Question for agnostics and atheists

[Violet]

How would you go about working out what an average atheist is?

...I know... have a poll and we'll call the most popular 'average'. What are the options?

That would be the 'mode', fr0d0

[Purple Rabbit]

I don't have any philosophical attitude to "reality". I just plod along, doing what comes naturally, and seem to be getting along OK. I can tell you, though, that my "reality" does not have room for miracles. For example, I don't believe that Jesus walked on water. Do you?

My view entirely. Let the philosophy types rabbit on if they enjoy it, meanwhile I'll deal with life as I find it. For me this means ignoring supernatural beings which I don't find in reality but opposing religion because of the real harm I see it doing.

Rabbit on??? To my defense I say that there are no rabbits in fox holes.

[littlegrimlin1]

Options could be um...

1) Disbelief in god(s) and supernatural
2) Believe there is/are god(s) and supernatural
3) Belief in supernatural, but not god(s)

not sure on any others, unless maybe Rationalist, Humanists, Existentialists, Freethinker.... and others are added, but I think most atheists fit all of these.

[Purple Rabbit]

Causality and the universe. Boy what a question to start with. But OK a little excerpt from my first posting here will give you a rough idea of where I'm from:

I don't believe we're being monitored in everything we do and think by some cosmic entity who benchmarks us to an absolute heavenly standard. I think moral is a cultural dependent concept and that our mental capacities oblige us to make fair rational choices and to base moral constructs on rationality and fairness. I believe in cooperation. I think every life has meaning just because it's finite. I think the scientific method is our next best thing to truth, an insurance policy against superstition and dogma. I think we know a lot more than some 2000 years ago. I think religions are myths scrambled, corrupted, reshuffled and reinterpreted many times. I think there is not an idea more perverted than the idea of eternal damnation. In the face of utter lack of evidence I decline all supernatural claims on the principle of parsimony. I believe strong claims need strong evidence. I believe this universe is a good place to be in but rather indifferent to our needs. And that it is not some passage to a more real world were everything is perfectly arranged to fit even our petty needs. I believe meaning is a human concept that only individuals can shape and that we ourselves are responsible to fulfill.

Enough to chew on I think, for starters.

[tackattack]

I apologize again for the average atheist and retract it entirely. I was just looking to see if I could some non-believer's views on some things I regularly contemplate. I rarely have the access in the RW to that many varied opinions. Thank you for the opportunity to dissect my beliefs to build stronger sharper ones.

As a continuation of my question.. I don't want this to go into too many different directions, which it can because it's broad.

Here are some of my beliefs:
1-I believe that for every action there is an opposite reaction. I believe that the percieved reality considered "the world" on a (physical level) is constructed by action and reaction. The sole root of the action in said world is based out of conscious thought, subconscious thought or belief.
2-The purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos
3-God exists, the holy trinity, Jesus
4-Religion is flawed.
5-Ghosts could exist.
6-to quote purple rabbit "I think the scientific method is our next best thing to truth, an insurance policy against superstition and dogma."
7-We shape reality and the reality of those around us directly and indirectly
8-perception is individualistic and prevents total equality or seeing exactly eye-to-eye with another. That being said a reasonable percentage of agreeance is acceptable in conversation and evidence. It hovers around 95%.

My question wasn't about people's opinions of morals. Let me rephrase. What do you know to be the construct in which your life takes place? How do you prove and test your reality? What is and what is not, as it pertains to physical space?

[Purple Rabbit]

2-The purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos
6-to quote purple rabbit "I think the scientific method is our next best thing to truth, an insurance policy against superstition and dogma."

2 does not hold when you apply 6. Science has found undeniable evidence that earth, the solar system, the milky way, stars, they all formed out of chaos. In fact these processess are still taking place and you can observe them. Isn't this a wonderful world we live in?

[tackattack]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases and there is usually loss of some kind. All things that follow theese rules would eventually cease to function, thus the degredation. If we apply this to the universe it will eventually entropy and cease. If it has an end it is not infinite. If it is finite then it has a begining. Nature of it self (the weather for instance) proves the chaos theory. The universe is part of nature, thus it started, through chaos it moves and degrades, and is followed by Entropy.

I agree the earth was formed in chaos. Yes it is a wonderful world. I don't see a contradiction between the movement towards chaos and the scientific method being the next best thing to truth.

[leo-rcc]

Just because the universe seizes to function does not mean it stops existing. The universe is then still there.

[Joe Bloe]

What do you know to be the construct in which your life takes place? How do you prove and test your reality? What is and what is not, as it pertains to physical space?

Reality Test #1
See the tree over there...put your head down and charge.

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh boy, it seems your statements suffer from what they are describing: total chaos.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing.

Nope, that is not at all what the second law states. Please be sure not to parrot something you do not understand.
What decreases according to the second law is entropy. Not energy. Energy is conserved according to the much appraised law of Energy Conservation, that same law that ensures that miracles like the ones in the bible can not happen. If you use science to prove or disprove things, be prepared to deny facts from the bible you might hold dear. It is not that you can cherry pick a random law of nature and deny others.

Entropy increases as available energy decreases and there is usually loss of some kind.

No, the second law is valid only for isolated systems with constant heat energy. In the case of our universe the heat energy is constantly fed by burning stars, which is basically a conversion of nuclear energy to heat energy.

The term 'usually' is quite funny. Do you mean that the law of nature sometimes has a day off?

All things that follow theese rules would eventually cease to function, thus the degredation.

There is no law of nature that prescribes degradation. Degradation is a moral or ethical value, not a physical one.

If we apply this to the universe it will eventually entropy and cease.

If you apply your version of the law to the universe it will indeed become a messy business, but the universe will not stop to exist (as leo stated already).
Indeed the universe will still be growing, since it expands and its expansion rate is increasing.

If it has an end it is not infinite. If it is finite then it has a begining.

It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must have had a beginning. That's pure nonsense.
It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must be finite, since they could be infinite to start with.
Also be careful not to mix up infiniteness in terms of volume, with infiniteness in terms of age.

Nature of it self (the weather for instance) proves the chaos theory.

Ah, chaos theory, another poorly understood yet much abused theory to arrive at mystical conclusions.
Tell me, how exactly does nature prove chaos theory? Generally a scientific theory is tested to nature by man and then the theory , if verified, is said to describe nature. Nature does not act as an intelligent agent on its own embarking on a scientific endeavour to prove some theories.

The universe is part of nature,...

Which part of nature is outside the universe??

... thus it started, through chaos it moves and degrades, and is followed by Entropy.

Entropy is not a development phase of nature but a sharply defined physical property of an isolated system.

I agree the earth was formed in chaos. Yes it is a wonderful world.

From chaos, I'd say.

I don't see a contradiction between the movement towards chaos and the scientific method being the next best thing to truth.

When you apply scientific results/theories correctly you cannot draw your conclusion. Also, if you adopt your conclusion you'll have to deny empirical findings, like star formation, you see around you.

I enjoyed your taggy attack, but sadly to say it is no way near a coherent argument.