Why I'm an Atheist

[haunted]

Btw Quadz, you never responded to my suggestion that perhaps, sometimes, it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information in order to tell the forest from the trees (post #207). I just put that to you because - as you're obviously highly literate in scientific matters - perhaps you have an inherent bias against someone who argues at a more instinctual level???

He has no bias, nor do I. I have no doubt that you are arguing at the "instinctual level". Rest assured that I know that your views are not widely accepted and are formulated by your best "instinct". What you have trouble with, is when your instinct completely contradicts scientific facts. For example, if someone proved me wrong with factual information: My instinct would be to research this matter and learn about it, if factual information contradicted what I had to say. This is intellectual thought at it's best; learning from your mistakes.. expanding your mind PAST what you know and accepting that your best inference about the topic is wrong .....I say inference because in a complex scientific topic your instinct without research/fact just becomes your best, aimless assumption or inference. This isn't an argument that can be won with philosophy or rhetoric. Applying those concepts to a scientific debate while contradicting factual information makes you lose any credibility, whatsoever.

Haunted, I can't disagree with any of that - apart from one thing:

I started this thread with the intention of discussing Atheism vs. Theism. Since belief or otherwise in a god is as much a philosophical as a scientific question, such a debate cannot be argued on scientific ideals alone.

That's what I mean when I say it's counterproductive to address the topic from a purely scientific (or from a purely philisophical) angle - as you, Quadz, and others seem to suggest I should be doing. I think you need to be a little removed from both, like I said, in order to tell the forest from the trees.

Tubby, I would somewhat agree with that but it is way too generalized in regard to the circumstance that _mostly_ quadz and I were saying that to you. Certain concepts, like natural selection, because we actually know exactly how it works. It's definition is not even open to debate, and you started making your own assumptions as to how you *think* the concept could be applied. Perhaps you are right, you shouldn't look at the over-all topic of this thread from a strictly scientific perspective. Although this highly generalized view on this thread as a whole is correct, it doesn't change the fact that the contradictions I have pointed out are specified to scientific matters, stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT. There is a distinction between what you are suggesting above, and what you are actually doing. Changing the definition / taking the word "natural selection" out of context so it means something completely different, then using it to make a point in your arguments is not intellectual nor is it doing what you suggested; arguing a point without using scientific facts alone(instead you argue your point with something that isn't true..... which seems very silly to me )

[|iR|Focalor]

Allow me to translate your reply:

Focalor, right from the start of this thread I stated that I don't profess to have any facts, and that I only wanted to debate the topic of atheism vs. belief in god.

Focalor, I know only the bare minimum about this subject (which is next to nothing), and I only wanted to debate the topic within the confines of those small parameters.
 

Others, however, seem to have taken exception to this and responded with what they seem to believe are universal and immutable truths.

Others, however, seem to have taken exception to this and responded with facts. How the hell am I supposed to compete with that?

 

[quadz]

Wow Quadz, you must have a brain the size of a house to have "educated (yourself) on the past 150 years" of scientific discovery & thought.

If that post was not self-righteous and arrogant beyond anything I have ever posted on this thread, nothing is.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

However, Quadz, as you apparently feel qualified to debate the topic at hand - which involves both scientific AND philosophical discovery & thought (which by your definition would require the equivalent of 300 years of education to debate) - I guess you must have a brain the size of two houses.

Good for you.

As it happens, I know very little.  (And every time I learn a bit more, my sense of the scope of my ignorance expands geometrically.)

What I do have, though, is deep respect and amazement in the following proportions: Deep respect for the hard-won, incremental advances to the breadth of human knowledge made by individual scientists toiling in the boundaries between the known and the unknown, slowly illuminating a bit more of what used to be mysteries about how the world (and cosmos) works; and, amazement that the fruits of that labor can actually be digested into books and articles suitable for reading by the layman--making it possible for the everyman non-scientist (like me) to stand on the shoulders of giants and get a little glimpse into the inner workings of nature, that without the hard work of others, would have remained mysteries.

And so it is particularly frustrating to encounter someone who not only appears not to share this sense of respect and amazement for the hard-won illumination that is now available to us all; but who instead actually seems to defend remaining in the dark about the subjects under discussion at every turn, as though avoiding information about what we've learned so far on these topics is some kind of virtue.

In short: Yes, I do indeed question the degree of liklihood that "fresh insights" may be generated in a discussion, if the participants advocate approaching the topic from a standpoint of willful ignorance.

To put it another way, it's about an attitude toward learning:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

If you give us an interesting question to chew on we'll be grateful to you; good questions are a stimulus and a gift. Good questions help us develop our understanding, and often reveal problems we might not have noticed or thought about otherwise. Among hackers, “Good question!” is a strong and sincere compliment.

Despite this, hackers have a reputation for meeting simple questions with what looks like hostility or arrogance. It sometimes looks like we're reflexively rude to newbies and the ignorant. But this isn't really true.

What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions. People like that are time sinks — they take without giving back, and they waste time we could have spent on another question more interesting and another person more worthy of an answer.
[...]
If you find this attitude obnoxious, condescending, or arrogant, check your assumptions. We're not asking you to genuflect to us — in fact, most of us would love nothing more than to deal with you as an equal and welcome you into our culture, if you put in the effort required to make that possible. But it's simply not efficient for us to try to help people who are not willing to help themselves. It's OK to be ignorant; it's not OK to play stupid.

So, while it isn't necessary to already be technically competent to get attention from us, it is necessary to demonstrate the kind of attitude that leads to competence — alert, thoughtful, observant, willing to be an active partner in developing a solution.

