Atheism was easier before modern science

agua · Apr 1, 2015

quatona said:
Kind request: Could you (or any of those that postulate it) tell us what this static, exclusive, non-changing meaning of life is?
Just so we know what it is you want to talk about?

Personally; I agree with Solomon, and consequently Jesus.

Ecc 12:13-14 KJV Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (14) For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Joh 14:15 KJV If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Mat 22:37-39 KJV Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

quatona · Apr 1, 2015

agua said:
Personally; I agree with Solomon, and consequently Jesus.

Ecc 12:13-14 KJV Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (14) For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Joh 14:15 KJV If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Mat 22:37-39 KJV Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Thank you.
What I take home from this: The meaning of life is to keep certain commandments.
Personally, I´d find that a little disappointing.

agua · Apr 1, 2015

Quantona said
Thank you.
What I take home from this: The meaning of life is to keep certain commandments.
Personally, I´d find that a little disappointing.

Yes; not understanding the implications and benefit of keeping these commands will result in an disappointing concliusion.

quatona · Apr 1, 2015

agua said:
Yes; not understanding the implications and benefit of keeping these commands will result in an disappointing concliusion.

Which, of course, is not what I said nor meant - so the introductory "yes" is inadvertantly or intentionally misleading, and for whatever reason distracting from my point.

On another note (and to my mild disappointment), you answered my question for this unchanging, static meaning of life (which I hear is important to have because without it we are left to our personal opinions) with a "Personally, I think...". I mean, I appreciate the honesty and all, but I can´t help noticing the paradox.

Thirdly, when we look at the content of those particular commandments, they turn out to be of exactly the broad, unspecific, vague kind that Mark (Eudaimonist) was alluding to.

BukiRob · Apr 1, 2015

True Scotsman said:
The big bang theory does not say that there was nothing before the big bang. It says the universe was once much hotter and much, much more dense and then it expanded and cooled to form the first atoms and then stars and galaxies. It says that all the matter and all the energy was in one state and then it changed to another state and that that state is still changing.

I don't see how science falsifying a theory makes a creator more necessary. I don't see why complexity as such necessitates a creator. Any creator would necessarily be even more complex and would therefor need a creator, and that creator a creator until you would have an infinite regress. You've got to start with something that is eternal. Makes perfect sense to start with what we know exists, the universe as a whole, and not go outside the totality to something that is unknowable and unintelligible for an explanation. Any explanation would necessarily reference something that exists. Therefor no progress has been made to explain existence, which is why the question is fallaciously complex.

Deeply flawed thinking given our current understanding. The current understanding the rate of expansion is accelerating and based on that reality the universe will eventually cease to exist unless some unknown force causes the rate of expansion to slow down. All of the math is suggesting that Dark Energy will continue to accelerate until eventually it begins to tear apart the atoms that make up the universe and then the particles that make up the atoms.

The rate of expansion is incredibly fast: 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).**

20 years ago the concept of Dark Energy and Dark Matter was laughed at as pure fiction... today it is accepted almost universally as truth.

Your argument fly directly in the face of many baseline logically observed realities . To suggest that something as complex as the universe has always been when everything we observe tells us that things go from order to disorder and everything we see in nature has the following cycle... it did not exist, it comes into being, grows to maturity and then dies....

Science is suggesting rather strongly that the Universe is following this very same cycle just described. Therefore, if it did not exist and came into being what caused it to come into being?

** Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever | Hubble Constant | Spitzer

Archaeopteryx · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
Your argument fly directly in the face of many baseline logically observed realities . To suggest that something as complex as the universe has always been when everything we observe tells us that things go from order to disorder and everything we see in nature has the following cycle... it did not exist, it comes into being, grows to maturity and then dies....

Science is suggesting rather strongly that the Universe is following this very same cycle just described. Therefore, if it did not exist and came into being what caused it to come into being?

We don't know.

ThinkForYourself · Apr 1, 2015

Percivale said:
Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist. People used to believe the universe was eternal, until science discovered the Big Bang, so the Cosmological argument wouldn't have been as strong in the past. People used to believe in spontaneous generation; that maggots automatically appear in decaying meat and mice in straw, until science disproved that, which you'd think makes a creator more necessary now than one would have thought then. Science has discovered that the universe is much more complex than previously thought. Even the problem of evil would have been a more powerful argument against theism in the past, before science began solving many of the specific evils in daily life, giving hope that more will be solved in the future. A problem without a solution is bigger than if there is one.

Science undermines religion mainly because religion tends to be allied with tradition, and science introduces change, through new technologies and new understandings of the world. Religions' alliance with tradition is not a necessary one though, and new religions have always challenged tradition in much the same ways that science does. Science may also challenge specific religions beliefs, but a religion having some details wrong does not mean religion's main thesis is wrong.

Science confirms my atheism every day.

But science is destroying fundamentalist religion belief every day, something I think rational people everywhere should celebrate.

ThinkForYourself · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
...
Science is suggesting rather strongly that the Universe is following this very same cycle just described. Therefore, if it did not exist and came into being what caused it to come into being?
...

