Atheism

Originally posted by confreak
That being said, the lack of random is the main evidence for a creator.

No, it isn't. If you can prove that randomness doesn't exist all you've proven is that randomness doesn't exist. NOT that the universe was created.

I'd suggest you investigate the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Your argument is the epitome of this fallacy. It will help you in the end to eliminate those theories which are fallacious.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well if randomness doesn't exist, then the Universe wasn't formed randomly, that's what we are talking about, I don't know why I lure myself back in.


argumentum ad ignorantiam
I've stated that this is evidence, and I provided the definition of evidence in my first post. I'm not making a logical statement, I'm posting evidence.

If you read my first post, it was in response to an individual claiming there isn't any evidence supporting a creator. I'm saying there is.


Which is why I gave a comparison, hence spaghetti falling from the sky can be used as evidence to support the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, just like the lack of random can be used as evidence to support an unrandom universe, a Universe which is created as it is, and not formed randomly. Everything we know up to date supports this.

Originally posted by Terrormaster
Ok, lets look at this a little more scientifically. You say there's no such thing as random, that everything has a cause. You use that for your argument that there is a creator. So given that fact lets look at it this way. If everything has a cause then what caused the creator? What actions caused the creator to come into being? Then what actions caused that action and so on?

No one can argue for anything beyond this Universe. We know that everything on this Universe has a cause. There is no defensive position that could argue rationally that the same rule applies beyond this Universe. We have zero data about what is beyond this Universe, if there is anything, at all.

Theists' position that everything has a cause rests on a scientific principle of causality. Atheists' question about 'who caused the creator' rests on the presumption that causality still applies beyond the Universe, which is based on... I don't know really. When I am discussing with them, they simply state that it does.

The most common answer from theists is that the creator just was, always has been and always will be. So if the creator doesn't need to have a cause then why does the universe? Why do so many theists so readily believe that there is no way for the universe to have always been so some magic invisible man in the sky must have created it. But in the same breath you aren't allowed to apply that same logic to the magic invisible man himself? Does not compute.

Because the Universe has a demonstrable beginning. We have entropy and we have cosmic background radiation and that tells us that the Universe does not simply just was, always has been and always will be.

On the other hand, there is no demonstrable beginning for God, at least not one that I know of.

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Well if randomness doesn't exist, then the Universe wasn't formed randomly, that's what we are talking about, I don't know why I lure myself back in.

edit on 8-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)

argumentum ad ignorantiam
I've stated that this is evidence, and I provided the definition of evidence in my first post. I'm not making a logical statement, I'm posting evidence.

If you read my first post, it was in response to an individual claiming there isn't any evidence supporting a creator. I'm saying there is.

edit on 8-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)

Which is why I gave a comparison, hence spaghetti falling from the sky can be used as evidence to support the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, just like the lack of random can be used as evidence to support an unrandom universe, a Universe which is created as it is, and not formed randomly. Everything we know up to date supports this.

edit on 8-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)

You technically failed to provide that non-randomness is events is indicative of a creative intelligent entity names God.

You merely pointed out that there is no such thing as randomness. Which I certainly agree with.

You then decided arbitrarily that lack of randomness shows a universe created by a deity worshiped by Christians called God.

Non-random events without an intelligent creator behind them could have equally occured.

Originally posted by confreak
argumentum ad ignorantiam
I've stated that this is evidence, and I provided the definition of evidence in my first post. I'm not making a logical statement, I'm posting evidence.

You haven't posted evidence for the creation of the universe, you've merely asserted it. And your argument is indeed a fallacy. You state that because X is false, Y is therefore true. This is fallacious and not a valid method to substantiate the truth of anything.

Originally posted by MrFake
Here's the thing:

Religious people believe in God.
Atheists believe there is no god.
Neither side has the facts to prove what they say is true.
Therefore, it all comes down to faith.
Atheism is a religion whether the atheists want to admit it or not.
In the end, we're all the same. We just have faith in different beliefs.

