Atheism's Wrong Turn II

[Larkinn]

I am on topic, YOU claim that God can not exist because, well because. You have no evidence to support the claim, just your opinion.

I'm sorry, where did I make that claim? Where did I even claim that God can not exist? Much less give a reason for it?

I respond with the fact that you claim the universe , the world and life all are explained by science. This is patently false. Science can no more prove their theory of creation, the Big Bang or how worlds came to be any more than I can prove God exists.

And where did I claim this again?

Now if your going to admit science can not explain it, remind me why my belief in a God, you can not prove does not exist is as you claim a foolish thought.

Because we live in a world with more than two possibilities.

 

[ReillyT]

I am on topic, YOU claim that God can not exist because, well because. You have no evidence to support the claim, just your opinion.

I respond with the fact that you claim the universe , the world and life all are explained by science. This is patently false. Science can no more prove their theory of creation, the Big Bang or how worlds came to be any more than I can prove God exists.

Now if your going to admit science can not explain it, remind me why my belief in a God, you can not prove does not exist is as you claim a foolish thought.

Can't prove God exists or doesn't exist. However, organized religion does have its problems.

Science is a malleable and ever-changing concept that is testable and reducible. When facts don't appear to conform with science, the science is changed to conform with the facts. That is why it has staying power.

Organized religion is not (generally) thought of as changing and malleable. A set of reasonably rigid principles as to the nature and requirements of religion often doesn't change when it is confronted with contradictory facts. That is why the dictates of any organized religion may appear false - at least until it is reduced to metaphor. However, there is no reason that religion can't alter as easily as science. It just generally doesn't in practice.

Slightly different issue. Hope this isn't hijacking the thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sorry, where did I make that claim? Where did I even claim that God can not exist? Much less give a reason for it?



And where did I claim this again?



Because we live in a world with more than two possibilities.

which is it? Belief in God is foolish OR what the hell are you arguing about in this thread you Einstein?

 

[Larkinn]

which is it? Belief in God is foolish OR what the hell are you arguing about in this thread you Einstein?

Belief in God is irrational. For the slow, that does not mean God doesn't exist.

 

[ReillyT]

which is it? Belief in God is foolish OR what the hell are you arguing about in this thread you Einstein?

A belief in god may not be foolish, but a belief in a particular notion of god could be.

* Sorry, I am off on my own little tangent here. It is probably best to ignore me - I am just thinking things through.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can't prove God exists or doesn't exist. However, organized religion does have its problems.

Science is a malleable and ever-changing concept that is testable and reducible. When facts don't appear to conform with science, the science is changed to conform with the facts. That is why it has staying power.

Organized religion is not (generally) thought of as changing and malleable. A set of reasonably rigid principles as to the nature and requirements of religion often doesn't change when it is confronted with contradictory facts. That is why the dictates of any organized religion may appear false - at least until it is reduced to metaphor. However, there is no reason that religion can't alter as easily as science. It just generally doesn't in practice.

Slightly different issue. Hope this isn't hijacking the thread.

No your not. The argument being that If one BELIEVES in God that is a "Belief" but if one Believes there are no Gods that is not a " Belief"

The argument being if one believes something with out proof they have FAITH in their belief. Thus those who believe there are no Gods have FAITH in that belief, again since there is no PROOF God or Gods do not exist.

Several people can not grasp simple English meanings of words and are so wrapped up in THEIR version they lose all logic, intelligence and common sense.

Several people in this thread have asserted that a solid belief that no GODS exist is in fact NOT a belief. And it has changed into an argument by a couple that Since we who believe in God can not prove he exists that negates any requirement for those that do not to prove he does not.

MY entire point is atheism is a BELIEF system and a true Atheist has a lot of FAITH that his beliefs are correct.

To obfusicate and twist several people keep trying to change it into an argument that since atheism does not have a RELIGION, that somehow means that it is NOT a belief system and does not require faith in believing in it.

Religion is NOT a requirement for belief. NOR is it a requirement for Faith.

I have never been to the moon or outerspace, but I believe man can and has been there. And no there is no concrete proof either is true. There is lots of evidence it might be true BUT only the men that actually went to the moon and maybe those that were directly involved in the flights know for certain it was not some grand hoax.

 

[LOki]

Please provide the evidence.

Are you kidding? Santa was derived from the 15th-16th Century St. Nicholas, the easter bunny is a old German Protestant tradition popularized in the U.S. because eggs are forbidden to Catholics during lent, and the FSM was just recently fabricated to make a point about Intelligent design.

 

[ReillyT]

No your not. The argument being that If one BELIEVES in God that is a "Belief" but if one Believes there are no Gods that is not a " Belief"

The argument being if one believes something with out proof they have FAITH in their belief. Thus those who believe there are no Gods have FAITH in that belief, again since there is no PROOF God or Gods do not exist.

