Atheism makes no sense to me?!?

[variant]

But "God" is "special" ontologically, so they can just sweep your criticism under the rug, lol

Being consistent about claims doesn’t lead one to being a Christian or a Theist.

 

[impblack]

As far as we can tell, it happens all the time. Scientists don't write home about it any more because it's been known for decades. And yet, the tired old Cosmological Argument still gets wheeled out to do the rounds...

I can see, through your posts in this forum that you know about physics (only a true physicist would say "Chemists are physicists who don't think widely enough" xD), i am a pyshics student, 1st year of college. Don't really know about quantum mechanics yet (only some of its history, Bohr, Rutherford, etc). i'd love if you could teach me a little bit more about that theory

Do you doubt 1 + 1 = 2?

Very little. But i supose all reality could be an illusion, a lie, and when i wake up 1+1=3, and i cannot disprove that. If you ask me, do you think that is possible? No, i can't see how it could be scientifically possible, there is no good evidence to even start to support what i said, but you know, you can never be 100% sure about almost anything, or maybe even anything. You can't construct any logical thinking without accepting 1+1=2, it is a basic axiom of the human mind (or should i say convention?). But if the human mind is wrong about that, or even completely wrong about everything, or his logic completely delusional, or if there is a God that can make 1+1=3, etc...then 1+1=2 would be (even if only sometimes) wrong. The probability of those claims being true must be something like lim of x->0 of x, but still, could be true (an useless true).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can see, through your posts in this forum that you know about physics (only a true physicist would say "Chemists are physicists who don't think widely enough" xD), i am a pyshics student, 1st year of college. Don't really know about quantum mechanics yet (only some of its history, Bohr, Rutherford, etc). i'd love if you could teach me a little bit more about that theory

I have a long thread dedicated to asking questions about science, specifically physics questions, so feel free to pop in there. I may or may not do your homework for you

Very little. But i supose all reality could be an illusion, a lie, and when i wake up 1+1=3, and i cannot disprove that. If you ask me, do you think that is possible? No, i can't see how it could be scientifically possible, there is no good evidence to even start to support what i said, but you know, you can never be 100% sure about almost anything, or maybe even anything. You can't construct any logical thinking without accepting 1+1=2, it is a basic axiom of the human mind (or should i say convention?). But if the human mind is wrong about that, or even completely wrong about everything, or his logic completely delusional, or if there is a God that can make 1+1=3, etc...then 1+1=2 would be (even if only sometimes) wrong. The probability of those claims being true must be something like lim of x->0 of x, but still, could be true (an useless true).

That's certainly something that keeps me up at night. It's all very well and good starting from the self-evidently true axioms of "A = A", "A =/= ¬A", etc, deriving the entierity of mathematics from there, and saying we know with 100% that mathematical and wholly logical truths are true.

But what if we're fundamentally mistaken? Does A really equal A? Can A be equal to not-A? It seems so absolutely certain that such statements are true regardless of human's nuanced way of thinking. It seems so obvious that, had we evolved to think in a different way, or if aliens came to Earth, we really could talk about mathematics and logic (as opposed to, say, literature or art).

But there's always that niggling little doubt that maybe, just maybe, one plus one really does equal three...

 

[MattRose]

Are we having another conversation on "Atheists believe there is no god" again?

Yes, and you're late! What excuse do you have this time?

 

[MattRose]

I am posting this thread because I would like some honest feedback as to my beliefs on this subject from an informed community. My issue, is that Atheism, by it's very nature, makes absolutely no logical sense to me. Let's assume, for a moment, that there is NO empirical proof of God, other than faith.

Well you are equating belief in a infinite universe with belief that there is a God. Somehow you think we have to have "faith" to believe that the universe is infinite because, otherwise we can't prove it. I think that is an incorrect leap. Just because I don't understand how the universe is infinite or how time is also infinite doesn't mean I have to have a "God" hiding out there to make it all work. We may understand it all one day and you'll go "OOhhhh, wow that's really interesting."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well you are equating belief in a infinite universe with belief that there is a God. Somehow you think we have to have "faith" to believe that the universe is infinite because, otherwise we can't prove it. I think that is an incorrect leap. Just because I don't understand how the universe is infinite or how time is also infinite doesn't mean I have to have a "God" hiding out there to make it all work. We may understand it all one day and you'll go "OOhhhh, wow that's really interesting."

I would say we reached that point of euphoric understanding several decades ago, the apex of this wonderment being encapsulated in the late Carl Sagan:

YouTube - ‪Carl Sagan reads from Pale Blue Dot‬‏

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Being consistent about claims doesn’t lead one to being a Christian or a Theist.

If you're going to be a consistent Christian or theist, there are certain beliefs that make that consistency fall apart, such as claiming God is ontologically unique to the point of no critique.

 

[variant]

If you're going to be a consistent Christian or theist, there are certain beliefs that make that consistency fall apart, such as claiming God is ontologically unique to the point of no critique.

I am saying that broadly one can not both be consistent about how one evaluates claims, and be a theist or a Christian.

Those two positions can only be reached through special pleading.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Fair enough. Ad hoc reasoning comes up as well.

 

[Insane_Duck]

^ I think the answer is that no one knows. You have to figure out what "space" and "time" are first. We know how they behave, but we don't know fundamentally what they are.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

spatial

And what makes you think "milleniums of deep ... thought" makes this a valid scientific hypothesis, and not just religious mythology?

says albert einstein
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
Albert Einstein

What Einstein said and what you said could not be different. You stated that the 'infinite universe' hypothesis is "Based On Milleniums (sic) Of Deep Humble Unassuming Pure Joy Of The Intellectual Thought, It Is Not Some Outdated Modality That People Hold On To Just Because Their Parents Tell Them They Will Suffer For Eternity If They Dont".

It is your assertion that believing in a spatially infinite universe is based on "milleniums of deep thought" - well, so what? That a lot of people believed something for a long time, is no indication of its truth. Islam isn't true just because it has "milleniums of deep thought". Buddhism isn't true just because it has "milleniums of deep thought".

uhh that's not what i going for at all i was saying his dumb logic is retarded in that context which it clearly was i wasn't insulting anyone, and by retarded i mean the dictionary term of the word which is saying that that logic was slowing down

Who, exactly, are you referring to? Who's logic is retarding? In any case, your actual statement was, "You Dumb Logic Retard"; you didn't refer to his logic as being retarded, you referred to him as being retarded. But then again, perhaps your poor grammar made your intention unclear.

 

[Xenocide]

And what makes you think "milleniums of deep ... thought" makes this a valid scientific hypothesis, and not just religious mythology?


What Einstein said and what you said could not be different. You stated that the 'infinite universe' hypothesis is "Based On Milleniums (sic) Of Deep Humble Unassuming Pure Joy Of The Intellectual Thought, It Is Not Some Outdated Modality That People Hold On To Just Because Their Parents Tell Them They Will Suffer For Eternity If They Dont".

It is your assertion that believing in a spatially infinite universe is based on "milleniums of deep thought" - well, so what? That a lot of people believed something for a long time, is no indication of its truth. Islam isn't true just because it has "milleniums of deep thought". Buddhism isn't true just because it has "milleniums of deep thought".

what i mean that the scientific process, which is making accurate observations about the world around you and then finding the root causes of those observations by making hypotheses and the willingness to change it if contradictory evidence exists is something that's been done since at least the time of socrates, but obviously this is something that humans have been doing since they developed the neocortex. i also assumed that an infinite universe was the consensus among scientists nowadays, if not then ok, it's not that serious


Who, exactly, are you referring to? Who's logic is retarding? In any case, your actual statement was, "You Dumb Logic Retard"; you didn't refer to his logic as being retarded, you referred to him as being retarded. But then again, perhaps your poor grammar made your intention unclear.

or perhaps i was speaking in a certain american patois where you means your and ya means you. the logic i was referring to was the one which equates faith in anything(as in having an opinion which when there isn't 100% evidence) to faith in god

 

[Wiccan_Child]

what i mean that the scientific process, which is making accurate observations about the world around you and then finding the root causes of those observations by making hypotheses and the willingness to change it if contradictory evidence exists is something that's been done since at least the time of socrates, but obviously this is something that humans have been doing since they developed the neocortex.

