Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by ptmckiou
So let me get this straight. If any quantum physicist works on experiments to tie the universal consciousness to science, or tie spirituality to science then he automatically is deemed a charlatan for working in that field of study? WOW! Talk about close minded when it comes to learning more about science and how all matter works!!!! If it doesn't fit into your idea of the world....then what is the point of researching new areas?

Dan Dennett has remarkable studies regarding consciousness. J.Z. Knight does not.

However, you don't seem to call physicists that study possible other dimensions charlatans. Why is that?

Because I'm able to recognize the difference between legitimate scientific study and pseudoscience.

reply to post by pondrthis

"As for creationism w.r.t. the whole "6000 year old Earth", well yeah, that's bullocks,..."

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old. Man was REPLENISHED on this Earth. The age of the Earth is unknown.

Gen 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Peace

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs.

but but... this is a belief in itself man

and atheism is based on a wide range of beliefs including a very materialistic and narrow representation of the world

atheism doesn't leave any space for doubt because atheism "believes" it knows it all !

atheism is a religion like the others institutionalised one.

their followers don't question nothing because they think they know it all

let me tell you more about your religion :

atheism is the cult of the ego

atheism vs christian is like rep vs democrat, the 2 sides of the same coin

a nice play to keep the sheeple away from the Truth

Originally posted by ::.mika.::

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs.

but but... this is a belief in itself man

No it most certainly isn't. I also saw many other incorrect assumptions about atheism in your following sentences. Feel free to ask anything you'd like.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by adjensen

 

Society gives a basis for our morals, but at their most basic morals are based in biological imperatives. The main drive for all species is to procreate. Therefore, we don't get rid of defective children as they still have the ability to pass on our genetic code.

Sorry, but you're confusing "morals" with "motivations". If procreation was all that mattered, our morals would be focused on males having as many sexual partners as possible, which is not the case. Encouraging the continued existence of "defective children", which serve to cause a drain on society, clearly isn't common for all species, so this clearly isn't rooted in some biological drive.

We obviously have basic instinctual needs for eating, procreation and staying alive. However, the morals that we have, intrinsic or not, are not the ones that we would expect to develop naturally from these basic biological and self serving needs. Therefore, they come from somewhere else.

Hi, theist here. I was wondering since you are a drummer do you like the band Atheist? Do you like Sculptured? Both of these bands revolve around the idea of Atheism and I happen to listen to them because they rock!

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ptmckiou
So let me get this straight. If any quantum physicist works on experiments to tie the universal consciousness to science, or tie spirituality to science then he automatically is deemed a charlatan for working in that field of study? WOW! Talk about close minded when it comes to learning more about science and how all matter works!!!! If it doesn't fit into your idea of the world....then what is the point of researching new areas?

Dan Dennett has remarkable studies regarding consciousness. J.Z. Knight does not.

However, you don't seem to call physicists that study possible other dimensions charlatans. Why is that?

Because I'm able to recognize the difference between legitimate scientific study and pseudoscience.

You didn't answer my other question. How do you justify in your own mind the validity of research for other dimensions when you believe YOU can only be "alive" in the 3rd dimension...having a body?

If you stop arguing then everyone in the argument forgets.

Talk to the back of a keyboard for a hour.

How do you talk to a atheist that sleep walks?

Ha! What a joke this thread is to discuss.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Erad3]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Erad3]

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
Hi, theist here. I was wondering since you are a drummer do you like the band Atheist? Do you like Sculptured? Both of these bands revolve around the idea of Atheism and I happen to listen to them because they rock!

I have heard of them but have not heard their music.

I will check them out. Thanks!

Originally posted by ptmckiou
You didn't answer my other question. How do you justify in your own mind the validity of research for other dimensions when you believe YOU can only be "alive" in the 3rd dimension...having a body?

I find research into different dimensions a valid undertaking because the math involved with string theory points that way. I made no such statements about belief in "alive in the 3rd dimension", whatever that means.

reply to post by adjensen


The reason other animals don't keep defective children around is due to the way they have to live. Most animals live a rather nomadic life, moving constantly and as such a defective member will slow the group as a whole down, thus reducing the entire group's chances at survival. Humans on the other hand are sedentary. We remain in one area for most of our lives and don't need to hunt. We have mastered domestication of animals and agriculture. Therefore, it does not reduce the group's chances at survival to have a defective child.

As for males taking multiple mates, that was common practice for a long time. It was through the influence of society that monogamy became commonplace. However, one can still see traces of this polygamistic past. When a woman sleeps around she is called slut or whore, but when a man sleeps around he is considered the paragon of manhood.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

What remains pertinent is that the lack of apparent evidence supporting the existence of deities.

What I'm saying, is that existence itself is "the" deity of God. The evidence of existence is apparent. You know that you are, you know that what is ....Is. That Isness and Amness of all existence is the deity that that you say there is no evidence for.

Now what will you do?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by adjensen

 

The reason other animals don't keep defective children around is due to the way they have to live. Most animals live a rather nomadic life, moving constantly and as such a defective member will slow the group as a whole down, thus reducing the entire group's chances at survival. Humans on the other hand are sedentary. We remain in one area for most of our lives and don't need to hunt. We have mastered domestication of animals and agriculture. Therefore, it does not reduce the group's chances at survival to have a defective child.

