32: Godless

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

First off, I hope you're not thinking I'm some die-hard Christian bible-thumper, I'm definetly not. Like I said, I'm an Apatheist.

I don't.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

I don't subscribe to the notion of "investigation over". Hell YES it's unlikely that it happened based on our understanding, but to rule it out based on something you simply read is as ignorant as the ones that believe that happened.

The investigation is over because it's a work of fiction. Trying to investigate how events in the Bible could have happened from a scientific point of view is like trying to investigate how Harry Potter was able to fly.

1. Harry Potter is a fictional character.
2. Harry Potter used magic.

1. Moses never crossed the Red Sea. It's a fictional story.
2. In the story, Moses crossed with the help of God.

A scientific explanation is not necessary because it wasn't a natural phenomenon that science could explain. In the story, it was the work of God breaking the laws of nature to help Moses cross the sea. To say it was a phenomenon that naturally occurred would be to say the story in the Bible didn't need God's help. It wasn't a miracle. That is not the point of the Biblical story. The point of the story is to show how God helped the Jews escape.

Science and the Bible do not mix. If something special happened in a Biblical story, it wasn't due to a scientific phenomenon, it's to do the hand of God breaking the laws of nature. That's why it's supposed to be miracle.

Of course, it's all fake anyway. Investigation over.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

That's excellent and a very good read. The thing that most stuck out was "All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods."

That extra step seems so blind and ignorant.

Perhaps but what you can do is proclaim with confidence that religious stories that describe the creation of the world are works of fiction. All deities in these stories are fake.

What's left that points to the existence of a god? Nothing. So why do we spend so much time on that theory?

Originally Posted by DJQuad

You believe that and at the same time you put your faith into science books. Those books were also written by humans.

As has been done by others in this thread, you are misusing the word "faith". Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

In science, there is proof. I could take the claims in science books and test it. Faith is not required.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

Believing Jesus walked on water is as dumb as the apple falling on Newton's head to discover gravity.

Jesus walked on water is supposed to be a true account of events that could never have happened. People are not able to walk on water. The apple falling on Newton's head is a story he liked to tell when describing gravity. Whether it happened or not doesn't really matter since it's possible that event could have happened. Apples do fall from trees. People sit under trees.

I don't see why they are both equally dumb stories. One story is not possible while the other is. One story is meant to be the bases of peoples belief in Christianity while the other story is irrelevant to the laws of gravity.

Jesus not walking on water would mean Jesus was not able to perform the miracles that are at the core of the Christian belief.

An apple not falling on Newton's head does not stop gravity from existing.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

There is no such thing as gravity based on scientific research about string theory.
Science believes there are multi-verses and parerell universes, even though there is no proof of anything outside our known universe.

Critical thinking "scientists" suggest that there's no "God" yet they believe in something they can't see nor understand.

Some of what you mentioned deviates from most regular research. These areas are viewed differently than "normal" scientific research. The scientists who are kicking around such ideas that do not have much evidence to back them up. They are still in the very early phase of discovery and will likely need to be refined heavily or dropped altogether with further research.

In the scientific community, these far out ideas are taken for what they're worth: not much. They're ideas but not much more than that. The scientific community recognizes what you said and it understands that these ideas are currently not up to muster.

The scientific community recognizes the difference between demonstrably provable ideas and outlandish ideas. They are not given the same weight.

[DJQuad]

Science and the Bible do not mix. If something special happened in a Biblical story, it wasn't due to a scientific phenomenon, it's to do the hand of God breaking the laws of nature. That's why it's supposed to be miracle.

They absolutely mix. I've never read the bible from cover-to-cover (who has), but I'm familiar with most parables in it due to being forced to attend a Lutheran school until 8th grade. There are scientists who indeed interpret things in the bible as science.

Things like "let there be light" quite possibly could have been the big bang. Seven days could have been billions of years because the word day was mistranslated between Greek, then Latin, then Hebrew, then Greek again, then Latin again, and so on. In ancient Greek there's no literal translation for the word day. The "Star of Bethlehem" could have been Jupiter, Saturn, a supernova, or a comet.

I could go on but the point is that scientists themselves give perfectly valid possibilities of things in the bible. Some are a complete stretch but some that most atheists completely rule out are possible.

In science, there is proof. I could take the claims in science books and test it. Faith is not required.

What can you prove? White dwarfs, binary stars, neutrinos, and other exploding stars spread matter throughout the universe, right? Prove it. That's science you choose to believe based on literature, much like people who believe that there has to be the existence of some sort of God, deity, greater power, whatever.

The scientific community recognizes the difference between demonstrably provable ideas and outlandish ideas. They are not given the same weight.

My point was more this - What do atheists do when they encounter a scientist who can't rule out there is no God, or deity, or a greater power far beyond our comprehension? Science itself should make them agonistic at best.

I love this discussion by the way While we aren't going to change each other's minds about our beliefs, I hope it at least stirs thought between not only between you and I, but everyone else reading this. What makes me Apatheist instead of Agonistic is simply that I can't prove it either way and neither can anyone else.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

They absolutely mix. I've never read the bible from cover-to-cover (who has), but I'm familiar with most parables in it due to being forced to attend a Lutheran school until 8th grade. There are scientists who indeed interpret things in the bible as science.

Things like "let there be light" quite possibly could have been the big bang. Seven days could have been billions of years because the word day was mistranslated between Greek, then Latin, then Hebrew, then Greek again, then Latin again, and so on. In ancient Greek there's no literal translation for the word day. The "Star of Bethlehem" could have been Jupiter, Saturn, a supernova, or a comet.

I could go on but the point is that scientists themselves give perfectly valid possibilities of things in the bible. Some are a complete stretch but some that most atheists completely rule out are possible.

To make these claims, you'd have to be more flexible than a contortionist in the Russian circus. And even with that flexibility, you'd still fail to prove your point. This issue has been addressed by others before me. It would be easier to direct you to Google.

When you search for this and all topics, don't look for articles that confirm your point, search Google for articles that debunk your point. That's the best way to research the ligitimacy of a point you're trying to put forward.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

What can you prove? White dwarfs, binary stars, neutrinos, and other exploding stars spread matter throughout the universe, right? Prove it. That's science you choose to believe based on literature, much like people who believe that there has to be the existence of some sort of God, deity, greater power, whatever.

I don't understand. Is the only proof that which you can hold in your hand? Like, you mean you would only believe a white dwarf exists if you could touch it?

We know about stars because we've observed them with telescopes and duplicated the science that makes them possible. We've made a few bombs based on the same physics that makes stars possible. That's proof enough for me.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

My point was more this - What do atheists do when they encounter a scientist who can't rule out there is no God, or deity, or a greater power far beyond our comprehension? Science itself should make them agonistic at best.

It's not up to the atheist to rule out the existence of god, it's up to the person making the claim to prove that god does exist.

See this article: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by DJQuad

I love this discussion by the way While we aren't going to change each other's minds about our beliefs, I hope it at least stirs thought between not only between you and I, but everyone else reading this. What makes me Apatheist instead of Agonistic is simply that I can't prove it either way and neither can anyone else.

Same here. Another great resource for insightful conversation is TrueAtheism

[myq]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

My point was more this - What do atheists do when they encounter a scientist who can't rule out there is no God, or deity, or a greater power far beyond our comprehension? Science itself should make them agonistic at best.

I can't speak for all atheists, but some of them might say what do you do when you encounter someone who can't rule out that there might be a unicorn just over the horizon? Do you believe in unicorns? You can't prove that there ARE no unicorns. So are you unicorn-agnostic?

(If yes, are you everything-agnostic? Zeus-agnostic, Medusa-agnostic, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man-agnostic, etc?)

Of course, nothing that hasn't been observed can be "ruled out." But it makes more sense to "rule in" the things that ARE or CAN BE observed in some way. Rather than saying "maybe everything!"

Again, not speaking for all atheists, but as for me, I choose to focus on the world that I can and do observe. There's a lot of positive stuff here. (Also a lot of negative stuff, which also helps lead me away from the idea of a benevolent all-powerful being.)

[DJQuad]

I don't understand. Is the only proof that which you can hold in your hand? Like, you mean you would only believe a white dwarf exists if you could touch it?

Not to that extreme, but it's something I myself can't prove either way just like I can't prove either way that a God or Gods does or doesn't exist. I believe that white dwarfs exist like I believe there has to be *some* sort of higher being that some refer to as God. I can't prove it.

We know about stars because we've observed them with telescopes and duplicated the science that makes them possible. We've made a few bombs based on the same physics that makes stars possible. That's proof enough for me.

What bombs? If you're talking about nuclear fusion that happens shortly after a star already formed. Before that it's just a swirling ball of dust and gas that compacts itself so much that fusion occurs. Again, that's science I believe like I believe there's some sort of creator. Stars are born from the death of other stars, but how far back can one go to explain, prove or even theorize what created it? The big bang? Some believe time and space was created by it but some also believe that time didn't begin there as there big bangs that happen billions of years apart. Some even believe that the big bang and the big crunch is God's heartbeat.

Wow I'm rambling. I'm just really into space science.. heh. I'm into it for many reasons. One of them is to prove there either is or isn't a God. Thus far none of them have.

It's not up to the atheist to rule out the existence of god, it's up to the person making the claim to prove that god does exist.

See this article: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another good read, but I don't agree. I think it's up to each to prove each other either right or wrong. If I were to ask an Atheist to rule out there's no existence of a God, it seems like a pretty shallow argument to say it's not up to me rule it out.

Same here. Another great resource for insightful conversation is TrueAtheism

I'll check it out but I doubt I'll participate. This thread is enough for me.. lol. I'd end up taking hours and hours responding to various posts.

Edit: Ok, I'll start *1* thread and see how it goes. God help me (no pun).

[DJQuad]

You replied without a single pun. I'm disappointed

I can't speak for all atheists, but some of them might say what do you do when you encounter someone who can't rule out that there might be a unicorn just over the horizon? Do you believe in unicorns? You can't prove that there ARE no unicorns. So are you unicorn-agnostic?

(If yes, are you everything-agnostic? Zeus-agnostic, Medusa-agnostic, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man-agnostic, etc?)

I suppose I am. As far as unicorns, there hasn't been any fossils discovered so I believe they didn't exist. But isn't it also possible that we just haven't found them yet? I know that sounds odd but if something seems like it's possible, to me it is. You can't prove that they didn't exist, I can't prove that they did.

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man obviously existed though. He went extinct in 1984 and it's well-documented.

Of course, nothing that hasn't been observed can be "ruled out." But it makes more sense to "rule in" the things that ARE or CAN BE observed in some way. Rather than saying "maybe everything!"

"Maybe everything" is a stretch to make your point but I do understand what you mean. People's beliefs are based on what they see, what they trust from others, and what they interpret. My belief is that there either is or isn't a God and until there's enough proof for me to accept either notion, I believe both and at the same I believe neither. I guess that's why I'm not an atheist and instead, an apathetic agnostic.

Again, not speaking for all atheists, but as for me, I choose to focus on the world that I can and do observe. There's a lot of positive stuff here. (Also a lot of negative stuff, which also helps lead me away from the idea of a benevolent all-powerful being.)

Doesn't that make you an apathetic agnostic instead of an atheist though? Check out Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you haven't already.

[DJQuad]

DAMMIT Michael!! Aren't most atheists really apathetic agnostics? : TrueAtheism

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by myq

I can't speak for all atheists, but some of them might say what do you do when you encounter someone who can't rule out that there might be a unicorn just over the horizon? Do you believe in unicorns? You can't prove that there ARE no unicorns. So are you unicorn-agnostic?

As you guys do, I think we agnostics run the old bullshit-o-meter over the various claims. Unicorns and tooth fairies serve as good examples of the extremes, however if you had a shitload of people including Lauren's Dad citing examples of personal encounters with unicorns, then it might be worth a look.


To condense what's been said (and this condensation I think also may have been said), atheists believe its all a fluke, and agnostics believe it might be a fluke or we might be living in a big version of The Sims. Is that a fair assessment?

Also fuck organised religion. No one here is on board with that shit.

[myq]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

As far as unicorns, there hasn't been any fossils discovered so I believe they didn't exist. But isn't it also possible that we just haven't found them yet? I know that sounds odd but if something seems like it's possible, to me it is. You can't prove that they didn't exist, I can't prove that they did.

"Maybe everything" is a stretch to make your point but I do understand what you mean. People's beliefs are based on what they see, what they trust from others, and what they interpret. My belief is that there either is or isn't a God and until there's enough proof for me to accept either notion, I believe both and at the same I believe neither. I guess that's why I'm not an atheist and instead, an apathetic agnostic.

