Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You really should share your definitions of argument, evidence, and "the works".
All I have seen is you twist everything everyone else posts into some nonsense garbage, reply to posts you dislike as garbage, make tons of false accusations, etc.


And yet there is a thread full of atheists denying it.
Of course, whenever said atheists try to get you away from your strawman, you run tail tucked right back to it.

Look at what you wrote, it's garbage. End of discussion.

 

[Demonslayer]

Look at what you wrote, it's garbage. End of discussion.

Blah blah blah subjectivity blah.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Blah blah blah subjectivity blah.

But I actually provide argumentation, explanation, evidence, the works. You've got nothing except responses like here.

 

[McBell]

Look at what you wrote, it's garbage. End of discussion.

except you won't let it end.
i suspect it is because you have not yet convinced yourself of your bull ****.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because even with all our scientific knowledge we still cannot understand how life began nor can we replicate life using only basic non-living components from which life supposedly sprang from.

We also don't "understand" what drives the occurrence of gravity. We live under its power every day, in and out, it is one of the most fundamental forces acting on all of our lives, yet we can't explain it. Where does it come from? Why is mass attracted to mass? Does gravity necessitate a God to have enacted it? If so, why?

From the same perspective, we don't understand "life". So what? "Life" could be as immutable a circumstance as gravity within our universe. Why not? Even non-life strives to arrive at the most "beneficial" configurations. Elements seeks out other elements to form more stable and lasting bonds, even abandoning current relationships within less stable molecules - without anything needing to intercede. A vacuum, when presented with matter, is filled with that matter as quickly as possible, and heat reacts in the same way via entropy. Balances, and effects that range the gamut of mutual "benefit" abound in the universe. Why couldn't life simply be another of those strivings? Always at the ready when conditions are right.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

'm not certain, it sounds as though you're conflating the quality of your human experience with "aliveness." I've got a pretty decent buzz working at the moment, so I should probably provide a definition:

Quality in the sense that you're experience of being alive is (obviously) rooted in your ability to rationally reflect, etc. This is an enjoyable characteristic we humans possess, although I don't know that we're any more alive than the fruit fly which is currently cruising around my kitchen.

I see where you're coming from. As humans, we're able to look at and think about the big picture, but it still doesn't change my views on life - especially if we're the only life in the universe. I find that idea horrifying. It also comes down to the purpose of life. Surely such an answer will always be subjective and could have many answers. In the end, even if every facet of life's origins becomes understood, what is its purpose? Religion plays a role here as well.

We also don't "understand" what drives the occurrence of gravity. We live under its power every day, in and out, it is one of the most fundamental forces acting on all of our lives, yet we can't explain it. Where does it come from? Why is mass attracted to mass? Does gravity necessitate a God to have enacted it? If so, why?

From the same perspective, we don't understand "life". So what? "Life" could be as immutable a circumstance as gravity within our universe. Why not? Even non-life strives to arrive at the most "beneficial" configurations. Elements seeks out other elements to form more stable and lasting bonds, even abandoning current relationships within less stable molecules - without anything needing to intercede. A vacuum, when presented with matter, is filled with that matter as quickly as possible, and heat reacts in the same way via entropy. Balances, and effects that range the gamut of mutual "benefit" abound in the universe. Why couldn't life simply be another of those strivings? Always at the ready when conditions are right.

I see the possibility in everything you said and a little bit of what you're talking about is echoed above in my conversation with @Cap'n MacDougal . Using your example, we might not know everything about gravity but we understand its purpose. So if life is possibly as immutable a circumstance as gravity, what do you think its purpose serves?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I see the possibility in everything you said and a little bit of what you're talking about is echoed above in my conversation with @Cap'n MacDougal . Using your example, we might not know everything about gravity but we understand its purpose. So if life is possibly as immutable a circumstance as gravity, what do you think its purpose serves?

I'd love to hear you posit ideas on gravity's "purpose". I am completely sure I don't know the purpose of gravity in any way, shape or form. I am also pretty sure that you, yourself are only taking for granted that you know of gravity's "purpose". We know its effects - but effects are not aligned with "purpose". Purpose implies that it was set into motion to meet some need, or fulfill a desire. What is it that gravity provides that you feel aligns with "purpose"? Perhaps to draw all matter together (what is bound to happen in the end with entire galaxies hurtling toward one another at hundreds of thousands to millions of miles per hour)? To what end? Is it there expressly to keep living beings tethered to their planet(s)? That's probably what the living beings would assume - but then why does its sway hold true throughout the entire universe? Why (eventually) doom the planet(s) in question by making them temporary satellites to a denser range of "hosts" (stars) to which they are inevitably and imminently drawn? For that is the ultimate truth - with the effects of the universe in play, our oasis on Earth IS temporary. Granted, we don't see its demise within our lifetime, but that makes it no less inevitable.