This assumes that the morality of not killing children arose after the Neolithic Revolution, prior to which we were, in fact, nomadic. It also assumes that moving around is the only impediment to the practice. So you're saying that there would be no evidence, say, of someone who lived past infancy with an obvious genetic defect that predated that? Or, in that time, someone who clearly lived life past their useful age, or perhaps lived life with an injury or disability that would have made them a burden to the nomads.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ptmckiou
You didn't answer my other question. How do you justify in your own mind the validity of research for other dimensions when you believe YOU can only be "alive" in the 3rd dimension...having a body?

I find research into different dimensions a valid undertaking because the math involved with string theory points that way. I made no such statements about belief in "alive in the 3rd dimension", whatever that means.

An atheist believes there is no life force outside their own body. The only dimension where a body exists is the 3rd dimension (according to them) Thats the nature of the 3rd dimension. You have a physical body...you die..your gone.

So, how can someone live in a 5th dimension when they don't have a physical body? It has to be an ethereal energy body, since 3 dimensional bodies don't exist in any dimension above 3D.

So, again... how do you justify the scientific research in to dimensions where 3D physicality doesn't exist? That would obviously mean you can "live" without a physical body, which means when you die....your ethereal energy body lives on and it could be in one of these upper dimensions that scientists are currently involved in research.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ::.mika.::

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs.

but but... this is a belief in itself man

No it most certainly isn't.

Okay, this is maybe my logical myopithy, or maybe semantics, but I'm not sure that I follow you here.

If you make a statement like "I know that there is no God, because there is no proof of his existence," you're using the lack of evidence to prove a negative, which doesn't really mean anything, as you yourself would admit that we don't know everything.

And you preface an absolute with a non-absolute, ala "I know that we don't understand everything, but I know that there is no God", which also is a logical fallacy. Fixing the non-abolute with another absolute works ("When we know everything, we will know that there is no God") but then it assumes that you already know the result of the first absolute, in order to figure the second.

The best I can come up with is something like "In the face of the evidence, I see no proof for the existence of God", which is a long way from "I know there is no God" and a fair bit closer to "I believe that there is no God," because it's merely you interpreting an observation. Looking at the same evidence, I see lots of proof, meaning that my interpretation is different, and neither of them is particularly factual in the provable sense.

To the fellow who compared this to the existence of fairies and unicorns (or whatever,) the same rules apply... you can't use the lack of evidence in a non-absolute existence to make the case for the non-existence of something. There may be unicorns on another planet somewhere. There may have been unicorns on Earth 20,000 years ago and we just haven't found any fossil remains. You can prove that unicorns exist, but until you know and understand everything, you can't categorically prove that they don't.

It seems to me that anything which can't be proven is a subjective thing, and thus a belief, regardless of how rigidly held it might be. If you were to say "I have no opinion about God, don't know if he exists or not, don't really care either", that's a much different thing, moves you closer to "people without beliefs", but makes you agnostic, not atheistic, in my view.

reply to post by ptmckiou


No, an atheist simply doesn't believe in a god. If physicists finally prove M-theory is true then an atheist will accept those dimensions as existing as they are empirically supported. Every dimension above time is still spatial in nature, so just because we can't perceive these extra dimensions doesn't mean we currently aren't a part of them. In fact most researchers say that it would be impossible to perceive these dimensions outside of the quark or string level. So, when we die we die in all these dimensions, we just don't notice most of them.

Originally posted by ptmckiouSo, how can someone live in a 5th dimension when they don't have a physical body? It has to be an ethereal energy body, since 3 dimensional bodies don't exist in any dimension above 3D.

I'm not sure where you got your geometry lessons, but a 3D object can exist in a higher-dimensional space. And likewise, a higher- dimensional object can be seen as a projection in a lower-dimensional space (like the way a 3D cylinder becomes an ellipse (or rectangle in one special circumstance) when projected in 2D space.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with life or anything. I don't think I could live at the center of a star, but it doesn't mean that scientific research into stars shouldn't be done.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ptmckiou

 

No, an atheist simply doesn't believe in a god. If physicists finally prove M-theory is true then an atheist will accept those dimensions as existing as they are empirically supported. Every dimension above time is still spatial in nature, so just because we can't perceive these extra dimensions doesn't mean we currently aren't a part of them. In fact most researchers say that it would be impossible to perceive these dimensions outside of the quark or string level. So, when we die we die in all these dimensions, we just don't notice most of them.

Yes, and science thought blood letting by leaches was the cure for all things too...

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Very rarely do I find anyone asking an atheist for opinions and facts about their non-beliefs.

What is there to ask..? You already know the answer.


Also, being an atheist is no better than being a religious zealot - both of you are in denial.

Atheists don't "already know the answer" quite the opposite in fact. We admit to not knowing things. We just don't attribute what we can't explain or know to be the work of some mythical creature!

You can only be in denial of something that exists. God does not exist. I don't "believe" he does not exist. He/she does not exist full stop.

reply to post by ptmckiou

Yes, and science thought blood letting by leaches was the cure for all things too...

I've been saying that for the last 10 years. All of science, as beautiful as I think she is, is all relative. There could be one new discovery in 10 years that completely flips everything upside down.

There are no solid immovable foundations in science that we know of yet. Its to flexible and there is no rigidity. STill beautiful though in its complexity