Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[Erebus]

No. . . no, don't! It's not correct. A mountain is not high enough to demonstrate a "round" (circular) earth.

Willamena saves the day!

It turns out I won't let you have that one :sorry1:

 

[Willamena]

Willamena saves the day!

It turns out I won't let you have that one :sorry1:

Haha.

Well, to prove the earth round I would simply use sticks and shadows, as the Greeks did.

 

[Atheologian]

Alright I'll let you have that one, though that particular example was too easy

How about the big bang?
Could you prove to me that the sun is in fact made of gas?
Show me that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.

By the way, don't forget the rules.

Okay, so that one is a bit tougher. This might seem like a cop out, but it's not. I don't necessarily believe in the Big Bang. I'm "agnostic" about it, until unrefutable evidence surfaces. This is also why I don't buy into string theory, and the vibrations determining the charge of electrons and quarks.

The sun being made of gas, on the other hand, Is not so hard to prove. We can simulate the nuclear forces in controlled settings, and record the similarities between the amount of radiation we detect from the sun and the levels our controlled expirement produced. This way, we can be sure that the radiation is consistent with that of nuclear reactions dealing with Hydrogen and Helium. It was the sun that helped us uncover the secrets behind the atom bomb, using the same principles. We can prove that the effects of such reactions will simulate the type of behavior we see on the sun, more specifically the process of convection, or transfer of mass to the surface where it is expelled as heat and light. Since we know the nature of the elements, thanks to chemistry, we can deduce that only a certain composition of gasses and conditions will create the right environment for the sun to exist as it does. We can use smaller scale expirements to properly test MOST phenomenon in the macro universe.

 

[Atheologian]

Haha.

Well, to prove the earth round I would simply use sticks and shadows, as the Greeks did.

thats even easier that flying around the world

 

[Atheologian]

Willamena saves the day!

It turns out I won't let you have that one :sorry1:

sure it is. I dont mean left to right. You can walk flat land for miles and miles, and never see but a certain distance behind you, no matter good your vision is or how barren it is. The higher on the mountain, the further you see, because you are further from the curvature of the surface.

 

[Erebus]

Okay, so that one is a bit tougher. This might seem like a cop out, but it's not. I don't necessarily believe in the Big Bang. I'm "agnostic" about it, until unrefutable evidence surfaces. This is also why I don't buy into string theory, and the vibrations determining the charge of electrons and quarks.

The sun being made of gas, on the other hand, Is not so hard to prove. We can simulate the nuclear forces in controlled settings, and record the similarities between the amount of radiation we detect from the sun and the levels our controlled expirement produced. This way, we can be sure that the radiation is consistent with that of nuclear reactions dealing with Hydrogen and Helium. It was the sun that helped us uncover the secrets behind the atom bomb, using the same principles. We can prove that the effects of such reactions will simulate the type of behavior we see on the sun, more specifically the process of convection, or transfer of mass to the surface where it is expelled as heat and light. Since we know the nature of the elements, thanks to chemistry, we can deduce that only a certain composition of gasses and conditions will create the right environment for the sun to exist as it does. We can use smaller scale expirements to properly test MOST phenomenon in the macro universe.

That's all well and good but isn't this just what your science books and scientists have told you? Remember the restrictions. Have you performed these tests? Have you seen it? If not then you are taking the scientist's word for this phenomena on faith. Therein lies my point, everything we believe but have not witnessed personally is taken on faith. This includes religion and it also includes science.

 

[Troublemane]

He must be referring back to his wikki...

maybe the mirriam webster this time?

I like how you tried to spin the word absolute, too. The reason the speed of light is considered "absolute" is because it is the same for all observers. That's all that matters, in any frame of reference. And frame of reference is the key to relativity. Any observer in any frame of reference can preform the same expirement, regardless of speed and direction, and get the same result. The reason space time is considered as a single aspect, is because the natural state of all objects is in motion, therefore you are never stationary relative to other objects. your speed and direction, or position in space time, is relative to the objects around you, and can only be measured against that which is absolute, or in other words, relative to the speed of light.
That's about as straightforward of an explanation as you can get.
The speed of light is absolute, meaning THE SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS.
the laws of physics work for any frame of reference.
they are absolute. The only condition you need to meet to be absolute is that it is constant, or the same for all observers.

so, tell me, do words mean anything to you outside of what meaning you think is convenient at the time?

The idea of duck is not absolute, either. ideas, definitions,meanings are relative to their application. the idea of a duck is extracted from experience. if you have never known what a duck is, you have no idea what it is. the idea is not absolute.

the speed of light is measured the same for all observers, not because the speed of light is absolute, but because it is the same no matter what your speed is. the "laws of physics" are considered the same for all observers not because they are absolute, but because in physics, we are forced to make certain assumptions about the nature of the universe in order to make other assumptions about our measurements. we assume that the laws of physics are universally the same. we can only assume this, as we have never been anywhere else but earth.

however, holding the laws of physics up as religious truth is unbecoming of an atheist, i must admonish you for doing it. :angel2:

HOWEVER..regarding the O.P., should atheists shut up about god as they know nothing about it? IMO, no they have a right to voice their opinion just like anyone else. Its all relative

 

[Atheologian]

so, tell me, do words mean anything to you outside of what meaning you think is convenient at the time?

The idea of duck is not absolute, either. ideas, definitions,meanings are relative to their application. the idea of a duck is extracted from experience. if you have never known what a duck is, you have no idea what it is. the idea is not absolute.

the speed of light is measured the same for all observers, not because the speed of light is absolute, but because it is the same no matter what your speed is. the "laws of physics" are considered the same for all observers not because they are absolute, but because in physics, we are forced to make certain assumptions about the nature of the universe in oreder to make other assumptions about our measurements. we assume that the laws of physics are universally the same. we can only assume this, as we have never been anywhere else but earth.

however, holding the laws of physics up as relgious truth is unbecoming of an atheist, i must admonish you for doing it. :angel2:

HOWEVER..regarding the O.P., shoudl atheists shut up about god as they know nothing about it? IMO, no they have a right to voice their opinion just like anyone else. Its all relative

Dude, that's just a load of crap lol. You are philosophising the theory of relativity.
This is simply two ways of saying the same thing:

the speed of light is measured the same for all observers, not because the speed of light is absolute, but because it is the same no matter what your speed is


so you didn't make any point at all. It is absolute, because the frame of reference is all that matters. Since the speed of light is the same to all observers, it is considered absolute. Period. Whatever extra weight or definition you add to the word absolute has nothing to do with what I am saying at all. You are arguing about nothing. It is absolute, because you cannot measure it any other speed. That's all we need to know about, and that serves also as the definition of, ABSOLUTE.

I already explained the duck scenario. There is an ideal, absolute duck. It does not matter if that no two ducks are the same as long as it is measured as A DUCK.

you don't like the example, it doesn't work for you, that's all. It was still an "example" That is absolute. what is objective, is that the example could be great, horrible, misleading or inspiring. What is subjective, is that you didnt get it. Relative to you, it was a bad example

By any chance, did you major in psychology or sociology?
you seem good at using peoples own statements as leverage out of context

 

[Troublemane]

hmmm, have you ever met an ideal duck?

 

[Willamena]

thats even easier that flying around the world

And more sure.

 

[Atheologian]

hmmm, have you ever met an ideal duck?

No. But I have met a duck. So have most people. Most people, when they think of a duck, will think of the duck they personally met. That duck is not the idea of a duck. The idea of a duck, is what i have when someone says, Duck. I don't think of a cow, or at least what a cow looks like to me. I think of my idea of a Duck, in realtion to ME, or MY duck. While we all think of different ducks, what is absolute, is the IDEA OF A DUCK.

are we done yet

 

[Willamena]

A constant is the same each time it is measured. Absolute is something whole and complete just as it is. I can see a possibility for the terms being interchangable, though I wouldn't use them that way.

 

[Atheologian]

A constant is the same each time it is measured. Absolute is something whole and complete just as it is. I can see a possibility for the terms being interchangable, though I wouldn't use them that way.

physicists do, not much we can do about it.

Absolute can also mean perfecly emodying the nature of a thing, or fundemental and true, unfallibe, unchangable and CONSTANT.

While absolute can also be used to describe things as whole, it also means that it does not change. Or in the case of physics, that the observation of which does not change, or remains constant in other words. If replacing the word absolute with constant for sematnical reason is what it takes to kill the duck, I'm down... I'll accept that in the name of shutting up about ducks.

I'm sure most of us have taken physics, something like the speed of light is not that hard to understand. I can't understand why the standard terminology is somehow suspect to sudden dispute, because some guy in a forum doesn't like it, but, let's kill the duck, and call C constant.

 

[Atheologian]

That's all well and good but isn't this just what your science books and scientists have told you? Remember the restrictions. Have you performed these tests? Have you seen it? If not then you are taking the scientist's word for this phenomena on faith. Therein lies my point, everything we believe but have not witnessed personally is taken on faith. This includes religion and it also includes science.

Sure i have i took chemistry.

I actually enjoyed chemistry

Also, you can't make the mistake of confusing "faith" with "understanding" I can understand something, know how the tests work, view the data for myself, and come to a conclusion, without having to have faith in the fact the tests were done. I know they were, I can see the results, and they can be verified by other doing the same tests.

 

[Atheologian]

However, I can see where the expectations of those tests could be percieved as faith. BUT, if the scientific process has been proven sucessful, should we not accept, rather than have faith, that the tests will give accurate results, or do you suggest that accepting something, even with proof, is faith?

Or, better yet, and I know the sentiment exists, that the scientific method can not be proved, and is fallible?
I would argue that a 99% confirmation rate is better than 0%, as when we are discussing "Faith".

