Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

I can only shower blessings on those who appease my appetites.

re: Rational materialist atheisism

Rational = good
materialism = makes sense of so much, hard to imagine not having that viewpoint with which to understand our world. It is in many ways a secure position.

How do the hardcore, unwavering rational materialists here address these issues: 1) the simple fact of the existence of our universe--why anything at all "is," rather than there being nothing 2) the mystery of the origin of our universe 3) the phenomenon of subjective, internal awareness of "pain," "pleasure," "color," "sound," and all the other sensory perceptions 4) the phenomenon of self-consciousness, awareness of one's one being... in a sensation-free environment, one still is aware of something, if only of one's own thoughts 5) the phenomenon of exertion of one's will, of "trying" to make oneself do something, of putting forth an "effort"

Perhaps like this?

The Religious Background and Religious Beliefs of Albert Einstein

[snip]

In a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray (24 January 1936), said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Einstein Archive 42-601]


Einstein said ("Einstein, Albert" in The Enlightened Mind, ed. Stephen Mitchell; New York: Harper Collins, 1991):

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as go

@Laguna: I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing up Pascal's wager, but it has largely been discounted as an argument for belief/faith.

(Summary of Pascal's wager: The consequences of non-belief are dire if wrong; the consequences of belief are neutral if wrong, thus it is better to believe than not to believe.)

First problem: If I choose to believe only through fear of the consequences of not believing, then ultimately I am being deceitful. God would be able to see through this and punish me accordingly.

Second problem: Which God do I pick? If I choose Yahweh and it's Allah who appears before me in the afterlife, I am no better off than if I had not believed all along. What about different denominations within religions? What about Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Mithras, etc.? Suddenly the odds on Pascal's wager look a whole lot longer!

@Serpent: "There were app

Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh

Depending on your translation Im using the KJV it's probably the most popular, although I prefer to read more modern translations.

As for the Easter Quiz
1. One verse says one person, one says two people, ones says three people and one says more than three, but do any of those say that ONLY those amounts came. Plus the writer of those books was not any of those women, so this was just the story as they were told. Still no contradiction, just different viewpoints, that all!

2. Mt 28:1 says "as it began to dawn"
John 20:1 says "early, when it was yet dark"
Mark 16:2 says "Very early in the morning" and at the rising of the sun"
C'mon is this truly contradictory? If I was told this story by three different people I would simply believe it was very early in the morning. And if it does contradict itself it is only by mere minutes!

3. Neither

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

@Laguna: I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing up Pascal's wager, but it has largely been discounted as an argument for belief/faith.<!-/Quote-!>

Giving piece for conversation. Also, it is a play with Illuminatus' post.

Jojo: I would answer many of those points with 'I dont know'. The courage to say 'I dont know' when faced which such important questions seems to be what separates theists and people who call themselves atheist. I will address each point individually:
1) Why matter>antimatter? I dont know. It could be due to random fluctuations in the very early universe.
2) Origin of universe? Same as 1)
3) Sensory perception? Emergent phenomena of a ultimately natural process we call conciousness.
4) Awareness of self? Same as 3)
5) Sense of will? Same as 3)
7) Specialness of humans? This is special pleading. We are no 'better' than any other species. For instance, we are not the fastest, strongest or most numerous. We happen to have a big brain (probably as a result of living in larger social groups), from which conciousness emerges.
8) Anthropic principle? Victor Ste

@Serpent Re: Contradictions in the Bible

I concede on the Easter Quiz. You have explained the non-contradictions well. Perhaps I could ask you about another potential contradiction. One that is arguably more important. Christianity is, at least in part, about being saved or getting into Heaven (however you want to phrase it). I think even the most liberal of denominations still holds that believing in God gets you some extra credit even if they don't believe that non-believers will roast for eternity in Hell.

If that is the case, then I would hope and expect that there would be some agreement throughout the Bible about how one is "saved". Here's what different authors of the KJV have to say:

By Hearing the Gospel & Belief in God: John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."

By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered

I agree with you Mr. Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh, I agree with you 100% about being able to have a friendly and interesting conversation about religion. It just shows that people on both sides can be polite and respectful. It is also nice to talk to somebody who has convictions.

Christianity is, as you said to a large degree about being saved. And the bible does NOT SAY that unbelievers will roast in hell. In fact the passages used to try to prove this are taken out of context. Which is in itself an interesting discussion.