I can agree with that.

i also assumed that an infinite universe was the consensus among scientists nowadays, if not then ok, it's not that serious

Fair enough. I still don't understand what it has to do with the OT

or perhaps i was speaking in a certain american patois where you means your and ya means you.

As I said, whatever your intention, your words implied an insult. Without a vocal accent, "You logic retard" isn't taken to mean "Your logic has retarded".

the logic i was referring to was the one which equates faith in anything(as in having an opinion which when there isn't 100% evidence) to faith in god

Who affirms such a thing? And what's "100% evidence"? Can you get 95% evidence?

 

[UnReAL13]

Atheism makes complete sense to me now, because there actually is no god of any kind. This was a fairy tale concocted by ancient desert nomads who were trying to rationalize the physicality of our existence. There are more logical ways to explain... everything.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheism makes complete sense to me now, because there actually is no god of any kind. This was a fairy tale concocted by ancient desert nomads who were trying to rationalize the physicality of our existence.

Aren't these claims on your part? Isn't the onus of proof on you, as much as it is on them?

There are more logical ways to explain... everything.

Maybe, but we don't have explanations for everything. No matter how weak "God did it" is, it's still a viable explanation - For all we know, God could indeed have done it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Maybe, but we don't have explanations for everything. No matter how weak "God did it" is, it's still a viable explanation - For all we know, God could indeed have done it.

It's also important to remember that a viable explanation is not an actual explanation. It's just a potential explanation that hasn't been ruled out. "I don't know" beats such an explanation every time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's also important to remember that a viable explanation is not an actual explanation. It's just a potential explanation that hasn't been ruled out. "I don't know" beats such an explanation every time.

Does it? Why? When does a viable explanation beat 'I don't know'?

 

[UnReAL13]

Aren't these claims on your part? Isn't the onus of proof on you, as much as it is on them?

Anyone who's familiar with comparative mythology should understand the origins of all religion and why it's inherently false. Early civilizations were probably influenced through frequent occurrences of RE's, which over-stimulated the temporal lobe and sent them into limbic shock. It was through the release of all those neurochemicals that a belief in "gods" was manifested.

No I can't readily prove these claims, nor can anyone show absolute proof of any kind. I'm basing my inferences off strong amounts of evidence. The probability for the existence of a deity is close enough to zero for me to comfortably say that "I know no gods exist".

Maybe, but we don't have explanations for everything. No matter how weak "God did it" is, it's still a viable explanation - For all we know, God could indeed have done it.

Is it the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "God" that you're referring to here? Because I'd say this sort of "god" is demonstrably false. The gods of ancient religions have already been effectively dis-proven to some extent (there is no "spiritual realm" on top of Mt. Olympus, etc.).

This really only leaves room for the Deistic god of the Enlightenment, which most of the founding fathers of the United States believed in. Since this version of "god" is transcendent rather than imminent, there's no real way of verifying or falsifying this claim.

This notion is functionally equivalent to non-existent, plus a Deistic god would depend on a more deterministic universe. If that type of god was so perfect and only had to step in once, then it must have calculated everything down to a tee. Quantum Mechanics shows a more indeterministic universe, with acausal phenomena. This randomness in our cosmos leaves even less room for a Deistic god.


