patra_is_here Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 hey dude, i know this could be handled in a PM, but i felt it might be fun to document the conversation. i know you are an atheist, i know you are a strong supporter of the science. i wanted to just present something to you, as a thought and debate exercise for both of us. i will line everything out in points, so that the thread will be easy to follow #1. you adhere to what is observable in the physically observable universe. #2. because of #1, you don't know believe in things such as a personal god, leprechauns, ghosts, and such. #3. you are someone who is a follower of the scientific method my question for you, is #4. how can you be an outright atheist when technically, according to the scientific method, there is still a chance that there is a god? #5 a blind person sees no objects, yet, those objects still exist. do you think it's possible that there is an aspect to the physical universe that we have yet to discover/perceive? just as the eyes of our ancestral cousins we less able to view the universe as we do, or as a bubblebee see a different range of light. or are you more prone to think that everything exists within the wavelengths of the current electro-magnetic spectrum, and there is nothing else to discover? (sorry #5 was massively unorganized) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 well i can give you guys ONE " fact " if you are born,,you are going to DIE . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lives4Speed Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 well i can give you guys ONE " fact " if you are born,,you are going to DIE . AMEN Brutha' err, I mean ain't that the Truth! L4S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edde Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 #4 is the oldest argument or question ever made to an atheist or agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolf Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I personally have no reason to believe in God... All the miracles i have seen could be easily explained from science. And on #4 although there is a chance of anything in my opinion...it might still be .0000000000000001 x 10^99999 chance its not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 On my iPhone. Will happily get to this shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwii Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 twitter version: science = believe it when you see it religion = see it when you believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) hey dude, i know this could be handled in a PM, but i felt it might be fun to document the conversation. i know you are an atheist, Yes you can consider me an atheist, but just to clarify; the word "atheist" only works because it happens to be the most accurate word available to quickly communicate my stance on "theism/religion". I'd rather associate with no named world view or stance on theism and I don't appreciate being regarded relative to my stance on such nonsense. I personally consider there to be no real need for a "word" to describe me or any other "atheist" for that matter. I simply "don't do" religion, but there's plenty that I don't do, and those other things don't have words to go with them. For instance, I also "don't do" astrology, but I'm not an "a-astrologer". The world doesn't revolve around whether a man does or doesn't care about the predictions tied to his astrological sign. I also don't do rape, but I'm not an "a-rapist". It just so happens that so much revolves around "theism" in our daily lives that "not doing" theism has been assigned a word. That word also "happens" to have HUGE negative connotations which are almost always completely false. If I didn't know better I'd think the word was invented for the sole purpose of making non-believers easier to identify and segregate. i know you are a strong supporter of the science. Well, sure, but I mean everyone is a "strong supporter" of most science. How can we not be? It is inextricably tied to every single part of our lives. As one small example, we all take it on faith that professionals whose services we require will have studied the newest approaches to solving our problems. We don't have time to do anything but trust them, and we often surrender large sums of our hard earned cash in exchange for their services to make our lives happier and more convenient. You don't have to be an airline pilot to appreciate the science that went into making strong, reliable commercial aircraft. You don't have to be a doctor to appreciate bypass surgery and the multiple new leases on life it can provide. In fact no one on earth isn't a strong supporter of any science except that which appears to be revealing inconsistencies and falsehoods in our various religious texts. Most science is beloved by all and this is universal common ground I love to explore with my debate partners. #1. you adhere to what is observable in the physically observable universe. Not to bog this down, but "adhere" isn't really appropriate. I "appreciate" only that which evidence and reason support. #2. because of #1, you don't know believe in things such as a personal god, leprechauns, ghosts, and such. Or the fairies at the bottom of the garden or Santa Claus or flying spaghetti monsters or Zeus or "good luck" or anything that doesn't have evidence and reason at its back, no. #3. you are someone who is a follower of the scientific method Lover of, if not disciplined follower, but essentially, yes. my question for you, is #4. how can you be an outright atheist when technically, according to the scientific method, there is still a chance that there