Opinion peice on Athiests (page 17)

VoidEater

Produce one shred, one miserable pitiful scrap of empirical evidence that there are Universes other than our own. Go ahead. I DARE YOU. Otherwise you are deluded if you believe that.

Same could be said of belief in, oh, say...God.

You can make conclusions, define analogies, defend and debate and argue - but it really comes down to a CHOICE to believe in a deity.

Maybe I believe - but I don't delude myself that there's any actual empirical evidence for it. Just conclusions that my human mind makes based on my human experience, which is rather sad when brought to bear against the theoretical context of what God must be like.

The Universe seems ordered, therefore someone must have ordered it...strikes me as a fervently, happily, myopic, humanistic point of view. "This is the only way things could be" gets boring. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same - that's all.

The more I age, the more pragmatic I get - unless God, or a belief in God, has some particular useful purpose, I don't see the need to invent one.

SickofLies

Produce one shred, one miserable pitiful scrap of empirical evidence that there are Universes other than our own. Go ahead. I DARE YOU. Otherwise you are deluded if you believe that.

There actually is some empirical evidence for this and it lies in quantum mechanics, go to a site like scientific american or something and type in multiple universes they have some really great articles about it. In any case, I wouldn't consider the multiple universe hypothesis a theory just yet, but it's an interesting idea.

Same could be said of belief in, oh, say...God.

Even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that there was some kind of intelligent force that started the universe and we were to call that god, that would only lead one to be a deist and does not justify specific beliefs that their is a god who wrote one of our books, forgives our sins, punishes us when were bad and rewards us when we are good. There is zero evidence for this, in fact there are volumes of evidence that can defiantly prove that the bible and quran were poorly written books that were only inspired by human greed and paranoia.

You can make conclusions, define analogies, defend and debate and argue - but it really comes down to a CHOICE to believe in a deity.

Is it really a choice? How many people become religion because the look carefully at all the evidence and say 'yep that's the one'. 99% of the people out there will say that they are a member of such and such religion because their parents were. Is that really a good enough reason to belong to any religion?

The Universe seems ordered, therefore someone must have ordered it...strikes me as a fervently, happily, myopic, humanistic point of view. "This is the only way things could be" gets boring. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same - that's all.

I agree with you, these kind of simplistic views come from two sources.

1. Ignorance of modern science

2. Liars, many people know the science very well, but they chose to twist and distort means of words like theory for their own purposes.

nvrgnbk

nvrgnbk,
When it comes to that issue ( contra-causal free will or ultimate self-determination), I think it is a little bit of both. I think our potentialities are partly determined by our physical makeup and its formative environment, but that within that framework we will what we wish. I am nothing if I am not an anti-determinist . This puts me at loggerheads not just with Naturalists of the Spinozan bent but also with Calvinist Christians.
As for the social theory outlined in the quote, who gets to set the social policy that tries to "maximize the opportunities for each person's development, independent of differences inherited talent or social status."?
Arguing from the naturalist position, it would have to be humans, who the quote itself states are "entirely the product of genetic and environmental conditions"!
Internally self contradictory.

Unless SickofLies protests, I think here is fine.
Maybe another time.
If you think that God as an impersonal force, at least you are in good company [(Spinoza)]. I love that guy, do you know that he was shunned and kicked out of the Amsterdam Jewish community for apostasy? Very like the JW practice!
Cheers,
Burn.

So you're at "loggerheads...with Naturalists of the Spinozan bent" but you love Spinoza?

"Internally self contradictory"?

Caedes

Why don't you tell me?
What evidence would satisfy me? Enough empirical evidence for it to be no longer supernatural.
From the way you are saying it, it sounds like your disbelief in the supernatural is an a priori assertion that no a posteriori empirical evidence could ever deny, only confirm. IOW, it is faith.
Here is a side question for you Caedes:
From your statement it seems that you need empirical evidence to rationally believe in something. Would you say that is only true of God?
Burn

In my opinion it is incredibly bad manners to refuse to answer an honest question and then fire off questions of your own.

I don't believe in anything supernatural, if empirical evidence can be found for something then it is no longer supernatural by definition. That is not faith, I am making no assertion. If you are claiming that something supernatural does exist then it is up to you to provide evidence of that. Once you provide empirical evidence then it becomes a natural phenomenon. If you are making the claim that something exists for which no empirical evidence can ever be found then that is supernatural by definition. Your belief in the supernatural is an assertion that it is up to you to prove if you wish your assertions to be be taken seriously outside of the group of people who share your beliefs.

I would say that my requirement for empirical evidence goes for any extraordinary claim, it applies equally to ghosts, ufos, gods, demons, angels, the power of prayer, faith healing and most importantly the claims of science.

So are you going to have the decency to answer my question now?

BurnTheShips

So you're at "loggerheads...with Naturalists of the Spinozan bent" but you love Spinoza?
"Internally self contradictory"?

I read a biography of his a few months ago, and I have done some examining of his philosophy. I do not have to agree with all of his conclusions to admire his intellect and courage.

So no, not contradictory (in this case).

Burn

BurnTheShips

In my opinion it is incredibly bad manners to refuse to answer an honest question and then fire off questions of your own.

Not if the question is designed to help you come to a conclusion or at least inform me as to what your thought process is so that I can give you a better answer. I didn't know you were so sensitive. But enough of that.

So are you going to have the decency to answer my question now?

Do you mean the question as to whether the universe had a natural or supernatural origin?

Supernatural.

Your previous statement:

What evidence would satisfy me? Enough empirical evidence for it to be no longer supernatural.

It seemed to me to be saying that no evidence could ever convince you of anything other than a natural origin.

Burn

nvrgnbk

So you're at "loggerheads...with Naturalists of the Spinozan bent" but you love Spinoza?
"Internally self contradictory"?
I read a biography of his a few months ago, and I have done some examining of his philosophy. I do not have to agree with all of his conclusions to admire his intellect and courage.
So no, not contradictory (in this case).
Burn

I was just yanking your chain.

You're a decent enough guy and if God existed, He'd probably like you too.

BurnTheShips

Thanks!

Its nice to see somebody on this thread doesn't hate my guts because I don't agree with them. But then I should have known this thread was going to be a landmine!

Burn

nvrgnbk

Its nice to see somebody on this thread doesn't hate my guts because I don't agree with them. But then I should have known this thread was going to be a landmine!

In my experience, atheists and agnostics tend to be less angry about these debates.

Caedes

Not if the question is designed to help you come to a conclusion or at least inform me as to what your thought process is so that I can give you a better answer. I didn't know you were so sensitive. But enough of that.

I thought the question was simple and straight forward but if you were having difficulty comprehending it then I am happy that my answer was of some help in composing your extensive reply.

It seemed to me to be saying that no evidence could ever convince you of anything other than a natural origin.

It seems to me that you are failing to realise that as soon as you have evidence it is no longer a supernatural answer. If evidence were found tomorrow proving that people really do have ESP then I would accept it, not on the basis that it is supernatural but that it is a real and quantifiable natural phenomenon. I do not reject things because they are supernatural but because by definition they are things for which there is no empirical evidence.

I will quite happily accept your god hypothesis once you have a body of empirical evidence to back up your claims.

My position is one of rational thought not faith as you claim.

Opinion peice on Athiests

Share this