Regards,

quadz

[quadz]

Quantum mechanics allows a universe (like ours) having zero total energy to begin as a quantum fluctuation

i am no scientific genious but i did do a bit of research on this and this is what i found, and i quote

"The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, however What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question."

by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Alpha - thanks for taking the time to research that.

so what that says to me you may be right, but then again it could be wrong and just an assumption because as it says they still can't answer where that initial energy comes from, so it is just another theory.

But it's always just another theory.

Note, however, that we don't know where gravity comes from yet--but this hasn't stopped us from developing useful theories about how gravity behaves.  Similarly, not knowing where the initial energy comes from, should not in itself prevent us from being able to develop useful theories about how that energy behaves.

Additionally, our not knowing where the initial energy comes from, does not in itself advance the argument that it must have been created supernaturally.  (I'm not accusing you of having made that claim, but it's common to do so.)


Regards,

quadz

[reaper]

Additionally, our not knowing where the initial energy comes from, does not in itself advance the argument that it must have been created supernaturally.  (I'm not accusing you of having made that claim, but it's common to do so.)

In your opinion

[quadz]

Additionally, our not knowing where the initial energy comes from, does not in itself advance the argument that it must have been created supernaturally.  (I'm not accusing you of having made that claim, but it's common to do so.)

In your opinion

I'm speaking in terms of logic and deductive reasoning.

A lack of knowledge of cause(X) does not in itself lend weight to the claim that cause(X) = Y.

[reaper]

well when you have a theory that can be proven false by something, and you get the opposite, the theory isn't proven false.  basically it's common sense that it looks like a creator is involved.  and you don't need to prove god doesn't exist, you just need an alternative explanation; however the beginning just fits right in with the belief in a creator perfectly.

[Tubby]

stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT.

Haunted, your statement; "stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT" (reply #255) puts an end to my belief in your ability to debate this topic effectively.

Two hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was at the centre of the universe...

Five hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was flat...

It's exactly this sort of intellectual arrogance which I'm trying to challenge - and another good reason to be a little removed from too much information whilst subsequently acknowledging that one has no facts.

[Tubby]

What I do have, though, is deep respect and amazement in the following proportions: Deep respect for the hard-won, incremental advances to the breadth of human knowledge made by individual scientists toiling in the boundaries between the known and the unknown, slowly illuminating a bit more of what used to be mysteries about how the world (and cosmos) works; and, amazement that the fruits of that labor can actually be digested into books and articles suitable for reading by the layman--making it possible for the everyman non-scientist (like me) to stand on the shoulders of giants and get a little glimpse into the inner workings of nature, that without the hard work of others, would have remained mysteries.

And so it is particularly frustrating to encounter someone who not only appears not to share this sense of respect and amazement for the hard-won illumination that is now available to us all; but who instead actually seems to defend remaining in the dark about the subjects under discussion at every turn, as though avoiding information about what we've learned so far on these topics is some kind of virtue.

In short: Yes, I do indeed question the degree of liklihood that "fresh insights" may be generated in a discussion, if the participants advocate approaching the topic from a standpoint of willful ignorance.

Regards,

quadz

Quadz, that's a fair answer. Thanks.

However, once again I'm finding myself confronted by someone who believes he must know better than me - in this case because he's "standing on the shoulders of giants".

Whose giant are you standing on the shoulders of, Quadz? The Christian giant? The Hindu giant? The Atheist giant? The Agnostic giant? The Scientific giant?

And what gives you the right to say that your "giant" is better than any of the others?

Specifically, in the context of this discussion, what gives you the right to say that your "giant" is better than mine?

[haunted]

stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT.

Haunted, your statement; "stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT" (reply #255) puts an end to my belief in your ability to debate this topic effectively.

Two hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was at the centre of the universe...

Five hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was flat...

It's exactly this sort of intellectual arrogance which I'm trying to challenge - and another good reason to be a little removed from too much information whilst subsequently acknowledging that one has no facts.

this has nothing to do with my post. Please reply with something that actually addresses what I said...... I am asking nicely.

[Tubby]

stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT.

Haunted, your statement; "stuff that we as the human race know for a FACT" (reply #255) puts an end to my belief in your ability to debate this topic effectively.

Two hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was at the centre of the universe...

Five hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was flat...

It's exactly this sort of intellectual arrogance which I'm trying to challenge - and another good reason to be a little removed from too much information whilst subsequently acknowledging that one has no facts.

this has nothing to do with my post. Please reply with something that actually addresses what I said...... I am asking nicely.

Okay Haunted, I'm simply saying that what you're currently calling "scientific fact" may - in 100 or 1000 years' time - be as laughable as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as was the 'principle of scientific thought' during the Middle / Dark Ages.

[reaper]

guess you didn't read my previous post addressed to you about natural selection 

[[BTF]Sigma]

Two hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was at the centre of the universe...

Check your FACTS Tubs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Five hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was flat...

No they did not know for a FACT that the Earth was flat. They assumed it was spherical based on the evidence they had collected. It wasn't until 1500s that Magellan actually proved it with his circumnavigation of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth


You don't know enough about this subject to argue it. This is a FACT.

[/argument]

[Tubby]

Two hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was at the centre of the universe...

Check your FACTS Tubs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Five hundred years ago, "the human race knew for a FACT" that the Earth was flat...

No they did not know for a FACT that the Earth was flat. They assumed it was spherical based on the evidence they had collected. It wasn't until 1500s that Magellan actually proved it with his circumnavigation of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth


You don't know enough about this subject to argue it. This is a FACT.

[/argument]

Sigma, if you want to get your "facts" from Wikipedia, that's your call. Go for it.

I myself prefer to use my personal ability to discuss such things without recourse to the preconcieved, mass-produced notions which websites such as Wikipedia tend to offer.

[reaper]

Tubby 1 :: One of the most advanced (if not the most) sources of diverse information, 0?