We don't know. But trying to say God did it is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

BukiRob · Apr 1, 2015

ThinkForYourself said:
We don't know. But trying to say God did it is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

That is your opinion for you can no more disprove the existence of the creator than I can scientifically prove the existence of the creator.

Religion and scripture are 2 very, very different things. Often, religion directly conflicts and ignores what scripture plainly says.

The christian church teaches that a believer when he or she dies goes to heaven... scripture plainly teaches that when you die you go to the grave where you stay until the Resurrection... to the believer the Resurrection of glory and to the unbeliever the Resurrection of judgement.

That is just one of many examples where religion is in direct conflict with what scripture actually says.

To argue that G-d can't exist merely because it doesn't fit into your mental construct is not a feasible position either

True Scotsman · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
That is your opinion for you can no more disprove the existence of the creator than I can scientifically prove the existence of the creator.

Religion and scripture are 2 very, very different things. Often, religion directly conflicts and ignores what scripture plainly says.

The christian church teaches that a believer when he or she dies goes to heaven... scripture plainly teaches that when you die you go to the grave where you stay until the Resurrection... to the believer the Resurrection of glory and to the unbeliever the Resurrection of judgement.

That is just one of many examples where religion is in direct conflict with what scripture actually says.

To argue that G-d can't exist merely because it doesn't fit into your mental construct is not a feasible position either

Something which can not be proven nor disproven is by definition arbitrary and should properly be dismissed without consideration. I'll answer your previous response later when I have more than 5 minutes to post.

BukiRob · Apr 1, 2015

quatona said:
Thank you.
What I take home from this: The meaning of life is to keep certain commandments.
Personally, I´d find that a little disappointing.

Commandments is some what of a misinterpretation. A better understanding of the Hebrew is instruction.

The purpose of these is to teach us how to love each other and how to love G-d.

The entire Torah's foundation is laid upon 2 commands... to love G-d with all your heart, all your mind and all your strength. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself....

BukiRob · Apr 1, 2015

True Scotsman said:
Something which can not be proven nor disproven is by definition arbitrary and should properly be dismissed without consideration. I'll answer your previous response later when I have more than 5 minutes to post.

In that case, you should dismiss anything you don't understand and cant prove... one can not live life that way.

Using your standard, atheism and all forms of faith and religious belief should be dismissed without consideration.

quatona · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
Commandments is some what of a misinterpretation.

Sorry, but "commandments" is what the quotes said.

The purpose of these is to teach us how to love each other and how to love G-d.

The entire Torah's foundation is laid upon 2 commands... to love G-d with all your heart, all your mind and all your strength. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself....

That´s all fine and dandy, but I was asking for this ominous "meaning of life" that allegedly depends on a God existing.

ThinkForYourself · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
That is your opinion for you can no more disprove the existence of the creator than I can scientifically prove the existence of the creator.

It isn't my opinion that mankind doesn't know how life began. It is a fact.

I can posit that Pappa Claus, the Holy Father of Santa Claus, created life. It don't make it true.

BukiRob said:
Religion and scripture are 2 very, very different things. Often, religion directly conflicts and ignores what scripture plainly says.

Agreed. I don't think I've ever met a Christian who follows all scripture

BukiRob said:
To argue that G-d can't exist merely because it doesn't fit into your mental construct is not a feasible position either

Saying "I can't think of any other way, so God did it" is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

I never said God can't exist, how could anyone prove it.

And I'm sure you will agree that you can't prove that Pappa Claus, the Holy father of Santa Claus who was born of a virgin and sent to live with mankind, who sacrificed his Son to journey up and down millions of dirty smelly chimneys every year, the creator of all life, the all-powerful, isn't the one true God.

ThinkForYourself · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
....
Your argument fly directly in the face of many baseline logically observed realities . To suggest that something as complex as the universe has always been when everything we observe tells us that things go from order to disorder and everything we see in nature has the following cycle... it did not exist, it comes into being, grows to maturity and then dies....

Your argument flies directly in the face of many baseline logically observed realities: ie that something as complex as an all powerful God has always been when everything we observe tells us that things go from order to disorder and everything we see in nature has the following cycle...it did not exist, it comes into being, grows to maturity and then dies....

True Scotsman · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
In that case, you should dismiss anything you don't understand and cant prove... one can not live life that way.

Using your standard, atheism and all forms of faith and religious belief should be dismissed without consideration.

Not at all. If one doesn't understand something then one can gain a better understanding. If I can't prove something then I don't accept it as true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The burden of proof is on those making a claim that a God exists. I do not have a burden to prove a negative in a situation where there is a lack of evidence of a positive. Yes all forms of religious beliefs which are faith based should be dismissed without consideration.

By the way, even though I have no burden to prove a negative, in the case of gods I can prove they don't exist.

True Scotsman · Apr 1, 2015

BukiRob said:
Deeply flawed thinking given our current understanding. The current understanding the rate of expansion is accelerating and based on that reality the universe will eventually cease to exist unless some unknown force causes the rate of expansion to slow down. All of the math is suggesting that Dark Energy will continue to accelerate until eventually it begins to tear apart the atoms that make up the universe and then the particles that make up the atoms.

