Atheism for the WIN! YES!!!

[JohnOfSheffield]

I got 14 out of 15 correct because I pay attention and have some degree of intellectual curiosity. I am not particularly religious and I do not care if anyone wants to worship the Easter Bunny or whatever as long as they keep it to themselves.

I'm a Jew raised Catholic but i have never, not even for one second believed in a God, i just played along because that was what my parents wanted, well i did until i was 13.

I got 14/15 too, the last one i had no clue on, but i knew the rest and i could probably take a test on the Bible and general other religious beliefs (not textual though, i haven't studied them that much) without missing one single question.

 

[ShawnD1]

Not saying that at all. Just saying that everything, except whatever started it, has a preceding cause.

Fair enough. The opposing view point about the creation of the universe is that it was always there, and it only changes by reacting with itself. This would be the easiest explanation since it does not require divine intervention, it does not break any laws of thermodynamics, and that's generally how things work. We don't see things being created from nothing, so it seems really weird that we would suddenly decide that this one thing really does come from nothing.

As for the age of the universe. According to the big bang, TIME ITSELF began with the inflation 13.7 billion years ago. So the universe is 13.7 billion years old..but practically speaking it is also infinite, since speaking of "time" before time existed is nonsensical.

I'm not a physicist, but I doubt a physicist would say time began at the big bang (unless it was a TV show and to be dramatic). That sounds like the "something from nothing" that turns out to be wrong every time. At one time we thought humans were created in their current state from basically nothing, and that turned out to be wrong. At one time we thought the sun was some kind of magical fire that never burns out, and that turned out to be wrong. If we say the universe "began" at some point, then I'm sure that will be proven wrong as well.

 

[FTM0305]

Evolution, based on available evidence, God, no, based on lack of any evidence. (and if someone says "absence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence" i'll crawl throu the fucking internet and shoot the fucking retard)

If red necks can get away with murder because of lack of evidence than I think a being with the purported abilities of God would have no trouble with leaving obvious evidence.

What kind of evidence with a God like being leave behind?

What would be an example of evidence of God?

If the type of evidence is not known then how can it be scrutinized or declared absent?

I think the problem here is that people forget that the scientific method is used to prove and disprove through experimentation. Anyone trying to base conclusions with lack of information is going outside scientific inquiry.

The correct answer is "I don't know."

Or if you are really gun hoe, "I don't know yet."

Or declare that God is an unproven theory which lacks evidence to be conclusive in anyway according to the scientific method.

<- Mormon and a Mechanical Engineering/ Physics major ftw.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If red necks can get away with murder because of lack of evidence than I think a being with the purported abilities of God would have no trouble with leaving obvious evidence.

What kind of evidence with a God like being leave behind?

What would be an example of evidence of God?

If the type of evidence is not known then how can it be scrutinized or declared absent?

I think the problem here is that people forget that the scientific method is used to prove and disprove through experimentation. Anyone trying to base conclusions with lack of information is going outside scientific inquiry.

The correct answer is "I don't know."

Or if you are really gun hoe, "I don't know yet."

Or declare that God is an unproven theory which lacks evidence to be conclusive in anyway according to the scientific method.

<- Mormon and a Mechanical Engineering/ Physics major ftw.

There are too many version of too many gods that are ALL equally likely to even start to entertain the possibility that ONE out of all thousands would be correct without ANY evidence what so ever of that being the case.

Any evidence at all would qualify, any, even a likelyhood that something could be interpreted as evidence by those who don't believe in a god would be evidence.

There is none, nada, zilch.

 

[ShawnD1]

What kind of evidence with a God like being leave behind?

If you read the bible, God was not a mysterious person at all. He would talk to people and he would even negotiate. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, some guy was arguing with God over how many good people must live in those towns before God would spare them. If that God exists, we shouldn't even be looking for evidence of him. He would be as easy to notice as the blue penis man from Watchmen.

[heat removed by] The vacuum of space. Or any place where there is no heat energy interfering with them.

Can anyone explain to me why space is so cold? Like we have debates about whether you would freeze or explode if you take your helmet off in space and people say the answer is freeze. Here on earth, vacuums provide near perfect insulation; they do not magically remove heat. Thermos bottles keep coffee boiling hot all day long because the case is surrounded by a vacuum. When I was working in a chem lab, liquid nitrogen was kept in Dewar flasks which are giant vacuum containers similar to a thermos, but they hold things that are extremely cold instead of hot.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If you read the bible, God was not a mysterious person at all. He would talk to people and he would even negotiate. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, some guy was arguing with God over how many good people must live in those towns before God would spare them. If that God exists, we shouldn't even be looking for evidence of him. He would be as easy to notice as the blue penis man from Watchmen.



Can anyone explain to me why space is so cold? Like we have debates about whether you would freeze or explode if you take your helmet off in space and people say the answer is freeze. Here on earth, vacuums provide near perfect insulation; they do not magically remove heat. Thermos bottles keep coffee boiling hot all day long because the case is surrounded by a vacuum. When I was working in a chem lab, liquid nitrogen was kept in Dewar flasks which are giant vacuum containers similar to a thermos, but they hold things that are extremely cold instead of hot.

First law of thermodynamics, if there is no matter (there is, but it's not enough space literally means abscense of matter)), there will be no energy, no energy, no heat and since vaccuum is such a good insulator any heatsource will emit a comfortable amount of heat to any matter around it which will absorb it.

Cold is actually just a lack of energy.

 

[FTM0305]

There are too many version of too many gods that are ALL equally likely to even start to entertain the possibility that ONE out of all thousands would be correct without ANY evidence what so ever of that being the case.

Any evidence at all would qualify, any, even a likelyhood that something could be interpreted as evidence by those who don't believe in a god would be evidence.

There is none, nada, zilch.

Well you over complicate the scenario by introducing the dogma's of a variety of religions.

Narrow it down to simplest forms.

1) Intelligent being who is not subject to death or end of cognitive functions

2) being to whom time and space is nullified through laws of nature.

If such a being did exsist what type of evidence do you think would categorized them?

Point being how can you make a justification of any claim without examining the parameters of the inquiry?

No parameters, no experiment, no justification of statement through scientific reasoning. That's all I'm saying.

When I'm at church I put my believer hat on, when I'm working on something of a scientific nature I put my scientist hat on. When I'm at home I try to wear both and see what connection I can find between them through postulating theory with the claims of scripture and the facts of modern science. Fun but not conclusive for anyone else.

Its fun to rag on forums, but certainly not conclusive to anything. I'm just making that point. So stating "I don't know" would be the most accurate statement in terms of God in the field of scientific inquiry.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Not saying that at all. Just saying that everything, except whatever started it, has a preceding cause.

The site linked earlier takes this on

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well you over complicate the scenario by introducing the dogma's of a variety of religions.

Narrow it down to simplest forms.

1) Intelligent being who is not subject to death or end of cognitive functions

2) being to whom time and space is nullified through laws of nature.

If such a being did exsist what type of evidence do you think would categorized them?

Point being how can you make a justification of any claim without examining the parameters of the inquiry?

No parameters, no experiment, no justification of statement through scientific reasoning. That's all I'm saying.

When I'm at church I put my believer hat on, when I'm working on something of a scientific nature I put my scientist hat on. When I'm at home I try to wear both and see what connection I can find between them through postulating theory with the claims of scripture and the facts of modern science. Fun but not conclusive for anyone else.

Its fun to rag on forums, but certainly not conclusive to anything. I'm just making that point. So stating "I don't know" would be the most accurate statement in terms of God in the field of scientific inquiry.

I can't justify believing in something for which there is no evidence, believe you me, that i didn't believe complicated my life a WHOLE lot but i cannot believe in something "just because", if i did believe my life would be VERY different from what it is now, for one i would most probably not have been a Captain of the SAS.

To me, everything just makes sense without a god, i see no reason to add one.

Do i outright deny a god? There is always a possibility of even the most unplausible to be true, we COULD be in the matrix, denial means absolutes and i don't do absolutes.

Is there a celestial teapot orbiting the moon? Well it's highly unlikely, there is no evidence of it but then again there can't be, it's celestial, yet to completely rule it out would make it an absolute....

So is there a celestial teapot orbiting the moon, the only honest answer YOU can give is "i don't know" and the only honest answer *I* can give is that i don't know, i suppose God and the celestial teapot are on equal grounds in that any supposition of any such thing CAN be true, even it it most likely isn't.

 

[FTM0305]

If you read the bible, God was not a mysterious person at all. He would talk to people and he would even negotiate. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, some guy was arguing with God over how many good people must live in those towns before God would spare them. If that God exists, we shouldn't even be looking for evidence of him. He would be as easy to notice as the blue penis man from Watchmen.

That "some guy" was a prophet named Abraham who was considered on of the greatest prophets of the scriptures of three major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The dealings of the bible were with people that were prophets and in direct communication with God. Most people mentioned in the bible did not enjoy this relationship.

Your perception of "that God" makes many assumptions and still lacks any parameter that could constitute anything approaching research of the subject.

Science is a disciple. Not a backyard hobby where you put things together as see what happens. if you're lucky by doing that you can approach the scientific age of the early 1900's.

As it has been pointed out there are many religions with Gods. So take the most basic parameters for a god like being and tell me what kind of evidence such a being would leave behind?

Intentionally or unintentionally?

So say that he would make himself known and famous is to assume a trait of his personality to make himself publicly known, such a question best fielded by a psycologist, not a scientist.

Unintentionally left evidence is get more into the sciences such as forensic evidence.

IF two men, non gods had a conversation in a wooded area, after a month of growth and animal movement what evidence would there be that the conversation took place?

I think reading people's comments online makes people that want to be scientific lazy. Too many scientific types are taking people's words for granted without inquiring themselves.

Welcome to the age of information. Its easy to grab others claims as assume them as your own because it feels fun or popular. Real minds examine, not assume.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Someone or something that brings about a change.

Heat isn't a thing, strictly speaking. Enzymes are catalysts, because enzymes are things.

Exactly. Energy is a catalyst. In fact, I can't think of any catalyst other than energy.

Energy is a catalyst. What's wrong with that?

Then my point remains. Everything is fundamentally energy, thus everything is a catalyst according to you, which really means you don't know what a catalyst is.

Right. I guess you know better than wikipedia's sources, then. Maybe you should correct it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#cite_note-marshallaugerhilbertblandford-0

It is a common misconception that the time interval between the present and the big bang is "the age of the universe." It isn't. It is the age of our local field of space-time, which is not the same thing. Maybe you should find better sources than Wikipedia.

You should correct wikipedia again, then.

What part of that do you think contradicts what I've said. It says "This upwelling spontaneously organizes into a regular pattern of cells" right there in the first paragraph.

Everything is a catalyst.

Then the word means nothing. You cannot define a category except to distinguish it from things which do not fall within that category. I have the distinct feeling that this will fly far above your head, however.

That's exactly the point. Everything is a cause, and itself has a cause. EXCEPT for whatever set this enormous causal loop in motion.

Why should we believe that there exists such an exception? Your say so doesn't carry a lot of weight given your track record of errors.

I defy you to make a single post without dropping an insult.

I defy you to make a post where you do not post something patently false, jackass.

Again, that's exactly the point. The nature of causes necessarily and logically suggest something that is seemingly contradictory: An uncaused cause.

Absolutely false, and demonstrative of a very deep misunderstanding of the universal quantifier. There is no principle of logic that will permit us to derive an exception to a predicate which is purportedly true of all things.

 

[FTM0305]

I can't justify believing in something for which there is no evidence, believe you me, that i didn't believe complicated my life a WHOLE lot but i cannot believe in something "just because", if i did believe my life would be VERY different from what it is now, for one i would most probably not have been a Captain of the SAS.

To me, everything just makes sense without a god, i see no reason to add one.

Do i outright deny a god? There is always a possibility of even the most unplausible to be true, we COULD be in the matrix, denial means absolutes and i don't do absolutes.

Is there a celestial teapot orbiting the moon? Well it's highly unlikely, there is no evidence of it but then again there can't be, it's celestial, yet to completely rule it out would make it an absolute....

So is there a celestial teapot orbiting the moon, the only honest answer YOU can give is "i don't know" and the only honest answer *I* can give is that i don't know, i suppose God and the celestial teapot are on equal grounds in that any supposition of any such thing CAN be true, even it it most likely isn't.

Fair enough, we're on the same page.

I don't know if there is a celestrial teapot orbiting the moon. Do I think we can put one there? Hell yeah, what flavor do you want? Is it practical? Not by a long shot.

Its the bridge between belief and fact. I know what my beliefs are and I know what's provable by fact and experimentation.

I try to follow religious principles because I feel they make me a better person. They do something for me. I choose to believe in a God.

There are practical implications to such beliefs for an individual, but for those that are highly motivated such as anyone in the SAS (from what I hear), such benefits are probably more luxuries.

I know how tough this world can be. I like to believe I have a friend in high places thats waiting for me to be done down here.

To me, religiously speaking, life is a proving ground. Proving to myself what kind of person I can be. The thoughts and experiences of this life I will live with forever.

Scietfically speaking there are practical things that must be done to survive. Pure instinct in an intelligent person drives them to gain more knowledge, knowledge afterall is power.

 

[sandorski]

So here a brain teaser for Atheist and Religious types that believe in God as a being, not just the Force.

Evolution is true. A being develops over a space of time, the elements combine just right to give this being an extended life span. Being develops the ability to traverse time and space. In the space of infinite time develops advanced cognitive skills and is able to affect the environment around them according to advance laws of nature.

God through evolution anyone?

Yes and No. God(s) are relative. History and the evolution of Religion show us that with crystal clarity.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That "some guy" was a prophet named Abraham who was considered on of the greatest prophets of the scriptures of three major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The dealings of the bible were with people that were prophets and in direct communication with God. Most people mentioned in the bible did not enjoy this relationship.

There are a LOT of people who had more than one incident and who are not labeled prophets, take Job, he's not a prophet in Judaism or Christianity, Abraham isn't a prophet in Christianity, Jesus is outright denied as anything but a scoundrel amongst Jews but is the son of god in Christianity and a prophet in Islam.

It's not as easy to intermix the three or claim that only prophets spoke to god, especially when it comes to Christianity.

But you are a Mormon, correct me if i'm wrong but Mormonism is carried on a long stream of prophets, from Abraham to Joseph Smith? I think that's your point of interpreting the Judaic and Christian scripture, as i've said before, i don't know all that much about Islam but then again, i've spent the last 30 years (since Bosnia) around Muslims (on and off, i have visited the Anglican church in that time too so) so you are bound to pick up a thing or two.

 

[totalnoob]

So take the most basic parameters for a god like being and tell me what kind of evidence such a being would leave behind?

Intentionally or unintentionally?

I suggest this book. It addresses that very subject - http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hyp...5784204&amp;sr=8-1

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Fair enough, we're on the same page.

I don't know if there is a celestrial teapot orbiting the moon. Do I think we can put one there? Hell yeah, what flavor do you want? Is it practical? Not by a long shot.

Its the bridge between belief and fact. I know what my beliefs are and I know what's provable by fact and experimentation.

I try to follow religious principles because I feel they make me a better person. They do something for me. I choose to believe in a God.

There are practical implications to such beliefs for an individual, but for those that are highly motivated such as anyone in the SAS (from what I hear), such benefits are probably more luxuries.

I know how tough this world can be. I like to believe I have a friend in high places thats waiting for me to be done down here.

To me, religiously speaking, life is a proving ground. Proving to myself what kind of person I can be. The thoughts and experiences of this life I will live with forever.

Scietfically speaking there are practical things that must be done to survive. Pure instinct in an intelligent person drives them to gain more knowledge, knowledge afterall is power.

There is a lot to the story, perhaps i'll tell it at another time, i think i already have at some point, i got to grow up with my grandparents instead of my parents because of it...

Anyway, to me, this is it, this is where i give my all and hope it matters. That doesn't mean i don't have a purpose, i do, i have two children and a grandchild on the way, i have (as i see it) an obligation to do the best i can to make things better for them and even if i don't, i did try and hopefully i gave them something to help them live their lives.

That's how it works, the very old give their place to the very young, we learn, we teach, we die, it's a perfect construct and believe you me, even if i believed there was a heaven to go to, i would turn it down for eternal nothingness.

 

[zsdersw]

<- Mormon

Why are you a Mormon?

It's not baiting, it's a serious question. I've read your posts in this thread and find them to be logically sound. You correctly turn the notion of "God" away from the definitions expressed in the major religions and toward something more abstract. This leaves me with the question of why you're of the Mormon religion. What makes you a Mormon and not, say, Lutheran?

I'm entirely agnostic. My biggest problem with theists is their zeal to enact public policy that mirrors the beliefs of whichever religion with which they most closely align. The same can be said of atheists, but they're a worldwide minority with relatively little power. Anyone who claims the contrary is woefully misinformed.

 

[FTM0305]

There are a LOT of people who had more than one incident and who are not labeled prophets, take Job, he's not a prophet in Judaism or Christianity, Abraham isn't a prophet in Christianity, Jesus is outright denied as anything but a scoundrel amongst Jews but is the son of god in Christianity and a prophet in Islam.

It's not as easy to intermix the three or claim that only prophets spoke to god, especially when it comes to Christianity.

But you are a Mormon, correct me if i'm wrong but Mormonism is carried on a long stream of prophets, from Abraham to Joseph Smith? I think that's your point of interpreting the Judaic and Christian scripture, as i've said before, i don't know all that much about Islam but then again, i've spent the last 30 years (since Bosnia) around Muslims (on and off, i have visited the Anglican church in that time too so) so you are bound to pick up a thing or two.

I didn't say God only spoke to prophets. I did say that most people in the bible didn't enjoy that relationship.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the article that started this thread indicated that Mormons where the highest scores on Christianity questions and tied for second overall. Abraham is a prophet in Christianity. Very basic bible scholar question.

I only brought up Abraham, because the context he used he made it seem that God was known to everyone of the time. Like a celebrity everyone was on speaking terms with.

The bible does not record this. Not everyone in the bible had the direct communication with God of these scriptures, not say the population.

Using a story out of context to state that God would present himself the same way as Watchmen's Dr Manhattan, is a huge assumption in the personality of a being.

I hope someone sees that there is something wrong with this logic. I think people are letting their perception of religion interfere with what's claimed by the scriptures.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why are you a Mormon?

It's not baiting, it's a serious question. I've read your posts in this thread and find them to be logically sound. You correctly turn the notion of "God" away from the definitions expressed in the major religions and toward something more abstract. This leaves me with the question of why you're of the Mormon religion.

I'm entirely agnostic. My biggest problem with theists is their zeal to enact public policy that mirrors the beliefs of whichever religion they most closely align. The same can be said of atheists, but they're a worldwide minority with relatively little power.

You know, beating around the bush isn't going to further the discussion, just come right out and ask him why he dislikes homosexuals and why his kind (according to what you think and have already assumed) want to discriminate against you.

That and yeah, his parents are Mormons, that's how this works, do you really need him to describe that for you?

 

[zsdersw]

You know, beating around the bush isn't going to further the discussion, just come right out and ask him why he dislikes homosexuals and why his kind (according to what you think and have already assumed) want to discriminate against you.

That and yeah, his parents are Mormons, that's how this works, do you really need him to describe that for you?

I haven't assumed anything.

I know his parents likely are Mormons, but that shouldn't be assumed as the reason.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Abraham is a prophet in Christianity. Very basic bible scholar question.

No, Abraham isn't a prophet in Christianity, he's the father of Judaism and a prophet in Islam, in Christianity he's a man of pure faith, not a prophet.

You do realise what the word means, don't you?

Now Moses was a prophet because he foretold what came to be, Abraham did no such thing.

I can't argue with the rest as it's not expressed beliefs anywhere but in your own opinion.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I haven't assumed anything.

I know his parents likely are Mormons, but that shouldn't be assumed as the reason.

A man without an assumption on the answers has no need to ask leading questions.

Next up, you'll deny you did and then i'll end the discussion with you because emotional dishonesty is even worse than intellectual dishonestly.

 

[zsdersw]

A man without an assumption on the answers has no need to ask leading questions.

Next up, you'll deny you did and then i'll end the discussion with you because emotional dishonesty is even worse than intellectual dishonestly.

I haven't assumed anything about his opinions on homosexuals and GLBT rights. You were the one who brought those up.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I haven't assumed anything about his opinions on homosexuals and GLBT rights. You were the one who brought those up.

This discussion is over.

 

[zsdersw]

This discussion is over.

Suit yourself. Thank you for proving that assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.