is a god? Because all that's left is agnosticism, and that would be a cop out. To be perfectly clear, I am an atheist to ALL EARTHLY GODS, meaning I am supremely confident that no earthly religion's God is the creator of the Universe. This I also share in common with nearly every human being alive in the bulk of the cases. Every religious person is also an atheist to the majority of the Gods of earthly religions, presumably all but one. Again, common ground we should explore, since I go only one god further all religious people. After all, what would be the point of believing in the god whose existence you suppose the scientific method allows a chance for? Would that god care if we eat ham? Would that god care if we worship false gods? Would that god care about our abortions or our women wearing pants? Would that god care about us? After even a cursory glance at the available evidence all that's left is a difficult beginning question that requires an open mind to the possibility of a "creator god". Taking that remote possibility and running at break neck speed, creationists fill in intricate details about the being's wants and needs and desires and jealousies and misogyny and it's just absurd. Agnosticism is therefore a pure waste of time, and a nice gentle step for people to take on their way to fully letting go of God. I went to deism first, then agnosticism, then atheism. It's a very natural progression, again, for ANY thinking person. Basically though, you do have me on a technicality. So long as we're clear that I'm not talking about ANY earthly religion's god, I am technically "agnostic" to the possibility of a disassociated, unconcerned, unknowable, creator god. Edited July 6, 2009 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted July 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) oh sorry, when i say the chance of "god" i don't mean the god that is mentioned in mans' religions, I meant moreso the chance that there is something greater than us that organizes our part of the universe for us to fit the will of none, some, or all individuals. myself, most of the time, i don't even consider god to exist, much less god is taking interest in my life. but, somehow, there are moments when i can actually accept the idea that there is a god. a god that made this for us. a god that made dinosaur fossils, a god that sends signals to the hubble space telescope so we think there's something more out there, a god that makes our machines think light is both a particle and a wave. a god that will always be in hiding. Edited July 6, 2009 by patra_is_here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 oh sorry, when i say the chance of "god" i don't mean the god that is mentioned in mans' religions, I meant moreso the chance that there is something greater than us that organizes our part of the universe for us to fit the will of none, some, or all individuals. myself, most of the time, i don't even consider god to exist, much less god is taking interest in my life. but, somehow, there are moments when i can actually accept the idea that there is a god. a god that made this for us. a god that made dinosaur fossils, a god that sends signals to the hubble space telescope so we think there's something more out there, a god that makes our machines think light is both a particle and a wave. a god that will always be in hiding. sure, check the edit at the very end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenquestTSI Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) religion itself is based on faith. not factual evidence. look up what faith means an i bet it means to beleive in something....so you cant base religion on science. Edited July 6, 2009 by BrokenquestTSI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 religion itself is based on faith. not factual evidence. Great, now convince the faithful that they don't "know" God exists, but only "believe" it, and we'll be getting somewhere. look up what faith means an i bet it means to beleive in something....so you cant base religion on science. They tend to say science is just another form of religion, which is absurdity in its purest form, but sure, I agree with you. Was someone suggesting otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) #5 a blind person sees no objects, yet, those objects still exist. do you think it's possible that there is an aspect to the physical universe that we have yet to discover/perceive? just as the eyes of our ancestral cousins we less able to view the universe as we do, or as a bubblebee see a different range of light. or are you more prone to think that everything exists within the wavelengths of the current electro-magnetic spectrum, and there is nothing else to discover? (sorry #5 was massively unorganized) Sorry, didn't really bother with 5 much at all before. I'll make this answer short. Yes I think there are aspects of the physical universe we have yet to discover/perceive. I agree with Richard Dawkins that the universe is not just "queerer" than we do suppose, but "queerer than we can suppose". As explained beautifully here Edited July 6, 2009 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 One truth which there is no escape....when your last day comes and you pass then the truth to you will finally be settled....either you will meet your creator or slip into nothingness either way the ultimate question will be answered.... That is all.. Roberto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 One truth which there is no escape....when your last day comes and you pass then the truth to you will finally be settled....either you will meet your creator or slip into nothingness either way the ultimate question will be answered.... That is all.. Roberto In all likelihood death will be very similar to pre-conception. Meaning you will know and feel and think and worry after life exactly like you did before life, not at all. If that qualifies as an "answer" to you, then sure, I guess you'll get an answer to "one of" life's ultimate questions. This scenario would leave another ultimate question utterly unanswered though, which is "why is there something instead of nothing?