Several people can not grasp simple English meanings of words and are so wrapped up in THEIR version they lose all logic, intelligence and common sense.

Several people in this thread have asserted that a solid belief that no GODS exist is in fact NOT a belief. And it has changed into an argument by a couple that Since we who believe in God can not prove he exists that negates any requirement for those that do not to prove he does not.

MY entire point is atheism is a BELIEF system and a true Atheist has a lot of FAITH that his beliefs are correct.

To obfusicate and twist several people keep trying to change it into an argument that since atheism does not have a RELIGION, that somehow means that it is NOT a belief system and does not require faith in believing in it.

Religion is NOT a requirement for belief. NOR is it a requirement for Faith.

I have never been to the moon or outerspace, but I believe man can and has been there. And no there is no concrete proof either is true. There is lots of evidence it might be true BUT only the men that actually went to the moon and maybe those that were directly involved in the flights know for certain it was not some grand hoax.

I don't know. Are we focusing on the rational versus the irrational?

If belief in the way we are using it is necessarily an "irrational" concept, akin to faith, then perhaps an atheist need not have faith to hold his belief.

We know (or think we know) that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, a rational belief would be one that holds that matter/energy has always and will always exist. It was never created. It is the natural state of things, as opposed to nothingness. That view, I suppose, is supported by evidence. As such, I don't think it implies faith.

A belief either that matter was created, either by a conscious entity (non-material) or anything else, isn't supported by evidence (because we know matter cannot be created) and probably would count as faith. Even supposing that we accept that matter has always existed, a belief that a material conscious entity conformed matter to a plan would also rest on faith, unless there is evidence to this effect that I am unaware of.

I think...

 

[Larkinn]

No your not. The argument being that If one BELIEVES in God that is a "Belief" but if one Believes there are no Gods that is not a " Belief"

The argument being if one believes something with out proof they have FAITH in their belief. Thus those who believe there are no Gods have FAITH in that belief, again since there is no PROOF God or Gods do not exist.

Several people can not grasp simple English meanings of words and are so wrapped up in THEIR version they lose all logic, intelligence and common sense.

Several people in this thread have asserted that a solid belief that no GODS exist is in fact NOT a belief. And it has changed into an argument by a couple that Since we who believe in God can not prove he exists that negates any requirement for those that do not to prove he does not.

MY entire point is atheism is a BELIEF system and a true Atheist has a lot of FAITH that his beliefs are correct.

To obfusicate and twist several people keep trying to change it into an argument that since atheism does not have a RELIGION, that somehow means that it is NOT a belief system and does not require faith in believing in it.

Religion is NOT a requirement for belief. NOR is it a requirement for Faith.

I have never been to the moon or outerspace, but I believe man can and has been there. And no there is no concrete proof either is true. There is lots of evidence it might be true BUT only the men that actually went to the moon and maybe those that were directly involved in the flights know for certain it was not some grand hoax.

Just curious...would you put me into one of those who says that atheism isn't a belief?

 

[ReillyT]

I think that a belief that matter has always existed but that the current state of the universe is due to natural forces (e.g., gravity) acting on matter would maybe not be faith. It follows a lawful and orderly process of matter acting upon itself in the universe. Even if we don't know the details of how this process occurred, evidence that this process does occur even in discrete operations provides evidence that it may have occurred on a grander, more complicated scale over untold billions or trillions of years.

 

[Larkinn]

Are you kidding? Santa was derived from the 15th-16th Century St. Nicholas, the easter bunny is a old German Protestant tradition popularized in the U.S. because eggs are forbidden to Catholics during lent, and the FSM was just recently fabricated to make a point about Intelligent design.

So what is the evidence for god? Because if there isn't any then truth being linked to ones beliefs is just a matter of coincidence...and in that case your evidence disappears becuase them being human created doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[LOki]

So what is the evidence for god?

I didn't claim there was evidence for the existence of God. What game are you playing at, pal?

Because if there isn't any then truth being linked to ones beliefs is just a matter of coincidence...and in that case your evidence disappears becuase them being human created doesn't mean they don't exist.

What gibberish is this? Is there any sense in this at all?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn't claim there was evidence for the existence of God. What game are you playing at, pal?

What gibberish is this? Is there any sense in this at all?

Larkinn is a Mensa reject, he thinks his word games and semantics win sparring points.

 

[Larkinn]

I didn't claim there was evidence for the existence of God. What game are you playing at, pal?

What gibberish is this? Is there any sense in this at all?

Don't worry, I know complex thoughts are hard for you. I'll try to make it as simple for you as possible.

If there is no evidence of God, and God is right that means humans got it right by accident. That is we came up with the idea of God and there is a God. Hence the exact same thing can apply to Santa, or the FSM. Merely because something is human created does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn is a Mensa reject, he thinks his word games and semantics win sparring points.

/pat you. Its so cute how you follow me around. Here's a biscuit doggie!

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you kidding? Santa was derived from the 15th-16th Century St. Nicholas, the easter bunny is a old German Protestant tradition popularized in the U.S. because eggs are forbidden to Catholics during lent, and the FSM was just recently fabricated to make a point about Intelligent design.

I'm inclined to agree with you. But if I don't believe your links or the history of them - IOW, I'm skeptical - where does that leave your argument. You can prove it to a certain point, but you cannot prove it 100% (well, you might be able to re the FSM), but the others....still a shred of doubt....But, as I said, I'm inclined to believe ya

 

[LOki]

Don't worry, I know complex thoughts are hard for you. I'll try to make it as simple for you as possible.

If there is no evidence of God, and God is right that means humans got it right by accident. That is we came up with the idea of God and there is a God. Hence the exact same thing can apply to Santa, or the FSM. Merely because something is human created does not mean it does not exist.

I suppose that, within the infinite boundaries of bong-smoke notions of the strong anthropic principle, you make a point. Still, I'm no more more convinced by your version of Synchronistic Cosmic Hoodoo than I am by anyone else's. So let me make this as simple as possible for you: where there was at one time no FSM, and then because someone wrote a letter featuring a FSM to make a point, the notion of a FSM was created, the FSM was not discovered; the creation of the FSM from the imagination of someone, rather than his (noodley) discovery in reality, is evidence of the FSM's non-existence in reality. It is thus similar for Santa, and the Easter Bunny, albeit admittedly somewhat less so for the latter.

Forgive me if I unneccessarily cut you off at a pass here; RetiredGySgt said you like semantic games Larkinn, and if you want to get all gritty about the meaning of "exist", or the meaning of "meaning", that will be fine--yet nothing changes the objective reality that it is valid to assert, based upon evidence that, there is no Santa, there is no Easter Bunny, and there is no FSM.

 

[Shogun]

I'm still waiting for the evidence that I keep hearing about. I can produce physical evidence for the big bang.. Who wants to whip out physical evidence of a god? don't bring the rhetoric because that doesn't meet the standard of the scientific method. Bring the Physical evidence



What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

* The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
* The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
* Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
* Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
* Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

* Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
* Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
* Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
* Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence



Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Evidence of 'Big Bang' Gas Found at Galactic Center

Call it a gentle rain from near the beginning of time.

Scientists who used a radio telescope to study a gargantuan gas cloud said they made the first definitive measurements of deuterium -- a heavy form of hydrogen -- near the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.

Moreover, they found more deuterium there than they expected -- indicating the deuterium comes from primordial gas that is raining into the galaxy, the researchers argued. "This is evidence that very old gas is constantly flowing into the Milky Way," said astronomer Donald Lubowich of the American Institute of Physics and Hofstra University.

"It could be from the birth of the universe or the birth of the galaxy. I can't distinguish between the two. I do know it's coming from material that's 10 billion to 12 billion years old," he said. Lubowich is an author of the study, published in the June 29 issue of the journal Nature.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/deuterium_galactic_000628.html

Neutrino Evidence Confirms Big Bang Predictions
Astrophysicists from the Universities of Oxford and Rome have for the first time found evidence of ripples in the Universe?s primordial sea of neutrinos, confirming the predictions of both Big Bang theory and the Standard Model of particle physics.

Neutrinos are elementary particles with no charge and very little mass, which are extremely difficult to study due to their very weak interaction with matter. Yet pinning down the physical properties of neutrinos is of paramount importance to scientists attempting to understand the fundamental building blocks of Nature. According to the standard Big Bang model, neutrinos permeate the Universe at a density of about 150 per cubic centimetre. The Earth is therefore immersed in an ocean of neutrinos, without us ever noticing.
http://www.universetoday.com/2005/06/15/neutrino-evidence-confirms-big-bang-predictions/


Telescope finds Big Bang evidence
Scientists have made a discovery that represents an important confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe.

Almost 5,500 hours of observations by a radio telescope at the South Pole have shown the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to be polarised.

The CMB has been called the afterglow of the Big Bang. It is radiation that comes from all directions in space and has its origin when the cosmos was just 400,000 years old.

The polarisation can be used to probe conditions in the early Universe. Cosmologists say although such an effect was expected they are relieved to find it.

The discovery should open a new era of cosmic measurements and understanding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2271377.stm

Astrophysicists Find Solid Evidence for Big Bang Inflation
Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html

Big Bang evidence found
Several teams of astronomers released new data this week from a suite of groundbased and balloon-borne instruments that they believe is the strongest evidence yet for the leading model for the formation of the universe.

The findings, announced Sunday at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington, DC, has provided solid evidence that the universe underwent a brief but powerful period of expansion, called inflation, in the first instant after the Big Bang.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0105/02bigbang/

Proof of Big Bang Seen by Space Probe, Scientists Say
New NASA space-probe observations of the oldest light in the cosmos are the most direct evidence yet that the universe expanded extremely quickly immediately after the big bang, physicists say.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html




Please, spare me the websites trying to induce christianity by talking crap on the big bang. That is not evidence for a god. Show me your physical evidence so thatI can show you why ID does not belong in the science classroom except to illustrate what IS and what ISN"T science and what IS and what ISN"T mythology.

 

[mattskramer]

I'm still waiting for the evidence that I keep hearing about. I can produce physical evidence for the big bang.. Who wants to whip out physical evidence of a god? don't bring the rhetoric because that doesn't meet the standard of the scientific method. Bring the Physical evidence



What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

* The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
* The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
* Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
* Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
* Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

* Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
* Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
* Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
* Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence



Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Evidence of 'Big Bang' Gas Found at Galactic Center

Call it a gentle rain from near the beginning of time.

Scientists who used a radio telescope to study a gargantuan gas cloud said they made the first definitive measurements of deuterium -- a heavy form of hydrogen -- near the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.

Moreover, they found more deuterium there than they expected -- indicating the deuterium comes from primordial gas that is raining into the galaxy, the researchers argued. "This is evidence that very old gas is constantly flowing into the Milky Way," said astronomer Donald Lubowich of the American Institute of Physics and Hofstra University.

"It could be from the birth of the universe or the birth of the galaxy. I can't distinguish between the two. I do know it's coming from material that's 10 billion to 12 billion years old," he said. Lubowich is an author of the study, published in the June 29 issue of the journal Nature.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/deuterium_galactic_000628.html

Neutrino Evidence Confirms Big Bang Predictions
Astrophysicists from the Universities of Oxford and Rome have for the first time found evidence of ripples in the Universe?s primordial sea of neutrinos, confirming the predictions of both Big Bang theory and the Standard Model of particle physics.

Neutrinos are elementary particles with no charge and very little mass, which are extremely difficult to study due to their very weak interaction with matter. Yet pinning down the physical properties of neutrinos is of paramount importance to scientists attempting to understand the fundamental building blocks of Nature. According to the standard Big Bang model, neutrinos permeate the Universe at a density of about 150 per cubic centimetre. The Earth is therefore immersed in an ocean of neutrinos, without us ever noticing.
http://www.universetoday.com/2005/06/15/neutrino-evidence-confirms-big-bang-predictions/


Telescope finds Big Bang evidence
Scientists have made a discovery that represents an important confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe.

Almost 5,500 hours of observations by a radio telescope at the South Pole have shown the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to be polarised.

The CMB has been called the afterglow of the Big Bang. It is radiation that comes from all directions in space and has its origin when the cosmos was just 400,000 years old.

The polarisation can be used to probe conditions in the early Universe. Cosmologists say although such an effect was expected they are relieved to find it.

The discovery should open a new era of cosmic measurements and understanding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2271377.stm

Astrophysicists Find Solid Evidence for Big Bang Inflation
Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html

Big Bang evidence found
Several teams of astronomers released new data this week from a suite of groundbased and balloon-borne instruments that they believe is the strongest evidence yet for the leading model for the formation of the universe.

The findings, announced Sunday at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington, DC, has provided solid evidence that the universe underwent a brief but powerful period of expansion, called inflation, in the first instant after the Big Bang.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0105/02bigbang/

Proof of Big Bang Seen by Space Probe, Scientists Say
New NASA space-probe observations of the oldest light in the cosmos are the most direct evidence yet that the universe expanded extremely quickly immediately after the big bang, physicists say.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html




Please, spare me the websites trying to induce christianity by talking crap on the big bang. That is not evidence for a god. Show me your physical evidence so thatI can show you why ID does not belong in the science classroom except to illustrate what IS and what ISN"T science and what IS and what ISN"T mythology.

I believe in the “big bang” but it is possible that God provided the match that ignited the big band. Cosmological events do not negate the possible existence of a supreme being.

If I live in an apartment and things take place all around me (maintenance people repair things, groundskeepers keep the yard neat) while I do practically nothing but look at the employees of the apartment from time to time, to be sure that they do what they are supposed to do, it does not mean that I do not exist.

 

[Shogun]

It's also possible that the universe is nothing more than a cyst on the ass of Zeus. I'm not asking for rhetoric and philosophy. I'm asking for physical evidence.


I will say, however, that dogma never fails to incorporate every damn thing in science that comes along in order to make the dogma easier to swallow in a growing intellectual world. Uh, sure, evolution COULD BE the method that god uses but, I digress...


i'm looking for psychical evidence (that meets the standard of scientific scrutiny) that suggests the existence of a god. None of this "well, ti's too complex so yadda yadda yadda".