Why I'm an Atheist

[Tubby]

established scientific theory

This part.

[Tubby]

I can't argue with the fact that 2+2=4

2+2 may not equal 4, you can't rely on the mathematical facts concerning basic addition alone... The sum could be something entirely different than 4. I am just saying that you should not entirely base your decision on facts.

Exactly, Haunted. In an alternate universe 2+2 may indeed equal 5.

And why is that suggestion any more laughable than the idea that we all have to die because some guy called Adam took a bite of an apple...?

[quadz]

established scientific theory

This part.

I doubt it, considering the entire rest of the paragraph is an attempt to unpack what I think your grievance is with the concept embodied by the phrase "established scientific theory".

Let's try again:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form:  When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards.  However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

Is this an accurate summary of your position?  If not, why not?

[Tubby]

Quadz, I take issue with your continual reference to scientific ideals.

I also have great respect for those ideals, but the topic we're discussing right now transcends (current) scientific ideals, just as it similarly transcends (current) philosophic ideals.

And as I said, if you don't get that now, you never will.

[|iR|Focalor]

Focalor, go to your local library and grab any book in the non-fiction section. Any book. Chances are there will be 'facts' in that book which will have been outdated and contradicted by more recent 'facts'.

This applies as much to you and your precious 'books of knowledge' today as it did to those who argued the 'facts' in those dusty old library books yesterday... As it will apply to those who argue the 'facts' of tomorrow... ad nauseum.

You aren't into thinking your ideas through very well. That's one reason why I'd rather stick to "book knowledge" than your "fresh insights", at least it's correct.

You aren't just wrong, you're TOTALLY FUCKIN' WRONG! Facts WERE facts. Facts ARE facts. Facts WILL BE facts tomorrow. The Nazi's lost World War 2: that's a fact. 2+2=4: that's a fact. Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

I await yet another "wow them with bullshit" smoke and mirrors response to laugh at.

That's a fair reply, Focalor. I can't argue with the fact that 2+2=4, or that the Nazis lost WW2.

What I am saying - and what I already said - is that this thread is about something which cannot be argued on 'facts' alone.

Remember, we're talking about belief (or otherwise) in god. That's as much a philisophical as a scientific question, and, as such, we need to get over our anal obsession with science and 'facts' in order to discuss it.

Like I said... "wow them with bullshit" smoke and mirrors response.

Specifically in reply to the words highlighted in yellow,... WRONG. We aren't talking about this thread or belief in god anymore. We're talking about how you can rationalize ignoring factual information. Of course you won't specifically address how you can logically, realistically, and more importantly, correctly claim that "facts found in any non-fiction book I might choose will be outdated or contradicted" because, once again, you've failed to thoroughly think your ideas through. As you've done throughout the entirety of this thread, you've proposed ideas which are based on nothing more than "feeling" and conditioned prejudice. You're really no different from the religious fundamentalists who you accuse of being completely out of touch with reality. Two peas in a pod.

And since you want to talk about philosophy now, I'd say this entire thread is the product of your flawed personal philosophies as evidenced by your repeated refusal to stick to the subject at hand. You've painted yourself into so many fucking corners that I'll need a god damned calculator to figure out how many walls are in this fucking room now.

[Tubby]

Lol, settle down Focalor. Let's get our bearings here.

What, exactly, are you asking me to say, do, prove, or disprove?

Just tell me like I'm a 5 year old, because I really can't keep up with you.

[quadz]

Quadz, I take issue with your continual reference to scientific ideals.

I also have great respect for those ideals, but the topic we're discussing right now transcends science, as it similarly transcends philosophic ideals.

The problem is quite the reverse: How do we learn where the alleged topic transcends science or philosophy, if we don't study science and philosophy?

Example: The motion of the planets in the solar system used to transcend science.  Even Newton, considered by some the greatest scientific mind ever to have yet walked the earth, couldn't explain the motion of the planets without invoking a deity.  Literally, he stated the orbits could not be sustained without a supernatural entity continually massaging them.

However, a century or so later, after LaPlace devised a theory accurately accounting for the motion of the planets (relativity notwithstanding), we no longer invoke a deity to explain planetary orbits.

Here's the point: Do you personally still believe, as Newton did, that the planetary orbits cannot be explained without perpetual interference by a supernatural agency?

Yes or no?

If you no longer believe the only explanation for the motion of the planets transcends science, then I've got news for you: You are relying on established scientific theory to shape your opinions on the "topic we're discussing right now."

As I said, if you don't get that now, you never will.

You think anyone in this thread has taken the position that science is guaranteed to offer an explanation for everything?

As they say in the vernacular: STFU NEWBIE.

[Tubby]

The problem is quite the reverse: How do we learn where the alleged topic transcends science or philosophy, if we don't study science and philosophy?

