Atheism: The True Path?

[LukeMC]

You want magic and superstition Luke. I'm not into that.

god... poofs universe... from nothing... is all powerful... all knowing... beyond time and space... no evidence to support claims...

Wait, what?
I thought it was right down your street

[Kyuuketsuki]

So questions with no discernable value then?

To you wanting to understand from the perspective of science. No none.

Or any other it seems.

You didn't make it very well then but, more to the point, conceding gaps in our knowledge, conceding that science is not absolute, that's its explanations are not necessarily the last word is an inherent strength in the philosophy and not a weakness as you appear to be implying.

So you say that It's a strength in 'the philosophy in science' yet a weakness in theology. To me this seems a glaringly obvious contradiction.

'Science of the gaps' seems very succinct.

Science is built on accumulated data, it's rationale is inductive not deductive, it makes no absolute claims ... on the other hand religion is NOT built on accumulated date or inductive reasoning yet it's claims ARE absolute. The strength of science is that it is honest in its limitations, religion by definition is not.

The point is that scientific explanations (allowing for human frailties) are flexible, they change with new evidence, they are non-teleological ... religious explanations are inflexible, they change only with bludgeoned evidence (in other words when a scientific explanation becomes so convincing that religions have no choice but to recognise them or end up looking like a bunch of fucking prats), they are entirely teleological.

So no, "science of the gaps" is an incredibly naïve concept.

No it isn't because you have yet to demonstrate that your god exists ... I could equally well say the cosmic cream cake is timeless and exists outside of time and that would ALSO be meaningless ... defining something for which there is no validatable evidence and calling it god doesn't confer upon it some hyped value (over other silly ideas).

You know very well that it would be absurd to suggest a demonstration that god exists. This shows blatantly that science is totally inadequate. I don't entertain such ludicrous notions, yet you do taking the scientific philosophy tach.

Of course I know it would be absurd but not, I suspect, for the reasons I think you would think I think it absurd ... I think it absurd because I am well aware that you have no bloody evidence and never will do, that you are FORCED to wax philosophical/metaphysical and to claim that we would expect no evidence for deity precisely because you know you CANNOT supply it.

Meaningless it isn't; if you were to remove your science coloured spectacles you'd see the point. The point is that there is no evidence. Clear this hurdle and you can move on.

And if you were to remove your fantasy filters you'd see too ... the actual point (as said above) is there is no evidence because that's precisely what you'd expect to be the evidence for a complete and utter fantasy.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

The point is that there is no evidence. Clear this hurdle and you can move on.

Wow. What a point! Yes, correct! - There is no evidence! 'Clear this hurdle so we can move on'? Yeah.. I getcha, I getcha...there's no evidence for God...so..oh well(!) - our only hope is to just go ahead believing anyways(!). Why treat God as a special case? And why one God in particular? Well - because that's the cherry that wants picking!! Of course...of course(!)

EvF

[LukeMC]

The point is that there is no evidence. Clear this hurdle and you can move on.

Wow. What a point! Yes, correct! - There is no evidence! 'Clear this hurdle so we can move on'? Yeah.. I getcha, I getcha...there's no evidence for God...so..oh well(!) - our only hope is to just go ahead believing anyways(!). Why treat God as a special case? And why one God in particular? Well - because that's the cherry that wants picking!! Of course...of course(!)

EvF

Haha. Although I agree with your points and cracked a few smiles while reading them, I must come to fr0d0's defense on this one. The "one God in particular" question has been answered by him a trillion times (with varying success). Reasoning, seeing what makes the most sense, seeing what appeals the most, etc- are the reasons (lol @ me saying that "reasoning" is a reason...). However, I agree that a lack of evidence isn't something you should just ignore and move on from O.o

[fr0d0]

To you wanting to understand from the perspective of science. No none.

Or any other it seems.

That's an extreme case of blinkered thought.

'Science of the gaps' seems very succinct.

Science is built on accumulated data, it's rationale is inductive not deductive, it makes no absolute claims ... on the other hand religion is NOT built on accumulated date or inductive reasoning yet it's claims ARE absolute. The strength of science is that it is honest in its limitations, religion by definition is not.

The point is that scientific explanations (allowing for human frailties) are flexible, they change with new evidence, they are non-teleological ... religious explanations are inflexible, they change only with bludgeoned evidence (in other words when a scientific explanation becomes so convincing that religions have no choice but to recognise them or end up looking like a bunch of fucking prats), they are entirely teleological.