As far as being saved think of it this way! If I was going to build a house for you, one that you were to be truly happy with, would it not be true that there are several steps and procedures that I need to do, in order for you to be happy. First you would require that I put in a level, sturdy foundation, because without that, it's difficult to build the rest of the home. You would also expect that the framing be done

Zetetic: You raised some interesting points (with a lot of appreciated detail) about the continuity of the biblical message of salvation.

Serpant: You seem to be saying that the proper way to go about being Christian is to do have faith, do good works and possibly (? you werent clear on this, is it necessary?) be baptised. The point about the Hindu is interesting because the point Zetetic seems to be making is that there are many justifiable methods of being a Christian, just choose your passage (Works, deeds and/or baptism. Trumped by faith?). You seem to be saying that the proper way to go about being Christian is to do have faith, do good works and possibly (? you werent clear on this, is it necessary?) be baptised. Which must clearly be the right way to do it (I assume this is way you do it) and all the others are mearly deluded/mistaken. Where do you attain your proof that your version/denomination is c

What I am saying is that to be a Christian, a person must go to the ultimate authority on Christianity, which is the bible! The bible says that all of those things are involved in being a true Christian. (Faith and works. And baptisim is a symbolisim of one of the works) The bible does not give many different ways for a person to choose, on how they want to be a Christian. The point with the Hindu is that all because somebody says they are a Christian, does not mean they are. The way to tell is by finding out what the ultimate authority on Christianity says it means to be Christian.

Of course I believe that my denomination of Christianity is the correct one. Otherwise what kind of a person would I be to believe that somebody else was right and I was wrong, and continue on my same old course. No, if I can be proven wrong on what being a true Christian means, by the ultimate authority on the subject, then I have a decision to make. So it is

God is exclusive of religion.

Religion is man made and like all things man creates is flawed.

The majority of posters have issues with religion.

No one has any logical argument against God that I can see.

I will gladly agree with your arguments against religion.

However God is the uncreated creator of the universe. The creator of all physical laws. The Master Engineer...I doubt your disbelief has any effect other than to supress in you the strongest common denominator all humanity shares.

Faith.

Serpant: I am sure that the majority of the people who feel differently to you on some aspects also think the bible is the ultimate authority (although I thought God was the ultimate authority, but hey!). The point is that the bible is inconsistent and unclear on exactly what you need to do. This is why there are denominations.

Is it faith alone? In which case, murderers (and worse) can get to heaven simply by believing.

Is it by faith and works? In which case, no matter how much you believe you cant enter unless you work enough (how much? what kind? Do i build churches or heal the sick?).

Is it by baptism? In which case, what if, by accident I was never baptised (say deathbed conversion) even though I believe and did good works.

As for the anthropic principle: The earth is most definately NOT fine tuned for life. There are vast areas of the earth which are barren and uninhabitable. In fac

Maxwell, don't get flustered now, stay sharp. In one paragraph you say the earth is definitely NOT fine tuned for life. Next paragraph you say we have no idea if the earth is fine tuned for life. Fact is, evidence points to the universe itself being highly fine tuned for life as we know it. How you interpret the facts is up to you. Denying them or saying we have no idea is simply wrong though.

Actually, the universe is proven to be a place of cause and effect. It is far more likely that life, as it has evolved, is fine tuned for this universe rather than the other way around.

The universe formed. Life evolved within the universe. Of course that universe is going to suit life - the life is suited to that universe by its very presence therein.

A thought on the flat earth...

If "flat" is defined as a surface that is on average normal to the direction of gravity, then the surface of earth is flat.

Or perhaps nearly flat depending on how you figure the average.

Ok Jojo, thats a fair point. I will revise my message thus: We have no evidence that the earth (or the universe) is fine tuned for life. This is because we have no point of comparison. So when i say it is not fine tuned I really should say, it is more than likely true that it is not fine tuned.

We certainly cannot say that the earth or the universe is fine tuned for life simply because life exist. The fact we exist does NOT prove anything is fine tuned.

I am not saying there is definately life elsewhere. Whether there was or wasnt would be irrelevant to whether the earth itself is fine tuned. If there is some evidence for fine tuning I would like to see/hear it.