Lastly - I think I already covered life's "purpose" - I believe it to be mutual benefit, period. A process of the matter of the universe adopting more stabilized conditions in an act of evolutionary accretion that can eventually result in the most wondrous complexity - life.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

I see where you're coming from. As humans, we're able to look at and think about the big picture, but it still doesn't change my views on life - especially if we're the only life in the universe. I find that idea horrifying. It also comes down to the purpose of life. Surely such an answer will always be subjective and could have many answers. In the end, even if every facet of life's origins becomes understood, what is its purpose? Religion plays a role here as well.

Happy Tuesday!

Again, I'm not certain which definition of life we're employing. Life, as in the quality present in human capability to rationally reflect (e.g. enjoy a sunrise?) Or, sets of biological processes which are associated with life? The oldest son of a close friend was in a horrific auto accident on September 22. Long story short, he was declared a vegetable. However, he was still living, there simply was no higher level brain function.

I find purpose of life questions closely associated with an assignment of value. In the sense that, if we declare that human life has no overarching purpose, then the value of human life is somehow eroded. I do not find this to be the case, although we obviously disagree. As you say, this is subjective.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

I'd love to hear you posit ideas on gravity's "purpose". I am completely sure I don't know the purpose of gravity in any way, shape or form. I am also pretty sure that you, yourself are only taking for granted that you know of gravity's "purpose". We know its effects - but effects are not aligned with "purpose". Purpose implies that it was set into motion to meet some need, or fulfill a desire. What is it that gravity provides that you feel aligns with "purpose"? Perhaps to draw all matter together (what is bound to happen in the end with entire galaxies hurtling toward one another at hundreds of thousands to millions of miles per hour)? To what end? Is it there expressly to keep living beings tethered to their planet(s)? That's probably what the living beings would assume - but then why does its sway hold true throughout the entire universe? Why (eventually) doom the planet(s) in question by making them temporary satellites to a denser range of "hosts" (stars) to which they are inevitably and imminently drawn? For that is the ultimate truth - with the effects of the universe in play, our oasis on Earth IS temporary. Granted, we don't see its demise within our lifetime, but that makes it no less inevitable.

Purpose can imply being "set into motion to meet some need or fulfill a desire." In this case, when I say purpose, I'm referring to its role or function and what it's there for. The purpose of gravity is to give order and structure to the universe. Without it there would be no suns, planets, and galaxies and also as you pointed out, no life. That's its role, its function, its purpose. The purpose/role of the sun is keep its planets in orbit through gravity while also supplying heat and energy to these planets. Does everything in the universe have a purpose? I don't know. Can a purpose be different or understood differently between two people? Definitely. Is there a difference in the purpose of human life over animal life? Perhaps. Religion and science will probably have different answers to these questions.

Again, I'm not certain which definition of life we're employing. Life, as in the quality present in human capability to rationally reflect (e.g. enjoy a sunrise?) Or, sets of biological processes which are associated with life? The oldest son of a close friend was in a horrific auto accident on September 22. Long story short, he was declared a vegetable. However, he was still living, there simply was no higher level brain function.

I find purpose of life questions closely associated with an assignment of value. In the sense that, if we declare that human life has no overarching purpose, then the value of human life is somehow eroded. I do not find this to be the case, although we obviously disagree. As you say, this is subjective.

I'm just referring to life in general and the difference between a living planet (Earth) and a dead one (Venus). So I guess you'd say I'm referring to life as a biological processes even though I find such a definition a little disparaging . And I'm sorry to hear about your friend's son.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The purpose of gravity is to give order and structure to the universe. Without it there would be no suns, planets, and galaxies and also as you pointed out, no life. That's its role, its function, its purpose.

