Merged: Atheism=Religion=Pointless

[joobz]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Yes, looking at the past as it is just presenting itself is different from looking at effects of past events. You're not actually seeing the event, just the effects.

The limitation you are describing exists for ALL of light observations. We are seeing the effects of the past light, whether it comes from our sun 8 minutes ago, or from other stars 12 billion years ago. As I asked, Do you see a fundamental difference in the mechanism between these two situations? If so, describe the mechanism.

[DC]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Right, I don't disagree with this. Though I don't think it helps your position, but makes observation even more relative.

`observation is always relative

[laca]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Right, I don't disagree with this. Though I don't think it helps your position, but makes observation even more relative.

Doesn't matter what type it is as long it's some kind of observation. Preferably repeatable.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Yes, looking at the past as it is just presenting itself is different from looking at effects of past events. You're not actually seeing the event, just the effects.

At what point do we cross the threshold of "not actually seeing the event"?

When astronomers detect a gama ray burst in a galaxy a billion light years away, are they not seeing the actual event.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The scientific method has proved to be a reliable in predicting future observations. It works. You were also asked if you are familiar with the concept of solipsism. Can you explain why your above statement should not terminate in solipsism?

It does. That's why I don't blindly apply the scientific method to everything. This is my whole point. DON'T APPLY IT TO THE AXIOMS OF SCIENCE!!! Also, don't apply it outside of science where it belongs. Descartes was the first to apply it to philosophy and that's why he could only prove his mind exists. This is why it belongs in science and should only be applied to scientific matters. The foundations of science (i.e. it's axioms) are also off limits, because they actually rely on metaphysical beliefs, which cannot be tested with the scientific method. It doesn't make sense to take the scientific method outside of science and apply it to metaphysical matters when you had to jump over science's axioms in order to get to metaphysical matters. If you apply it to metaphysics, be consistent and apply it to the axioms of science. If you don't, then you're being just as dishonest as the religious types claiming that they KNOW the earth is only 6,000 years old with no scientific evidence. This is bringing religion into science, which I assume everyone disagrees with on this forum. So somehow we know not to bring religion into scientific matters, but we don't realize we shouldn't overuse the scientific method.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Which places them on equal ground with fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Not really. If you think fairies, etc. have much justification besides storytelling, you're crazy. If you think universals or God has no more possibility than these, then you should read more. I can't help you with this.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by Yig

Don't ask for evidence. It's a philosophical discussion. Complexity creates intelligence, intelligence creates complexity. How do you think the universe came into existence?

For an "agnostic" you sure talk like a creationist. So it sounds like you might be, at best, an agnostic theist, a minority group, instead of the type that gets lumped in with the atheists in surveys.

Don't forget, "agnostic" is the same type of word as "atheist" - it just is a negation of another word, "gnostic". So, clearly, agnosticism is pointless so why aren't you gnostic?

Or, cause I feel like it:

Quote:

My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an non Parisian, since being born in Paris and not being born in Paris yields the same effect...none.

I shall now start using aParisian to describe myself.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by Sledge

For this to fly, the Bible needs to be a reliable source of information. As it isn't... well, you can fill in the rest.

So, you're saying that people the Bible refers to never existed? What about places in the Bible? What about events in the Bible? Are there Jews living today like the Jews written about? Did the Greek and Roman people exist? In the areas the Bible claims? Did they act the way the Bible claims? Sounds like it's not all lies....

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

We can all see you problem, logic isnt your strong point.

I second this assertion (i.e. logic isn't his strong point).

[joobz]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Not really. If you think fairies, etc. have much justification besides storytelling, you're crazy. If you think universals or God has no more possibility than these, then you should read more. I can't help you with this.

Do you have evidence for a god?
if not, than it, too, is only based upon storytelling.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by Achán hiNidráne

Oh, they're allowed, but this is also a "SKEPTICS" forum. If they're expecting an easy time of it while denying the use of evidence in favor of "philosophical" mental masturbation, they are sorely mistaken.



Yes.



Did you have a point?

OK, does anyone besides me suspect a Yig sockpuppet?

I expect opposition. That wasn't my point. My point was that the comment I replied to appeared to detest the fact that religious people show up in a discussion on religion. I don't think there would be any point to a discussion where a bunch of atheists show up and talk amongst themselves or a discussion where a bunch of theists show up and talk amongst themselves. If either is what you're looking for, then post that at the top of the forum so any of us looking for debate can just avoid the echo chamber.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by Achán hiNidráne

Oh, they're allowed, but this is also a "SKEPTICS" forum. If they're expecting an easy time of it while denying the use of evidence in favor of "philosophical" mental masturbation, they are sorely mistaken.



Yes.



Did you have a point?

OK, does anyone besides me suspect a Yig sockpuppet?

Oh, and I believe I responded to the rest in other posts. I have no idea who Yig is and don't care.

[DC]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

So, you're saying that people the Bible refers to never existed? What about places in the Bible? What about events in the Bible? Are there Jews living today like the Jews written about? Did the Greek and Roman people exist? In the areas the Bible claims? Did they act the way the Bible claims? Sounds like it's not all lies....

the important claims, like those in Genesis are shown to be wrong by the evidence humans have gathered. Thus in things about how came the universe into existence, it is a very bad source, thus not reliable.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by Achán hiNidráne

We can only hope.

That doesn't surprise me. For all the complaints about religion infringing on scientific matters of the past, here you are promoting the same thing. I wonder if people like you just switch sides when it's convenient and then stifle debate on the other side. Sounds Machiavellian.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Are you disputing cause and effect?

Really?





...



Right. Okay.



Right. Sorry just had a brain melt there. Couldnt imagine someone questioning it with a straight face.

And yes, if you look at a good cosmology site, you will find that we can observe something called the cosmic microwave background. Look it up, it's very interesting.

Nope, I'm not disputing cause and effect (not yet anyway). However, if you agree with the above, then you're conflating cause and effect. When I observe an effect, I'm not observing the cause. Doesn't sound too scientific or honest.

[laca]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

It does. That's why I don't blindly apply the scientific method to everything. This is my whole point. DON'T APPLY IT TO THE AXIOMS OF SCIENCE!!!

Umm, actually it was you who tried to apply it to itself while we pointed out that it's nonsensical. Who are you shouting at again?

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by laca

Somehow I doubt that...



Yes, only in fields that are concerned with reality. So, if you claim that your god is not real, then you're off the hook. But if you claim it's real, then you're going to provide evidence.

No, really, I am like you, as far as believing the scientific method works and should be used in science. Applying it outside doesn't make any sense. Trying to empirically test something that isn't, by definition, empirically testable, doesn't make sense. If you think the God of the Bible is material, then you're building a straw man argument. The gods of Greece were material. If you want to test for them with the scientific method, you can, because this was their belief. The God of the Bible is different. I still don't understand the confusion here. I think an honest scientist would just throw up his arms and say "trying to verify God's existence or nonexistence with science is futile, because it doesn't fall into science's realm."

As for believing science's realm is all of reality, this is a metaphysical claim that requires validation like any other claim. Good luck with that.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by laca

Stop strawmanning and putting words in my mouth. It's not kosher. Some might say it's dishonest.

Please clarify, because this is what it sounded like to me.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

It does. That's why I don't blindly apply the scientific method to everything. This is my whole point. DON'T APPLY IT TO THE AXIOMS OF SCIENCE!!! Also, don't apply it outside of science where it belongs.

You response makes no sense. I was asking why your position doesn't terminate in solipsism.

Quote:

Descartes was the first to apply it to philosophy and that's why he could only prove his mind exists.

Poor René has been much abused in this matter. "Cogito ergo sum" was used as his starting point to build up the axioms that we use to explore the universe.

[laca]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Not really. If you think fairies, etc. have much justification besides storytelling, you're crazy.

Not really. If you think your god has much justification besides storytelling, you're crazy.

See what I did there?

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

If you think universals or God has no more possibility than these, then you should read more. I can't help you with this.

Right... Thing is, I'd bet he has read way more than you and that's exactly why he came to the conclusion that fairies and your god have the same level of justification. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by Yig

I do think that on some level atheists believe something about God and the origins of the universe. How could and why would anyone lack belief?

It's easy to lack belief. I could come up with a huge list of things that you would lack belief in, because they would be obvious fairytales, just like any gods. Do you believe in Santa, or Paul Bunyan or Godzilla? People have been telling stories about imaginary creatures forever, some big and powerful, others small and mischevious. I lack belief in any of their existence.

