The atheist gods of 'Lack', the only true religion?

Whenever philosophy and metaphysics are slipped into a scientific discussion the conversation becomes confused and tainted by opinion, I prefer to avoid this as is has proven mere distraction and counter productive. As this thread deals with Atheism and God it is understandable but delving into Quantum/multidimensional aspects would make this nothing but a mass.

 

Philosophy will always rear its head in this discussion of atheism, for obvious reasons if you actually understand it. Science is about what can be measured. It is not about thinking about the immeasurable, and whether it exists or not, and neither can it evidence that materialism is actually a fact. Science is limited and yet you want it to be unlimited, on this issue. You must recognize its limitations, and philosophy concerns itself with this.

 

So, the truth is that we can't prove any of these fundamental things. I can't prove that matter is fundamental or even real. I can't prove that I exist that existence is real or anything, at least not 100%. For example, it is logically impossible for a god to be all powerful and all good. However, that only holds if logic is real, if logic works logically(ie the argument that we are ants who can't understand what's in gods mind means logic doesn't work logically).

That being said, if we start with the assumption that logic doesn't hold, and the reality we experience isn't real, then you literally cannot make any determinations about anything at all. This is the flying spaghetti monster argument, anything you could say for a god you can also say for a flying spaghetti monster, or teapot, or turtles all the way down. This also means that any creature, being, or natural phenomenon is just as likely to be real no matter how incapable we are of thinking of it.

If, however we want to make determinations about this reality (ie, what is moral, what kind of laws should we enact, what kind of medicine should we use, if we should pray), you are pretty much always more successful in determining reality if you assume there is no god (the exception being placebo type effects).

 

As I AM Atheist I obviously understand it, though every one of us have our own version just as the Theist does. Your understanding of "Science" seems to dismiss the entire process as hypothesis and theory are fundamental and lead to the measurements/experimentation you claim ARE science but are but a small part. As far as this "Materialism" I assume you mean verifiable reality, this is indeed at the core of scientific pursuit and is the sought after result. I am unsure how this can be viewed as a negative to the rational/logical mind.

 

To stick to what I said, no indeed science cannot evidence that the philosophical materialism that underlies it, is a fact. It has never been more than an assumption, and it is an important assumption, for it negates an outside force right out of the gates. Some people either do not know this, or are able to accept the truth involved. And I am not arguing from a theist POV, for I am agnostic. Given the very nature of these arguments about a god or no god, a force or no force outside of this universe, I do not know, and I wonder if it is even knowable? I will not be dishonest and claim that I am the knower of truths in regards to this issue of atheism, but I do present what other men much brighter than myself have said about it. But I do and can understand philosophical materialism and its role in science, and on this issue of atheism. Some cannot for whatever reason.

I think much of the arguments are due to the existence of the ego, which demands to know, even what it cannot know, but that does not stop egos from claiming that indeed they do. Scientists are just as egotistical if not more so than average people, and that is self evident if you ever listen to some of them who have no humility. Others do, and they will tell you fast that indeed they DO NOT KNOW in regards to this issue of an outside force, or no outside force. These people are only concerned about what they can measure, not the immeasurable, for this is the realm of philosophy and not science, at least to date.

 

I have more than explained philosophical materialism and its relationship to science. And of course it is the foot hold that science can then move, in understanding the universe. But it is nothing more than an assumption. And in that assumption it negates the possibility of an outside force, that can be called god if you want to. And so of course science is atheistic due to this assumption. That is determined by the materialism science was based on. But it may not be necessarily so, as my philosophy prof was apt to say.

Within science itself you have physicists who have not fully bought into the materialism of science. Obviously you don't read them, for if you did, we would not be having such a difficult time here, in agreeing. ha ha. Anyways, I have nothing more to add here, so I will depart and argue politics, non academia politics.