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89Steve Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 In all likelihood death will be very similar to pre-conception. Meaning you will know and feel and think and worry after life exactly like you did before life, not at all. If that qualifies as an "answer" to you, then sure, I guess you'll get an answer to "one of" life's ultimate questions. This scenario would leave another ultimate question utterly unanswered though, which is "why is there something instead of nothing?" You speak with such certainty on the subject. It's a pretty grim outlook to have on your own life and death. Even if your correct in the matter, what does it matter? (according to your perspective) After all whatever we learn in life will all ultimately be dust in the wind, according to you, correct? I'm not trying to put your views down in any way, all I'm saying is that since its a subject we will never have an answer to in life, why choose the most pessimistic approach? There is as much evidence that there is life after death then the contrary. Great, now convince the faithful that they don't "know" God exists, but only "believe" it, and we'll be getting somewhere. I have faith in a God, but i don't KNOW he exists. Any faithful person who KNOWS God exists is most likely severely uneducated in the English language or is a far side extremist. In the latter case, it is unfair to make such a stereotype about people who believe in God. That would be like me saying that all atheists are pompous know-it-all a$$holes. It's just not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 #4. how can you be an outright atheist when technically, according to the scientific method, there is still a chance that there is a god? Gave this some more thought and I have this to add. I don't consider it to be "according to the scientific method" that there is "still a chance that there is a God". If you want to explain the question differently that's fine, but once you hypothesize a God, you are done applying any part of the scientific method. You can't "gather data" or conduct sufficiently controlled experiments. You could never arrive at anything like a "theory". The entire process, being not about the natural world, would be entirely speculative and entirely unscientific. But, supposing you simply mean that science and the scientific method can't "disprove" god, Edde is completely correct to say that's an old criticism with many refutations and convincing rebuttals. Bertrand Russell so succinctly disposed of this creationist drivel there's really no need for my input, but I make it anyway. This was Russell's response: If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrokenquestTSI Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 onetime i had a had a journal, and i was 17 and felt lk life was running me over and nothing i was doin was working out. couldnt get my car on the road(quest), ect. No lie, i wrote in my journal for God to show me a sign that hes even there. thats was the last entry i had to that journal for almost a year because right after that i got my car on the road, and drove it everyday, and stopped writing in it. Then i got in a terrible highspeed car accident with it. pic is below. Injuries as follows, Broken neck, shattered heel, collapsed lung, broken jaw, severe tramatic brain injury, (not damage) was in a coma for 3 months, and sedated coma for 1 month, severe internal bleeding, bruised 5 organs, laserated my spleen, that was removed. have 11 screws and two plates in my right foot, and 4 screws still in my mouth. And im still alive. sittin here. coincidence? and i made a pretty much full recover. now if that aint showin me a sign idk what is. i aint trting to make athiests believe anything, or whatever. i used to try but i dont do that anymore even thought the bible tells you too. Simply because people that dont believe in God, more than often, theres a reason they dont believe and he has yet to show you your sign. And hey, i thought this forum wasnt supposed to talk about religion or whatever? Cuz some people get all offended by it. well not me. Every man for himself as far as im concerned because life aint an on an off switch. seriously? can you imagine being dead? i cant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) You speak with such certainty on the subject. Not nearly the certainty the religious speak with. I said "in all likelihood", which is clearly true and supported by evidence. It's a pretty grim outlook to have on your own life and death. Assuming for the sake of argument that I agree with you that mine is a "grim" outlook, what would that have to do with its likelihood to be true or false? Even if your correct in the matter, what does it matter? (according to your perspective) After all whatever we learn in life will all ultimately be dust in the wind, according to you, correct? I think of it as "molecular matter dissipating from whence it came", or as Sagan's "star stuff", but sure, dust in the wind is fine. I'm not trying to put your views down in any way, all I'm saying is that since its a subject we will never have an answer to in life, why choose the most pessimistic approach? So