 

[Erebus]

Sure i have i took chemistry.

I actually enjoyed chemistry

Obviously I have to assume you are telling the truth here otherwise the debate would become pointless.
Perhaps then you are an exception to the rule. Do you only accept that which you have tested yourself? What are your thoughts on my third example, proving that the Earth moves around the sun?

I could throw examples like this at you all day, but I will make this one my last example, so as not to waste both our time. Like I say, I'm willing to accept that you could be an exception to the rule, but I think it's a fair bet that you take some elements of science on faith, as do most people.

Incidently I have to give you frubals for managing to thwart my first couple of examples :yes: I'm not lying to you when I say that most people fall down on the first one.

 

[Troublemane]

No. But I have met a duck. So have most people. Most people, when they think of a duck, will think of the duck they personally met. That duck is not the idea of a duck. The idea of a duck, is what i have when someone says, Duck. I don't think of a cow, or at least what a cow looks like to me. I think of my idea of a Duck, in realtion to ME, or MY duck. While we all think of different ducks, what is absolute, is the IDEA OF A DUCK.

are we done yet

so, the duck which can be named is not the Eternal Duck?

this "absolute duck" of which you speak, does it reside in heaven and is it all-powerful? however, i find it amusing that you also have said we may each have our own 'personal duck". just like our own personal jesus. u gotta love it! :angel2:

 

[Atheologian]

so, the duck which can be named is not the Eternal Duck?

this "absolute duck" of which you speak, does it reside in heaven and is it all-powerful? however, i find it amusing that you also have said we may each have our own 'personal duck". just like our own personal jesus. u gotta love it! :angel2:

absolute means encompasses the idea as a whole in this context. Look the word up, now you just sound silly. Have you been to bed yet?

I have a blue duck.
John has a red one.
I rip the feathers and beak off the blue duck, and now he's pink, with no feathers and no bill. I set him on fire. Then I throw him at John from a moving vehicle.
Relative to me, John is moving toward my car with a red duck in his hands, and when I drop my duck, he crashes into it.
Relative to John, I threw my dinner at him from the window of a moving car.
Objectively, we know now a duck can be red, blue, pink, featherless and on fire, among many other things.
Subjectively, my duck is dead. This is true in relation to all observers, making the death of the duck constant, and absolute, at least in a measurable sense, which is all we are worried about.
At the same time, I can't say all ducks are dead, so dead is one more objective position the duck can have. I can say however, that he was absolutely a duck before I killed and ate him, he absolutely is a duck now, and the duck that John had absolutely was a duck as well. Even While I ate my duck, he absolutely WAS a subjectively delicious duck, relative to my own tastes, of course, but still absolutely a duck.
All of the objective ducks in this story, red, blue, dead, cooked and chewed, they were ABSOLUTELY and CONSTANTLY DUCKS. The absolute idea of a duck is simply a duck, regardless of the possible states or subjective position of the duck.

 

[Erebus]

However, I can see where the expectations of those tests could be percieved as faith. BUT, if the scientific process has been proven sucessful, should we not accept, rather than have faith, that the tests will give accurate results, or do you suggest that accepting something, even with proof, is faith?

Or, better yet, and I know the sentiment exists, that the scientific method can not be proved, and is fallible?
I would argue that a 99% confirmation rate is better than 0%, as when we are discussing "Faith".

I personally would take much of what science presents on faith, because I do trust scientific method . The scientific facts that I can prove for myself do not need to be taken on faith (as I have personal experience of them), but then the same applies to supernatural "facts".
Simply put, I treat science and the supernatural the same way. If I can get it to work for myself I accept it as "fact", if I am unable to prove it for myself, but it still makes sense to me then I will take it on faith.

As for the last part... Nothing can be proved until we can "prove" reality. I don't like to use this argument too often though, as I think that this concept is something that people should be aware of, but not necessarily rely on. It can be a bit of a cop out. To me, reality is subjective, which is why I place such importance on personal experience over scientifically or religiously established "fact".

 

[Atheologian]

I personally would take much of what science presents on faith, because I do trust scientific method . The scientific facts that I can prove for myself do not need to be taken on faith (as I have personal experience of them), but then the same applies to supernatural "facts".
Simply put, I treat science and the supernatural the same way. If I can get it to work for myself I accept it as "fact", if I am unable to prove it for myself, but it still makes sense to me then I will take it on faith.

As for the last part... Nothing can be proved until we can "prove" reality. I don't like to use this argument too often though, as I think that this concept is something that people should be aware of, but not necessarily rely on. It can be a bit of a cop out. To me, reality is subjective, which is why I place such importance on personal experience over scientifically or religiously established "fact".

I agree that reality is subjective, but I think only in comparison to what we percieve as "real", or "reality".
I think that what can be verified by one observer should be verfiable by all observers.