Originally Posted by Yig

Ok......good............ we have a definition. Now what is your justification for not believing that God exists?

I don't need a justification for not believing that any of the clearly man-made gods exists in reality.

Originally Posted by Yig

Fine, you got me.....If someone were never exposed to the concept of God and was incapable of coming up with the idea themselves then yes, they could lack belief in God. Do you think anyone in this forum falls under this category?

Probably not, because many of the theists of the world bleat their beliefs at every opportunity. Jewish kids probably grow up never believing in Santa (even though they've heard of him) and atheist kids can grow up never believing in a god (even though they've hear of him).

So yeah, we've been exposed to the concept and we're supposed to be awed by the magnificent evidence of his existence? If we say to ourselves, "sounds like a fairytale" we're not being rational?


Not that Yig will answer any of this, until he decides to come back and start another thread.....in the meantime:

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Not really. If you think fairies, etc. have much justification besides storytelling, you're crazy. If you think universals or God has no more possibility than these, then you should read more. I can't help you with this.

Fairies are examples of storytelling. Gods are examples of storytelling. What more should I read to believe that gods are anything more than fairytales? Over the millenia and varying cultures, there have been thousands of gods, and other legendary creatures. Is Zeus a myth or is he real?

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

So, you're saying that people the Bible refers to never existed? What about places in the Bible? What about events in the Bible? Are there Jews living today like the Jews written about? Did the Greek and Roman people exist? In the areas the Bible claims? Did they act the way the Bible claims? Sounds like it's not all lies....

Rome DOES exist. I guess that means all the Roman gods are real too. And let's not forget all the current accurate references in the Harry Potter series. Are people not speaking English? Do teenagers really have the angst that's portrayed? Is there not a train station at Kings Cross? Sounds like it's not all fiction.....That must mean there really is a magical world of witches and wizards living beside us lowly Muggles!!

p.s. DOC's thread is in the History and Literature forum.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Not really. If you think fairies, etc. have much justification besides storytelling, you're crazy. If you think universals or God has no more possibility than these, then you should read more. I can't help you with this.

Storytelling by bronze-age tribes is the origin of the biblical god YHWH. And Fairies were once widely believed to be real. The only difference between the two is that one mythology has been virtually abandoned.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Yig

What is the justification for your belief that God does not exist? Whatever it is, it's probably about as logical as a justification for a belief in God. This is the point I'm making. You are not being more logical. Atheism and theism are the same.

When did I make a statement of belief one way or another? This is not about me.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by laca

I see, you're loosing the current argument and have to go back to claim I attacked the arguer instead of the argument.

OK. Do say, what argument was I addressing in that post? Did I claim you're wrong because of who you are? Also, did you notice the smiley?

ETA: If you feel a post is not in lines with the MA, feel free to report it.

That's the point, you weren't addressing an argument in that post. You were insulting the person. Throwing a smiley face on at the end doesn't seem to change the insult, only emphasize that it's funny or something.

I didn't bring it up because I'm losing an argument. I brought it up because I noticed your insult and thought it should be addressed. If you can't tell, I read slow and can't keep up with all of the posts. Thus, I have to scroll far up the screen to see where I left off after every post I make. I scrolled too far up and discovered your insult. If that's how you argue, that's on you.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by joobz

as far as I know, we can't observe the actual event, no. But that wasn't what I was addressing. I asked what was different from us observing 8min old light from the sun and the 12billion year old light from distant galaxies?


we have the foot prints of the past events. The Cosmic background radiation is the footprints of the big bang. As we best understand right now, that is the model that best fits the data. If we have new data that contradicts the model, we'll change the model, but not reality.

Such is the point behind science. Other untestable forms simply remain immutable to the reality we observe. That, in my view, makes them useless.

Good, we agree, we can't observe the actual event.

As for the rest of your point, I disagree with little or nothing. I agree with you that the best data we have points at the Big Bang. I think there might be a bit of misunderstanding here as if I'm anti-science or that I don't believe in the Big Bang just because we can't see the first event. No, this is not the case. I am pro-science and believe in the Big Bang. I don't think the first event has to be observable for the event to have taken place or for us to believe in it. This is the point. Not everything has to be observable or even possibly observable to be true.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

So, you're saying that people the Bible refers to never existed? What about places in the Bible? What about events in the Bible? Are there Jews living today like the Jews written about? Did the Greek and Roman people exist? In the areas the Bible claims? Did they act the way the Bible claims? Sounds like it's not all lies....

The Iliad makes reference to geographic locations and cultures that we are certain actually existed. Are you saying that the Iliad is therefor non-fiction?

There are numerous logical inconsistencies in the Bible. The fact that it references real places and peoples does not validate all of its narratives.

[wiscgadfly]

Originally Posted by laca

Yes.



No. Remember, we accepted that "everything has to be scientifically verifiable". It's nonsensical to try to apply it to itself after it's accepted as true.

Still disagree. I'm sure you've read my other explanations by now, so I won't repeat.

[laca]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

That doesn't surprise me. For all the complaints about religion infringing on scientific matters of the past, here you are promoting the same thing.

Well, not exactly. Even if he was, it's not the same thing to promote something that works over something that doesn't as promoting something that doesn't over something that does. Science works. Religion doesn't.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

So, you're saying that people the Bible refers to never existed? What about places in the Bible? What about events in the Bible? Are there Jews living today like the Jews written about? Did the Greek and Roman people exist? In the areas the Bible claims? Did they act the way the Bible claims? Sounds like it's not all lies....

Wow, you really do like to put words in people's mouth. Do you want to try a response to what I actually said rather than what you wish I said?

[laca]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

Please clarify, because this is what it sounded like to me.

My post was perfectly clear. Please clarify where you got that I was talking about cause and effect from. We were discussing observability.

[Sledge]

Ok, all this stuff about not letting science address the claims made by religion is hogwash (the term I want to use wouldn't go through the forum's filter, but it's a show hosted by Penn & Teller). Religion makes claims about things that have happened or will happen: a flood covered the whole world, God will respond to prayers, people are reincarnated, etc. These are testable claims. What possible reason is there to say "these are testable, verifiable claims, but we're not going to test or verify them"?

[laca]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

That's the point, you weren't addressing an argument in that post. You were insulting the person. Throwing a smiley face on at the end doesn't seem to change the insult, only emphasize that it's funny or something.

If I'm addressing a specific someone, I either quote him/her or specify the name. As I recall I was talking about multiple posters, all recent subscribers (Dec. 2010, one or two posts total) just joining in, first posts in this exact thread and all defending the fleeing Yig...

If you feel the post was inappropriate, report it. That's why we have moderators.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by wiscgadfly

The God of the Bible is different.

Claims made about an intervening god are indeed testable.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Sledge

Ok, all this stuff about not letting science address the claims made by religion is hogwash (the term I want to use wouldn't go through the forum's filter, but it's a show hosted by Penn & Teller). Religion makes claims about things that have happened or will happen: a flood covered the whole world, God will respond to prayers, people are reincarnated, etc. These are testable claims. What possible reason is there to say "these are testable, verifiable claims, but we're not going to test or verify them"?

I can only think of one reason.

[wiscgadfly]

Repeatable? Again, this isn't really necessary for truth either. For some reason, we shut our brains off when we become scientists and only accept things verifiable/falsifiable by the scientific method. Most of what we believe to be true isn't repeatable.

[Sledge]

That's quite an assertion you've made there. Care to back it up with anything?

[wiscgadfly]

I think they are. However, referring to the Big Bang's initial event.... Everything was there. Then it expanded. Then, somehow, you're telling me that using a telescope we can look at the first event? This would have to assume that the universe expanded more rapidly than the speed of light. Otherwise, by the time you got your telescope up to look back at the first event, it was over. What we're now looking at are the effects of the first event.

[wiscgadfly]

There's a four thousand page book you should read full of arguments/evidence for the existence of God and His attributes: Summa Theologica

[wiscgadfly]

You see, that's very interesting, because up until recently (as in recent history), no one believed Genesis and the accounts of creation were literally true. The Jews didn't believe this either. Trying to destroy the entire Bible by misinterpreting part of it (i.e. the Genesis creation story) is a straw man argument. Since I don't believe that part of the Bible is literally true, your argument doesn't really have any effect on the rest of the Bible.

You see, if I claim scientists believe that the earth is flat and then prove it isn't, this doesn't destroy scientists, because they don't actually believe the earth is flat.

[Sledge]

Some clue as to which posts you're addressing with each comment would be helpful, if "making yourself clear" isn't imposing science on you too much.