Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
  • 14
Are you an atheist? I am, and so should you.; (be one that is)
Topic Started: Jul 15 2009, 07:59 PM (4,790 Views)
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jul 16 2009, 07:18 PM
I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer regarding Mr. Simmons' existence. Is it true that he's the brother of Gene?
oh dear god (there, see, atheism goes out the window sometimes, even for me)...I'd never thought of that connection. I should have seen that; the hair thing for one.

oh ick.

I have no answers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
kenny
Jul 16 2009, 10:59 AM
Sure, scientific knowledge advances.
I'm fully support that, and find it important and fascinating.

Religions answers to these as yet unanswerable questions . . . uhm . . . I'll pass.
Science only answers the question of HOW.

Religion answers the question WHY, the HOW is not the purpose of religion, nor is WHY the purpose of science.

Cling to one without the other, and you're not getting the total picture. Dismiss religion and God as unimportant because it doesn't satisfy HOW, and you diminish science.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
ivorythumper
Jul 16 2009, 11:26 AM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 11:17 AM
Nature forbids a perfect murder if you imagine a universe where it doesn't then you are decoupling the depence of the present on the past and the very notion of past stops meaning what we normally think it means it would allow for instance a multiverse interpretation of the past within which the question as you intend it would indeed stop meaning anything.
Let's play a game:

Use an emoticon to reply to Moonbat's sentence.

Here's mine: :shrug:
I participate on another forum that has a religion forum, with several atheists who participate. The education level of that forum community is quite a bit more... basic.. than here. Reading what the atheists who post there write, and then reading what Moonbat writes, and one sees the exact same arguments from Moonbat that you see from them, except Moonbat buries his points up in more twenty dollar words than they do.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Why doesn't matter.

Besides "answers" that are not certain are not answers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Axtremus
Jul 16 2009, 01:42 PM
CrashTest
 
Does it ever bother anyone how "human" centric religion is?

The Abrahamic religions are quite "human" centric, as are Greek mythologies.
Hinduism and Buddhism, however, are more universal.
Hinduism and Buddhism are not religions. They're philosophies.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
kenny
Jul 16 2009, 07:38 PM
Why doesn't matter.

Besides "answers" that are not certain are not answers.
That's ridiculous, Kenny. "Why" is the main thing that's important. And the only reason one can conclude that the "answers are uncertain" is because they've failed to see the importance of the question of "why", and chosen to reach conclusions from a standpoint of closed minded ignorance.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 07:40 PM
Hinduism and Buddhism are not religions. They're philosophies.
Yeah, it's true.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 07:26 PM
Religion answers the question WHY,



Does it? I guess it does if you the answer works for you, but I would say it's open for debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Schrodinger clearly believed in God.

How about these 20th century Nobel Laureates who also believe(d) in God?

Robert Millikan

Charles Townes

Arthur Schawlow

William Phillips

William Bragg

Guglielmo Marconi

Arthur Compton

Arno Penzias

Nevill Mott

Isidor Isaac Rabi

Abdus Salam

Antony Hewish

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.

And these are just the physicists.


Schrodinger didn't believe in mainstream monotheist ideas at all. In any case if we assume that the others on that list really were believers and not just socially religious or Schrodinger esque religious that gives you 13 out of a hundred. Compare that percentage with the percentage who believe in a traditional idea of God in the general population.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I participate on another forum that has a religion forum, with several atheists who participate. The education level of that forum community is quite a bit more... basic.. than here. Reading what the atheists who post there write, and then reading what Moonbat writes, and one sees the exact same arguments from Moonbat that you see from them, except Moonbat buries his points up in more twenty dollar words than they do.


The quote IT is referring to wasn't even about religion. Whilst I have no idea what arguments these other people invoke, pointing out why religious stuff makes not the slightest bit of sense is fairly straight forward so it wouldn't suprise me if there were lots of overlap. On the other hand. since you never analyse arguments and instead reject or accept them based purely on whether you like the conclusion or not, all arguments for a given conclusion inevitable become completely equivalent in your eyes.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 06:56 PM
CrashTest
Jul 16 2009, 08:33 AM
But perhaps it isn't just chaos and randomness - I think it happened in a more logical way, a series of steps. For example, chaos could not produce us as we currently are - but it could produce something very simple, that could in turn develop into something more complex through time, natural selection, etc.

