| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Atheistic fundamentalism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,627 Views) | |
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 11:51 AM Post #76 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I didn't say he had to be created, i said that either reality goes back forever or there is an ultimate beginning here you are essentially claiming reality goes back forever. That's an option, it seems very strange but as i said one cannot avoid the strangeness. However your description still lacks basis you simply assert that your particular branch of cultural mythology is true but there is no more evidence for it than any other creation myth nor any other account that lacks evidence like my mystical pillar.
There may not be a nanosecond back, general relativity does not simply say that time and space become immeasureable but that they cease to be. If that picture is correct then there was no before and there can be no talk of causes. However since we don't havea theory of quantum gravity perhaps there was a before.
Well yea they are kind of ignorant (in the sense that they just don't know enough about the world and about human nature) and yea they are superstitious. However education is an amazing remedy and as critical thinking and scientific knowledge slowly spreads these irrational stories fade away.
Uh-huh. And those talking donkeys in the Old testment that really happened too, and Muhammed he really did take down notes of what God said in the Koran. And that burning bush things that looks oh-so-much like a hallucination that really happened too. Oh and the tooth fairy she really does collect childrens teeth.
Ah i see you've abandoned the whole cosmological argument. You're right to it doesn't work at all. On to arguments from the bible. They really are quite fantastically weak, I mean your argument is that there were people who really believed it thousands of years ago? Come on! People believe Uri Geller has magic powers, people believed in witches and demons, people currently believe UFOs abduct them, that there are ghosts and ghouls, and all manner of superstitions. There are people who believe they can talk to the dead, so many people believe them that they have their own TV programs! History is littered with people convinced they were influencing the weather or curing people or gaining good luck by performing whatever ritual or praying to which ever spirits. There are countless reports of people thinking that they had magic powers or that other people had magic powers. I mean do you believe all of that too? Do you really think they were witches and wizards because a hell a lot of people in the past did. Do you really believe that the Gods of Hindus walked around in India however many thousands of years ago. The fact that there is a far more a parsimonious explanation purely in terms of the psychology of humans and the limited education and knowledge base they had at the time nullifies these arguments.
Actually i'm pretty sure that the whole Jesus is God thing came quite a long time after Jesus. I.e. that is was invented by the church. Not that it makes much difference, the idea that your stories are backed by the evidence is frankly hilarious. I mean these kinds of weak pseudo historical arguments alongside claims that that there were people who really beleived it can be used to support practically every mythology there as ever been.
Science does not assert anything of the sort. It does not say it had to come from nothing - indeed as i've already told you i don't lknow of any theory that makes that statement. The orthodox big bang picture does not say it "came from nothing". That statement is invalid because it presupposes a "before" to "come from" and that is denied by the orthodox picture. Quantum loop theory predicts a universe that has always existed and string theory leaves the question open. Your statement is just wrong. These silly myths are the remnants of a childish humanity, who in it's ignorance and ego tried to explain the world in terms of itself. Thought that the universe must be like it, must invovle a mind and have thoughts amd want to be worshipped. Humanituy is passing through adolescence and part of it has already dropped these child like stories, as education and comprehension spreads gradually through the populations our species will finally emerge into adulthood seeing the universe as it is without anthromorphic lenses and sacarine sweet tales of after lives, spirits and magic spells. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 11:57 AM Post #77 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
A dimension in Minkowski space |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 23 2007, 11:58 AM Post #78 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It still goes back to what I said earlier. Either something "caused" existance or existance came into existance another way, without a cause. The problem I have is that it seems pretty anti-science to say that things happened without a cause. |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 23 2007, 12:02 PM Post #79 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's still a subset of a linier progressive time, that goes before and beyond this mingling of time and space. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 12:07 PM Post #80 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I don't agree at all that it's anti-science. Science is not about telling reality how it should be, science is about impartially examining how reality is. We should not insist that some particular description which is consistent in itself (i.e. it doesn't contradict itself) is impossible. But what's more the intuition that everything has a cause is simply because that's what we observe when we look at things like tables or car crashes, i.e. events within the universe at a particular size scale. But why should that kind of intuition apply to reality as a whole? Why would we expect that to work? I don't think we should. Indeed given how much a beating our common sense intuitions take when one learns about the really deep physical theories one learns to simply not trust them when one ventures outside the sphere they were trained on (i.e. for objects in the universe of of a size rangin between a grain of sand to a mountain). Many physicits think that quantum mechanics says that the universe is chock-full of acausal events. That they are happening all the time. I don't know whether i agree with that, but i refuse to discount it simply because it's weird. I expect to find the universe weird. I am just a hairless ape - why wouldn't i find the universe weird? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 12:09 PM Post #81 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
It's simply a description of time that makes explicit the connection with space. A relevent quote from that article is:
