Scientific Atheism is dishonest

Dave Ellis · Sep 22, 2017

eider said:
OK....... please may I ask you a question?

Do you think that there is a reason for the existence of everything?

Depends what you mean by reason. If you mean do I think we were created by some being for a specific purpose, or there's some grand cosmic reason for us being here, then no, I don't believe that.

Dave Ellis · Sep 22, 2017

dcalling said:
Can you define "proper" education?
Do you believe that people can educate themselves to be able to understand everything that is known to us?

I think you can become better informed on a topic by researching yourself, however you will never reach a high level of expertise without interacting with the people who are extremely knowledgeable or actively work in the field.

You will never become a PhD level geneticist via google.

eider · Sep 22, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
No, you clearly have no heard of quantum mechanics. On the microscopic level all we have are probabilities.

Yes! And on the balance of all, there will be a reason, we just aren't sure about what yet!

You really need to cut down on the smiley usage. Inappropriate use of smileys is against the rules here now.

Are you a moderator?
If so, please explain when we are allowed to smile!

If anything it appears that you did not understand his post. In that case you should be asking questions politely and properly.

If you can show any impoliteness from me to any other, report it.

Yes, there probably is. But that does not imply that a god did it. That appears to be your assumption.

Are you prepared to agree that there was/is a reason for everything that we know about?
It's simply 'yes' or 'no'.

And if you want to claim that such a god exists then the burden of proof is upon you.

Deism is fairly easy to show. Just write down anything that exists and show that there was/is never a reason for its existence.

You have tried to tone it down from the obvious false god that one gets from reading the Bible, but it is still an unproved assumption on your part.

I love that, it makes me smile...

Tone it down?
So you think that Deists have 'toned down' from other Gods?
You can't have much knowledge about Deism, then, because I know Deists who also claim that they are Atheists. Now they have reasoning behind that, but can you see it? Well can you? :scratch:

eider · Sep 22, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
Depends what you mean by reason. If you mean do I think we were created by some being for a specific purpose, or there's some grand cosmic reason for us being here, then no, I don't believe that.

Hi......
Are you so cautious about the simple question that you need to get a detailed definition of what 'reason' means?
Little Oxford:- Motive, Cause or Justification.

Can we 'go' with 'Cause'?
You mention 'Grand Cosmic Reason', I would expect that the reason for the Initiation of our Universe (and most probably beyond it) would be Grand, it most certainly would be Cosmic .... yes, it could be described as a Grand Cosmic Reason.

Some folks on this thread do seem frightened to accept that there is a reason for everything, for all.

Let me come back and edit in a well known book.......

EDIT: I'm back...... Please look at this link:

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/.../stephen-hawking-god-could-not-create-the-universe-because-there-was-no-time-for-him-to-do-so/
4 Jan 2012 ... While Hawking agrees that everything within the universe that begins to exist has an external cause, he does not think the universe itself could ...

And so in 2012 Professor Hawking wrote that there was/is a Cause for the existence of the Universe. He points out that because there was no time then God could not have created same. This poses no problem for Deists, but even for Theists the problem evaporates because it is beginning to look as if there is or are Universes beyond our own, and maybe even groups of these, and so time existed within these, and within all.

Subduction Zone · Sep 22, 2017

eider said:
Yes! And on the balance of all, there will be a reason, we just aren't sure about what yet!

That does not seem to be the case on the quantum level. Unless you have a very lax definition of "reason".

Are you a moderator?
If so, please explain when we are allowed to smile!

Just a helpful hint. Smiling is fine, taunting is not. There are various ways to taunt here. That is what it looked like you were doing.

If you can show any impoliteness from me to any other, report it.

I rarely report anyone, even if they clearly break the rules by claiming that I lied when I did not. I am not talking about you here.

Are you prepared to agree that there was/is a reason for everything that we know about?
It's simply 'yes' or 'no'.

Complex questions are never a simple "yes" or "no". And as I already pointed out "reason" seems to be missing on the quantum level. Probabilities are the rule at that level. On the macro level chaos theory gives examples of where very very small causes have huge effects, sometimes to the point where the original cause cannot be identified.

Deism is fairly easy to show. Just write down anything that exists and show that there was/is never a reason for its existence.

But you are still assuming a deity without any evidence at all.

I love that, it makes me smile...
Tone it down?
So you think that Deists have 'toned down' from other Gods?
You can't have much knowledge about Deism, then, because I know Deists who also claim that they are Atheists. Now they have reasoning behind that, but can you see it? Well can you?