So we can't view the big picture when talking about where we stand now - but the small elements that started and created this. Remember, the universe is completely governed by very tangible laws - everything is building blocks and constantly changing.
But that would require an intelligent designer, so you've just told me you believe in God. You can't have it both ways - either it was random, or it wasn't.

Randomness and Intelligent Designers can and do co-exist. That's fully explained here.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 07:12 PM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 09:49 AM
Quote:
 

One question about the "Big Bang". What blew up? Anyone?


The entire universe blew up.
What universe? There wasn't one prior to the big bang.

And if you try to argue there was, please tell us where whatever matter and/or energy you think was there to blow up came from.

Where that all came from, how that all came to be, was fully described here.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 07:15 PM
Moonbat
Jul 16 2009, 10:07 AM
Quote:
 

Any idea what was in that Universe? People, beings, God, Gods?


Same stuff that's in it now - particles.
Where did the particles come from? The existence of particles means the existence of motion, which means the existence of space, which means the existence of time, and energy. Where did they come from?

Answers to all the questions above are all here.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 07:26 PM
kenny
Jul 16 2009, 10:59 AM
Sure, scientific knowledge advances.
I'm fully support that, and find it important and fascinating.

Religions answers to these as yet unanswerable questions . . . uhm . . . I'll pass.
Science only answers the question of HOW.

Religion answers the question WHY, the HOW is not the purpose of religion, nor is WHY the purpose of science.

Cling to one without the other, and you're not getting the total picture. Dismiss religion and God as unimportant because it doesn't satisfy HOW, and you diminish science.

There need not be a HOW or a WHY behind everything.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Jul 16 2009, 07:43 PM
Larry
Jul 16 2009, 07:40 PM
Hinduism and Buddhism are not religions. They're philosophies.
Yeah, it's true.
They are religions.

People who teach Religion classes like to think all philosophies subsets of Religion.
People who teach Philosophy classes like to think all religions are subsets of philosophy.
People who teach Political Science like to think all religions and philosophy are subsets of politics.
Sociology, anthropology, you name it...

Many of them go over the top.

To claim that neither Hinduism and Buddhism are not religions, you went way under the bottom,
... probably below six sigmas on the distribution of folks categorization of what it or is not religion.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Axtremus
Jul 17 2009, 02:47 AM

To claim that neither Hinduism and Buddhism are not religions, you went way under the bottom,
... probably below six sigmas on the distribution of folks categorization of what it or is not religion.
Six sigmas of distribution.

Ax, we're talking about belief systems and philosophies, not the number of voids per hour on a Motorola assembly line.

Anyway no, I don't consider Buddhism to be a religion. Religions usually fall into one of two categories: monotheism (the belief that one god exists) and polytheism (many).

Buddhism recognizes none.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Jul 17 2009, 03:06 AM
Axtremus
Jul 17 2009, 02:47 AM

To claim that neither Hinduism and Buddhism are not religions, you went way under the bottom,
... probably below six sigmas on the distribution of folks categorization of what it or is not religion.
Six sigmas of distribution.

Ax, we're talking about belief systems and philosophies, not the number of voids per hour on a Motorola assembly line.

Anyway no, I don't consider Buddhism to be a religion. Religions usually fall into one of two categories: monotheism (the belief that one god exists) and polytheism (many).

Buddhism recognizes none.
"Religion" does not require the recognition of any god.

But Im curious... if we go by your definition that it has to be monotheistic or polytheistic to qualify as a "religion," why did you not consider the polytheistic Hinduism as a religion?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Axtremus
Jul 17 2009, 03:11 AM
"Religion" does not require the recognition of any god.

So you say.

Quote:
 
But Im curious... if we go by your definition that it has to be monotheistic or polytheistic to qualify as a "religion," why did you not consider the polytheistic Hinduism as a religion?