The rate of expansion is incredibly fast: 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).**

20 years ago the concept of Dark Energy and Dark Matter was laughed at as pure fiction... today it is accepted almost universally as truth.

Your argument fly directly in the face of many baseline logically observed realities . To suggest that something as complex as the universe has always been when everything we observe tells us that things go from order to disorder and everything we see in nature has the following cycle... it did not exist, it comes into being, grows to maturity and then dies....

Science is suggesting rather strongly that the Universe is following this very same cycle just described. Therefore, if it did not exist and came into being what caused it to come into being?

** Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever | Hubble Constant | Spitzer

The Big Bang theory does not say the universe came from nothing as I stated in my original post that you quoted from. It says that the universe was much hotter and denser and it expanded and cooled into the matter, stars and galaxies that we observe. Current theories do not describe what happened before the big bang. So my thinking is in accord with the current understanding. Scientists freely admit that the theory is incomplete because we don't have a unified theory of gravity yet. Loop quantum gravity, which I would call a hypothesis not a theory, does describe a contracting universe before what it calls a big bounce. It says that there was never a singularity and instead that space can only contract so much before it bounces back and at the moment of the bounce entropy is re-set.

I do recognize that the universe is expanding and that according to our current understanding the universe will end in heat death. but our current understanding is very incomplete. We don't know what caused the universe to expand or what dark energy is and a lot more. We just don't have the data to say one way or the other what will happen. If any evidence comes to light that the universe sprang from nothing then I'll consider it.

The God hypothesis thrives on ignorance and holes in our understanding. It needs these gaps in knowledge to wedge in its imaginary God. I think time is running out for it though as more and more science gains an understanding of reality.

Percivale · Apr 1, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
People can and still do posit eternal cosmologies. The Big Bang doesn't strictly prohibit such models.

True. But in the past they had the option of positing an eternal cosmology using the universe basically as we know it, but now they must posit a state of the universe totally different from anything we know. It is not likely we will ever know what was there before the Big Bang. A multiverse, a previous collapsing universe, or the logically contradictory cosmic egg are all totally different from the universe as we know it, just as different as God is, i think.

In much the same way? How many wars and inquisitions have scientists launched to settle theoretical disputes?

If you count 'political science', plenty. Science has also given man the power to kill a lot more people at once or to improve our lives, just as religion gives some people the power to motivate a large number of people to join things like the crusades or like humanitarian ministries.

And what would that thesis be?

William James defines the Religious Hypothesis as the belief that the best things are the eternal things, and that we will be better off right now if we believe that the best things are the eternal things. - http://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/IntroBook/CliffordJames/James/james 2.htm

Ana the Ist · Apr 1, 2015

Percivale said:
True. But in the past they had the option of positing an eternal cosmology using the universe basically as we know it, but now they must posit a state of the universe totally different from anything we know. It is not likely we will ever know what was there before the Big Bang. A multiverse, a previous collapsing universe, or the logically contradictory cosmic egg are all totally different from the universe as we know it, just as different as God is, i think.If you count 'political science', plenty. Science has also given man the power to kill a lot more people at once or to improve our lives, just as religion gives some people the power to motivate a large number of people to join things like the crusades or like humanitarian ministries.
William James defines the Religious Hypothesis as the belief that the best things are the eternal things, and that we will be better off right now if we believe that the best things are the eternal things. - Notes on William James, The Will to Believe

" A multiverse, a previous collapsing universe, or the logically contradictory cosmic egg are all totally different from the universe as we know it, just as different as God is, i think.If you count 'political science', plenty"

So, in your mind, theories about the origin of a universe that we know exists....are on equal footing (logically?) with any universe creating entity we can imagine?

I would ask Mr William James why something "eternal" would be one of the "best things" as opposed to something "perfect" being one of the "best things"?

I mean...as long as we're using abstract concepts without any reference to reality...why not use perfect instead of eternal?

Percivale · Apr 1, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
" A multiverse, a previous collapsing universe, or the logically contradictory cosmic egg are all totally different from the universe as we know it, just as different as God is, i think.If you count 'political science', plenty"

So, in your mind, theories about the origin of a universe that we know exists....are on equal footing (logically?) with any universe creating entity we can imagine?

I would ask Mr William James why something "eternal" would be one of the "best things" as opposed to something "perfect" being one of the "best things"?

I mean...as long as we're using abstract concepts without any reference to reality...why not use perfect instead of eternal?

I do think the multiverse and God are equally unknown and unknowable scientifically; both are just 'universe creating entities we can imagine'. Both can be involved in 'theories about the origin of the universe we know exists.' The only difference is many people claim to have met or experienced God, no one claims to have seen the multiverse. Same goes for an earlier collapsing universe; that's quite different from our expanding universe in which entropy is a law.

I think James was using eternal as a catchall term for things like God, spirits, the afterlife, karma, etc. Those all either do or don't exist, they are statements about reality.

Atheism was easier before modern science

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Objectivist

Newbie

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Objectivist

Objectivist

Sam

Aggressively serene!

Sam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency