Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
Science doesn't aim to answer Why
Why poisons the well and implies intention
Science explains how
-
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of ? , those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the ? of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.
Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a ? . If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in ? , rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people.
I don't believe the issue is about whether someone imagines ? (those it is an issue in itself). It's concluding, given what we know about the beginning of the universe, that ? exist. All religions could just be wrong about who ? is, but at the very least ? should meet those qualifications that were presented...like being eternal among other things.
...and maybe I should try to explain the use of eternal as being a characteristic. The word is not being used to convey power and might. It suppose to keep us from trying to find an explanation for the explanation...or to avoid an infinite regress. On a finite scale, we know not to cross that line. If someone witnesses me making a paper airplane or playing a guitar...or hurting someone...that person is not going to look down my family tree and my family's family tree (and on...) for the explanation. They are going to credit me directly for the cause.
Where is the factual proof of this knowledge of ? ? It's a hypothesis and a grandiose conclusion based on pondering. That's cool, but at the end of the day, no one knows if that a particular guess is accurate at all because they really don't know or honestly seek the true origins or nature of the universe. Scientist don't know either, and only a fool would claim such a thing without showing others that he's accurate beyond cool sounding words of inspiration.
Even when a scientist is honest in their admission that more data is required, instead of finding more data, or admitting that it is impossible to find more data but everything found so far hasn't been dismissed just because of that, religious people dismiss it anyhow as some kind of silly celebration of ignorance. We haven't even gotten that deep down the Rabbit hole. People are offering surface opinions and making claims, and don't point to anything to support those claims that is tangible, independent, and accurate.
If somebody told me someone was getting beat up right in front of me, and i don't see what they are talking about, either they are delusional, or i'm blind, deaf, or crazy. You're basically making ? up at that point. Even when unseen, things can be tested with instruments that can detect data. We make judgments based on past data on the fly to assess our surroundings. The difference is, the mysterious unseen subject talked about is supposedly the creator of all things, yet according to the tenants of religion, we aren't supposed to question whether it exist in the first place. We are only supposed to question our own allegiance or be excluded (from what?). -
Technically A ? can be logically argued to exist, it's just that the definition needs to be exclude all of the stuff religions typically include
If the assumption that the universe's expansion is a true indication that it has a starting point, and everything else in the universe we have experience with also has a point of origin, then it seems it would make more sense to believe it was created rather than having always existed. So if the definition of "? " is limited to the source of the creation of the universe, and excludes all of the assumptions, like man being made in ? 's image, ? being omniscient and omnipotent, hating the ? , or favoring the Jews, then I would have to agree that ? exists.
There is no evidence indicating that it is conscious though. There is no proof that any of this was intentionally made. All that can be supported is that the universe has a point of origin, and that it is not at all the way religion depicts.
-
Technically A ? can be logically argued to exist, it's just that the definition needs to be exclude all of the stuff religions typically include
If the assumption that the universe's expansion is a true indication that it has a starting point, and everything else in the universe we have experience with also has a point of origin, then it seems it would make more sense to believe it was created rather than having always existed. So if the definition of "? " is limited to the source of the creation of the universe, and excludes all of the assumptions, like man being made in ? 's image, ? being omniscient and omnipotent, hating the ? , or favoring the Jews, then I would have to agree that ? exists.
There is no evidence indicating that it is conscious though. There is no proof that any of this was intentionally made. All that can be supported is that the universe has a point of origin, and that it is not at all the way religion depicts.
The expanding universe is a theory. There is also a theory that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and compression (The Big Crunch). -
That same law would refute your claim that the universe was created -
FuriousOne wrote: »Technically A ? can be logically argued to exist, it's just that the definition needs to be exclude all of the stuff religions typically include
If the assumption that the universe's expansion is a true indication that it has a starting point, and everything else in the universe we have experience with also has a point of origin, then it seems it would make more sense to believe it was created rather than having always existed. So if the definition of "? " is limited to the source of the creation of the universe, and excludes all of the assumptions, like man being made in ? 's image, ? being omniscient and omnipotent, hating the ? , or favoring the Jews, then I would have to agree that ? exists.
There is no evidence indicating that it is conscious though. There is no proof that any of this was intentionally made. All that can be supported is that the universe has a point of origin, and that it is not at all the way religion depicts.
The expanding universe is a theory. There is also a theory that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and compression (The Big Crunch).
The expansion of space is more than a theory
it's observable
we constantly watch as the distance between objects gets larger -
FuriousOne wrote: »Technically A ? can be logically argued to exist, it's just that the definition needs to be exclude all of the stuff religions typically include
If the assumption that the universe's expansion is a true indication that it has a starting point, and everything else in the universe we have experience with also has a point of origin, then it seems it would make more sense to believe it was created rather than having always existed. So if the definition of "? " is limited to the source of the creation of the universe, and excludes all of the assumptions, like man being made in ? 's image, ? being omniscient and omnipotent, hating the ? , or favoring the Jews, then I would have to agree that ? exists.
There is no evidence indicating that it is conscious though. There is no proof that any of this was intentionally made. All that can be supported is that the universe has a point of origin, and that it is not at all the way religion depicts.
The expanding universe is a theory. There is also a theory that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and compression (The Big Crunch).
The expansion of space is more than a theory
it's observable
we constantly watch as the distance between objects gets larger
Let me elaborate. There is a theory that space expands infinitely and started from one single point, but there is also a theory that space will collapse and expand once again. Basically, there is no starting point. There is a continuing process. There is also the theory that with each compression and expansion, the universe is reborn (reestablished in a particular state) or a new universe is created from the previous.
-
-
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of ? , those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the ? of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.
Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a ? . If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in ? , rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people.
I don't believe the issue is about whether someone imagines ? (those it is an issue in itself). It's concluding, given what we know about the beginning of the universe, that ? exist. All religions could just be wrong about who ? is, but at the very least ? should meet those qualifications that were presented...like being eternal among other things.
...and maybe I should try to explain the use of eternal as being a characteristic. The word is not being used to convey power and might. It suppose to keep us from trying to find an explanation for the explanation...or to avoid an infinite regress. On a finite scale, we know not to cross that line. If someone witnesses me making a paper airplane or playing a guitar...or hurting someone...that person is not going to look down my family tree and my family's family tree (and on...) for the explanation. They are going to credit me directly for the cause.
Where is the factual proof of this knowledge of ? ? It's a hypothesis and a grandiose conclusion based on pondering. That's cool, but at the end of the day, no one knows if that a particular guess is accurate at all because they really don't know or honestly seek the true origins or nature of the universe. Scientist don't know either, and only a fool would claim such a thing without showing others that he's accurate beyond cool sounding words of inspiration.
Even when a scientist is honest in their admission that more data is required, instead of finding more data, or admitting that it is impossible to find more data but everything found so far hasn't been dismissed just because of that, religious people dismiss it anyhow as some kind of silly celebration of ignorance. We haven't even gotten that deep down the Rabbit hole. People are offering surface opinions and making claims, and don't point to anything to support those claims that is tangible, independent, and accurate.
If somebody told me someone was getting beat up right in front of me, and i don't see what they are talking about, either they are delusional, or i'm blind, deaf, or crazy. You're basically making ? up at that point. Even when unseen, things can be tested with instruments that can detect data. We make judgments based on past data on the fly to assess our surroundings. The difference is, the mysterious unseen subject talked about is supposedly the creator of all things, yet according to the tenants of religion, we aren't supposed to question whether it exist in the first place. We are only supposed to question our own allegiance or be excluded (from what?).
The point isn't to show you what eternity or infinity "looks like". The point of my illustration is to show that if something has a beginning, it must have a cause...and to avoid an infinite regress, you don't try to explain the explanation. You, in your reply to me, did not get the certain urge to want to find out the explanation, of the explanation, of the explanation, of my explanation. You understood fully that I, alissowack, was the source of the explanation and that there was no need to go any further. If fact, your reply has a source...you. You are not saying to yourself...what is the explanation, of the explanation, of the explanation, of your explanation. You have ideals and perspectives you draw from as what has driven your response. You're going saying where did your ideas get it's ideas from...and so on.
When a person makes ? "the source", it isn't necessarily to endorse a religion and yet these arguments assume that it is such 100% of the time. There are people out there that do accept that ? exist...but not on the grounds of any religion. -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of ? , those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the ? of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.
Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a ? . If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in ? , rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people.
I don't believe the issue is about whether someone imagines ? (those it is an issue in itself). It's concluding, given what we know about the beginning of the universe, that ? exist. All religions could just be wrong about who ? is, but at the very least ? should meet those qualifications that were presented...like being eternal among other things.
...and maybe I should try to explain the use of eternal as being a characteristic. The word is not being used to convey power and might. It suppose to keep us from trying to find an explanation for the explanation...or to avoid an infinite regress. On a finite scale, we know not to cross that line. If someone witnesses me making a paper airplane or playing a guitar...or hurting someone...that person is not going to look down my family tree and my family's family tree (and on...) for the explanation. They are going to credit me directly for the cause.
Where is the factual proof of this knowledge of ? ? It's a hypothesis and a grandiose conclusion based on pondering. That's cool, but at the end of the day, no one knows if that a particular guess is accurate at all because they really don't know or honestly seek the true origins or nature of the universe. Scientist don't know either, and only a fool would claim such a thing without showing others that he's accurate beyond cool sounding words of inspiration.
Even when a scientist is honest in their admission that more data is required, instead of finding more data, or admitting that it is impossible to find more data but everything found so far hasn't been dismissed just because of that, religious people dismiss it anyhow as some kind of silly celebration of ignorance. We haven't even gotten that deep down the Rabbit hole. People are offering surface opinions and making claims, and don't point to anything to support those claims that is tangible, independent, and accurate.
If somebody told me someone was getting beat up right in front of me, and i don't see what they are talking about, either they are delusional, or i'm blind, deaf, or crazy. You're basically making ? up at that point. Even when unseen, things can be tested with instruments that can detect data. We make judgments based on past data on the fly to assess our surroundings. The difference is, the mysterious unseen subject talked about is supposedly the creator of all things, yet according to the tenants of religion, we aren't supposed to question whether it exist in the first place. We are only supposed to question our own allegiance or be excluded (from what?).
The point isn't to show you what eternity or infinity "looks like". The point of my illustration is to show that if something has a beginning, it must have a cause...and to avoid an infinite regress, you don't try to explain the explanation. You, in your reply to me, did not get the certain urge to want to find out the explanation, of the explanation, of the explanation, of my explanation. You understood fully that I, alissowack, was the source of the explanation and that there was no need to go any further. If fact, your reply has a source...you. You are not saying to yourself...what is the explanation, of the explanation, of the explanation, of your explanation. You have ideals and perspectives you draw from as what has driven your response. You're going saying where did your ideas get it's ideas from...and so on.
When a person makes ? "the source", it isn't necessarily to endorse a religion and yet these arguments assume that it is such 100% of the time. There are people out there that do accept that ? exist...but not on the grounds of any religion.
I understand that you aren't the originator of these concepts, so you wouldn't be the original source. I don't care to search for the source, but i do care to investigate the accuracy of the claim. Searching for the source helps with that, but residual evidence is good too at least when it comes to attempting to reproduce the events with additional scenarios that may fill in the blanks. Religion does not require the worship of deity (see cult of personality), so how can it only come down to an argument of religion. Theist aren't necessarily religious. The argument does include religious principles that push a certain concept of reality and if you don't follow them, yet you still push that concept, then you have to deal with the same rebuke. When you "accept" something, that means you admit that it is actual which you have no proof of. I've already presented opposing theories even to the state of the expanding universe and it's supposed beginning (it may be cycle). You can't avoid infinity if you can't prove the beginning of the beginning. If you can prove infinity, then infinity is your answer. There is no need to keep asking. If you can go no further, then you prove that.
The issue of acceptance of something that hasn't been proven is my problem whether you add religion or not. I've already illustrated that the Universe itself may be infinite. It isn't proven yet so nobody is accepting that it is absolute fact. I didn't make any claims of the absolute, so i don't have to concern myself with facts in my previous statement. Those ideals that i have were built upon experience and within those experiences, relevant questions were asked. Those answers were found with actual answers like, if i touch this fire, will i burn? (yes, I've burned before, yes, I've seen other things burn including my food). As humans, we are on a continuing path of questioning everything around us. If we didn't, we wouldn't make new things to defy the answers (one being, how to go above human limitations and what are they). I may not be able to map the past of the individual upon first contact, but why create such limitations as if you are trapped and have no other ability to do it later (for instance, for a job interview)? I don't have to keep asking questions, i have to ask the correct question applied to the situation at hand. -
That in no way means that a ? is that something
what ever that something is it would be ? -
@furiousone. I wasn't implying that I was the original source. Of course my thoughts and views come from somewhere. However, you are not going...well, my sources even has a source, and my sources' sources has a source...and on and on. You're not going to inquire about the origins of every English word or the bit code in every letter typed. You know when to stop. You know to direct your response to me about whether I'm right or wrong.
And isn't going to the source important to finding out the accuracy of a claim? I just may be wrong in the claims I make, but what I have to say is based on something...meaning you have to establish where these ideas began. The issue of ? 's Existence is nothing new whether take to it or not, but it not always based on mere superstitions and delusions. -
Thread was an interesting read.
*lurks* -
The world is too complicated for their not to be an orchestrator. Thats the way i always felt..
Happenstance and coincidence cant be this perfect. -
playmaker88 wrote: »The world is too complicated for their not to be an orchestrator. Thats the way i always felt..
Happenstance and coincidence cant be this perfect.
I mostly agree but the world is far from perfection. The world is deeply flawed sadly but I know what you trying to say, there does seem to be some kind of design to the world. -
perhaps the order of the universe is only hidden in what we perceive as chaos. and maybe all the thought of imperfections are perfect in what they were meant to accomplish
-
That in no way means that a ? is that something
what ever that something is it would be ?
But then you beg the question when you imply that this origin of the universe, whatever it is, that we are calling ? for ease of definition, intentionally or purposefully created the universe
-
Say you were wandering through the desert. Walking and walking. You see the standard desert things as far as the eyes can: rocks, sand etc. And then out of nowhere you stumble upon a a table, fully set with chairs, plates, and silverware. You look around and there's nobody around at all. No traces of civilization anywhere in your vicinity. No footprints, nothing. And it looked like it had put there relatively recently.
It would be irrational to deduce that the tableset simply must have created and set itself. The salad fork placed itself in the correct spot next to the... (wherever the salad fork goes). It would be illogical to reach the conclusion that the entire table set was generated just randomly and coincidentally naturally. Even though you didn't see it, most reasonable people would reach the conclusion that at some point this table, these chairs, and this silverware was created by someone. And SOMEBODY set this table out in the desert, as odd as it seems. Who knows why, but they did it.
And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly. We look at the immutable laws of science and reach the conclusion that they must have wrote themselves. We look at the world and see how an ecosystem was set to perpetuate life through a "barter system": the plants need carbon dioxide and create oxygen. Animals and humans need Oxygen and create carbon dioxide.
I consider myself Christian, but if you look at Christian beliefs and be like "ehhh nah" then that's understandable. But to sit up and denounce all form of spirituality and deny that the universe has a creator just comes off as pretty unreasonable. A table can't set itself, but a universe can? Nah that's not adding up.
I'm sorry but that is one of the most illogical and irrational analogies I've ever read. If I was a christian that ? would probably have me rethinking my whole belief system just out of spite.
The oddest part is that what you described has actually happened many times throughout history - and every time no one ever assumes the "table" (or tomb or pyramid or tablet or whatever) randomly created itself - they ask who created it and why and what does it mean. that's the nature of science.
To use your same analogy but in reverse that would be like discovering Tutankhamen's tomb and just assuming that it was created by some random ? because you either can't or don't want to bother trying to explain it any other way. To assume the object created itself would be more in line with religion than science.
Also, no scientist worth listening to has ever said the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing. Ever.
But since you brought it up... does ? have a mother? Or did it just create itself out of nothing?
Quoted for emphasis.The dominant theories do not say the universe came from nothing
When I clicked on this thread, I immediately started to skim through this thread hoping someone would mention it before a theist interjects that typical insinuation.
-
the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed
-
the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed
It would seem we are not certain on that
We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity
we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated
It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time
which in is unintelligible imo
We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this
and if for reference sake we call it ? , it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP
1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created
2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical
3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed? -
The Univeralist exists and I met him when I gained all 6 infinity stones
-
Awesome thread. lots of knowledge and gems dropped here.
-
I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?
-
" if science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?"
Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a ? . It simply treats the concept of ? as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to ? . It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )
It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.
Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.
Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence. -
I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?
So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?
If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M