 

Materialism is important for a much much more important reason than just negating an outside force. It is important because it constitutes 100% of the reality that we experience. So, it is true that philosophically, you can't 100% say there isn't an outside force. By the same token, you can't say that walking down the street one day, a winning lottery ticket won't fall out of an airplane into your pocket worth $100 million. That being said, you are safe to confidently state that you know that won't happen. In the same way, atheists are safe to say there is no god since the likelihood given every possible means we have of determining likelihood is that there isn't.

 

I can easily verify material reality, and am doing so right now by typing on the keyboard of a computer and watching letters appear on my screen. I also just made a meal and ate it which eliminated the hunger my body made clear I had. These and many other things convince me (and most other people) that the world I inhabit is material and scientific explanations also convince me of the existence of matter. As this is by far the best explanation I have heard it is for all intent and purpose my reality. Others may dwell in some other version and that is fine, but unless they are more convincing than what I see, touch, smell, hear and experience they will be considered incorrect.

 

Such as?..

 

Atheism is not based on assumption.

Neither is religion.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I told you there is no such thing as an agnostic+anything. Agnostic is neither theist or atheist, theist is all in and atheist is all out.

Thats one of the most ridiculous lines I have heard the neo atheists come up with yet.

There you go throw out logic and tell us how logical atheists are, that works! Its not my problem you can prove no God exists, but you believe is anyway.

Your religious world views aint no better than anyone elses.

We do that all the time, everyone knows there isnt one murder in jail, they are all innocent according to your lack of logic.

huh? Data? What data do you have that God does not exist? Exactly nothing! No Data! LOL

Well 9 out of 10 G/gods then, thats interesting, since atheists are supposed to believe no Gods exist at all..

What material is consciousness made of?

Bullshit! That isnt even good bullshit. You can CORRECTLY say there is a high probability but you cant say there 'is' or 'isnt', as that is false in both cases.

No you cant. Thats why we build things like the hubble and the cern collider, because you cant easily verify reality, more BS.

Just because you cant sense something does not mean it does not exist. No one could sense radiation either and it will kill you very dead.

Agnostics lack belief in theism
Agnostics lack belief in atheism
Theists lack belief in agnoticism
Theists lack belief in atheism

we are surrounded by lackers.

 

Completely ass backwards wrong. Nobody sees it your way. This is just a pathetic attempt to seem reasonable by painting yourself as truly agnostic with no leaning, but everyone sees through you. Your attitude and demeanor and the way you reject logic show that you are just as dependent on your need for a world that includes god as the most openly religious person.

Hahahaha neo atheist? Stop embarrassing yourself. Any atheist would tell you exactly what I’ve told you. I don’t know or care what you think a neo atheist is. It’s just more intellectual garbage you’ve piled up around yourself to keep logic and reason out of your fantasy.

Like a stubborn child, insisting that you be relieved of the burden of proving your own fantastical assertions because you know deep down it’s a hopeless endeavor. You know, deep inside, that there is no proof that your god exists and the implication of that reality terrifies you, so, like a child, you angrily insist that the rules of logic change so you don’t have to ever confront the reality that you fear.

I have no religious views. There is only logic and reason, no matter how hard you try to insist that no religion = religion.

Again you missed the most important part of my post. You’re a bit outclassed here sir, in the brains department. It’s not about a lack of evidence. It’s about the inability to gather any evidence. In any murder case, since it actually happened in reality, it’s possible for evidence to be gathered. So even if we don’t find the evidence, it actually exists within reality. When it comes to god, not a single shred of proof of his existence can be found anywhere. It’s not that we haven’t found it, it’s that it is impossible to find because he does not really exist. No evidence for his existence will ever be found. The religious like to explain that away by making him all powerful, it the reality is that a lack of the possibility to gather evidence of his existence puts him in the same category as all other completely imaginary things for which it is not possible to gather evidence to prove their existence.