My main issue is with the claim that the earth must be fine tuned because we exist. This is clearly bogus as it is us that are fine tuned to the earth not the other way around (and when I say we I mean life, not humanity). This point is picked up by Miles.

Mr. Powers

The bible says that there is more than one thing needed for salvation. Just like you need many ingredients to make a loaf of bread. You would be correct if you said 'to make bread you need to have flour. You'd also be correct to say 'you need yeast to make bread. You'd also be right to suggest that you need water. In fact all those things are needed to make bread. According to the bible it says you need faith. It goes on to say that if you have faith, then works are gonna be a natural result. And then works include all the other visible things we can see, like baptisim.

Its true I have no evidence of life anywhere else in the cosmos, but I do know where life does exist. And because of that think of this

1. Water mostly in liquid form and in the right proportion for optimum climate.

2. Atmosphere of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the right proportions.

3. Renewing Cycles for both water and oxy

You are, of course, missing the fact that point 2, 3, 4 and 6 are entirely variable.

And points 1 and 5 have proven variable throughout the lifespan of the earth, much to life's detriment.

When life formed there was no oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. It was methane/CO2. It was life itself that created the present atmosphere.

Thus, life fine-tuning the earth it its needs. Chemical and physical process.

Serpant: This is really important: Your first 6 points all demonstrate a single fallacy. You assume that the current form of life on earth is the one that the earth was fine tuned for. I wonder if you realise that the 'natural' state (ie pre life) of the atmosphere does not satisfy point 2. Your evidence for fine tuning all rely on the idea that humanity are the unique and inevitable product of the earth.

Point 3 is overwhelmingly the product of cycles dependant on living things (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon cycles, and to some extent even the water cycle) and is therefore also not due to a fine tuned earth. Are you arguing that the earth + life on earth = good for humanity. Therefore, god?

Point 5, the sun (or Sol) is an average star and is not unusual in composition or activity. It is the magnetic field of earth which protects us from solar flares. The magnetic field moves about and periodically flips. Wh

Ah! Just a little bit extra to address the comments made by Serpant to Pope: I contend that the most useful definition of a 'particular set of beliefs' is 'philosophy' and for 'religion': 'a widely held set of beliefs held without evidence and even in spite of contradictory evidence'. Basically, a religon is a popular philosophy held as a result of faith.

A person can make all the assumptions that they please! But evidence is evidence. A watch has a watchmaker. A house has a house builder. A machine has a machinist. A novel has a writer. A work of art has an artist. A computer simulation game has a programmer. BUT a very complex set of laws, (we call physics)and a planetary system that suits life has no maker or designer? This is not logical at all. There is just as much evidence to support earth design, as there is watch design! In fact there is more evidence of design than there is for no design. There cannot be as many accidents of physics, astronomy and biology for life as we know to exist.

Oh and please re-read my post, I didn't ignore the point of the marksman's fallacy.

The answer that all those individuals in the bible gave as to how to gain salvation are all correct. In those instances they were talking to different people at different times, on many different sub

The god of gaps. How beautifully deficient.

I get rather frustrated by non-scientists when they declare that something is "only a theory" as if it had no merit and should be dismissed from the argument altogether.

A theory is a predictive description of the natural world based on some assumptions (axioms) that are taken to be true (like 1+1=2).

Let's break this down - the theory must describe the natural world as we observe it. Anything that doesn't is of no use whatsoever. It must also be predictive - we observe that liquid water expands when it is converted into a gas (or its pressure increases); we can predict that other liquids will expand when converted into gases. This makes the theory testable and allows us to verify it. Otherwise I would be able to propose nonsensical theories such that the sky is blue because of little pixies with blue wings flying around at high altitude. They are easily scared and fly away extremely fast from an

I am not dismissing anything because it is a theory, I am simply saying that is definatly not a fact. And the observations you speak of definatly show that the current model of the universe and the beginning of life is not true, and now another theory is being discussed. Sure it may be a change, and not a whole complete revamping of the idea. The only thing in common is that it does not allow for an intelligent designer.

The fact of water expanding when it becomes a solid is also an interesting point. I have heard some use that as and example of fine tuning. Because what if it didn't, then the world would become a frozen wasteland except for a thin piece of habitable area!

There is nothing wrong with theories, in fact many times they can be proven correct, but do not dismiss intelligent design either, or else you deny the very fact you try to prove.

When if the scientific method was used, there could only be one conclusion. B