Yes, deists are nowhere near as bad as King James Only abusers, militant Muslims or Hari Krishnas (though I am dating myself a bit with that reference).

And no I can't really see an atheistic deist. That appears to be a contradiction in terms. In that case "agnostic" would appear to be a better adjective.

eider · Sep 22, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
That does not seem to be the case on the quantum level. Unless you have a very lax definition of "reason".

Professor Hawking disagrees, I notice.

Smiling is fine, taunting is not. There are various ways to taunt here. That is what it looked like you were doing.

All within your own mindset. We see what we want to see. Well, you did.

I rarely report anyone, even if they clearly break the rules by claiming that I lied when I did not. I am not talking about you here.

Well I would suggest that you leave out such comments. Easy.

On the macro level chaos theory gives examples of where very very small causes have huge effects, sometimes to the point where the original cause cannot be identified.

Keep you talking long enough and you were sure to give it up.

But you are still assuming a deity without any evidence at all.

Look around......

Yes, deists are nowhere near as bad as King James Only abusers, militant Muslims or Hari Krishnas (though I am dating myself a bit with that reference).

Why thankyou for that. So Deists are just a little bit bad! This is funny, but I won't smile. Ugh.... umm.....

oh dear.....

And no I can't really see an atheistic deist. That appears to be a contradiction in terms.

You clearly do not understand terms such as Deist, Theist and Atheist. If I tried to teach then this post would be too long, but if I simply bullet point questions and statements then you might investigate? Individual investigation results are rarely forgot.
These are facts. All you need to do is research and discover, if you wish.
1. The first people to be called 'atheists' were Christians. Why was this?
2. Deists are different to Theists. Why?
3. Deists sometimes describe themselves as Atheists. Why?
4. Some Deists accept that Jesus really did live and have a mission, yet some Deists do not. Why?

Subduction Zone · Sep 22, 2017

eider said:
Professor Hawking disagrees, I notice.

Where? A quote and link is needed.

All within your own mindset. We see what we want to see. Well, you did.

No, but since I was not the one being insulted I could not report you even if I wanted to. At least that is what the rules used to be.

Well I would suggest that you leave out such comments. Easy.

Once again I am merely trying to help you.

Keep you talking long enough and you were sure to give it up.

What? This makes no sense.

Look around......

I have. This statement demonstrates that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

Why thankyou for that. So Deists are just a little bit bad! This is funny, but I won't smile. Ugh.... umm..... oh dear.....

Some are some aren't. You probably know which group you are in.

You clearly do not understand terms such as Deist, Theist and Atheist. If I tried to teach then this post would be too long, but if I simply bullet point questions and statements then you might investigate? Individual investigation results are rarely forgot.

No, you are wrong again.

These are facts. All you need to do is research and discover, if you wish.
1. The first people to be called 'atheists' were Christians. Why was this?

Because they did not believe in the ancient Roman a gods. In their view they were atheists. Just as many Christians assume that those that reject the myths of Genesis are atheists when many of them are in reality Christians.

2. Deists are different to Theists. Why?

Not necessarily different. Deism would be the overarching group. Many theists believe in a specific god. That may not be the case for you.

3. Deists sometimes describe themselves as Atheists. Why?

That is your claim and one you need to substantiate.

4. Some Deists accept that Jesus really did live and have a mission, yet some Deists do not. Why?

Many people accept the idea that Jesus really lived. And he clearly had a mission if he did exist. Whether it was a divine one or not is what is in question.

You need to work on your questions. Some are poorly formed.

eider · Sep 23, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
Where? A quote and link is needed.

I thought that you would have known.
Here, let me show you how Professor Hawking sees reasons for all.... Now, although he does not beliueve in any God, he does search for reasons.
He's a scxientist, you see?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stephen+hawking+reason+for+the+universe&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&oq=stephen+hawking+reason+for+the+universe&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3...5770.11296.0.11820.23.23.0.0.0.0.362.3307.2j17j3j1.23.0....0...1.1.34.heirloom-serp..19.4.638.rKgS9VAX4Dk
Stephen Hawking
says ......................... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

No, but since I was not the one being insulted ....

Do yourself a favour, go back to any insults of mine and report them!

Because they did not believe in the ancient Roman a gods. In their view they were atheists.

So you didn't know, after all. It was not the Christians calling Romans atheist, it was the Romans calling Christians 'atheist'.
If you have a problem with understanding the 'why' about all this, just ask and I will show you. I'm only trying to help.

Not necessarily different. Deism would be the overarching group. Many theists believe in a specific god. That may not be the case for you.

You don't know about that either.
Ask me to show you and I will make all clear.
Don't suggest to theists that Deism is their over-arching group. No! Don't!

Many people accept the idea that Jesus really lived. And he clearly had a mission if he did exist. Whether it was a divine one or not is what is in question.

No it isn't. The question is 'Scientific Atheism is dishonest.'..... and you have no chance of disproving that title, because where scientists admit that there is reason for all, then the reply can be ,'Then let that reason be called God'. And there it is.

You cannot win, imo.

You need to work on your questions. Some are poorly formed.

You need to work on your answers.

Subduction Zone · Sep 23, 2017

eider said:
I thought that you would have known.
Here, let me show you how Professor Hawking sees reasons for all.... Now, although he does not beliueve in any God, he does search for reasons.
He's a scxientist, you see?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stephen+hawking+reason+for+the+universe&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&oq=stephen+hawking+reason+for+the+universe&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3...5770.11296.0.11820.23.23.0.0.0.0.362.3307.2j17j3j1.23.0....0...1.1.34.heirloom-serp..19.4.638.rKgS9VAX4Dk
Stephen Hawking
says ......................... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

I see that you have trouble debating properly and following instructions. First off a biased Google search is not evidence. Second a quote out of context without a link to the article that it supposedly came from is worthless in a debate. At best it looks like you are guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

Do yourself a favour, go back to any insults of mine and report them!

Once again you demonstrate a limited reading comprehension. Only the insulted party can report someone here. I was pointing out how you attempted to insult someone else. Second I only report the worst of trolls. You are not in that category.

So you didn't know, after all. It was not the Christians calling Romans atheist, it was the Romans calling Christians 'atheist'.
If you have a problem with understanding the 'why' about all this, just ask and I will show you. I'm only trying to help.

Oh my! Amazing reading comprehension fail on your part. Did you not read my response? It is crystal clear that you did not understand it. Here is what I said:

"Because they did not believe in the ancient Roman a gods. In their view they were atheists. Just as many Christians assume that those that reject the myths of Genesis are atheists when many of them are in reality Christians."

In context "their view" can only refer to the Romans. Seriously it appears that you are over estimating your supposed education here.

You don't know about that either.
Ask me to show you and I will make all clear.
Don't suggest to theists that Deism is their over-arching group. No! Don't!

Actually I do. I could support my claims with valid links. I am waiting for you to support yours. You seem to have an inability to do so.

No it isn't. The question is 'Scientific Atheism is dishonest.'..... and you have no chance of disproving that title, because where scientists admit that there is reason for all, then the reply can be ,'Then let that reason be called God'. And there it is.

You cannot win, imo.

You are late to this thread. The OP was a strawman and no one has discussed it for quite some time. Threads do that. They evolve and change. If you want to discuss the OP I would be more than happy to do that. Essentially it is based upon a false idea of what atheism is. Identify the strawman and the argument falls apar.

You need to work on your answers.

Nope, my answers are more than adequate for your poorly asked questions.

Try again.

dcalling · Sep 24, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
I think you can become better informed on a topic by researching yourself, however you will never reach a high level of expertise without interacting with the people who are extremely knowledgeable or actively work in the field.

You will never become a PhD level geneticist via google.

About 20 years ago, self educated computer hackers have a higher regard than college educated ones. And just because you have a PHD in computer science, does not mean you can code better than college educated (or maybe even people who only have a high school degree) ones. This is just from the perspective of software developers. This may or may not apply to geneticsts, since the entrance barrier is higher (due to the equipments). But not too long ago some institute released genetic related problems to public and got solved by the public

However we are venturing too far. Notice you increasingly using scientific consensus instead of repeatable, verifiable tests. Scientific consensus are often wrong when not backed up by tests.

dcalling · Sep 24, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
Actually you do. You broke the rules of the forum here. I did not report you, I probably should have.

You are trying to change my claim. Since the mutation was identified your answer is there. But then you have no clue as to what is evidence or how the scientific method works, or even what gene duplication is. When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you.

Let's make it simple. Do you want verifiable repeatable tests for scientific claims or not?

Subduction Zone · Sep 25, 2017

dcalling said:
Let's make it simple. Do you want verifiable repeatable tests for scientific claims or not?

We already have them. You do not understand the scientific method. Would you care to learn?

Dave Ellis · Sep 25, 2017

eider said:
Hi......
Are you so cautious about the simple question that you need to get a detailed definition of what 'reason' means?

I don't need a detailed definition, just a clarification. Even in the part below you gave three different usages.

For example, you could say the reason we are here are the natural processes which lead to the creation of the universe we live in, and further natural processes are the reason life arose and lead to our evolution. I doubt that's what you meant, but we could say the reason we are here is because that's how nature works.

I assumed you went with reason as in some external source purposefully creating us, and I don't believe that to be the case.

eider said:
Little Oxford:- Motive, Cause or Justification.

Can we 'go' with 'Cause'?
You mention 'Grand Cosmic Reason', I would expect that the reason for the Initiation of our Universe (and most probably beyond it) would be Grand, it most certainly would be Cosmic .... yes, it could be described as a Grand Cosmic Reason.

Some folks on this thread do seem frightened to accept that there is a reason for everything, for all.

I don't see why anyone would be frightened about there being some being that creates universes. The point is we have no reason to believe one exists.

eider said:
Let me come back and edit in a well known book.......

EDIT: I'm back...... Please look at this link:

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/.../stephen-hawking-god-could-not-create-the-universe-because-there-was-no-time-for-him-to-do-so/
4 Jan 2012 ... While Hawking agrees that everything within the universe that begins to exist has an external cause, he does not think the universe itself could ...

And so in 2012 Professor Hawking wrote that there was/is a Cause for the existence of the Universe. He points out that because there was no time then God could not have created same. This poses no problem for Deists, but even for Theists the problem evaporates because it is beginning to look as if there is or are Universes beyond our own, and maybe even groups of these, and so time existed within these, and within all.

I think you misunderstood Hawking's point, he said things within the universe have a cause, however the creation of the universe could not as there is no time for cause and effect to exist in.

Dave Ellis · Sep 25, 2017

dcalling said:
About 20 years ago, self educated computer hackers have a higher regard than college educated ones. And just because you have a PHD in computer science, does not mean you can code better than college educated (or maybe even people who only have a high school degree) ones. This is just from the perspective of software developers. This may or may not apply to geneticsts, since the entrance barrier is higher (due to the equipments). But not too long ago some institute released genetic related problems to public and got solved by the public

However we are venturing too far. Notice you increasingly using scientific consensus instead of repeatable, verifiable tests. Scientific consensus are often wrong when not backed up by tests.

Computer programming and writing code is an extremely different field than genetics. That being said your average hacker 20 years ago was still far less knowledgeable than someone educated on writing code. There would be the odd hacker who was self educated and could break through certain types of security features, but those people were quite rare.

At no point has anyone without some formal education in genetics been more reliable or competent than an educated biologist.

As for your last point, consensus is built by having a slew of repeatable, verifiable tests.

dcalling · Sep 27, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
We already have them. You do not understand the scientific method. Would you care to learn?

If you can show me the repeatable verifiable tests yes. But if you don't have them you can't claim to be scientific.

dcalling · Sep 27, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
Computer programming and writing code is an extremely different field than genetics. That being said your average hacker 20 years ago was still far less knowledgeable than someone educated on writing code. There would be the odd hacker who was self educated and could break through certain types of security features, but those people were quite rare.

That is totally untrue. Most of the PHDs I know or meet in schools are not good coders, not only that, the field of software enginnering went so fast that the knowledge learned from school (other than the basics) will be useless.

Dave Ellis said:
At no point has anyone without some formal education in genetics been more reliable or competent than an educated biologist.

As for your last point, consensus is built by having a slew of repeatable, verifiable tests.

Good, so at least you believe in repeatable, verifiable tests. Now can you find any such test that show how HYDIN evolved to HYDIN2? If you can case closed.

HitchSlap · Sep 28, 2017

dcalling said:
Good, so at least you believe in repeatable, verifiable tests. Now can you find any such test that show how HYDIN evolved to HYDIN2? If you can case closed.

You learn as much as you want to.

eider · Sep 30, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
I think you misunderstood Hawking's point, he said things within the universe have a cause, however the creation of the universe could not as there is no time for cause and effect to exist in.

But because it begins to look as if the Universe is not 'all that there is', then there would be 'time for cause and effect to exist'.

But to turn it right round, are you prepared to write that there is NO REASON why our Universe exists?
Yes lor No?

Scientific Atheism is dishonest

Contributor

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Active Member

Similar threads