Again, I don’t need evidence. Im not claiming anything exists. Im simply reviewing your claim that god exists, observing the utter void of any supporting evidence, and rejecting your claim in its entirety. That is what logic demands. It also demands that if you want your idea of god to be acknowledged as real, you need to produce evidence to support it.

 

I am not here to cure the blind, sorry.

I have not been presented with any logic to reject, only soap box rants, but I am happy to review any logic you wish to post.

Claiming ass backwards proves you own it since its common knowledge that agnostics are neither theist or atheist, not even a teensie weensie little bit. lol

Oh? Great lets see the survey you took of ALL atheists, or more likely your survey is limited to a couple militant neo atheists on this board that say that LOL

Agnostics dont have a god, I have no reason to prove a theory that I dont hold.
Tell us what does angry text look like? I dont think I have ever seen such a thing or are you simply more **** up as you go?
Me? Nah, but atheists certainly fear the reality that they have their own little religion thing going.

Sure you do, you believe no G/gods exist and that IS a well understood 'religious view', by everyone except neo atheists apparently who want out of this world.

I could care less if you hold sacred beliefs that you cant gather evidence or prove its simply NOT my problem, its yours. Keep the 'faith' though!

When it comes to no G/god there is no proof what so ever.

I know neo atheists never need evidence, they 'feel' they are right and thats all thats necessary for them. Agnotics dont have an idea that G/gods are real, thats the theists department.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of G/gods, is that too complicated for you to comprehend maybe? Its only 2 parts, certainly not rocket science.

 

Absurdity. And the ludicrous side of sh*t just hit the fan. I will not say anything more than that, given that assumptions involved in both of those beliefs are self evident, if you spend the time delving into it. Which obviously you have never done. This issue has been debated for a very long time, and nothing new is there. But at least those more learned people do recognize that powerful assumptions are involved in both. And have for very long time.

 

You can start with some of the founders of QM and QP. And then follow it to modern times. You must not know much about those founders? Look at my signature, for a hint of one of them. That you were clueless on this does not bear well here sir. I am astounded actually.

 

The old god of the gaps. We don't know what consciousness is. However, every time we think something is supernatural, when we actually find out what it is, we find it is perfectly materialistic. The evocation of this is only based in the desperate clinging to last hopes of evidence of a god. But, just because we can't explain something doesn't mean you then assume the explanation has anything to do with something that has 0 evidence, and has never explained anything ever. So, to keep beating this horse, we can ask what material is data made of? And to further kill this, we can be essentially positive that consciousness is based on materialism because your consciousness can be drastically changed with material things (ie, brain damage, drugs, endocrine changes etc).

Since the odds that there is a god are so small that it is nearly impossible to distinguish those odds from 0, I don't see why you couldn't just say that there is no god. In other words, as much as you can say anything, you can say there is no god. You can't say 100%, but you can't 100% say ANYthing.

 

no matter how many threads you start on this, atheism will remain, be definition, not a religion.

atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Well, I've read a lot of quantum mechanics, and never found anything that suggested any of them didn't believe in materialism. I think the answer is that when I tried to find what you are talking about with Schroedinger, all I could find were quotes about how mysterious consciousness is and wild extrapolations on theist blogs. So, I think you have to hang out in those areas to have this impression. Basically I'm guessing that all of this revolves around the god of the gaps argument around consciousness. Which doesn't tell you anything.

 

Good reason. And I didn't mean to sound like an arse, if indeed I did.

I used to follow David Bohm closely, his career, and he talked about this in a seminar I attended back in the 70s. He talked quite a bit about the influence of philosophical materialism upon science as well as other physicists I have read over the years. It interested me, and still does. But I am no expert on the subject, just well read. Or used to be. ha ha.

Oddly enough Rupert Sheldrake was present at this talk Bohm gave, and later on it was evident that Sheldrake was also interested in this subject and has written on it over the years. I never knew either on a personal level, just an attendee, although they were very social people and even had lunch with both after this lecture. In Ojai Ca. Sheldrake is the funniest guy you will ever meet, and always has humorous stories to tell about other scientists, including himself. Both men were extremely open minded scientists, unlike Feinman, who unlike Bohm was not that open minded. ha ha. Feinman was in Ojai as well on this occassion but not at the talk.

Sorry for elaborating, and being off topic. I just thought it was a great experience for myself, and just wanted to share it. And it gave me an interest, as a non physicist in the founders of QM, and its effect upon science, upon physics. Some will say that QM negates a materialistic view of the universe, but I am not so sure that is anything but hyperbolic in nature. Materialism, strict materialism has yielded successes, no doubt about that, so as a tool, its value is unquestionable. But that does not therefore make it Truth. But it does make it a most important way of looking, of perceiving, when it comes to understanding the universe. Yet personally I think that like most things it can also be limiting, even as it can become rather dogmatic, as some people do not understand it involves one helluva assumption.

I have entertained the idea, while never being able to say that "I know" that matter is not the fundamental of reality, but instead consciousness is. Along with information that some physicists maintain is intrinsic to the quantum world. And so of course I give a possibility to what Tom Campbell has said on this subject, that the universe is a virtual reality, created by something outside of the physical universe, analogous, metaphorically speaking, to the computer that is creating the virtual reality seen in modern video games. A reality based upon consciousness and information. Not some anthropomorphic god, but something different, that is separate from the physical universe. But I can only entertain such an idea, given that no one can with honestly say one knows it to be a fact. Neither can one say it is a fact that such a creative force does not exist outside of this universe. For what is immeasurable, if such a thing exists, cannot be measured. ha ha. I don't think the idea of such a thing is impossible, for it is possible, and yet science cannot ever measure it. To say that which is impossible to measure does not exist, or cannot exist is nothing more than arrogance of the ego, IMO.

There is so much man does not know with certainty. This issue of atheism or theism falls within this category, and yet getting some people to admit that, on both sides of the coin is just impossible. I recognize that, even as both groups for whatever reason will not recognize it. I think human beings, both groups, demand certainty, and in some areas there can never be that certainty. And this is just unacceptable to the theists and the atheists, and yet being agnostic I am quite comfortable with the fact of the matter. But that does not stop me from conjecturing, and we need people who will conjecture in those areas where truth is not obtainable, at least to date.

 

Atheism and most Atheists I have met claim no certainty beyond knowing the "Gods of Men" are not real...this does not even delve into the possibility of something else. I would imagine every Atheist conjectures in their mind about whatever might be out there but as it is pure hypothetical imagining there seems no point in forwarding it. In my opinion every Atheist should be labeled Atheist/Agnostic but due to the FACT every one of us is our own version and think independently this is all IMO.

 

In order to be an atheist you must disbelieve the existence of G/gods. It does not matter how strong or weak your atheism is its still atheism. That does not justify the bastardization of agnostic as atheists have and continue to do in the process of searching for themselves.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of G/gods.

Its patently ludicrous to disbelieve and not disbelieve at the same time which is what you are claiming every time you come out here singing agnostic.

The word you are looking for is WEAK-atheist, which is correct, not atheist-agnostic which flies in the face of logic and is nonsense.

This has all been explained to the board atheists in other threads, what the problem that you and others continue to try and hijack agnostic?

an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. ... Agnosticism was coined by biologist T.H. Huxley and comes from the Greek agnostos, which means “unknown or unknowable.” To complicate matters, atheists and agnostics are often confused with theists and deists.
What's the difference between atheism and agnosticism? - Everything ...
www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/

Seriously this has been discussed countless times whats the problem?

 

As you are obviously not an Atheist and I clearly am, your opinion is far less valid or informed than my own so go sew a sock little KoKo.

 

True religion is an oxymoron.

 

Ah, back to ignoring the dictionary again, and swensson wonders why I have a define religion thread.

I dont see any connection sorry