The Folly of Atheism, part 2

Good for you mate, all we can do is have fun speculating..

[video=youtube;ZcV25N37-C4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcV25N37-C4[/video]

 

Ok, but where did the atoms in the stars come from before the atom in the pic?

 

When I point out atheism as a lack of belief, making it the opposite of a belief, and you twist things to make it into a belief, no, that's not a reasonable inference.

Edit: Your other problem is that 'no gods' is shorthand for knowing there are no gods, which is a knowledge claim, not a belief.
You ask me if I believe in something, and the answer is no. I don't believe in that thing. I don't believe in the negative. It's an unnecessary step.

It's like taking someone who does believe in God, and saying they believe in the belief that God exists. Unnecessary.

 

That must be god. He was so fed up in the 'nothingness' before the big bang that he blew himself up. That would explain the Big Bang and the atoms.

For heavens sake. 4,000 years ago there was 'nothing' outside the dome above the earth. Well, not until the Greeks came along and theorised there was. There was 'nothing' between the earth and the planets, and the various galaxies. Well, not until it was discovered there was. The atomic theory wasn't developed until Dalton in the 18th Century though it was theorised way back around the 6th Century BCE by an Indian sage called Kanad followed by the Greeks. Now we know that what 'didn't 'exist', the indivisble matter is divisible.
That 'nothing' existed beyond the Big Bang is only a theory. Something and nothing are words made up by mankind. They signify mans understanding of letters strung together. Science can, and does, take us us beyond what we understand at the present time. Quantum Science will take us farther. Show your empty hand to a small child and ask him what's in it, and he/she will tell you 'nothing'. You and I know there is, though we, and the child, cannot see it. Man is still a child growing up as far as Science is concerned.
Nothing? There is no 'Nothing'. Only what we do not yet understand. Come to think of it can nothing actually ' exist'.

 

If naturalism is "only a belief", then surely you have empirical testable evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, yes?

 

Of course not. That is why they are both 'beliefs'.

IF you have empirical evidence to support some theory, it leaves the realm of belief & becomes based in empiricism.

'Beliefs' in a flat earth, or the 4 humors, or bloodletting, or spontaneous generation were all proven to be flawed beliefs by scientific methodology. If you could provide evidence for one 'theory' of origins, or some kind of damning evidence that discredited the other, then you might favor one view over the other, from a purely scientific, objective, & empirical POV. But merely choosing one unevidenced belief over another, without corroborating evidence, is not a scientific choice, but a philosophical, religious, or other influence factor.

 

I am very interested in thoughtworthy ideas that atheists present! If you have some that i have not addressed, from an atheistic POV, please share them. I would be very interested in hearing them. I promise i will not stoop to ridicule, but will examine your claims rationally & with an open mind.

This subject seems to get bogged down in semantics very easily. I'm not really into digging into all the nuances of belief of those who choose the label, 'atheist'. I'm taking the very core definition to be someone who answers the question of the existence of the supernatural thusly: 'I don't believe in the supernatural, god, or gods.' I don't care what 'level' or strength or gnosticism they have with this belief, but if it is a true statement for this question, i will accept 'atheist' as a valid descriptor.

I am more mystified at the intensity of the arguments over word usage, among some atheists. It seems to be a more recent development.. perhaps a New Millennial Atheist description (NMA)? Most of the old time atheists i ever knew, just stated plainly, 'I don't believe in God', & that was that.

But it seems to me that more & more, there is getting to be more irrationality among atheists, & a departure from cold, hard reason, that most atheists were known for. Emotion & hysteria are becoming en vogue for atheists, & making conflicting logical statements is becoming more common. And, when i try to understand the reasoning of the New Millennial Atheists, i get vague, almost metaphysical replies. Does this mean the NMA is getting in tune with his spiritual side? I don't know. It is a mystery that i am trying to understand.. but logic does not seem to work to communicate the 'feelings' of the NMA, so i am left with an otherworldly impression.. a feeling of sensitivity or alternate reality. It is something that my cold, hard reason has difficulty grasping.