So no, "science of the gaps" is an incredibly naïve concept.

Religion has (here, as I have pointed it out) stated that God is timeless. This interpretation isn't 'absolute' and it is at the same time consistent with current scientific understanding of the universe.

You're dreaming thinking that religion ever changed it's mind bludgeoned by facts. Show me one tenet of Christianity that has changed at all. How come the bible isn't constantly being re-written if it had ever realistically been proved to be wrong? I get the feeling that being slapped with a wet kipper you'd still insist everyone else was imagining it.

You know very well that it would be absurd to suggest a demonstration that god exists. This shows blatantly that science is totally inadequate. I don't entertain such ludicrous notions, yet you do taking the scientific philosophy tach.

Of course I know it would be absurd but not, I suspect, for the reasons I think you would think I think it absurd ... I think it absurd because I am well aware that you have no bloody evidence and never will do, that you are FORCED to wax philosophical/metaphysical and to claim that we would expect no evidence for deity precisely because you know you CANNOT supply it.

Well I told you first that there was no evidence nor would there ever be. It's not me that's insisting on evidence. I've explained many times why it isn't relevant. Scientific philosophy apparently requires a certain amount of blind repetition


@ Evie

You know I love you mate. I can't read this regurgitated stuff, it's making my eyes bleed! You start off with those same old phrases and my mind is now turning off. I hope you'll grant me the grace to not respond for the zillionth time to those words. If you want to make a fresh point, don't start with those, cos it hurts to read them and I'll miss it. k?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Luke I disagree though...because the point is he is cherry-picking. Because all his 'reasons' are subjective...he even admits it himself - there is no evidence.

The point is that I'm asking "Why believe thatGod exists in particular?" because the so-called 'reasons' he gives aren't any more or less valid to his God's existence than any other God (they're invalid to all ). He has no real way of judging the question of his God's existence any more than any other right God, right? Regardless of his 'reasoning' - his 'reasoning' doesn't have any bearing on the question of any God's existence. He is cherry-picking his God out.

@ fr0d0 - I repeat the same points because they're still valid to what you're posting. And you still can't seem to refute it

EvF

[fr0d0]

The whole point of faith is that you can have no evidence. It's not a failing, or a weakness. But an integral requirement. What you're asking for is a logical nonsense.

From a scientific perspective, it's unhelpful. But then I'm not talking science. You are.

[Giff]

The whole point of faith is that you can have no evidence.

Sounds like a way of protecting religion. If you don't need any type of evidence, then how do you know that it's real? How do you even know that faith doesn't need evidence? Because you say so, or becuase it really is so? And how can it be so?

[dagda]

This has been very interesting. Each of your life philosophies have had their own unique merits. After asking you to show me your life philosophy, I thought it only fair to share my own. I think Marcus Aurelius sums up my view when he says 'What does not benefit the hive does not benefit the bee either.' I think all our actions should be aimed toward the greater good, and I try to live my life by that. Individualism just leads to heart ache for others and, in the long run, yourself hence I can see very few lasting benefits for thinking of tribal or individual interests before that of the majority of humanity. Obviously affecting the good of all humanity is beyond the majority of use, but by thinking of the good of others in our immediate area we can each create a better world for ourselves.

In tune with this I think short-term solutions should be avoided at all costs. We must always think of the long-term ramifications of our actions. In so doing we can decrease the harm we do to others. I tend to be against democracy as it tends to promote short-term solutions (popular vote winners) and individualism.

[Edwardo Piet]

The whole point of faith is that you can have no evidence. It's not a failing, or a weakness. But an integral requirement. What you're asking for is a logical nonsense.

From a scientific perspective, it's unhelpful. But then I'm not talking science. You are.

No evidence=no reason to believe what you believe in exists. So if you believe anyway, if you believe 'on faith' - the point is that's totally irrational. Because if there's no evidence then it means there's no actually valid indication that whatever you believe in actually exists ("God" in this case of course) - because if there was an actually valid indication it would in other words be evidence. It's totally irrational to just believe anyway. Believing without evidence is irrational so believing 'on faith' is also irrational therefore - and, ergo; you have no more or less objective bearing on your God than on any other (zero in every case because there's no evidence in every case).

EvF