Are you an atheist?

[Rabbie]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

 

[Dick7Access]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

Amen and amen!

 

[Mihail]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

Fully agree.

 

[Libre]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

Oops. Quite right. When one feels attacked and trivialized for one's philosophy (which I certainly did) it is sometimes difficult not to answer in kind.
Apologies.

 

[dan-cat]

Oops. Quite right. When one feels attacked and trivialized for one's philosophy (which I certainly did) it is sometimes difficult not to answer in kind.
Apologies.

Did you get the time to listen to the podcast I posted? It addresses the complexity issue quite well.

 

[Libre]

Did you get the time to listen to the podcast I posted? It addresses the complexity issue quite well.

I just listened to part of it now.
I'll catch the rest later.
Thanks for the link.

 

[Bladerunner]

God choose to appear as a burning bush to Moses.

LOL I guess so,, just don't know if the bush was physically burning or burning with a glow of light. each would produce the same result in Moses...?? just don't know. LOL

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Old Man Devin]

Old Man Devlin-
I want to tell you that most of my life I believed as you do, that random chance could account for anything.
It's not like I saw an apparition of Moses or a burning bush or anything of the sort.
It just occurred to me that the tower of sand theory is not only implausible, it is impossible. Whether there is one universe or an infinite number, randomness that results in organization is rare enough, and when you compound the probabilites over and over again millions and trillions of times, the word IMPOSSIBLE starts to rear large - at least in my mind.
Anyway, I am a ***** about my philosophies.
Today I believe in God.
Tomorrow, who knows?

I contend the opposite: that an infinitely large universe, or or an infinite number of finite universes, outlandish events are CERTAIN to occur, just because any event that doesn't have a probability of exactly zero will occur at some point, and some point, somewhere in reality.

Keep in mind that 'organisation' isn't entirely random, it just requires a few random events at the beginning of time of beginning or the evolution of life for it to be set up in such a way that natural processes effecting it will cause an increase in complexity, rather than destroying it. The requirement for random events is not all that extreme.

 

[Old Man Devin]

To Galaxiom and Old Man Devin:

As atheist how do you two account for the 'universal and timeless phenomenon of man's relationship with God' Evolution?

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

I haven't heard that phrase before. Does it mean the idea that societies all independently believe in gods of some kind? I think that is easily accounted for: it is a product of the human mind's drive to assume pattern and reason in the world, a behaviour that on a practical level makes us a superior animal, but doesn't work when applied to issues that we don't understand at all, as we are forced to 'invent' patterns (e.g. when its dark, you assume all noises you dangerous because you don't know better).

So the creation of religious cultures is simply a response to the fact that we can comprehend ourselves and the universe far better than any animal that came before us, and we strive to explain it in terms we can understand (e.g. gods are often similar to humans, because humans are extremely good at understanding the motivations and interactions of other humans).

Oh, and if that's not the question you meant by that phrase, do ask again but perhaps explain it a little as I'm not familiar with the idea.

Many thanks.

 

[Galaxiom]

"the Universe is incredibly simple at its basic level"; that "the way stars work is very very simple";

It is and they do. Stars are the best understood objects in all of cosmology. So much so that they can be characterised so easily and then used to calculate the distance to them by observed brightness.

and that "life is nothing more than mineralogy".

The leading hypothesis for explaining abiogenesis is the serpentization of olivine in deep sea alkaline hydrothermal vents. The reaction that occurs in these locations is chemically identical to the most fundamental of all organic reactions. It produces a free electon and every living creature uses it. It occurs in cell sized pockets in the structure that is accreted.

Many assume there is a deep chasm between living an non-living but that is not the case. Life is indeed made from insanely complex crystals.

These contentions are so foolish that it is ridiculous to debate this with you. Fundamental discoveries are still being made, and Nobel Prizes have just been awarded for the Higgs Boson and allotropes of carbon, like graphene.