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 23 2007, 12:18 PM Post #82 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I say this with all sadness, Moonbat - what a shallow, empty view of things that is. No, your description is what's silly. And it's sad, really. You think you're looking at such a large picture, so confident in your own mind, that you don't see that it is *you* that is standing in a field full of peas, staring at a pea instead of the field. It's not fairy tales, Moonbat. Science fails you right at the instant of creation, and you *still* refuse to see. Atheists used to laugh at believers because believers had to deal with the fact that the Bible said that God spoke the universe into existence, and any good scientist could tell you it took billions of years for the universe to form. That was before science discovered that the universe came into existence in....... an instant...... Now science tells us that the theory of general relativity, time, space, physics, everything, falls apart right at that precise instant and backward. Yet instead of recognizing that science just discovered what religions have said all along, you keep refusing to see the obvious and insist on depending on man's tiny little minds to create "new" science to accomodate your dilemma. God IS, Moonbat. He created all that is. You are consumed with how he did it. Someday I hope you mature enough as a human to begin to ask *why* he did it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 23 2007, 12:20 PM Post #83 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I think it's a stretch to think the universe is acausal. We have simply no proof of it. (Sub atomic particles moving acausal could EASILY be the result of forces we haven't discovered yet.) Acausalality in creation would be wholly conjectural in much the same manner God is wholly conjectural. But, those are the two choices it seems all we have to go on. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 23 2007, 12:24 PM Post #84 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Which brings us back around to the beginning - atheism is a religion, and Moonbat is an atheist fundamentalist, and is depending on faith to support his religious views just like everyone else. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 23 2007, 12:30 PM Post #85 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Exactly. And either way once we have that faith in the unprovable--we have a God, and either it's a God of light or a god of darkness. The god of darkness convieniently has a name....
|
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 12:34 PM Post #86 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
*looks for some kind of argument* ... *finds nothing*
Even if "science" did "fail" at the instant of creation that would not mean a magic mind existed, anymore than it would mean that a cosmic pillar existed, your facility at logical thought is dire.
See that's just gibberish perhaps if you like learned some stuff it would help you?
My "dilemma" as you call it is unsolveable as i have explained about three times, it doesn't make any difference whether you invoke Gods or pillars or colliding branes one is still left either with reality going back forever or with an uncaused event. It's not really a dilemma at all. Contemplating it merely means one realises that reality is wonderfully strange. As for "science tells us that the theory of general relavitiy falls apart" well perhaps one can argue that, you certaintly don't know nearly enough to do so - but in anycase we already know that the theory is incomplete anyway we don't have a theory of quantum gravity, we have no idea what gravity does when things get really small that's a key issue if you want to know what happens when matter approaches a singularity What's more relativity breaks down equally at black holes too why not invoke God for that too. There is no need nor is their any value in invoking magic Gods whenever a theory breaks down. What you need to do is try and work on a better theory. It's totally ridiculous to claim that the scientific account of cosmology somehow discovered what the various (contradictory i point out) cultural myths say. It's another example of reading meaning into a vague texts. And God brough the light into the world... oh that must be errr.. yea that's talking about stellar formation that is. Oh and God made man out of the dust.. ah oh well dust that's kind of like earth right and earth is like got bacteria in and like well man evolved from bacteria right! AHA you see! The scientists have just discovered what we knew all along - cue maniacal laughter.
Welcome to delusion city Larry, enjoy your stay. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 23 2007, 12:34 PM Post #87 |
|
MAMIL
|
I find it interesting that a large number of both Christians and atheists feel the need to criticise the other's opinion in rather aggressive terms. You chaps feeling a bit insecure? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 23 2007, 12:35 PM Post #88 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I think I'll stick with *my* God, Tom - don't you? After all, Moonbat and Jeffrey's god offers nothing but knowledge, a totally useless commodity once you're dead. Our God offers eternal life, where time and space once again cannot be measured, and all laws of physics break down again... But if they only knew the amount of knowledge we'll have once we get there! Come to think of it, the thing that got mankind into trouble in the first place was fooling with the tree of knowledge, wasn't it?............. ![]() |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 12:42 PM Post #89 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
You say subatomic particles could easily be the result of a force we haven't discovered but not easy at all. It's impossible to preserve causality unless you do some very strange things are true- either we live in a multiverse or there are instanteous affects between all particles and all other particles no matter how far apart they are which violates intuition and violates the spirit if not the letter of special relativity. As i said one should avoid telling reality how it must be. I refuse to do that, maybe there is something fundamentally acausal maybe there isn't. I don't know, and i don't of any convincing evidence one way or another. Thus i remain undecided. (hence of course Larry's claim that i am a fundamentalist is laughable) Also your two choices are not the two choices Tom. It's not either acausal or God. Consider if i had said the two choices are acausal or cosmic pillar. Surely one would take exception and say well hold on a minute what about other histories that simply go back for ever other than your cosmic pillar. And you'd be right do that. The two choices are some ultimately acausal event, or all events are causal and history stretches back forever. One account of the latter is the tradditional monotheist account of God, but there are a near infinite number of alternatives such as my cosmic pillar, or more plausible than either there is the account of quantum loop theory in which every caused and that goes back forever. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 23 2007, 12:45 PM Post #90 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Let's reexamine your statement... Those of us who are Christians here have repeatedly said if someone doesn't want to believe in God they have every right to that opinion, just have the same respect for those who *do* believe in God. The response is for the atheists to make snide remarks about flying spaghetti monsters, myths, etc, as they preach *their* religion, and dismiss us as ignorant fools for not accepting on faith their own faith based beliefs. When we point out that this qualifies their belief system as a fundamentalist religion, instead of honestly examining it they go "muslim" on us. So the way it appears to me, those who believe in God are willing to accept that some people don't believe, it's a matter of faith - and those who *don't believe in God are *not* willing to accept that some do believe in God, and insist that their religion is based on science, even while acknowledging that at some point it too requires faith. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 23 2007, 12:51 PM Post #91 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
With all due respect Moon--your cosmic pillar is God. Call him what you will. It's either a caused universe or a not caused universe. I'm not telling the universe how it should exist, I'm just using the laws of rationality to explain what seems to me to exist. I could understand nothing ever existing, but I have a problem with creation. Existance has some 'splaining to do! |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 23 2007, 12:52 PM Post #92 |
|
MAMIL
|
Just as all Christians are not the same in their opinions, neither are all atheists. I do not agree with what Moonbat and Jeffrey say. I do not believe that atheism is intellectually superior to religion, and I'm afraid I find that opinion rather arrogant. Neither do I believe that atheism is an empty shell - I find the universe an absolutely wonderful place and I'm very glad to be a part of it. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 12:57 PM Post #93 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Larry whilst you can keep asserting that simply lacking a belief in God is faith, you can't actually back it up in any kind of coherent sense. It's not more faith to not believe in God than it is to not believe in a mystical creator pillar or in the flying spagetti monster. I don't have faith in anything, the very idea is totally ridiculous. Also I do respect religious people (well some just as i respect some atheists), indeed I know plenty of religious people who i respect, i respect most people on this board and they are mostly religious. I do think that belief in God is no differnet to belief in the cargo cults or the aboriginal creation myths or belief in any number of concepts that lack basis and can be easily be understood on anthropological grounds. I think John has a point in terms of aggression, in my defense it's easy to get irritated when faced with blithering nonsense, that's augmented when one views religion as ultimately detrimental to humanity, and by remarks of a somewhat negative nature made by ones opponents. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 01:00 PM Post #94 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
But the cosmic pillar is not intelligent, it does not think or feel it does not match the tradditional monotheistic account of "God" if you are going to call _any_ cause of the big bang "God" then that means quantum loop theory and string theory involve descriptions of God. I mean if one uses that definition i have no problem with the idea "God". My objection is to theological accounts, to the idea that "God" is intelligent, has a mind, preconcieved things, answers prayers, had a son, directed evolution etc. etc. that is the to the entire content of theology. I certainly have no problem with the idea that there might be a cause to the observeable universe at all. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 23 2007, 01:02 PM Post #95 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That is not a definition of time, that is an application of time. What is time? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 01:05 PM Post #96 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Do you think it's equally arrogant to say that acreationism is intellecutally superior to the belief that the world is 6000 years old or that ascientology is intellectually superior to scientology? I mean surely it's not arrogance to say that one should use reason and evidence to determine what is true about the world. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 23 2007, 01:09 PM Post #97 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Moonbat, you just got through admitting that once you go beyond the point of physics breaking down you have to accept the rest of your argument on faith.
Ah, so we get to the real issue..... of course what *you* say could *never* seem like blithering nonsense, could it? Then we have your view of religion being "detrimental to humanity".. an interesting but flawed view, since atheists have killed ten times more people than Christians, and have caused far more pain. You see, Moonbat, just like you claim you don't have faith in anything all while not being able to see that you are admitting you have to take some of your views on faith, you only see harm done by religion and completely overlook the fact that religion has done more to lift humanity up than all the negatives you can possible come up with combined. You see the instant of creation and don't see God. You see religion but only see the bad, not the good. Both of them are there like elephants in the room, but you don't see them. And you don't see yourself acknowledging that science leaves one to have to rely on faith all while denying you have that faith. As confused as you are it's no wonder you see some of this as jibberish. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 01:09 PM Post #98 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Well it seems like a definition to me - it species what time is in terms of it's relationship with space. Time is a dimension, like the spatial dimensions in which one find elements of matter (though matter is ordered in time in a different way than it is ordered in space). |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 23 2007, 01:11 PM Post #99 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the world is not 6000 years old. Satisfactorily demonstrating the non-existence of God is somewhat more problematic. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 23 2007, 01:16 PM Post #100 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Bollocks, quote the relevent passage.
I just can't be bothered to disentangle all the errors you make here. Sorry too much effort for not enough gain. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









6:29 AM Jul 11