Good question, Quadz. All I'm trying to say is that no human being (not even you, Quadz) will ever be able to incorporate the entirety of scientific and / or philisophical study & thought into your own - or my own - argument in any arena, let alone one as complex as this.

[quadz]

All I'm trying to say is that no human being (not even you, Quadz) will ever be able to incorporate the entirety of scientific and / or philisophical study & thought into your own - or my own - argument in any arena, let alone one as complex as this.

This statement is as self-evident as it is useless.

It's akin to: All I'm trying to say is that no human being will ever be able to study every single atom on the planet under a microscope - let alone every single atom in the universe.

In other words: true, but so what?


You're not going to get from the above, to: "Nobody can challenge my modified theory of natural selection, because all the facts aren't in yet!"

[|iR|Focalor]

Lol, settle down Focalor. Let's get our bearings here.

What, exactly, are you asking me to say, do, prove, or disprove?

Just tell me like I'm a 5 year old, because I really can't keep up with you.

Can't keep up with ME!?! YOU are the one leading the fucking conversation down all of these rabbit trails (the "smoke and mirrors" I was referring to), not ME. I don't see why you would even need me to tell you like you're 5 years old since you're the one who said what you said. But since you're obviously thinking on a 5 year old's level, here, let me hold your little hand and walk you back to the CURRENT point we're at.

You said...

Focalor, go to your local library and grab any book in the non-fiction section. Any book. Chances are there will be 'facts' in that book which will have been outdated and contradicted by more recent 'facts'.

This applies as much to you and your precious 'books of knowledge' today as it did to those who argued the 'facts' in those dusty old library books yesterday... As it will apply to those who argue the 'facts' of tomorrow... ad nauseum.

I said...

Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

Since you want to be treated like a little kid and walked through the point that YOU made, let's think of this a grammar school math class. Think of me as the person grading your work. Think of the statement you made as the answer to a math problem I've given you to solve. You claim that your answer is correct. I just want you to show your work to indicate HOW you arrived at that answer. Does that sound so hard?

As an atheist, you prefer to accept reality for what it is rather than concerning yourself with spiritual pipe dreams and myths about pie in the sky. Maybe after you've wasted enough time trying prove your statement, you'll wake up and realize that it was nothing more than impulsive thoughtlessness, recant it, and accept the truth that...

You're really no different from the religious fundamentalists who you accuse of being completely out of touch with reality. Two peas in a pod.

[[BTF]Sigma]

[haunted]

I can't argue with the fact that 2+2=4

2+2 may not equal 4, you can't rely on the mathematical facts concerning basic addition alone... The sum could be something entirely different than 4. I am just saying that you should not entirely base your decision on facts.

Exactly, Haunted. In an alternate universe 2+2 may indeed equal 5.

And why is that suggestion any more laughable than the idea that we all have to die because some guy called Adam took a bite of an apple...?

Hmm, which situation is more laughable: the circumstance of adding 2 + 2 and having it equate to 5 in an alternate universe, or adam taking a bite of an apple. I am not sure, Tubby, both seem pretty plausible to me.

[reaper]

2 + 2 = 4 always in our basic mathematical theories, just like the shortest distance between two points is a straight line in Euclidian geometry.  When you're in some type of alternate universe and you're asking 2 of what, maybe it's a different story.  Interestingly we see the latter break down in our physical universe - at least the space is curved by mass, and we'd normally think of everything in straight lines.

Regarding the planet's movement, who says the supernatural isn't involved? By defintion god would be invovled in everything. To god be the glory?

As for the natural selection applying to everything, the theories name needs to be modified to "better things are better and people are scumbags", but guess what, that's not natural selection.

[quadz]

Regarding the planet's movement, who says the supernatural isn't involved? By defintion god would be invovled in everything. To god be the glory?

Yes, just like the whole universe could have been created 17 seconds ago, in situ, and we'd have no way of knowing.

Dammit, man.  I tried to word my post about the motion of the planets so that there didn't need to be a little special reaper asterisk attached.

The point is, nobody can say there's no supernatural thing "involved", but nothing supernatural is any longer required to explain (and therefore predict) the movements.

Which is just what Laplace said to Napoleon.

Napoleon, asking why Laplace hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter ("Mais où est Dieu dans tout cela?"/'But where is God in all this?').

Laplace: "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." ([No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis.)

There's no need to reaper that up with, "yeah but God could be continually suffusing the universe with his Majesty!" 'cause it completely misses the point: when we need to predict the orbits, we can now plug in a forumla, instead of wringing our hands and saying "only God knows!" like we used to.

[reaper]

Regarding the planet's movement, who says the supernatural isn't involved? By defintion god would be invovled in everything. To god be the glory?

Yes, just like the whole universe could have been created 17 seconds ago, in situ, and we'd have no way of knowing.

God being involved has nothing to do with situ and creation taking place 17 seconds ago, although it is getting easier and easier to form arguments that all the glory be to god.