My position isn't much different from yours. We're both unconvinced by the claims for the existence of deities. We both look at the same types of evidence to discredit the opposing argument. Except I'm saying this fundamental truth can be "known" based on reasonable approximations of the observable reality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Anyone who's familiar with comparative mythology should understand the origins of all religion and why it's inherently false. Early civilizations were probably influenced through frequent occurrences of RE's, which over-stimulated the temporal lobe and sent them into limbic shock. It was through the release of all those neurochemicals that a belief in "gods" was manifested.

There's a rather gaping hole here: the source of these religious experiences. Who's to say that they weren't, in fact, caused by a deity?

No I can't readily prove these claims, nor can anyone show absolute proof of any kind. I'm basing my inferences off strong amounts of evidence. The probability for the existence of a deity is close enough to zero for me to comfortably say that "I know no gods exist".

So, you believe a natural explanation of the origin of the belief in gods is sufficient to refute said belief?

Is it the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "God" that you're referring to here? Because I'd say this sort of "god" is demonstrably false.

How so?

The gods of ancient religions have already been effectively dis-proven to some extent (there is no "spiritual realm" on top of Mt. Olympus, etc.).

One wonders how you would test for that. What would you expect to see atop the mount?

This really only leaves room for the Deistic god of the Enlightenment, which most of the founding fathers of the United States believed in. Since this version of "god" is transcendent rather than imminent, there's no real way of verifying or falsifying this claim.

So, if you can't disprove its existence, how do you know it doesn't exist? Is this 'knowledge' akin to a scientific belief (e.g., we 'know' evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt by the stringent standards of science, but we don't know beyond all doubt)?

I'm also sceptical that all non-deistic religions are readily disprovable - but then, I'm rather sceptical about everything .

This notion is functionally equivalent to non-existent, plus a Deistic god would depend on a more deterministic universe. If that type of a god was so perfect and only had to step in once, then it must have calculated everything down to a tee. Quantum Mechanics shows a more indeterministic universe, with acausal phenomena. This randomness in our cosmos leaves even less room for a Deistic god.

That presumes the Deistic Deity had a plan. Even in a quantum world we can make predictions - the ball will almost certainly drop, regardless of the slim chance of it popping elsewhere. So perhaps the Deistic god operated on that sort of scale, able to predict the very large-scale outcomes that wouldn't be too affected by QM - it could predict that stars will form, planets will form, and life will form. Maybe.

My position isn't much different from yours. We're both unconvinced by the claims for the existence of deities. We both look at the same types of evidence to discredit the opposing argument. Except I'm saying this fundamental truth can be "known" based on reasonable approximations of the observable reality.

I agree, we're certainly on the same 'side', so to speak. I'm just wary of affirming that no deities exist on - what appears to be - flimsy reasoning.

 

[UnReAL13]

There's a rather gaping hole here: the source of these religious experiences. Who's to say that they weren't, in fact, caused by a deity?

It's known that consumption of intoxicants such as marijuana and alcohol can increase alpha brainwave activity, which can subsequently lead to an RE. Cannabis is known to have played a major role in almost all religions. I can reasonably assume that the over-consumption of cannabis and other psycho-tropic substances are what caused the initial RE's.

That presumes the Deistic Deity had a plan. Even in a quantum world we can make predictions - the ball will almost certainly drop, regardless of the slim chance of it popping elsewhere. So perhaps the Deistic god operated on that sort of scale, able to predict the very large-scale outcomes that wouldn't be too affected by QM - it could predict that stars will form, planets will form, and life will form. Maybe.

We make predictions based on a probability wave, but the outcome is never fully determined. If the Deistic god didn't have a plan, then it was merely experimenting and never intended on seeing humans evolve, or even for humans to "worship" it. Life would've still happened by accident. So why should we call this "god"? Especially if it isn't omnipotent, why give it such a powerful title such as "god" or "deity"? It seems like Deism is essentially equivalent to Ietsism running under the guise of "Agnostic Theism".