Oh, it's a religion by my definition. It was just forum laziness that I didn't separate Larry's comment.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Jul 17 2009, 03:13 AM
Axtremus
Jul 17 2009, 03:11 AM
"Religion" does not require the recognition of any god.

So you say.
Not just me, Larry too. He considers the believe in manmade global warming a religion. :shrug:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Axtremus
Jul 17 2009, 03:17 AM
Not just me, Larry too. He considers the believe in manmade global warming a religion. :shrug:
Yeah, well, as I'm sure you are well aware, Larry has a great many considerations and doesn't mince words with how he categorizes the world. ^_^
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Moonbat
 
Schrodinger didn't believe in mainstream monotheist ideas at all. In any case if we assume that the others on that list really were believers and not just socially religious or Schrodinger esque religious that gives you 13 out of a hundred. Compare that percentage with the percentage who believe in a traditional idea of God in the general population.

You take your 100 and I'll take my Newton. :tongue:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Newton lived pre Darwin, pre the conceptual unification of physics and chemistry, and chemistry and biology, pre computer science and neurology, if he lived today you would expect him to be no closer to traditional monotheism than Einstein or Feynman or any of the other super geniuses.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Newton's religious beliefs were far from traditional for the standards of the time. A polite term would be 'heretic' - less polite would be whackjob.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Moonbat
Jul 17 2009, 04:42 AM
Newton lived pre Darwin, pre the conceptual unification of physics and chemistry, and chemistry and biology, pre computer science and neurology, if he lived today you would expect him to be no closer to tradditional monotheism than Einstein or Feynman or any of the other super geniuses.
Oh, I see. Now that we know so much more now than Newton did then, it's an argument against the existence of God.

Well, perhaps you're right...partly, anyway. In fact, it is precisely because we have learned so much more about the universe that it continues to look more and more like (to quote astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle) a "put-up job".

John D'Oh
 
Newton's religious beliefs were far from traditional for the standards of the time. A polite term would be 'heretic' - less polite would be whackjob.

While Newton likely questioned the divinity of Jesus, he unquestionably believed in God.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Oh, I see. Now that we know so much more now than Newton did then, it's an argument against the existence of God.


Of course.

Quote:
 

Well, perhaps you're right...partly, anyway. In fact, it is precisely because we have learned so much more about the universe that it continues to look more and more like (to quote astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle) a "put-up job".


It doesn't look more and more like a "put up job" and that incidently is why most physicists don't believe it. If you think it does then why is it that the people who spend all their time learnig about it are so much less likely to believe the idea than the people who learn very little about it.

In any case the fine tuning argument is easy to shoot down, here i'll do it for you:

1) It takes the constants from the standard model as gospel when the standard model is not considered complete because of the disparity between the treatment of gravity and the other forces. So those constants may not be fundamental constants at all but derivable from some deeper more complete theory just as numerous other constants have been derived from the standard model.

2) Ok so we change the constants and the universe changes and in this new universe there is no life, or waterfalls or any of the stuff that we notice around us in this one. Ok and why is that suprising? Of course if you change the laws you are going to change reality. So why should we consider this a problem that needs a solution?

3) Even if we pretend that the constants are right and we pretend that it definately is a problem that the constants have X particular values (which give life and waterfalls and chlorine atoms etc.) and not some other values we could think of, invoking God doesn't solve the problem. Lets have look at this supposed solution:

Why is it true that the universe has constants with values x,y and z which have lead to the emergence of life and not any of the other logically possible values that would have resulted in universes with no life? Religious answer: because a God chose those numbers - that's why they have the values they have. Problem solved, voila.

errr wait a second... so why is it true that there was a god who chose those particular values? Why not a different god who wanted a different universe? For every logically possible combination of constants there is a logically possible god who happens to want a universe that has the properties given by that particular combination of constants. So why out of all those logically possible gods do we have the god who chose our constants, our universe? Oh dear. God is fine tuned. The 'problem' hasn't been solved at all! You've ended up with precisely the same "problem" you started off with! So even if we gloss over the gaping holes in the setup the whole argument still falls to pieces.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
  • 14