Doesn't that make you an apathetic agnostic instead of an atheist though? Check out Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you haven't already.

I actually think that trying to come up with specific labels to describe beliefs is less useful than talking about the beliefs themselves, because when you use a label, it's not always clear that people assign the exact same meaning to it. (For example, the Wikipedia page on atheism says that "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist," so perhaps I'm an "inclusive atheist." Or perhaps I'm an apatheist. Or perhaps I'm an agnostic. Those labels don't matter.)

Regarding unicorn fossils, of course if there were some uncovered, that would affect my beliefs, but just as you granted, until that happens, it makes much more sense to NOT believe, not to both believe in its non-existence AND in its possible existence.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of beliefs. I care much more about what people DO and how they treat each other than what they think about all this.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

As you guys do, I think we agnostics run the old bullshit-o-meter over the various claims. Unicorns and tooth fairies serve as good examples of the extremes, however if you had a shitload of people including Lauren's Dad citing examples of personal encounters with unicorns, then it might be worth a look.

To condense what's been said (and this condensation I think also may have been said), atheists believe its all a fluke, and agnostics believe it might be a fluke or we might be living in a big version of The Sims. Is that a fair assessment?

Again, I think it's less useful to try and categorize everyone into one of two words, especially in a conversation where there is so much more nuance present. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. To me, it doesn't REALLY matter what you believe, so long as you behave kindly.

And I don't know if I'll go along with your "personal encounters with unicorns" scenario. Plenty of people claim to have personal encounters with ghosts, and I don't think that's worth exploring. (I think it's FUN to explore if you want to, but I don't believe ghosts are a thing, no matter how many people might believe it.)

Especially because the belief in God and the afterlife is a self-serving one, motivation-wise. Which isn't bad. It's just, of course it's what people WANT to believe. The idea of ceasing to exist can be scary. The idea that there's an all-powerful being taking care of everything and it will all be all right? That sounds much nicer. So I think it's worth taking with a grain of salt, when people say they've had a "personal encounter." (The human mind is a powerful thing, and I've certainly had internal mental states that could be construed as personal encounters, but that's just what they were. Personal. Me. I'm a person.)

Again, not trying to talk anyone out of anything (other than mistreating fellow conscious beings, which no one here seems to be doing), just sharing my perspective. Yes, of course MAYBE there is this force that we don't understand, but also there are so many other maybes that it makes much more sense, to ME, to pay attention to the things that AREN'T so maybe-ish. More yes-ish.


PS There's a school of mathematical discovery (something like that) called logical positivism that I studied a while ago. I believe their thing was that, until it was proven, it wasn't true. Such as, the digits of pi go on infinitely, and as of yet, no one has found a string of seven sevens in there. That doesn't mean they never WILL be found, as more digits are calculated in the future, but right now, there is no such string. The logical positivist doesn't say "maybe there will be, maybe there won't, we don't know," but rather says "there is no such string." If evidence is provided in the future to make a different point true, then so be it. But for now, god's existence is a string of seven sevens in pi, just like Russell's teapot, unproven. (And it would be weird to make it one's life mission to prove that those things DO exist. Just live a good life and be kind to people. Teapot or no.)

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Scumhook

To condense what's been said (and this condensation I think also may have been said), atheists believe its all a fluke, and agnostics believe it might be a fluke or we might be living in a big version of The Sims. Is that a fair assessment?

No. Atheists believe existing religions were all made up. There is zero evidence for the existence of a god or any other supernatural being. How did we get here? Well, that's something that science is still working on discovering.

There is no fluke. There is a cause. It's just not known yet.

Agnostics believe the question of gods existence is beyond our current understanding.

The Sims theory is unrelated to atheism/agnosticism. It's a theory that if a society gets advanced enough, it could create a self running version of the Sims. That self running version of the Sims could get advanced enough to create it's own running version of the Sims within it. And so on and so on to a point that you have nearly an infinite amount of Sims within Sims.

The theory continues by asking: "If there is an infinite number of Sim simulations, is it possible we are actually one of those simulations and don't know it?" and "with so many simulations possible and only one reality that actually created the Sims, which is more likely for us to be? Odds are we are one of the simulated societies."