Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Skull Pilot]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

And that is the advantage of Atheism. When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it? I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted. Don't you?

Atheism does not have all the answers I have never heard that espoused by any atheist

Atheists IMO tend to be a more empirical sort

 

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

 

[Czernobog]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

And that is the advantage of Atheism. When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it? I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted. Don't you?

Atheism does not have all the answers I have never heard that espoused by any atheist

Atheists IMO tend to be a more empirical sort

Ummm...I think I acknowledged that. That's why I like Atheism. It doesn't presume to have answers that must be accepted; it presents questions to be explored.

 

[hobelim]

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

I believe that yours is the most sensible and intellectually honest approach.

That being said, what would suffice as proof?

What if seeing no evidence of God is only evidence of your inability to see?

Are you open to that possibility?

What then? What would be the only right course to take?

I am of course open to not the possibility but to the certainty that humans will not be able to understand everything because of the physical limitations of our intellect and sensory capabilities which does indeed create the conundrum you just outlined

As yet I have no solution to that particular puzzle but continue to reflect on it

My solution was to assume that my mind had been defiled and contaminated since birth by thousands of years of misunderstanding and confusion. I didn't need proof that I couldn't make sense out of anything. 'Life's a bitch and then you die', or, 'shit happens' wasn't a good enough answer for me.

If the mind is the only tool we have to process information gathered from observing and living life, purifying and cleansing the mind would seem to be the only logical first step to take for anyone who would want to apply their mind to learn and know the unadulterated truth...

I never said we couldn't make sense out of anything
We obviously can. We know the why and how of many things.

My contention is that there are as many if not more whys and hows that we will never understand because of the limitations of our intellect which is a physical entity derived from our organic selves

I hate to keep using the dog and algebra analogy but it most succinctly sums it up

I don't remember saying that we can't make sense out of anything. I thought that I said that "I didn't need proof that I couldn't make sense out of anything.." meaning more than just knowing the cycle of life, the birds and the bees, whats in a history book, etc.. I thought what I said was clear.....

Must be some sort of malfunction in my brain.....


sorry...

 

[Iceweasel]

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

 

[rightwinger]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

And that is the advantage of Atheism. When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it? I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted. Don't you?

Atheism does not have all the answers I have never heard that espoused by any atheist

Atheists IMO tend to be a more empirical sort

Ummm...I think I acknowledged that. That's why I like Atheism. It doesn't presume to have answers that must be accepted; it presents questions to be explored.

And is one of the disadvantages of the spiritual

If you don't accept the answer from your religion you are threatened by an eternity in hell

 

[Skull Pilot]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

And that is the advantage of Atheism. When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it? I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted. Don't you?

Atheism does not have all the answers I have never heard that espoused by any atheist

Atheists IMO tend to be a more empirical sort

Ummm...I think I acknowledged that. That's why I like Atheism. It doesn't presume to have answers that must be accepted; it presents questions to be explored.

And is one of the disadvantages of the spiritual

If you don't accept the answer from your religion you are threatened by an eternity in hell

religions use the time tested carrot and sticks of fear and greed to manipulate their followers

 

[Czernobog]

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

 

[badger2]

From burial customs of the Neolithic, Theo learned early on how to manipulate a fundamental illusion of man: the illusion of not being dead once we already are. James Earl Jones soothsaying Conan about the now departed loved one, is the cartoon.

 

[Iceweasel]

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

Wrong. Atheists make claims they can't back up. "We believe in scientific facts that haven't been discovered yet" is a statement of faith. No way around it. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

Pink unicorns? Who gives a shit. Go ahead and say they do or do not exist. Both are statements of faith. The theist admits it, atheists lie about it.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

Wrong. Atheists make claims they can't back up. "We believe in scientific facts that haven't been discovered yet" is a statement of faith. No way around it. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

Pink unicorns? Who gives a shit. Go ahead and say they do or do not exist. Both are statements of faith. The theist admits it, atheists lie about it.

That pink unicorns do not exist is a statement of faith?!?!?

And this is why I have you on ignore; because you make ridiculous statements that have no relation to actual reality. Back to fantasy land with you. Bu bye.

 

[the_human_being]

The common term for atheist is "idiot".

 

[Iceweasel]

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

Wrong. Atheists make claims they can't back up. "We believe in scientific facts that haven't been discovered yet" is a statement of faith. No way around it. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

Pink unicorns? Who gives a shit. Go ahead and say they do or do not exist. Both are statements of faith. The theist admits it, atheists lie about it.

That pink unicorns do not exist is a statement of faith?!?!?

And this is why I have you on ignore; because you make ridiculous statements that have no relation to actual reality. Back to fantasy land with you. Bu bye.

.....says the shit stain that claims to know all of the universe! LOL, you stupid smug little bastard, you have to lie to yourself to believe what you do.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

I would go with spiritually dumb. Makes the most sense.

 

[Hawkins]

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

There's no evidence showing that God doesn't exist, unless atheists try to base their evidence on the absence of evidence.

Moreover, you can't even provide evidence of what you just did yesterday. It by no means says that you did nothing yesterday. If you can't even prove what you yourself did yesterday, what's the point of denying God did create the universe thousands or millions years ago?

BBT is just human consensus on how the universe begins. It by no means says that it's a fact. Science can only prove a theory when the object being theorized can be repeated. BBT cannot be proven unless you can make it repeat itself.

 

[NoNukes]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

Stronger? How would you measure that?

Some 'religious 'people just go through the motions

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

Stronger? How would you measure that?

Some 'religious' people just go through the motions and are not spiritual. Some non believers are not spiritual either.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

And that is the advantage of Atheism. When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it? I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted. Don't you?

Atheism does not have all the answers I have never heard that espoused by any atheist

Atheists IMO tend to be a more empirical sort

Ummm...I think I acknowledged that. That's why I like Atheism. It doesn't presume to have answers that must be accepted; it presents questions to be explored.

And is one of the disadvantages of the spiritual

If you don't accept the answer from your religion you are threatened by an eternity in hell

religions use the time tested carrot and sticks of fear and greed to manipulate their followers

And how is that approach different from any other system or institution? Sounds just like common human behavior in all kinds of situations.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

There's no evidence showing that God doesn't exist, unless atheists try to base their evidence on the absence of evidence.

There is no evidence showing that pink unicorns don't exist. Would you take someone seriously who insisted that it should be treated as fact that they do until definitive proof that they don't is presented?

Moreover, you can't even provide evidence of what you just did yesterday. It by no means says that you did nothing yesterday. If you can't even prove what you yourself did yesterday, what's the point of denying God did create the universe thousands or millions years ago?

The difference is that, I can, at least, prove I exist. After that, what I did, or did not do yesterday is a matter for debate. If you want me to even consider what God did, or did not do millions of years ago, you must first prove that he even exists. I do not entertain what God may, or may not have done in the past, because I have yet to see objective proof of even the existence of God. You want to debate what God did, or did not do, whithout first proving that God even exists.

BBT is just human consensus on how the universe begins. It by no means says that it's a fact. Science can only prove a theory when the object being theorized can be repeated. BBT cannot be proven unless you can make it repeat itself.

You're quite right. It is just a theory, and a flawed one at that, as I pointed out. It is a theory that necessitates a "beginning", and an "end" to the universe. The newer, quantum models of the universe also fit with all of the known variables of the existing universe, but remove the bookends, which also removes the necessity for trying to understand what "started" the universe.

 

[NoNukes]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

What are you really saying? That you are more fanatical ?!

Me? I would say less so, as atheists behave so much like religious fundamentalists.

Painting a group of people with such a broad brush is a mistake. I guess theists do not think.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

There's no evidence showing that God doesn't exist, unless atheists try to base their evidence on the absence of evidence.

Moreover, you can't even provide evidence of what you just did yesterday. It by no means says that you did nothing yesterday. If you can't even prove what you yourself did yesterday, what's the point of denying God did create the universe thousands or millions years ago?

BBT is just human consensus on how the universe begins. It by no means says that it's a fact. Science can only prove a theory when the object being theorized can be repeated. BBT cannot be proven unless you can make it repeat itself.

There is little evidence to suggest that humans even have the capacity to perceive, let alone understand, what makes a universe or what makes reality real.