in ancient societies that the earth was not flat. It only came into being "scientific fact" that it was flat by the same people or their descendants who decided what books would and would not be allowed into the Christian bible. The dark ages and early to middle middle ages where a tragic loss of knowledge time period in history.


So what you are saying is that you let the decisions that the people in the dark ages made over shadow the truths that the our ancient ancestors knew, and you did state that they knew the earth was round, affect your decision of whether you have a creator or not?


Do you work for CNN?
You took what I said way out of context. My entire post is here from my original post:


Unfortunately this whole discussion can not be debated rationally by most people because they let their beliefs get in the way of fact.

We once believed the Earth was flat too. Where would be still be if that was still believed to be true?


I was merely responding to someone who agreed with part of what I had already said.

My point was people let their beliefs on this matter get in their way of rationality. And it appears that this is still happening 6 pages into this discussion.

Do not try to bait me or initiate an unintelligent conversation with me on this subject. Do not obfuscate my written words. I can assure you, I will not be let into that kind of trap.

If there is nothing more that is relevant and of intellectual interest to this discussion do not criticize my remarks.

It is very obvious you are a mere troll looking for a fight in this thread by the comments you have made only as rebuttals to others here.
Lets hear your own ideas on this subject and not just see your attempts to make others look bad by distorting their words and using them out of context.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by webpirate]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Why then would you expect, say, the beginning of the universe or the appearance of life to be something of reasoned intention: one that may require a creator?


For the fact that they exist at all. I don't understand how you can't see that in order for anything to exist it has to be made to exist first. You can't understand how we believe in a creator and we can't understand how you believe all this beauty, as you put it, just appeared one day after billions of years. Explain to me how scientists came up with the age of the universe. Never mind I will look it up.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bojimoji5
Atheism is a religion like any of the main stream culprits...It starts as a matter of 'faith'...that there is no 'God'.


No, atheism is most certainly not a religion. Lack of belief in deities is not an article of faith. It's a certitude formed from the lack of evidence for the existence of deities.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
No I did not say that.



Originally posted by Conclusion

Originally posted by BlankSlate
reply to post by Conclusion
 


How about god?

My understanding is that in most belief systems god was not created.


You are correct.




That is the ground work of science.


Yes, it's the groundwork of science, but without hypotheses, predictions, experiments, evaluation and confirmation, an implication means absolutely nothing. You can't use only part of the scientific method and pretend you're being scientific.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 





Unfortunately this whole discussion can not be debated rationally by most people because they let their beliefs get in the way of fact.


Okay. You the one who said it. Please show me the facts that there is no creator.

Oh I don't remember calling you a troll, as I am only interested in getting to the bottom of this debate. Sorry for any offenses you took from my post. That was not my intention.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
How were the laws of physics set in motion when the elements they are composed of were not there?


*headsmack*

The laws of physics are not composed of elements.

I'll let that go for now and get to the heart of our discussion. Yes, many things in the universe operate without reasoned intention. I'm sure you can see this in all manners of the sciences. Why then would you expect, say, the beginning of the universe or the appearance of life to be something of reasoned intention: one that may require a creator?


*smacks your head for good measure*

Elements as in FACTORS.

As in, you know, the element of surprise?

The laws of the universe were not established until the energies within it took form to make these laws true.

---

And I've told you before, my reason is mine and mine alone. I don't herald it as absolute truth for all to embrace. It just makes sense to me for the time being.

...

Why do I feel the need to rationalize that it may not be random? I don't. I feel that it very well COULD also be the way you explain it to be.

How do I manage it? I'm usually very confused about things.

...

Personally, and this is just for me, I don't find the prospect of a universe as you describe to be very interesting.

I feel that in such a world, there really is no purpose. In reality, the only purpose one would have is the purpose they themselves create.

Which is why I guess I CAN believe in, and study, science as I do. But retain hopeful prospects.

Because in the same sense, I can vouch to establish my own slice of reason.
As long as I ain't hurting anyone, what's so bad about that?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Please show me the facts that there is no creator.


Again, the one who makes the positive claim (claiming that something exists) holds the burden of proof. It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. There is just no evidence for it, so it's only logical that we don't believe in it.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Conclusion
No I did not say that.



Originally posted by Conclusion

Originally posted by BlankSlate
reply to post by Conclusion
 


How about god?

My understanding is that in most belief systems god was not created.


You are correct.


See I did not say it. I said you are correct.



That is the ground work of science.


Yes, it's the groundwork of science, but without hypotheses, predictions, experiments, evaluation and confirmation, an implication means absolutely nothing. You can't use only part of the scientific method and pretend you're being scientific.


Yes, but nonetheless it is the ground work. Can you prove scientifically that the mind exists?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


What does the existance of the mind have to do with the existance God?

[edit on 18-5-2010 by BlankSlate]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


If you would go read the entire discussion from page 1 to page 2 where I first started posting, you would see that I was initially agreeing with you and the OP about this whole matter.

My entire point was a lot of people are idiots and can not discuss this matter rationally, because they let their "faith" get in the way.

I said you can not rationally prove there is or isn't a creator. I firmly believe somewhere down the line there probably is a creator. If you however bother to read my original first post in this thread you will see I made a distinction between a creator of humans and a creator of existence as a whole.

They still might be the same, but i doubt it. Nothing that I have ever seen or heard can prove either is true either way. This is no longer a discussion. This thread has turned into one group of theorists slamming any other group(s) of theorists.

And I also feel this was the original point of the OP.

Welcome to my ignore list.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Conclusion
Please show me the facts that there is no creator.


Again, the one who makes the positive claim (claiming that something exists) holds the burden of proof. It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. There is just no evidence for it, so it's only logical that we don't believe in it.


No Webpirate said our belief gets in the way of facts. So I asked him to show me the facts. For him to say that would mean he knows the facts that prove a creator does not exist. I have already posted my proof. You just don't believe it.





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join