Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

Too bad you let the bad apples chase you off.

You can not prove or disprove atheism anymore than you can prove or disprove any god.

Atheism really requires no proof. With no evidence favoring creators or deities, "proving atheism" is unnecessary.

However, what I am referring to is not some all knowing all powerful being who created it, but visitors way more advanced from another planet. They created life here on Earth and helped it along.

Interesting theory but the DNA record doesn't much support it.

Who created the creators? I have a very high IQ, but that question is where my brain shuts down.

Infinite regression is inevitable when contemplating an original creator.

Atheist who are so dead set in their ways irritate me just as much as staunch Southern Baptists.

Most atheists arrive at their viewpoint by the lack of evidence for gods. Certainly, should evidence be produced to the contrary, atheists could not exist. It's probably not the stubborn atheist that bothers you, but the zealous ones.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by Conclusion


Well i take you are not a scientist, as nor am i, and even if you were scientifically minded you would not understand the nature of "god"

It goes back to the philosophical implations of the big bang theory, as we THINK as humans the nature of reality is cause and effect, then what caused the big bang.

This also highlights what you said is that we just don't know. the infinite universe is just as credible a theory - to say that it always has and will be...

What came first the chicken or the egg? Maybe it was both at the same time. The fact is, we don't know. So people to claim to know of the nature of "God" when they havn't defined first what god is.... is just beyond me.


[edit on 18/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

[edit on 18/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Too bad you let the bad apples chase you off.

You can not prove or disprove atheism anymore than you can prove or disprove any god.

Atheism really requires no proof. With no evidence favoring creators or deities, "proving atheism" is unnecessary.

However, what I am referring to is not some all knowing all powerful being who created it, but visitors way more advanced from another planet. They created life here on Earth and helped it along.

Interesting theory but the DNA record doesn't much support it.

Who created the creators? I have a very high IQ, but that question is where my brain shuts down.

Infinite regression is inevitable when contemplating an original creator.

Atheist who are so dead set in their ways irritate me just as much as staunch Southern Baptists.

Most atheists arrive at their viewpoint by the lack of evidence for gods. Certainly, should evidence be produced to the contrary, atheists could not exist. It's probably not the stubborn atheist that bothers you, but the zealous ones.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

This, but over and over and over again GJ

Originally posted by Conclusion

Originally posted by BlankSlate
reply to post by Conclusion

 

Yes, cause and effect are a basic staple of science. What I don't understand, and what wasn't answered in the OP video, is how this leads to an inteligent being worthy of the title diety.

The question "what else could it be?" just isn't scientific proof.

So yes you do not think the mind exists?

Oh yes. I don't Believe the mind exists. But that really is going off topic.

The problem with both minds and deities is that they are ill defined concepts. There can be never be proof that minds and deities do not exist in any form or guise.

But what can be proven or dis-proven scientifically are specific claims made about those.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


lol

what exactly is it that you believe, if you don't mind me asking, and could you please back it up with scientific fact? I am very curious to hear your viewpoint.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Utopian
The reason for creating this thread is to debate the seemingly closed mindedness of Atheism in relation to most other belief systems.

I must admit though i will never feel comfortable with the theory that creation is random and that the universe in all its complexity has not been created by some form of intelligence.

What is "seemingly closed minded" is your assumptions that the universe is a "creation", that it is random, your preconceived notions of some kind of form of intelligence as the source of it all, and most importantly, the incorrect categorization of atheism as a "belief system".

Because you operate under these expectations and fallacious assumptions you have clear bias against atheism and likely will never see the universe as it really is. You'll spend life trying to shoehorn facts into your beliefs and justify your condescension of viewpoints that differ from your own (as you have in this thread).

Atheism results from regard for scientific fact, not the other way around as you claim. No conveniently invisible intelligent creator turns up wherever we look, and the unwavering insistance from both agnostics and theists/deists that a creator still exists somewhere just outside the frontiers of our knowledge is extremely naive. It would be much better for such people to spend their time proving their case with undenible evidence rather than tring to subjugate viewpoints they disagree with (this means you).



[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

That has to be some of the funniest #e I've read....lol....

You just demonstrated exactyl what you were railing against and didn't even realize it...hahhaaaa ....

Jaden

Thanks for the laugh....

Originally posted by BlankSlate

Originally posted by Conclusion

Originally posted by BlankSlate
reply to post by Conclusion

 

Yes, cause and effect are a basic staple of science. What I don't understand, and what wasn't answered in the OP video, is how this leads to an inteligent being worthy of the title diety.

The question "what else could it be?" just isn't scientific proof.

So yes you do not think the mind exists?

Oh yes. I don't Believe the mind exists. But that really is going off topic.

The problem with both minds and deities is that they are ill defined concepts. There can be never be proof that minds and deities do not exist in any form or guise.

But what can be proven or dis-proven scientifically are specific claims made about those.

Did you honestly just claim that you DON'T believe in the ONLY thing that you can know as an absolute fact????

Tell me, are you thinking right now???? that is a serious question.

Jaden

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Masterjaden]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


ehhhhhhh!!!!! wrong answer....

Most atheists arrive at their viewpoint out of a desire to fullfill their own desires and to not be accountable to anything, or any higher form of being or intellect, that's why most atheists are also alien deniers as well. They can't fathom anything being more intellectually advanced than they.

Jaden

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by webpirate

 

ok, so maybe I am more agnostic than Atheist but what grounds of evidence do you go on, to create a bible with rules and regulations and full of contradictory statements showing this "god" to be personified full of rage, anger, dissapointment in what he has created.

God is just what we can't explain in my opinion, if you can't explain it or can't prove it, what the "HELL" is the point? There is no point, so continue dribbling Christians and Muslims, keep dribbling over words and illogical ideas and concepts.

Don't come back with the whole "atheists have no morals" because we do, so please wise up

Please do not confuse a belief in God or a creator with a religious tenet or belief in a particular historical text.

As I stated in another thread...

You can believe in God and not be religious

and you can be religious and not believe in God.

I think either of the above is far more common than the alternatives not listed.

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

ehhhhhhh!!!!! wrong answer....

Most atheists arrive at their viewpoint out of a desire to fullfill their own desires and to not be accountable to anything, or any higher form of being or intellect, that's why most atheists are also alien deniers as well. They can't fathom anything being more intellectually advanced than they.

Jaden

Sorry, but that is patently absurd, and a typical answer of super religious people. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, nothing more. Reading anything else into it is a flawed assumption. You need to work on that.

reply to post by Masterjaden


Like I said, my beliefs on why the mind doesn't exist is a completly different matter and I'm not going to discuss them here.

Suffice to say it isn't due to a simple close minded denial of anything that isn't completly proven. There are some interesting theories about it.

I just though it an interesting coincidence that what's-his-name thought he might have been luring me into a hypocritical statement.

This thread has given me more food for though about the nature of the mind and consiousness then it has about dieties. Any proof of a diety must first prove that minds in general exist, for having a mind is what seperates a diety from a mere cosmic force.

Originally posted by jacktherer
what exactly is it that you believe, if you don't mind me asking, and could you please back it up with scientific fact? I am very curious to hear your viewpoint.

I don't really operate on belief. Belief takes the brain to weird and sometimes bad places. I don't really have answers for the big questions, don't need those answers to get through life, and don't have a huge desire to answer them anyway. I am secure in the observation that the universe doesn't need gods, deities or creators to operate.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

ehhhhhhh!!!!! wrong answer....

Most atheists arrive at their viewpoint out of a desire to fullfill their own desires and to not be accountable to anything, or any higher form of being or intellect, that's why most atheists are also alien deniers as well. They can't fathom anything being more intellectually advanced than they.

Jaden

Sorry sir i believe you are wrong, i'm an atheist - what desires do i have that you claim? Please provide some reasoning to your claims. Not believing in aliens is irrelevant and is NOT a mandatory "belief" if you are Atheist.

What we want though is evidence, for any proposed claimed "truth" If there is no evidence, there is no conciouss truth from what we can percieve and rationalise with.

""And we can't fathom anything more intellectually advanced than they are?" The fact is we don't have evidence - people couldn't fathom space and time physics until Einstein (atheist btw) or other scientists put together theory, and experiment to understand the nature, logic and physics on a greater level (but it's not complete and is open to opposing theories).

The point is we want to fathom the hidden intellilect and knowledge, but that requires evidence, which is the nature of scientific progression. We don't accept some lousy theory for the nature of our reality and universe.

[edit on 18/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

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]

WOOOHHHHHH their horsey.....Don't even begin to say that theists dislike science....

I am a theist and I absolutely LOVE science, what I hate is bad science and illogical conclusions to support erroneous unsupported beliefs in the scientific paradigm.

I happen to be a semi pro billiards player and those balls bounce off each other in a VERY predictable manner for a VERY predictable reason.

Well, if the laws of physics just fell into place after this "matter" came together just right in order to explode for no reason...

What physics were in place to allow the explosion to take place?

what physics were in place to allow matter to exist at all?

Let me guess there was really nothing and science has now discovered a method for nothing to have developed into something which caused a cascading effect that led to the big bang, cosmic evolution, and all of the things that then occurred over billions of years to bring us here today???

Here's a question for you, if you can understand it. If Einstein's theories of relativity are correct (big if) and redshift is interpreted correctly (bigger if) and space is finite as the universe expands space becomes bigger, then, as we travel farther away from the center of zeropoint does it take more time, less time or the same amount of time for the earth to travel around the Sun????

Jaden

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Masterjaden]

reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign



Isn't the whole point of searching for the Higgs Boson Effect to explain how something can come from nothing? It's been a while since i last researched the subject so someone please correct me if i am wrong.

reply to post by faceoff85


Believing in a God vs. not believing in a God corresponds to the following:


Pro-God view = Plans to exist in the afterlife
No-God view = Plans not to exist




Enough said.

This discussion reminds of a scene in the movie "Contact"

Jodi Foster's character(an atheist) and her boyfriend(a devout christian) are discussing god....

She says something about needing proof, needing to see and touch something to believe it exists and she cannot see and touch god or at least there is no evidence/proof of god (something along those lines)

He then asks her seemingly out of the blue "Do you love your father"?

she says "what? What does that have to do with anything"?

He says "just answer the question, do you love your father"?

She says "Yes, of course I do"

He says "Ok, prove it"

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Here's a question for you, if you can understand it. If Einstein's theories of relativity are correct (big if) and redshift is interpreted correctly (bigger if) and space is finite as the universe expands space becomes bigger, then, as we travel farther away from the center of zeropoint does it take more time, less time or the same amount of time for the earth to travel around the Sun????

Jaden

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Masterjaden]

That's an interesting thought, and my initial thought would be that it would take more time but you have to define in what way the universe is expanding, if its expanding from the centre and pushing us out it would be the case that we remain intact in terms of our relative place in the solar system, galaxy etc.

Not to mention, if that really was the case scientists would have detected these increasing times of orbit.

An opionated thought, perhaps the universe is infinite, has and always will be.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

ehhhhhhh!!!!! wrong answer....

Most atheists arrive at their viewpoint out of a desire to fullfill their own desires and to not be accountable to anything, or any higher form of being or intellect, that's why most atheists are also alien deniers as well. They can't fathom anything being more intellectually advanced than they.

Jaden

Sorry sir i believe you are wrong, i'm an atheist - what desires do i have that you claim? Please provide some reasoning to your claims. Not believing in aliens is irrelevant and is NOT a mandatory "belief" if you are Atheist.

What we want though is evidence, for any proposed claimed "truth" If there is no evidence, there is no conciouss truth from what we can percieve and rationalise with.

""And we can't fathom anything more intellectually advanced than they are?" The fact is we don't have evidence - people couldn't fathom space and time physics until Einstein (atheist btw) or other scientists put together theory, and experiment to understand the nature, logic and physics on a greater level (but it's not complete and is open to opposing theories).

The point is we want to fathom the hidden intellilect and knowledge, but that requires evidence, which is the nature of scientific progression. We don't accept some lousy theory for the nature of our reality and universe.

[edit on 18/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

There is no evidence of anything as all evidence requires interpretation. So in effect Descartes was right and all evidence is only evidence of ONE thing, that your consciousness exists.

If you can't understand that one thing, then there is no point in looking at evidence for anything else.

In answer to your question, I don't know what your desires are. I don't know if you had a bad experience with someone that you consider religious and don't want them to be right. I don't know if you are an ego maniac or are a pedophile or some other sexual deviant. I don't know if you're a covetor of your neighbor for his wife or his car. There are any number of reasons that someone would have to convince themselves that nothing higher than them exists, or that there is nothing after this body dies.

I do know that logic dictates that it is much scarier to believe in a creator that we are accountable to than it is to deny it.

That logic dictates that if we have done things that we regret and that we may be accountable for after we die, it is much less scary to convince ourselves that there is NOTHING after we die as opposed to the potential for eternal torment or any torment for that matter.

The logic that you so covetously cling to is absent in your beliefs.

I can point out fallacy of logic in almost every modern paradigm of science.

Name one scientific theory that is not based on circular logic or fallacious logic????

If you do, I'll point you to the fallacy or circular nature of the belief and yes it is belief.

Again the only thing that is not belief is the knowledge that each of our consciousnesses exist. I can't know with certainty that you exist and you can't know with certainty that I exist apart from being a construct of your consciousness.

The question then arises as to which belief is the most accurate. That's where common agreement comes into play.

The problem with common agreement is that history shows us that the only scientific truth is that science is never currently accurate.

Then you can try to convince yourself that we get closer and closer to the truth, but that isn't the case either.

You see the problem with that concept is that if you build a house of cards and one of the foundations of that house proves wrong, the whole thing comes crashing down.

We have shown several of the foundation cards of science to be wrong, but instead of letting the house fall, we have thrown wedges in place of the cards and like indiana jones placing a sand bag in place of the gold statue in raiders of the lost ark, because we have done this, we have a boulder chasing us to the inevitable conclusion that we are and were wrong and one day that boulder is going to land on us and crush us or force us to dive into an abyss and hope that we can grab a vine instead of falling or being crushed
Jaden

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Masterjaden]

reply to post by Masterjaden


You certainly are full of scientific paradigms, phrases such as

"I can't know with certainty that you exist and you can't know with certainty that I exist apart from being a construct of your consciousness. "

It's like saying "how do you know the colour i'm looking at is blue, in my conciouss it could be red?" These are non-progressive infinite philosophical notions that bare no significance to your debate or any rational coherent argument. Thanks for the discussion.