How I Feel About Atheists

[Willamena]

This guy is hung up on this FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER . It seems to be his go to argument in his lack of understanding in this matter. I see he wants you to answer his ridiculous question yet he won't answer my variety of questions in response to him posting the same question to me about this FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER in connection to our discussion on the possibility of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. So it's not you, it makes no sense to me either. It has no correlation. I agree with you that he doesn't even understand his point.

He can see what you wrote, you know.

If you want to talk to him, talk to him, not us.

 

[PureX]

The absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If nobody remembers seeing you at work yesterday, and your time card had not been stamped, you probably won't be paid if you claim that you were at work, and your appeals after being denied will be justifiably rejected as well.

What evidence were you logically expecting to find proving that gods exist? By what criteria did you establish these expectations to be logical and reasonable? Because I can't imagine what evidence there would be that we humans could detect, that would prove to us that such a metaphysical, ultra-creative, 'spirit entity' exists. Nor can I conceive of what similar evidence there possibly be that could disprove such an existence.

 

[Altfish]

This guy is hung up on this FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER . It seems to be his go to argument in his lack of understanding in this matter. I see he wants you to answer his ridiculous question yet he won't answer my variety of questions in response to him posting the same question to me about this FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER in connection to our discussion on the possibility of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. So it's not you, it makes no sense to me either. It has no correlation. I agree with you that he doesn't even understand his point.

But an Intelligent Designer makes no sense to me; I don't understand how it explains anything??

 

[Altfish]

He can see what you wrote, you know.

If you want to talk to him, talk to him, not us.

Thank you, I wondered why I was being spoken about in a reply to my post. Strange?

 

[Polymath257]

I would say that the fact that anythings exists at all can reasonably imply that there may be a Designer behind it.

And that only pushes the question of existence back a notch: who/what designed the designer? if you say 'nothing' then you are being inconsistent. If you give an answer, you have shown yourself wrong. Either way, you show the weakness of your logic.

The only option is that there is not a cause for existence: it is causeless.

Again , you tell people they are wrong or that there interpretations are wrong. I don't agree with many of your statements and views but I never am so arrogant, bold, or narrow-minded enough to say you are wrong. Many of these topics are open to interpretation and your assessments aren't always going to be the same as everyone else. Perhaps you could say " I believe " or " it is my opinion " in these discussions dealing with subjective matters, instead of "you're wrong." It just is off-putting and comes across as arrogant and egotistical. Many of your claims are matters of opinion , they are not facts. They are just your interpretation. For one example : You say we do not see evidence of a "design." That is an absolute opinion of yours. I do see evidence of a design in nature, and so do so many others throughout the world, in all walks of life, in all areas of academics .I see design in natural laws. You are going to try and tell me what I do or don't see ? Are you to submit that your statement is true or factual and the rest of us are " wrong ? " You see it one way, others see it a different way. You opinions and views are not absolute truths in the eyes of others. Can you not comprehend this fact ?

Can you comprehend that people can be wrong even if they strongly believe something? That the truth is not determined by strength of belief, but rather through testing of alternatives? And that it *is* possible to say someone is wrong?

The question of recognizing design is not a new one. Archaeologists have to deal with it all the time. So, they figure out how to distinguish intentional action from natural forces. One way to start this is to really understand how natural forces can produce different effects. When effects other than those are found, that is at least some evidence of intelligent intervention. We see this, for example, in analysis of ancient stone tools or in how bones were worked by early humans.

So, how do you distinguish between an intelligently designed universe and one that has only physical laws as the reason for the dynamics? Well, one way is to see if the natural laws do, in fact, serve to understand what we observe. If they do, then to paraphrase Laplace 'we have no need of the assumption of God'. And that is precisely where we find ourselves. Design has to be contrasted to a universe without design, but with structure. The evidence points to the latter, not the former.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand, and agree. Existence is a conundrum either way we look at it. But given this, the "evidence" as it exists supports causation, even though we can't determine what the cause was, or how it could have existed prior to existence.

Actually, no it doesn't. Our most fundamental physical laws are non-causal. Quantum mechanics is, ultimately, not a causal theory.

Keep in mind that existence and the universe are more or less the same thing, from our perspective. But the universe could have a cause if existence were expanded beyond the limits of the universe that we know.

Though, in the end, that just moves the conundrum back a step, it doesn't really resolve it.

Precisely. The only possible resolutions are an infinite sequences of causes going back into time with no 'first cause' or something (perhaps many somethings) that have no cause at all. Both are reasonable. The latter has a bit more evidence in its favor (most quantum events are, strictly speaking, uncaused).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

False distinction. The atheist is the position that atheism takes.

I.e. the atheist takes a position. What is that position? Atheism.

I hope you realize that this isn't how the English language - or any language I'm familiar with - works.

And a person cannot be a strong atheist if atheism isn't a position on the absence of god.

Nonsense.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Thank you. So it isn't a scientific matter. it isn't a logical matter or a matter of reason. Because it can neither be proved nor disproved, active belief or active disbelief are both non-reasonable.

But a *lack* of belief either way is completely reasonable.



And once again, it is *possible* our universe was created as a science project among a race of hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional beings. Given what we know scientifically, that is a *possibility* that is probably more likely than a lone creator.

But I consider this more likely possibility to be much less likely than deserves belief. There is more evidence for it as a possibility, but none for it as a reality.

I don't agree with any of what you just said, again. It is most definitely a logical matter to me. It is completely logical to view our existence as being designed by an ID. It a is also a matter of reason. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in the possibility of an ID, that's why people do. You say disbelief is unreasonable but lack of belief is reasonable. The prefix 'dis' literally means 'lack of.' So disbelief means lack of belief. So how can disbelief be unreasonable and lack of belief be reasonable ? They are the same exact meanings. And science doesn't disprove any possibility of an ID. You say ID isn't a matter of science but then you use science to claim that ID is less probable than your science project analogy. If it's not a matter of science then what we know scientifically would make no sense in your evaluation of it. And , like I said before , I think , and so do many others, that what we know scientifically does indeed lead to the possibility of an ID. Your view is simply that, it is your view. It does not prove anything or falsify anyone else's view. As much as you want it to , it doesn't, it can't and it won't.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

He can see what you wrote, you know.

If you want to talk to him, talk to him, not us.

I will talk to whomever I please, thank you.
I don't believe I was addressing anything to you.
And I wanted him to see what I wrote.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

And that only pushes the question of existence back a notch: who/what designed the designer? if you say 'nothing' then you are being inconsistent. If you give an answer, you have shown yourself wrong. Either way, you show the weakness of your logic.

The only option is that there is not a cause for existence: it is causeless.



Can you comprehend that people can be wrong even if they strongly believe something? That the truth is not determined by strength of belief, but rather through testing of alternatives? And that it *is* possible to say someone is wrong?

The question of recognizing design is not a new one. Archaeologists have to deal with it all the time. So, they figure out how to distinguish intentional action from natural forces. One way to start this is to really understand how natural forces can produce different effects. When effects other than those are found, that is at least some evidence of intelligent intervention. We see this, for example, in analysis of ancient stone tools or in how bones were worked by early humans.

So, how do you distinguish between an intelligently designed universe and one that has only physical laws as the reason for the dynamics? Well, one way is to see if the natural laws do, in fact, serve to understand what we observe. If they do, then to paraphrase Laplace 'we have no need of the assumption of God'. And that is precisely where we find ourselves. Design has to be contrasted to a universe without design, but with structure. The evidence points to the latter, not the former.

1.) You claim that the only option is that there is no cause for existence. That is simply a view that you derived at, it isn't an absolute truth. It is just another opinion of yours. We don't know or may not be able to understand the nature of a possible ID or the paradox of who designed the Designer. Our logic and reasoning and minds may not be equipped to grasp what may be the cause. There could be a completely different set of logic and rules and science that exists outside of our human thought capacity. Just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean that there is no cause. So your opinion is that there is no cause to existence. Then how do we exist ? We just are here , with no cause ? That seems less likely , although possible, than the existence of a cause. Either way it is something we can't comprehend , but that still, in my opinion, doesn't rule out the possibility of an ID who may be existing on a plane that is not logical or reasonable as we know it. The answer may be that an ID both exists and doesn't exist. Maybe there are an infinity of IDs. Maybe infinity is the cause. We use the term infinity in math and science although scientists and mathematicians admit that we can't comprehend infinity or prove the concept at all So maybe an ID is like infinity and we just can't comprehend it. That doesn't mean it can't exist in some capacity.There is no weakness in my logic in this matter. Then your logic conclusion about there being no cause for existence is equally as weak. I draw no conclusion in this matter, only possibilities . You seem to have come to a conclusion about that which we don't know......2.) Yes , people can be wrong about certain things that they believe are true. I am speaking of the many things that you tell people are wrong that I don't believe are wrong and I think are open to interpretation and not hard facts. So can you admit that what YOU strongly believe in may be wrong too ? Or does your statement only apply to other people whom YOU believe are wrong ?