you're sincerely suggesting that I should put optimism before reality; that I should stop with this incessant hunger for truth at all costs? No thanks. Your input smacks of Pascal's wager, reproduced here: If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation). Blaise Pascal, and I think you would have us ponder how we should bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no chance for payoff in any case. He proposed the best bet, then, was to accept the existence of God. This seems logical at first consideration, but given even a childish second thought it's obvious that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him, and that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods. This necessarily leaves the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic. Not to mention the most obvious fact that God would not reward belief in Him based solely on hedging one's bets. There is as much evidence that there is life after death then the contrary. Oh please present said evidence that there is life after death. I have faith in a God, but i don't KNOW he exists. Any faithful person who KNOWS God exists is most likely severely uneducated in the English language or is a far side extremist. That has not been my experience AT ALL. Nearly every single believer I have EVER engaged has used the word "KNOW", much to my chagrin, and refused to update their stance when asked politely. In the latter case, it is unfair to make such a stereotype about people who believe in God. It's not a stereotype though. It's from my personal direct observation on hundreds of accounts. I have had two people other than you admit it is only ever belief and never knowledge that they gain through faith. That would be like me saying that all atheists are pompous know-it-all a$$holes. It's just not true. except me, but sure, most are not that way. Edited July 6, 2009 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) oh sorry, when i say the chance of "god" i don't mean the god that is mentioned in mans' religions, I meant moreso the chance that there is something greater than us that organizes our part of the universe for us to fit the will of none, some, or all individuals. There is it's called gravity. Ether the gravity of matter atracting other pieces of matter. Or the gravity of a body as a whole pulling on / pushing on other objects. Edited July 6, 2009 by jszucs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Oh please present said evidence that there is life after death. Sure will. First law of thermal dynamics I belive. Might not be "inteligent" for lack of a better term but energy is matter and by the law. well you get where im going. Edited July 6, 2009 by jszucs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 coincidence? yes, clearly, and you should be offended by your "god's" ignorance if it wasn't merely coincidence that you lived that day. If He elected to protect you in that car accident, but also elected to ignore the 5 year old girl who was being brutally raped and murdered somewhere on the earth that day then he is petty, stupid, selfish, egotistical and unworthy of anyone's respect. What, did she not ask for protection? Had she not "accepted Him as her lord and savior"? I guess she got what was coming to her then huh? Forget the little girl. Why do you think you deserve to be protected in a car accident when so many people aren't? So many people die in car accidents every day. What if my loving mother was killed in a car accident today. Whether you mean to or not you're suggesting that people who die didn't deserve God's help. Did they not believe enough? Did they not ask for a sign and were they therefore not found deserving of God's assistance? Have you thought for two seconds about what you're suggesting might have happened? That the almighty hand of God reached down into your car and saved you seems entirely more likely and reasonable than chance. I'm offended by belief. It's high time believers were held accountable for the immorality of faith and personal salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 well you get where im going. no I don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Matter is never created nore destroyed. Energy is matter. The human is made up of energy. When you die that energy has to go somewhere. Im not saying I buy into reincarnation as you as a whole coming back as a different whole but I could see the energy or even pieces carbon etc used. Even if it's just you go into the ground, you decompose into basic pieces a plant sucks you up for the nutrients it needs. A animal eats that plant for the nutrients it needs some human shoots that animal skins and eats it. Some pieces go back into the ground some pieces are eaten by the human. The human procreates and some pieces are passed between the two humans and into the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiltron Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 We are not born religious, it has to be taught, and many prefer fact based education before faith based superstition. If you repeat a falacy often enough it becomes believable but it does not ever become true. As much as you would wish it to be so, it does nothing more than polute young minds with fantastic, impossible mysteries. Holding on to past traditions interfere with human progress and if you choose faith before reason you hold a position of mental laziness. Yesterdays miricles are merely the reflection of yesterdays ignorance and you will end up devoting your quality time on earth to trusting in wild superstitions, ignorant prejudice, inherited traditions and unnessary fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts