A Thought for Atheists

[Photonic]

It is evidence of God the same way that a platypus is evidence of evolution.

You can't look at just one thing and draw a conclusion. That is not how science works, which anyone who actually understands it knows. When you look at something and immediately try to explain it in terms that preclude any alternate explanations you have a closed mind. Atheists already know there is no God, so they refuse to examine the evidence that shows he exists with an open mind.

Remember when we got into this discussion because you challenged my assertion that atheists were intellectually dishonest? Remember how you reacted when I pointed to some evidence? I can't have this discussion separate from what you said because the point of this discussion is that your mind is closed. I cannot prove God exists, all I can do is show you that you are not looking for Him.

Let me tell you a little something. I'm an atheist, I'm a Physicist as well.

As far as my beliefs go;

If they are shown to be falsely held beliefs by the science, then there is no reason to hold onto them anymore. No matter how good they make me feel.

I would rather know then live in blissful ignorance.

So I guess the one thing I couldn't give up is my ability to know. I'm fairly sure any atheist would agree with me.

Do you know that dark energy is real? Or do you, like most scientist, simply accept it based on observation and theory?

Thankfully I'm already a cosmologist and I know enough to avoid this ill conceived trap.

Dark matter/energy is simply a placeholder for something we do not understand. There are attempts being made to find out exactly what it is and some postulations exist.

But it would be observation and hypothesis, Sir. Not Theory.

A scientific theory is backed by evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me tell you a little something. I'm an atheist, I'm a Physicist as well.

As far as my beliefs go;

If they are shown to be falsely held beliefs by the science, then there is no reason to hold onto them anymore. No matter how good they make me feel.

I would rather know then live in blissful ignorance.

So I guess the one thing I couldn't give up is my ability to know. I'm fairly sure any atheist would agree with me.

Do you know that dark energy is real? Or do you, like most scientist, simply accept it based on observation and theory?

Thankfully I'm already a cosmologist and I know enough to avoid this ill conceived trap.

Dark matter/energy is simply a placeholder for something we do not understand. There are attempts being made to find out exactly what it is and some postulations exist.

But it would be observation and hypothesis, Sir. Not Theory.

A scientific theory is backed by evidence.

You are a cosmologist and claim theory is always backed by observation? As I recall there was a big kerfuffle when observational evidence actually backed up Einstein's special theory of relativity, which contradicts your attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I also notice you did not actually deal with the issue of knowing about dark energy, you simply assumed I was trying to trap you. What I am actually trying to do is make a point.You did not claim to have examined the evidence and made a decision based on what you saw, you insisted that you have to know up front before you will change your mind. You are demanding proof, not evidence.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Do you know that dark energy is real? Or do you, like most scientist, simply accept it based on observation and theory?

Thankfully I'm already a cosmologist and I know enough to avoid this ill conceived trap.

Dark matter/energy is simply a placeholder for something we do not understand. There are attempts being made to find out exactly what it is and some postulations exist.

But it would be observation and hypothesis, Sir. Not Theory.

A scientific theory is backed by evidence.

You are a cosmologist and claim theory is always backed by observation? As I recall there was a big kerfuffle when observational evidence actually backed up Einstein's special theory of relativity, which contradicts your attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I also notice you did not actually deal with the issue of knowing about dark energy, you simply assumed I was trying to trap you. What I am actually trying to do is make a point.You did not claim to have examined the evidence and made a decision based on what you saw, you insisted that you have to know up front before you will change your mind. You are demanding proof, not evidence.

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

 

[daws101]

Thankfully I'm already a cosmologist and I know enough to avoid this ill conceived trap.

Dark matter/energy is simply a placeholder for something we do not understand. There are attempts being made to find out exactly what it is and some postulations exist.

But it would be observation and hypothesis, Sir. Not Theory.

A scientific theory is backed by evidence.

You are a cosmologist and claim theory is always backed by observation? As I recall there was a big kerfuffle when observational evidence actually backed up Einstein's special theory of relativity, which contradicts your attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I also notice you did not actually deal with the issue of knowing about dark energy, you simply assumed I was trying to trap you. What I am actually trying to do is make a point.You did not claim to have examined the evidence and made a decision based on what you saw, you insisted that you have to know up front before you will change your mind. You are demanding proof, not evidence.

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

then what does faith rely on?

 

[LOki]

You are a cosmologist and claim theory is always backed by observation? As I recall there was a big kerfuffle when observational evidence actually backed up Einstein's special theory of relativity, which contradicts your attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I also notice you did not actually deal with the issue of knowing about dark energy, you simply assumed I was trying to trap you. What I am actually trying to do is make a point.You did not claim to have examined the evidence and made a decision based on what you saw, you insisted that you have to know up front before you will change your mind. You are demanding proof, not evidence.

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

then what does faith rely on?

Certainty of belief you are right, and the denial of evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thankfully I'm already a cosmologist and I know enough to avoid this ill conceived trap.

Dark matter/energy is simply a placeholder for something we do not understand. There are attempts being made to find out exactly what it is and some postulations exist.

But it would be observation and hypothesis, Sir. Not Theory.

A scientific theory is backed by evidence.

You are a cosmologist and claim theory is always backed by observation? As I recall there was a big kerfuffle when observational evidence actually backed up Einstein's special theory of relativity, which contradicts your attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I also notice you did not actually deal with the issue of knowing about dark energy, you simply assumed I was trying to trap you. What I am actually trying to do is make a point.You did not claim to have examined the evidence and made a decision based on what you saw, you insisted that you have to know up front before you will change your mind. You are demanding proof, not evidence.

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

I love how people selectively quote when facts get in the way.

From Wiki:

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary assumptions that are motivated by empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]
A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that its content is based on some formal system of logic and on basic axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]
A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

Observation is certainly a part of what makes a theory, but it is clearly not the only thing.

 

[Photonic]

You are a cosmologist and claim theory is always backed by observation? As I recall there was a big kerfuffle when observational evidence actually backed up Einstein's special theory of relativity, which contradicts your attempt to obfuscate the issue.

I also notice you did not actually deal with the issue of knowing about dark energy, you simply assumed I was trying to trap you. What I am actually trying to do is make a point.You did not claim to have examined the evidence and made a decision based on what you saw, you insisted that you have to know up front before you will change your mind. You are demanding proof, not evidence.

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

I love how people selectively quote when facts get in the way.

From Wiki:

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary assumptions that are motivated by empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]
A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that its content is based on some formal system of logic and on basic axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]
A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

Observation is certainly a part of what makes a theory, but it is clearly not the only thing.

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

I love how people selectively quote when facts get in the way.

From Wiki:

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary assumptions that are motivated by empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]
A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that its content is based on some formal system of logic and on basic axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]
A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

Observation is certainly a part of what makes a theory, but it is clearly not the only thing.

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From wiki:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

Yeah, it looks like a scientific theory depends heavily on observation. Imagine that.

then what does faith rely on?

Certainty of belief you are right, and the denial of evidence that you are wrong.

The same method you have employed throughout this thread?

 

[The Professor]

It is a 50/50 deal. You believe in what you want and I will believe in what I want, one of us will win the bet, I think it will be me. Good luck anyway

False dichotomy. If you wanted to assign an equal probability of correctness to every religious belief there is, your odds of being correct are pretty terrible. Even if it was a true dichotomy, just because there are only 2 options doesn't mean that those 2 options each have an equal probability of being correct. I think it's much more likely that they are all wrong on a fundamental level, hence my atheism.

I appreciate your logic. Well done, sir.

The only thing I can say with certainty is that of all the conflicting religions in the world there are only two possibilities: (1) one religion is right and all the others are wrong; and (2) they are all wrong.

Of course, there is no way of knowing which (if any) are right; therefore, all this conjecture is meaningless. My belief is simple: If there is a judging God, He will judge us not by what we believe but rather how we live our lives in accordance with our belief.
Whether there is a judging God who dispenses rewards and punishments based upon our temporal existence is beyond the scope of this response.

 

[Photonic]

I love how people selectively quote when facts get in the way.

From Wiki:

Observation is certainly a part of what makes a theory, but it is clearly not the only thing.

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

I wasn't asking you to accept one possible definition, only what definitions may be applicable to the process. I can twist language as much as I want but in the end my point remains.

 

[LOki]

then what does faith rely on?

Certainty of belief you are right, and the denial of evidence that you are wrong.

The same method you have employed throughout this thread?

The same method you have employed throughout this thread.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It is evidence of God the same way that a platypus is evidence of evolution.

You can't look at just one thing and draw a conclusion. That is not how science works, which anyone who actually understands it knows. When you look at something and immediately try to explain it in terms that preclude any alternate explanations you have a closed mind. Atheists already know there is no God, so they refuse to examine the evidence that shows he exists with an open mind.

Remember when we got into this discussion because you challenged my assertion that atheists were intellectually dishonest? Remember how you reacted when I pointed to some evidence? I can't have this discussion separate from what you said because the point of this discussion is that your mind is closed. I cannot prove God exists, all I can do is show you that you are not looking for Him.

People label me differently from atheist to agnostic. I'm 99.999999999999999999999% a god doesn't exist, based on math and science, but there's no proof one or more don't exist. Does that .00000000000000000001% make me agnostic or an atheist? I'll leave that up to other ppl as the label isn't important to me, but most have concluded that means I'm an atheist so i just roll with it.

I would think proof would be proof, whether i were looking for it or not, and I'm not seeing how in any way the Christmas Truce is evidence of your god.

I have no moral or intellectual problem in believing in a god or gods, as long as there's proof.

Your beliefs aren't important to you?

You want proof that there is a God, but you do not want proof that evolution is real? Your intellectual dishonesty is showing again. You are the one that proclaimed yourself an atheist, yet you want to wiggle by trying to argue that your 20 significant digits of certainty gives you an open mind, it doesn't. If you actually had an open mind you would accept evidence and actually examine it, just like you do with any scientific theory.

I don't have religious beliefs, so it's hard to answer if that's important to me or not.

There's unlimited proof of evolution, evolution is a fact.

I'm not wiggling, I'm letting you determine based on my views whether you view me as an atheist or agnostic. Couldn't care less which title is placed on me.

It takes a closed mind to deny evolution, as you have to deny an ever-growing list of scientific facts. Doesn't take even the slightest notion of having a closed mind to deny there's proof of a god, because there is no proof of one.

 

[Lokiate]

I love how people selectively quote when facts get in the way.

From Wiki:

Observation is certainly a part of what makes a theory, but it is clearly not the only thing.

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

That is the only definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which covers "dark matter" evolution, Relativity, etc. Jesus titty fucking Christ.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

I wasn't asking you to accept one possible definition, only what definitions may be applicable to the process. I can twist language as much as I want but in the end my point remains.

You have a point? What is it? I must have missed it when you did not explain what observations relativity was based on. What observational evidence did Einstein have for time dilation in a gravity well or speeds approaching that of light? How was he able to observe gravity lensing when the actual affect was not confirmed until after he published his theory?

Theory is an elastic word, and sticking scientific on it as a modifier only works on people who are ignorant. The fact is that scientific theory does not depend on observation. The standard model has existed for years despite the fact that no experiment has yet confirmed the existence of the Higgs Bosun. That makes you wrong, and totally obscures whatever point you think you made.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People label me differently from atheist to agnostic. I'm 99.999999999999999999999% a god doesn't exist, based on math and science, but there's no proof one or more don't exist. Does that .00000000000000000001% make me agnostic or an atheist? I'll leave that up to other ppl as the label isn't important to me, but most have concluded that means I'm an atheist so i just roll with it.

I would think proof would be proof, whether i were looking for it or not, and I'm not seeing how in any way the Christmas Truce is evidence of your god.

I have no moral or intellectual problem in believing in a god or gods, as long as there's proof.

Your beliefs aren't important to you?

You want proof that there is a God, but you do not want proof that evolution is real? Your intellectual dishonesty is showing again. You are the one that proclaimed yourself an atheist, yet you want to wiggle by trying to argue that your 20 significant digits of certainty gives you an open mind, it doesn't. If you actually had an open mind you would accept evidence and actually examine it, just like you do with any scientific theory.

I don't have religious beliefs, so it's hard to answer if that's important to me or not.

There's unlimited proof of evolution, evolution is a fact.

I'm not wiggling, I'm letting you determine based on my views whether you view me as an atheist or agnostic. Couldn't care less which title is placed on me.

It takes a closed mind to deny evolution, as you have to deny an ever-growing list of scientific facts. Doesn't take even the slightest notion of having a closed mind to deny there's proof of a god, because there is no proof of one.

I do not label people, I let them label themselves. I do, however, point out inconsistencies in their positions, and do resort to calling people close minded when they refuse to accept the truth.

You again demonstrate your closed mind. You accept as fat that evolution is true despite the absolute fact that it has not been proved, and you then attempt to claim that, because there is no proof that God exists, this proves He does not. You should stop reading Dawkins, he is obviously confusing you about what the word proof means.

Proof is the result of logic and is a rational conclusion based on the evidence presented. People have focused on laying out the evidence in a manner that any reasonable person would conclude that evolution is true. That proof is a conclusion that each person must, individually, accept. Either that, or they can simply conclude they are too lazy to examine the evidence themselves and make a judgement based on bias. The latter is the method most people choose, which is why so few people that believe in evolution can defend that belief. That turns evolution from science to faith for those people.

There is actually abundant evidence that God does exist. Laying it all out would take at least as long as laying out a solid argument in favor of evolution, and, as such, is way beyond the ability of anyone I have ever met. The same actually goes for evolution, by the way. Even Dawkins, who has devoted his life to using evolution to debunk god, cannot actually lay out a complete and cohesive defense of evolution. Dawkins has actually lost debates about evolution to a Rabbi who actually believes evolution is real. (Dawkins, of course, denies that the debates ever took place.)

That does not make evolution not true, any more than a person being unable to lay out a complete and cohesive defense of the existence of God proves God does not exist. You refusal to accept anything but proof of the existence of God makes you just as close minded as those who refuse to accept anything less than proof for evolution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

That is the only definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which covers "dark matter" evolution, Relativity, etc. Jesus titty fucking Christ.

It was an incomplete definition of scientific theory.

 

[LOki]

There is actually abundant evidence that God does exist.

I'd like to see some of it, rather than see you talk about it some more.

Soon.

Thanks.

 

[Photonic]

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

That is the only definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which covers "dark matter" evolution, Relativity, etc. Jesus titty fucking Christ.

It was an incomplete definition of scientific theory.

Not in context, it wasn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the only definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which covers "dark matter" evolution, Relativity, etc. Jesus titty fucking Christ.

It was an incomplete definition of scientific theory.

Not in context, it wasn't.

Why the fuck do I have to argue with you about his definition? If you want to discuss your stupidity answer my post to you. If you want to discuss his answer his posts.

You think a scientist would be able to tell the difference.