I simply can't concede on this point. "Gravity" is completely impartial. By this I mean that it is not out to accomplish anything, it has no agenda, as you seem to assume... it simply IS. As an example of this - let's say that somehow, a large foreign body (maybe a huge dislocated satellite from some other solar system - something the size of Jupiter) broke off of its orbit long ago due to some massive explosion, and through happenstance, ended up passing through our solar system at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. And let's say on it's particular trajectory, with all of the external forces like the other planets of our solar system and the sun acting on it, it passes within a few hundred thousand miles of Earth (like the distance to our moon) opposite the direction of Earth's orbit during the duration of the pass. In this scenario "gravity" would happily go about its business and draw Earth toward that object, with that object already being drawn toward the sun also, and right out of its current orbit, likely causing enough havoc that we would find ourselves plummeting directly into the sun. Which brings me to your next quote...

The purpose/role of the sun is keep its planets in orbit through gravity while also supplying heat and energy to these planets.

... continuing from above, the sun in this scenario (whose purpose you assume is to "help" its planets and support life) would "happily" devour the Earth without a second "thought". It's gravity would suck in anything and everything that wasn't moving fast enough past it to become ensnared in an orbit or break free. In other words, our stabilizer and energy provider "The Sun" would destroy us very succinctly and definitively. In fact, the sun is even willing to bake the crap out of any of us even now - with no care or contemplation of your current level of hydration - no consideration for your current status in life - your goals, your dreams.

Point being, neither gravity nor the sun are there to help us along or keep us alive.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Point being, neither gravity nor the sun are there to help us along or keep us alive.

I'm not anthropomorphizing these celestial concepts/bodies if that's what you think I'm doing. The sun nor gravity are directly making sure life is sustained - they are simply parts of a system that allows life to be (life as we know it that is). They facilitate life and thats one of their roles/purposes. Anything that sustains life is capable of also causing harm. We need water and yet can drown, we need food and yet can be poisoned, etc. That doesn't remove what we might attribute the purpose of something. Anything can be assigned a purpose as we see fit.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Anything can be assigned a purpose as we see fit.

And here is probably where the misunderstanding lies. I am trying to consider immutable, intrinsic "purpose" - an over-arching, non-biased view on what the thing is actually there for, while you are attributing these items "purpose" from the human perspective. Even water - what is water's true "purpose"? For humans we find it has purpose in keeping our bodies hydrated/lubricated, helping keep our all life on our planet refreshed and cleaned. But externalize the thought for a moment - without life in the picture, without humans to be supported, what is water's purpose? What is gravity's purpose? What is the sun's purpose?

 

[Unification]

from the article, "If a person wishes to be a rational atheist, they must do so on the basis of something other than simply thinking theism is harmful; if a person wishes to be a rational anti-theist, they must find a basis other than simply not believing that theism if true or reasonable" I think that puts my post on the 'rational atheism' side.

In other words, according to the article... They must be controlled by what somewhat else tells them they have to/must do. If they don't, would they be under judgement by the intellectual "atheistic" fraternity masses?

 

[Iti oj]

In other words, according to the article... They must be controlled by what somewhat else tells them they have to/must do. If they don't, would they be under judgement by the intellectual "atheistic" fraternity masses?

that is not even close to what was said or implied.

 

[Unification]

that is not even close to what was said or implied.

"They MUST do so on the basis of....."

According to the article.

 

[Iti oj]

"They MUST do so on the basis of....."

According to the article.

we are talking about the application of terms...

 

[Unification]

we are talking about the application of terms...

Who dictates and controls the terms and conditions, and where is it signed?

 

[Unification]

Cool.
So you obviously think that babies and children deserve whatever hardships they go through in 3rd world countries because it is a test from God.
That isn't a misrepresentation of how you think, when using your own logic.

Also, you don't have the authority, nor the credentials, to even begin spouting off what applies to all of something.

He kind of does though, he's his own authority and credentials are irrational, what is perceived as credential could be 90% completely false, hoodwinked, and subjective no matter how orthodox and accepted it is. If he isn't his own authority, may I ask who you consider to be his authority?

 

[Deathbydefault]

He kind of does though, he's his own authority and credentials are irrational, what is perceived as credential could be 90% completely false, hoodwinked, and subjective no matter how orthodox and accepted it is. If he isn't his own authority, may I ask who you consider to be his authority?

Authority, as in he does not have a respected position that is considered to hold weight.
I do not have such a position either, but I refer to those whom do quite often with what I say.

Credentials are used in this context as a means of identifying to him that he has yet to win any sort of debate (outside of his own mind) on the subject in discussion.
Proper credentials are indeed an irrational thing in such a debate.

 

[Iti oj]

Who dictates and controls the terms and conditions, and where is it signed?

society in general