 

I'm not your research assistant. After all, you claim to have a degree in science. I'll let you research current cosmology theory to discover how primordial hydrogen and helium were formed in the early universe. I'll also leave it to you to rationally conclude that no sky fairies were necessary for that either.

 

Nah mate, I got College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science, but they're not degrees.
It just means I know something about it, boy you should have seen my kool copper sulphate crystals growing..

 

Yes, the Theory of Evolution is only a theory too..

 

A theory, not a hypothesis. That means it is supported by facts across multiple disciplines by multiple scientists.

 

Except literally every piece of evidence we have supports naturalism.

 

Many theories abound. I have a theory that you may not really exist. That you're just a Tank commander in a computer game, using the Bible for manouvres on the battlefield. Of course I could be wrong. I base my theory on your tactics of your misreading the map of the OT.

 

Let's keep this simple here it is: Theists can't prove deities exist. Atheists can't rule out deities either. Right. So lets assume not of this matters and act as if there is no divinities in the universe and focus on important matters and act in an Apatheist fashion since we have a lot more to worry about in this world than deities or no deities. Then we would all be better off.

 

At least you are asking the right question. The atom is a combination of smaller elements and the form these smaller elements take is going to be different in different conditions. Prior to the "Big Bang" the form matter took was probably as different as you can imagine but it still existed in some form. The way I would put it is this:
1) Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
2) Matter must exist in some form but may exist in any form.

It exists unconditionally but it can and does change.

Wanted to add this: A video that explains what the smallest discovered partical(s) in the universe actually are:

[video=youtube;w5UY9K-0Zok]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5UY9K-0Zok[/video]

 

I'm sure you believe this. And it is a common misconception. But there is not a single bit of empirical evidence that supports a naturalistic belief in origins.

Here is my challenge: Name one. List a single compelling evidence that supports this claim. There is none. Whether you are talking about life, or matter, or the universe, there is nothing to indicate its origins, empirically. We are here. That is obvious. But HOW remains a mystery, & has been for all of human history.. scientifically speaking. Philosophers & religions may claim to know, but that is not an empirical discipline.

IMO, there is more 'evidence' for a supernatural view of origins.. because of the thousands of years of history of people claiming interaction with the supernatural, & the sheer awe & complexity of the universe. But i'm sticking with empirical, for now, so we limit ourselves to objective evidence.

 

Where do you get this idea that the universe had an "origin"?

 

I said, 'life, matter, or the universe'. Some, none, or all had origins, did they not? Do you believe that the current status quo has been this way forever? Life on earth, for eternity past? Our solar system, orbiting through infinite space, with no beginning, no changes, no end?

That seems even more far fetched than postulating a beginning...

But even if you do, the issue here is evidence, not belief. You claimed evidence for a naturalistic belief system. I would like to hear about that.

 

Alas for you, the record clearly tells quite a different story.

Get real, the problem is entirely on your end.

It's clearly the product of intelligent design, and obviously the intelligence had to precede the product.

 

Wow, you'd make a great sci-fi writer mate, I quite like your theory that I might be just be a character in a computer game who's somehow slipped into this reality..
PS- hey I just remembered something like that happened in a Star Trek TNG episode where Picard has to explain to Mycroft Holmes that he's not real and is just a holodeck image, suddenly I'm -gulp- afraid...

[video=youtube;cINiXEmIZlQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINiXEmIZlQ[/video]

 

On what evidence do you base that claim?

 

The origin of life is explained by the Theory of Abiogenesis. The universe is the sum total of all matter and energy, and by definition, matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed and thus must have always existed in form or another.

 

That there is intelligence in the design of the universe is intuitively obvious, and confirmed by every scientific discovery I'm aware of. It is similarly obvious that anything which is preceded by anything else has an origin.

And presumably the Theory of Astrology explains why Trump is a billionaire and I'm not. What's missing is a reason to believe either explanation has any connection to reality.

 

Sure we can. Just as we can rule out:

• Psychic snowflakes
• Shango
• The Easter Bunny
• Shiva
• Santa Clause
• Athena
• Gnomes
• Thor
• Fairies

And any and all silly notions that are the product of man's imaginings and superstitions.

 

From whence commeth the intelligent designer?