Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[GrowingSmaller]

First, if it only applies to them, how can it be representative of anything in the universe other than them?

Secondly, if you agree that the religious experiences of other people can't be proven to NOT be something from God, why are you not considering that maybe they have it right and you do not?

First. They may have it right. For example someone who believes the world is a computer simulation, may be slightly deviant in their concept of reality, but they may be correct. Until things are different, it will remain their perspective, their "version" of the truth. Alongside others' versions.

Secoldly. Its a fact I could be wrong.... but what can be "checked" are the objective consequences of being a Hindu, or a Muslim etc.

Sure, go ahead. But if you want your evidence and signs to be convincing, you'd better make sure this phenomenon can be checked.

Well go ahead yourself. And check the nature of noumenal (or absolute) reality, and get back to us with the results.

Prove for instance that we're not in a computer program, or are not being watched over by angels.

It cant be done.

Some things can be done, (e.g. I can assess the consequences of piety, of security via belief in the unseen); and others can't (whether the premises of my faith are 'true' e.g. angels are actual).

Yet, even you have an attitude towards the noumenal (absolute), don't you? I think we all do. But you don't have direct access, even as a scientist you have consequences of your beliefs about it. But your beliefs are limited to the secular, and others aren't.

But if science works (has effects), so does faith. Turn on a defibrillator, but you still have to use it correctly for it to save lives - likewise with religion.

"Exalted is He who created all pairs - from what the earth grows and from themselves and from that which they do not know" Quran.

 

[Chinchilla]

If we assume Big Bang then every atom which was produes through it was guided by laws of physics for long periods of time , which in the end caused life to form and atoms reacting in our brains which produce our thoughts . There is no free will in that world view nor are there any moral values , just atoms in different forms . There is no difference between rock and dog , just time which took the atoms from rock to set in some guided order by laws of physics into dog .
Our thoughts are products of inserting atoms into this structure of atoms which we call ourselfes "me".
These new inserted atoms react with other atoms in our brain and producing electrical impulses to our muscles which are reacting to it and doing what they were told to .

This is reality of materialistic world view if you accept to it and reject the spiritual realm of spirits / souls ect.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If we assume Big Bang then every atom which was produes through it was guided by laws of physics for long periods of time , which in the end caused life to form and atoms reacting in our brains which produce our thoughts . There is no free will in that world view nor are there any moral values , just atoms in different forms .

No, not necessarily. Your analysis requires certain philosophical views that aren't shared by all atheists.

For instance, you are presenting a strident materialistic reductionism. Not all atheists are such reductionists. I'm an emergentist, myself.

Also, you are taking a stance on natural causality that isn't shared by all atheists. I don't take the sort of billiard ball style view on causality that you suggest, opting instead for an entity-action model.

Your critique is, perhaps, suitable for dealing with Marxists, but just can't be generalized to all naturalistic atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chinchilla]

No, not necessarily. Your analysis requires certain philosophical views that aren't shared by all atheists.

For instance, you are presenting a strident materialistic reductionism. Not all atheists are such reductionists. I'm an emergentist, myself.

Also, you are taking a stance on natural causality that isn't shared by all atheists. I don't take the sort of billiard ball style view on causality that you suggest.

Your critique is, perhaps, suitable for dealing with Marxists, but just can't be generalized to all atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So what is your explanation to shown problem ? Or do you have none

 

[Eudaimonist]

Apparently atheism is reliant on theism. Therefore there is no atheism if there is no theism.

Interesting how illogical atheism is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what is your explanation to shown problem ? Or do you have none

I don't have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, but my point is that a human being is not just a "collection of atoms" with only the properties of those individual atoms. Perhaps you've heard Aristotle's saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". A human being is more than just a collection of atoms. If you compare a human being to a vat of chemicals (the same ones in the human body), the human being is clearly much more than that soup. For instance, a human being can discuss issues on the Internet, but a vat of chemicals finds that activity challenging. This doesn't require the view that anything supernatural or non-material is taking place. It's just that properties emerge from systems that don't exist merely by an understanding of its parts.

Just because we don't have complete knowledge of human nature, that isn't a reason to assume that there can only be some religious explanation for choice or morality. There is no necessary naturalistic incompatibility present.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chinchilla]

I don't have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, but my point is that a human being is not just a "collection of atoms" with only the properties of those individual atoms. Perhaps you've heard Aristotle's saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". A human being is more than just a collection of atoms. If you compare a human being to a vat of chemicals (the same ones in the human body), the human being is clearly much more than that soup. For instance, a human being can discuss issues on the Internet, but a vat of chemicals finds that activity challenging. This doesn't require the view that anything supernatural or non-material is taking place. It's just that properties emerge from systems that don't exist merely by an understanding of its parts.

Just because we don't have complete knowledge of human nature, that isn't a reason to assume that there can only be some religious explanation for choice or morality. There is no necessary naturalistic incompatibility present.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you don't have solution then why do you quote me . Your opinion is meaningless without facts or at least theory how to solve this problem .

If human being is more than collection of atoms then what created that thing which is not physical inside of humans ?

Basically what you presented is " I'm different than others atheists and not everybody believes the same " but you still have problem of moral values left and added nothing to solve it .

Because you don't like something or don't think something is or isn't does not make it true just because you said so . You need to provide evidence of moral values evolving and being physical to hold to your world view .

 

[Belk]

My point is that numbers don't exist in reality. They are abstract concepts. And mathematics is a language that science uses.

I would agree with that. Numbers are abstract concepts that we use to describe the world around us. The point that I am trying to make is that while science is currently our most accurate model to describe the universe around us it is built on successive models before it. Those models slowly became more and more accurate as we expanded our knowledge.