Nothing fundamentally new there at all. The Higgs boson was predicted in the 1960s. It has taken a long time to build the machine to detect them. Their detection confirms the theory.

Graphene was know theoretically long before it was found.

If you're so familiar with the eternal secrets of the universe, why, I wonder, do you waste your genius posting on an internet forum and taking pot-shots at an ignoramus such as myself.

I am fascinated by many things. I have been working on my own cosmological theories for my whole adult life. That is why I take such an interest in cosmology. Consequently I am quite knowledgeable in the subject and I won't apologise for being so.

I was simply pondering the issue, as other thinking men and woman have done since there were people capable of it. You seem to think that this is a mechanical problem that simple calculation can resolve. It is an eternal philosophical question, open to debate, interpretation, and opinion, and only an arrogant fool would claim that it has all been proven beyond any doubt.

A good place to start pondering such questions is among what is already known. Those who ponder in the dark because they are not dedicated enough to take the time to understand often do come up with conclusions that are not consistent with what has already been observed.

Of course there is no shame in this unless one is offended by the the knowledge of others.

 

[Libre]

It is and they do. Stars are the best understood objects in all of cosmology. So much so that they can be characterised so easily and then used to calculate the distance to them by observed brightness.

As a layperson (in astrophysics and cosmology at any rate) I would have thought there is more to know about stars than just their distance and brightness.

Nothing fundamentally new there at all. The Higgs boson was predicted in the 1960s. It has taken a long time to build the machine to detect them. Their detection confirms the theory.

Graphene was know theoretically long before it was found.

Theoretical knowledge and actual, provable knowledge are two distinctly different things.
What machine, I pause to wonder, has now been built that confirms the non-existence of God?

I am fascinated by many things. I have been working on my own cosmological theories for my whole adult life. That is why I take such an interest in cosmology. Consequently I am quite knowledgeable in the subject and I won't apologise for being so.

I too am fascinated by many things - and I've spent MY whole adult life persuing subjects that I would wager are quite alien to you.

A good place to start pondering such questions is among what is already known. Those who ponder in the dark because they are not dedicated enough to take the time to understand often do come up with conclusions that are not consistent with what has already been observed.

Of course there is no shame in this unless one is offended by the the knowledge of others.

I was under the impression that this watercooler section, and especially this particular thread - was for general remarks and ideas, and not restricted only to those that have devoted their lives to the formal study of the deep dark secrets of the universe.

Now, don't get me wrong, Galaxion.
I fear that you have "sized me up" based on my philosophical musings.

About 5 years ago I declared that I was an "atheist".
The term is ugly, though. I don't like it.
I was reading this thread that addresses that specific question - not the composition of stars, but the existence vs the non-existence of God - and I started thinking about this age-old question - God or no God?
I wanted to contribute to the discussion, which had evolved into a discussion of whether the Japanese Emperor should have been tried as a war criminal, and I wanted to address the subject of the thread and get it back on track. How the heck could I answer this?
I decided it would be easier, more philosophical, and more poetic to write about an existent God than a non-existent one.
So that's what I did. That's the truth. I don't believe, and I don't disbelieve. I waver and vacillate - as I opened my article with. I didn't expect to be treated as a friviolous, ignorant dope. I really did not!
If you've made up your mind about it - congratulations to you sir. But a true scientist (like a "true Scottsman", I expect) would never arrive at a definite, conclusive position in the absense of definite conclusive proof, and as far as I am concerned, (and not only me but a huge percentage of the human beings on this planet), the question is very much still open - and probably always will be.
Lastly, Galaxion, I think Socrate's quote - which I have made my signature on this forum, bears some reflection. A little more of THAT attitude, and a little less OH, I HAVE ALL THIS FIGURED OUT would go a long way.

 

[Dick7Access]

because humans are extremely good at understanding the motivations and interactions of other humans).

Many thanks.

I must have been sick and miss school the day they taught that, as for the life of me, there are many, many times that I can't understand the motivation and interactions of some people.

 

[Old Man Devin]

I must have been sick and miss school the day they taught that, as for the life of me, there are many, many times that I can't understand the motivation and interactions of some people.

Yes it does seem hard at times. But take heart in the fact that you probably understand other people better than cats understand other cats!

At the very least we can always come to vague 'they are stupid' or 'they have X trait' conclusions when we don't understand behaviour. Having the ability to guess a persons motivation (correctly or not) when you have no idea what it actually is is something to be proud of as a homo-sapien!

 

[Libre]

I contend the opposite: that an infinitely large universe, or or an infinite number of finite universes, outlandish events are CERTAIN to occur, just because any event that doesn't have a probability of exactly zero will occur at some point, and some point, somewhere in reality.

But the universe isn't actually infinite - now is it?
It has a calculated size, a calculated age, and and calculated amount of mass. As far as infinite universes - that one really leaves me in the stardust, sorry to say. There are a vast number of subjects I have no significant knowledge of, nor understanding of, including the concept of infinite alternate universes. But the known universe - the one we live in, that is the one to which I refer.
I recently read a discussion about the typing chimp.
The old parable is that a chimp, given an infinite amount of time, or an infinite number of chimps on infinite typewriters, will type every play Shakespeare wrote, or even every book ever written, etc.
In this discussion, they examined the actual probabilities of a chimp randomly hitting keys, and typing just the FIRST LINE of Hamlet. To arrive at even a faint likelyhood of it would take - I don't know - billions of times longer than the universe has existed or is predicted to exist.
Conclusion: It ain't gonna happen.
I guess you could make the point that you are making - that in an infinite amount of time, anything that COULD happen WILL happen.
It's convenient to say so, because it really doesn't involve any further thinking. But the reality is, in our universe (and not an infinite number of hypothetical alternate universes) there are a fixed number of atoms, a certain number of years, and after all there is a finite boundary to it all. If not, well then, anything could happen - kangaroos could jump and reach moon, the past could be changed and JFK would still be alive, Elvis would still be in the building, cockroaches could sing opera, and politicians could tell the truth. But we all know, none of those things could ever actually happen.

 

[nanscombe]

If you subscribe to the idea that humans evolved from chimp-like creatures then an evolved chimp-like creature has already typed the FIRST LINE of Hamlet .. his name was William Shakespeare.

 

[Libre]

If you subscribe to the idea that humans evolved from chimp-like creatures then an evolved chimp-like creature has already typed the FIRST LINE of Hamlet .. his name was William Shakespeare.

I could say you missed the point of a the parable, and the chimp is just a device for generating random strings of characters on a typewriter, and it could just as well have been a bouncing ping-pong ball on the keys.
Or, I could say:
Exactly. Not by random chance - but by intelligence and meaningful creative effort. Just what I've been saying.
I could deal with your comment either way - except I think you must be joking. William Shakespeare; a chimp-like creature. Now THAT'S a stretch!

 

[Dick7Access]

I could say you missed the point of a the parable, and William Shakespeare; a chimp-like creature. Now THAT'S a stretch!

There are people who say that the Bard did not write any of it. I don't take a position one way or the other.

 

[Bladerunner]

Libre: I wanted to contribute to the discussion, which had evolved into a discussion of whether the Japanese Emperor should have been tried as a war criminal, and I wanted to address the subject of the thread and get it back on track. How the heck could I answer this?

I guess the turning of the thread from Atheism to what it has become is my fault. Everybody here kept telling me there is no GOD and of course the name of the thread tells me why. I thus stated that Atheism is a religion all its own and has a worldview of Naturalism/evolution or Transcendentalism .......and there goes the thread!

In most cases Atheism believes that all things was started by a....

a little hydrogen, anti-matter, a few other particles (basically), one small random event and the Big Bang went off. Out of the random events or lack there of, billions of whole galaxies (roughly put together the same way every time) were built. Now over some 4.5 billion years the universe has expanded and created billions of breathtaking phenomenon ever imagined. Then somewhere out there on one piece of rock (we now call earth),on the outskirts of one galaxy (out of billions), a tiny bit of primordial ooze (just one molecule or DNA strand away from a slug) we became human. During this time, we also grew a brain larger than all other animals including the slug (if it has one-- I doubt it). Through evolution, all species, the heavens, trees/other plants, everything on earth was created spontaneously. Perhaps that one random event set off a chain reaction of sorts, who knows. Now I am being told that our brains was hard wired to think from the beginning that there was a God. Hard-wired...Out of all that Ooze, who would have thunk it? The average Atheist has made his/her choice based on their religion (faith) and that is not to believe in one God but evolution. Transcendentalism goes one step further and believes that man himself along with the spiritual world of nature is a God and of course the Post-Modern worldview people believes there are no worldviews, everything is just there.

Galaxiom (one of my first contacts in the thread) is angry because the Christian religion, a theist worldview, believes everything was created by one being, the Christian God Jehoava! He often speaks of the thousands of people killed by Abraham's God' and consistently belittles those who would believe in such a being . He leaves out the fact, that Lenin (sometimes called the father of communism)was an Atheist. How many millions upon millions have been killed in the name of his religion (faith), (worldview Naturalism/evolution). Mr. Galaxiom simply believes in same religion (faith). He was right though and I am paraphrasing, 'there are all kinds of Gods being worshiped throughout the world' and that in itself in sad in my opinion.

I apologize for turning the thread on its ears. If I at anytime made someone uncomfortable or feel that I was mocking or angry at them, I assure you I was not but simply trying to respond to questions and /or ideas they had.

To leave the subject and let the thread get back to its original purpose; I have my religion (faith) and have made my choice. You have your religion (faith) and have made your choice. While I think it is the wrong decision (as you probably do mine), I do respect your decision.

Have a good day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[nanscombe]

... I could deal with your comment either way - except I think you must be joking. William Shakespeare; a chimp-like creature. Now THAT'S a stretch!

Not if humans evolved from apes.

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerruner
You wrote:

Galaxiom (one of my first contacts in the thread) is angry because the Christian religion, a theist worldview, believes everything was created by one being, the Christian God Jehoava!

With all respect, Galaxiom don't seems to be ANGRY. Just with some more hot blood.
No. Generally, we, the atheists, are not angry because someone believe that somewhere is a god.
Just we can't understand how a book of stories (I refer to the Bible) and, more than that, a certain story that show us a young lady (called Mary) that have a child but without her husband participation (it happen many times ) ) can be the base for a religion with millions adepts.

You also wrote:

He often speaks of the thousands of people killed by Abraham's God' and consistently belittles those who would believe in such a being . He leaves out the fact, that Lenin (sometimes called the father of communism)was an Atheist. How many millions upon millions have been killed in the name of his religion (faith), (worldview Naturalism/evolution).

The answer is very simple: no one.
No one has been killed because he was a theist.
Millions, theists or not, have been killed because the political side.
But this is another story. Here, under Watercooler, is a thread: Is capitalism better than socialism ? Take a look there and we can continue the debates about Lenin in that thread.

About the probabilities: (real story)
One of the Romanian lottery "game" is called 6 from 49.
That mean that if you have 6 numbers on your ticket (from a total of 49 numbers) you will become a very rich man.
I play very rarely. Maybe one ticket in 5 years.
One time I "choose" this numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6 and I show the ticket to more peoples.
Each one, with no exception, said me that I am crazy. Why ? Because. With no demonstration.
Or with a demonstration in the believers manner: "Have you seen ever at the lottery five numbers in this order ?" (mean n, n+1, n+2, ..., n+5)
No math can convince they that my ticket has equal chances as any other to be the winner.

Of course that my ticket wasn't the winner . Again, in the same manner with the non-atheists some of the people who have seen before my ticket have said to me: "Are you, NOW, sure that you have no chance with a ticket like yours ?"

No. I am not