 

[leibowde84]

If your argument rests on dictionary definitions, and common language use, you have no real argument. Because we humans use language as much to confuse and obscure and deny reality as we do to try and clarify it.

OK, so you admit that you are using your own definition, abandoning the actual definition of the term and how it is commonly used. That's a good start.

So, here is one reason why I think it is more appropriate to include those who merely lack (or are without) belief in the existence of God:

There really is no reason to believe that Atheism MUST be a position or a held belief. The word itself means "without theism". The prefix "a" means "without" or "to lack" and "theism" means "the belief in the existence of God or gods." So, why would atheism need to be a position rather than merely the absence of a position.

Also, the vast majority of self avowed atheists are not outspoken and they don't claim that God is an impossibility. Obviously, that can be hard to see unless you go out of your way to talk to atheists outside of debate forums, as those in debate forums will almost certainly be outspoken. They do not believe that God does not exist. They just haven't been convinced by the evidence that God exists. Many, in fact, don't see any verifiable, trustworthy evidence that isn't purely based on personal experience, logical fallacies (like god of the gaps), or anecdotes.

Finally, "theism" is an extremely general term. It includes deism, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, autotheism, and value-judgment theisms. It also includes the belief in an almost infinite number of different deities throughout human history. So, logic would dictate that "atheism" be even more general. It should include weak atheism, strong atheism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, etc. The only way to accomplish this is to include those who merely "lack belief in the existence of deities" in the definition of "atheism".

So, now it's your turn. Why do you think atheism must be a position (iow, why do you think that atheism should only include strong atheists)? Why do you think it should be so specific when "theism" is so general, including belief in countless deities throughout human history?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't agree with any of what you just said, again. It is most definitely a logical matter to me. It is completely logical to view our existence as being designed by an ID. It a is also a matter of reason. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in the possibility of an ID, that's why people do. You say disbelief is unreasonable but lack of belief is reasonable. The prefix 'dis' literally means 'lack of.' So disbelief means lack of belief. So how can disbelief be unreasonable and lack of belief be reasonable ? They are the same exact meanings.

I'm sorry if my words got in the way of understanding here. I wanted to contrast the lack of a belief one way or the other (neither believing a deity exists nor believing no deity exists) with an active disbelief (belief that no deities exist). Having no belief one way or the other is a reasonable position. Having a belief one way or the other is a non-reasonable position.

And no, people do not believe in ID because of reason. They believe based on criteria other than reason. The very fact that you point out, that no proof can exist one way or the other, shows that reason alone cannot resolve the issue. So any choice *cannot* be based upon reason.

By the way, the same thing happens in mathematics. There are questions for which it can be proved there is no proof one way other the other (the Continuum Hypothesis is one, if you care to look it up). At that point, mathematicians can assume the statement to be true OR, and equally validly, they can assume it to be false. Either way gives a consistent version of mathematics. The choice between the two isn't done based on reason. It can't be *because* reason cannot resolve the issue. that means any assumption has to be based on non-logical criteria (such as mathematical aesthetics).

And science doesn't disprove any possibility of an ID. You say ID isn't a matter of science but then you use science to claim that ID is less probable than your science project analogy.

The way ID has traditionally been done isn't scientific. It *could* address the question of design *if* it gave clear criteria for distinguishing between design and simply having laws of nature. At this point, all attempts to do so (for example, irreducible complexity) have failed to produce any evidence for a design. ALL the evidence is consistent with the simple existence of natural laws without a designer. And that is in spite of attempts to find such evidence. And that starts to constitute evidence of absence.

If it's not a matter of science then what we know scientifically would make no sense in your evaluation of it. And , like I said before , I think , and so do many others, that what we know scientifically does indeed lead to the possibility of an ID. Your view is simply that, it is your view. It does not prove anything or falsify anyone else's view. As much as you want it to , it doesn't, it can't and it won't.

OK, justify your position. What specific evidence serves to distinguish ID from a universe with natural laws? How do you compare and contrast the two cases? What experiment or observation would serve to show ID is *wrong* if it is?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes , people can be wrong about certain things that they believe are true. I am speaking of the many things that you tell people are wrong that I don't believe are wrong and I think are open to interpretation and not hard facts. So can you admit that what you strongly believe in may be wrong too ? Or does your statement only apply to other people whom YOU believe are wrong ?

Absolutely, of course. Provide the evidence and I will happily change my mind if it is sufficient to prove the proposition.

I have been wrong, even professionally, before. For example, I did not particularly like the hypothesis of dark matter and preferred a different hypothesis called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). The actual evidence from the Bullet Cluster (and others) shows that even with MOND, dark matter is a necessity. But, I also admitted freely *before* the observations from the Bullet cluster that neither viewpoint had been proven and that I made a non-logical choice to work more on MOND. This was a choice based on aesthetics and it (I) was wrong. I can't say I actually *believed* dark matter was wrong, merely that the aesthetics suggested to me that it was. And I was wrong in that evaluation.

In the case of deities, there are 'creators' that I can conceive of that are consistent with what we know (I have given an example). I don't consider the evidence to be anywhere close to being strong enough to adopt belief. So I withhold belief. I consider that the reasonable thing to do. To believe before there is any real evidence in support is non-reasonable. But people believe many non-reasonable things all the time.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Yes , people can be wrong about certain things that they believe are true. I am speaking of the many things that you tell people are wrong that I don't believe are wrong and I think are open to interpretation and not hard facts. So can you admit that what you strongly believe in may be wrong too ? Or does your statement only apply to other people whom YOU believe are wrong ?

Yes , people can be wrong about certain things that they believe are true. I am speaking of the many things that you tell people are wrong that I don't believe are wrong and I think are open to interpretation and not hard facts. So can you admit that what you strongly believe in may be wrong too ? Or does your statement only apply to other people whom YOU believe are wrong ?

I'm sorry if my words got in the way of understanding here. I wanted to contrast the lack of a belief one way or the other (neither believing a deity exists nor believing no deity exists) with an active disbelief (belief that no deities exist). Having no belief one way or the other is a reasonable position. Having a belief one way or the other is a non-reasonable position.

And no, people do not believe in ID because of reason. They believe based on criteria other than reason. The very fact that you point out, that no proof can exist one way or the other, shows that reason alone cannot resolve the issue. So any choice *cannot* be based upon reason.

By the way, the same thing happens in mathematics. There are questions for which it can be proved there is no proof one way other the other (the Continuum Hypothesis is one, if you care to look it up). At that point, mathematicians can assume the statement to be true OR, and equally validly, they can assume it to be false. Either way gives a consistent version of mathematics. The choice between the two isn't done based on reason. It can't be *because* reason cannot resolve the issue. that means any assumption has to be based on non-logical criteria (such as mathematical aesthetics).


The way ID has traditionally been done isn't scientific. It *could* address the question of design *if* it gave clear criteria for distinguishing between design and simply having laws of nature. At this point, all attempts to do so (for example, irreducible complexity) have failed to produce any evidence for a design. ALL the evidence is consistent with the simple existence of natural laws without a designer. And that is in spite of attempts to find such evidence. And that starts to constitute evidence of absence.



OK, justify your position. What specific evidence serves to distinguish ID from a universe with natural laws? How do you compare and contrast the two cases? What experiment or observation would serve to show ID is *wrong* if it is?

What you see as laws of nature I see as design. When you see a tall building do you see a structure or a designed building ? It is a designed structure created by a designer. And when I see nature, all species of animals, the stars, the planets, human beings...I see designed structure that , to me, is logical to presume a designer also. And if natural law is the designer , I still see a designer who designed the natural laws to operate as such. It is perfectly reasonable and logical for natural law and an ID to both exist. And again, I don't claim to know what I believe to be an absolute truth since we are hypothesizing. You , however, seem to think what you believe in are absolute truths and other perspectives are illogical or unreasonable. It is in this aspect that I disagree with you. We might as well discontinue the discussion. I appreciate all of your well thought out views and research but I think there is more to this than just what scientific evidence and human knowledge , logic , and reasoning can lead us in this particular topic of discussion. I know you require evidence for everything but I also don't believe there has to be physical , material evidence to explain everything. I believe innate feelings and intuition are also forms of evidence in human nature and these our things you can't necessarily prove to others. But they are valid to me and I don't require everything to be proven in order to be valid. Some things are real to people regardless of having to prove it to someone else. You may require proof for everything to be reasonable, or logical, or real, or true...but I really do not. I don't think all of life's experiences and conclusions require proof. Some things are just innately understood without the need for proof. Of course, I require proof in regards to math and science and other academic subjects, But there many other aspects of life where I don't need proof, I just trust my feelings and intuitions. And even science can only explain so much, not everything. There is more to life's experiences and drawn conclusions than just facts and proofs. These are my beliefs based on my 45 years of experience and observation of the many facets of this so called life.

Just to add one more thought from a previous statement I made. I suggested that an ID may both exist and not exist at the same time. That may have seemed a little absurd. But doesn't quantum mechanics and particle theory suggest that a particle may exist in teo different places at the same time ? I don't know if this science can be proven yet or not but it is something that may turn out to be fact when once we would never have thought that. So my statement , according to science, if true, that a possible ID may exist and not exist at the same time may not be so absurd after all. This is what I am trying to express when I speak of the possibilities of an ID an science actually leading to some of these ideas and possibilities. If we were alive in say 500 years perhaps our discussion on this topic would be completely different in light of new discoveries ,one way or the other. This is why I take somewhat offense when you or others dismiss certain views as unreasonable and illogical when things aren't always so certain. It seems a lot of ideas are considered absurd when first proposed but later come to be accepted and viewed differently. So I personally don't accept some things as being so certain and definitive just because they are currently popular or appear to be the common opinion of the masses. And I'm not speaking of hard scientific facts but in areas of science, philosophies, and other subjects that are subjective and have room for alternative interpretations.

 

[Willamena]

I hope you realize that this isn't how the English language - or any language I'm familiar with - works.


Nonsense.

You missed my edit on the post. Sorry for the lateness of fixing it.

 

[Willamena]

I will talk to whomever I please, thank you.
I don't believe I was addressing anything to you.
And I wanted him to see what I wrote.

Well the Internet is the best forum for talking about people behind their back to their face.

 

[gnomon]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

Strong tendency to be "spirit blind".....misunderstanding the definition of atheism.

So you think that atheists are "spirit blind"........but you cannot offer up a proper definition of atheism.

And you have also declared that philosophical materialism.....based upon what.......lacks value in the human experience because of what?

And you further declare that atheists are oblivious to the exercise of intuition (why does that require theism), imagination (once again why would that require theism), and artifice (now it's just getting boring). You make a sweeping generalization that atheists think philosophy (never mind all the atheist philosophers throughout history), art (once again), and religion (there are actually atheistic religions!)......

Why are we entertaining this foolish thread given .........never mind.

It just got boring to entertain an imbecilic prejudice.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Well the Internet is the best forum for talking about people behind their back to their face.

For your information, I was directly conversing with him but he won't answer my responses .
My conversation was with someone else, not with you or him.
But thanks for the wonderful insight.

 

[atanu]

Science offers ideas consistent with an intelligent designer, but none indicative of one. Evidence for an intelligent designer would be that which makes intelligent design more likely than blind, unguided processes.

I have not read the whole thread and I am not talking of ID. But I have a question.

Why do you think that evolution is a blind unguided process (if you do so)? Does TOE specifically stipulate that or is it a philosophical extension?

 

[atanu]

No, this is wrong. What is required for science is that the universe be *structured*, not that it be *designed*. the difference is significant here: design implies a designer, while structure does not. We see structure all over in our universe, but it is the structure that comes from natural laws. What we do not see is evidence of a *design*, which implies something intelligently using those natural laws for an end that was predetermined.

Excellent post. But I have two questions.

What in nature ensures that natural laws are being followed and the results are structured?

The point is that everything (edit: well, many things) *within* the universe has a cause within the universe. But the universe itself cannot.

How can you, being a product of the same universe, conclude this? Can a carburettor in a car decide that the car cannot have a reason? Only a being/entity that knows the car as a whole say whether car came about on its own or it was designed or created as per a plan.

I may be wrong in my understanding and will gladly be corrected.