 

[Belk]

If we assume Big Bang then every atom which was produes through it was guided by laws of physics for long periods of time , which in the end caused life to form and atoms reacting in our brains which produce our thoughts . There is no free will in that world view nor are there any moral values , just atoms in different forms .

How have you made that determination? What is the basis of free will and how does a naturalistic universe stop that from occurring?

There is no difference between rock and dog , just time which took the atoms from rock to set in some guided order by laws of physics into dog .

I'm guessing the dog would disagree.

Our thoughts are products of inserting atoms into this structure of atoms which we call ourselfes "me".
These new inserted atoms react with other atoms in our brain and producing electrical impulses to our muscles which are reacting to it and doing what they were told to .

Uh huh? I fail to see how any of that is an issue.

This is reality of materialistic world view if you accept to it and reject the spiritual realm of spirits / souls ect.

I do not see this as an accurate reflection of reality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you don't have solution then why do you quote me . Your opinion is meaningless without facts or at least theory how to solve this problem .

Not so. I'm pointing out a flaw in your thinking. You were incorrect to say that someone who accepts a scientific worldview must necessarily side against free will and morality. I have made a contribution to the discussion.

If human being is more than collection of atoms then what created that thing which is not physical inside of humans ?

There is nothing non-physical inside of humans. Indeed, if something actually could be non-physical, it couldn't be said to have a meaningful location in physical space anyway. "Inside" would be meaningless.

Basically what you presented is " I'm different than others atheists and not everybody believes the same " but you still have problem of moral values left and added nothing to solve it .

I don't have any problem whatsoever with explaining moral values. You didn't present a clear argument against the justification of moral values that I had seen. Until you do, there's nothing for me to respond to.

You need to provide evidence of moral values evolving and being physical to hold to your world view .

No, I don't need that, and please don't straw man my worldview. I don't see moral values as having "evolved" or as themselves physical (aside from being related to the operations of the human brain), nor do I need to.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chinchilla]

How have you made that determination? What is the basis of free will and how does a naturalistic universe stop that from occurring?



I'm guessing the dog would disagree.



Uh huh? I fail to see how any of that is an issue.




I do not see this as an accurate reflection of reality.

Then how do you explain a base for moral values which everybody share , and the ones who don't are punished by society for doing so ?

 

[Chinchilla]

There is nothing non-physical inside of humans.

You just said that humans are not only matter and now you tell me there is nothing non-physical , can you make up your mind alredy ?

 

[Belk]

Then how do you explain a base for moral values which everybody share , and the ones who don't are punished by society for doing so ?

Perhaps you would be so good as to answer my question? Then I would be happy to respond to your inquiry.

 

[Chinchilla]

Perhaps you would be so good as to answer my question? Then I would be happy to respond to your inquiry.

What do you mean by good and why do you consider my answer worth anything in first place ?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You just said that humans are not only matter and now you tell me there is nothing non-physical , can you make up your mind alredy ?

I didn't say that human beings are not only matter. I said that they don't necessarily have only the properties of their constituent parts, such as atoms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Belk]

What do you mean by good and why do you consider my answer worth anything in first place ?

Ah, so no. Very well. I'll leave you to your own devices.

 

[Chinchilla]

I didn't say that human beings are not only matter. I said that they don't necessarily have only the properties of their constituent parts, such as atoms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So what are they made out of if not purerly from atoms ?

 

[Allandavid]

Apparently atheism is reliant on theism. Therefore there is no atheism if there is no theism.

Interesting how illogical atheism is.

Just as there would be no non-golfers without golf.

Your logic is insurmountable................

 

[Kylie]

First. They may have it right. For example someone who believes the world is a computer simulation, may be slightly deviant in their concept of reality, but they may be correct. Until things are different, it will remain their perspective, their "version" of the truth. Alongside others' versions.

But unless the person actually has some evidence to support their opinion that the world is a computer simulation, then all they have is their own opinion. They can't say that it's fact.

Secoldly. Its a fact I could be wrong.... but what can be "checked" are the objective consequences of being a Hindu, or a Muslim etc.

And what, pray tell, are the objective consequences of this?

Well go ahead yourself. And check the nature of noumenal (or absolute) reality, and get back to us with the results.

Prove for instance that we're not in a computer program, or are not being watched over by angels.

It cant be done.

Some things can be done, (e.g. I can assess the consequences of piety, of security via belief in the unseen); and others can't (whether the premises of my faith are 'true' e.g. angels are actual).

Yet, even you have an attitude towards the noumenal (absolute), don't you? I think we all do. But you don't have direct access, even as a scientist you have consequences of your beliefs about it. But your beliefs are limited to the secular, and others aren't.

But if science works (has effects), so does faith. Turn on a defibrillator, but you still have to use it correctly for it to save lives - likewise with religion.

"Exalted is He who created all pairs - from what the earth grows and from themselves and from that which they do not know" Quran.

Science has done an excellent job of telling us about the universe that we experience. A far better job than religion has done. So I don't think it's quite fair for you to be portraying science and religion as equal in this regards.

(Also, those defibrillators for public use are actually incredibly simple to use. You open it, put the pads where the diagram indicates, and then the defibrillator does the rest.)

 

[Kylie]

I would agree with that. Numbers are abstract concepts that we use to describe the world around us. The point that I am trying to make is that while science is currently our most accurate model to describe the universe around us it is built on successive models before it. Those models slowly became more and more accurate as we expanded our knowledge.

I'd agree with you for the most part.

But I suspect that we will never have a better tool than the scientific process, because it has mechanisms by which it can improve itself. We'll never abandon science for some kind of advanced astrology or something.