It's true that religion and atheism have some commonality, in that they are beliefs and neither is proven. But is that what constitutes a religion? A belief in something? Is that all it takes? Because I know people who believe in aliens. But I wouldn't consider that a religion, would you?

Religion (to me) is a system of beliefs that call for the worship of a deity. Merriam Webster says religion is

the service and worship of God or the supernatural

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Neither of these describe the single belief that there isn't a God.

If people want to say that atheism is a religion, they are certainly free to do so. But interestingly, they can never back it up...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I do not call atheism a religion anymore. I, however, call it a worldview. People that call it 'religion' do so because they associate the concept of religion with proselytism. Atheists tend to "preach" more than they like to admit. On the other hand, so do vegans, fitness enthusiasts, animal rights advocates... so there is little point in saying that it is a religion because of their "preaching." On the other hand, atheism is not the open-ended, no-strings-attached ideal that atheists claim that it is.

There is, indeed, a very vocal "fundamentalist atheist" community that has a very well defined set of beliefs, with very well defined arguments against theism, based on specific books that originated their ideas. While not a 'religion' per se, it is a very easily recognizable worldview.

Originally posted by Leahn
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I do not call atheism a religion anymore. I, however, call it a worldview.

Atheism is also not a worldview.

It is only disbelief in a claim. Nothing more.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I owe you and everyone else an apology. There is a good reason why I try to remain a wallflower in these conversations. Thanks for assuming I can afford coc aine, but sadly I'm stuck with good old taxable whiskey. My apologies for being self indulgent when I posted and when I post now. It's still less embarassing than drunken Facebook rampages. To stay on semi on topic, I didn't mean to be so belligerantly argumentative and God bless everyone, whether he exists or not.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


No, that is what it should be, and what atheists like to pretend it is. It isn't. It is a very easily recognizable worldview.

reply to post by Leahn


So, how do you know that a person has this atheist world view? If it's easily recognizable,can you list some of the tenets of the atheistic world view?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sure, fundamentalist atheists,

* will use every single opportunity to mock the belief of theists, no matter how small or off-topic, and regardless of consequences.

* will use every single opportunity to state that God doesn't exist.

* will call God "sky daddy" "sky fairy" or equally derrogative names.

* argue that religion is a source of evil and harm.

* argue that religion is a major source of wars.

* argue that there is some kind of rivalry between science and religion.

* believe that science and the scientific method are the only valid sources of truth.

* will hold to the ideas that it is not possible to prove a negative therefore they don't have to prove their position that God doesn't exist.

* will claim to be anti-religion, but will be effectively anti-Christianity only, under the excuse that the other religions do not influence their life enough.

* will preach their atheism aggressively even when it is completely off-topic, like in a political discussion.

Originally posted by Leahn
Because the Universe has a demonstrable beginning. We have entropy and we have cosmic background radiation and that tells us that the Universe does not simply just was, always has been and always will be.

Everything has entropy... Matter is constantly changing and becoming something else. But you speak as though there was only one single big bang. But there has been conjecture that the universe is constantly expanding and contracting over time so immense we can't even fathom it. Much like a star that collapses after expending all of it's the fuel whats to say the universe doesn't do the same then collapse into another big bang?

Originally posted by Leahn
On the other hand, there is no demonstrable beginning for God, at least not one that I know of.

On that same note there is no demonstrable ANYTHING for God or any magic invisible man which has kinda been the whole point.

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
To Buttercookie sorry i was not born an atheist and I"m sorry if I exlempify that position but you are wrong, and without being too belligernent about it, I would accept more from you. Also "Thewalkingfox" is full of a bunch of crap, forgive my language, your philosophical argument is full of holes. And I don't mean that as any love to you guys, but you're a bunch of egocentric assholes who don't know what they're talking about and to heck with the reality of this crap.

Edit to add, my use of the real use of your sucks

edit on 8-6-2011 by Kwyjibo because: (no reason given)

People are not born religious.

Think about it:

Lets say I have parents in the military who are both Black and American, but I was born on a military base in Japan.

Do I grow up 'Christian' as most African-Americans are, Buddhist, or what?

The answer?

Which ever religion is taught to me by my parents/ community.

Before that, I am an atheist. I have no god to worship or make decisions for me, or even looking out for my best interest. I am responsible for myself and look to my parents to supply and provide everything.

This is what happens in religious families to children. They are a product of what is taught.

reply to post by Leahn

That's a list of behaviors, not tenets. I think you could, perhaps, refer to people displaying those behaviors as being zealous atheists or fanatical atheists, but I don't see how they would be fundamentalist atheists.

Originally posted by Leahn
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

No, that is what it should be, and what atheists like to pretend it is. It isn't. It is a very easily recognizable worldview.

I'm sorry, but it's not a worldview. Some atheists may have a worldview, but atheism itself is not a worldview.

If I claim 2+2=5 and you disbelieve it, your disbelief of my claim does not constitute a worldview.

reply to post by Leahn


Your post is a severe over-generalization and contains many of the stereotypical myths and misunderstandings of atheists.

I believe the atheist you're describing is possibly the one or two that are jerks to other people and you've associated some of their qualities with all atheists.

If you just want to rip on atheists, okay, but it's best if you do so with accurate information.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's true that religion and atheism have some commonality, in that they are beliefs and neither is proven.

Uhm. Point of order. Here's the thing. Atheism is a position of skepticism, not a position of belief. Basically, the way human minds work is that we tend to need some proof of a claim before we accept it; we're inherently skeptical. if I told you I took your car for a spin last night and returned it before you woke up, you probably wouldn't believe me if there were no evidence to support my claim, right? You don't require proof that i didn't borrow your car last night in order to not believe my claim. You need proof that I did borrow it before you believe me, right?

Same thing here. Religion wants me to believe its claims. I want proof for these claims. Religion fails to produce such supporting evidence, so I fail to be persuaded into belief. I don't need to prove that there isn't a god or angels or reincarnation or some sort of afterlife to justify myself. My justification is the theist's inability to support their own claims.

Athiesm is a choice, for people who cant see Religion adding up. Point blank. Nothing to discuss.

reply to post by Terrormaster

But there has been conjecture that the universe is constantly expanding and contracting over time so immense we can't even fathom it. Much like a star that collapses after expending all of it's the fuel whats to say the universe doesn't do the same then collapse into another big bang?

Because it has been scientifically demonstrated that part of entropy survives the crunch, therefore, even a cyclical universe can't be past infinite. We may not be iteration zero, but there was an iteration zero.

Moreso, it is, as you said yourself, a conjecture. Didn't you want to make the discussion a little more scientific?

reply to post by ButterCookie


No, you're incorrect. It's been demonstrated that religious thinking melds naturally with the human brain, and atheist thinking requires far more mental effort to be accepted. Everyone is born a religious person, you're just born without a form of organized religion. To claim that you're born an atheist because you have no knowledge of a religion is the same as claiming that you're born mute and deaf because you have no knowledge of a language.

reply to post by iterationzero


You're discussing semantics. I could describe Christianity equally as a set of behaviors, and not of tenets.

Call it "zealots", "extremists" or "fanatical", it doesn't hurt my point that there is a subset of the atheist community that is not only very vocal about their "atheism" to the point of being considered "religious" by some, but also have a very recognizable worldview. The list is by no means extensive, those are only the few things that came to my mind without thinking too much. I did not fail to notice that you did not disagree that any of those behaviors are typical of atheists.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Everything you believe or disbelieve affects your perception of reality, due to human inherent confirmation and selection biases. Yes, it is a worldview. Specially regarding the most vocal proponents of it, it is a very easily reconizable one.