Are there varying degrees of Atheism

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

I still think it all boils down to whether you think that the Universe was 'created' or not. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation other than the fact that there is a creator.

Unfortunately the fallacy at play here is to assume a hypothesis credible solely because it is the only one on offer.

Actually there are other plausible hypotheses at play that actually, unlike the god hypothesis, have some basis in data and evidence. Not to say they are proven or true.... but they have a foundation in substantiation that at least justifies proposing them.

But let us assume for a moment you are not wrong, and the god hypothesis is literally the only one in play and the only one on offer. This is ENTIRELY irrelevant. A hypothesis is not lent credibility through exclusivity. An error no small number of theists appear to make.

An exclusive hypothesis is evidence of little more than our ignorance. A point I tend to illustrate by asking the listener to imagine a scanario where we have the privilege of knowledge the people in the scenario do not. Take a conversation between two small boys discussing the origin of babies for example.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: Oh? How do you know this is true?
Boy2: Well have you got another plausible idea of where they come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: Aha! See? The stork brings them.

In this analogy Boy1 and 2 represent Humanity and Boy2 specifically represents YOU. We the listener to the story have the privilege of knowing that not only is there another hypothesis, but it happens to be correct. They are entirely ignorant of this however and Boy2 feels that since only one hypothesis has been postulated in their veil of ignorance.... then it BY DEFAULT attains credibility or truth.

We are in that position. We are in a universe and we exist. We do not know how this has come to be. So we come up with hypotheses to explain this.

You play the part of Boy2 in that discourse. You have a hypothesis that is itself devoid of ANY modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it. But exclusivity alone somehow plays the part of verification in your mind.

It is a fallacy I can imagine you would only do well to divest yourself of.

Thankfully outside the desperation of the theists there are few realms of discourse where exclusivity lends credence. Can you imagine, for example, if a murder suspect was presumed guilty in cases where only one suspect was on the list. No need to evidence the suspect actually committed the crime. Merely being the sole suspect available is guilt already. Imagining a scenario like that leaves one merely grateful that reality does not match YOUR world in your head.

realdanbreen

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I'm surprised that you know so little about your own religion.

Please state exactly how this is done.

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in. I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done but I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unfortunately the fallacy at play here is to assume a hypothesis credible solely because it is the only one on offer.

Actually there are other plausible hypotheses at play that actually, unlike the god hypothesis, have some basis in data and evidence. Not to say they are proven or true.... but they have a foundation in substantiation that at least justifies proposing them.

But let us assume for a moment you are not wrong, and the god hypothesis is literally the only one in play and the only one on offer. This is ENTIRELY irrelevant. A hypothesis is not lent credibility through exclusivity. An error no small number of theists appear to make.

An exclusive hypothesis is evidence of little more than our ignorance. A point I tend to illustrate by asking the listener to imagine a scanario where we have the privilege of knowledge the people in the scenario do not. Take a conversation between two small boys discussing the origin of babies for example.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: Oh? How do you know this is true?
Boy2: Well have you got another plausible idea of where they come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: Aha! See? The stork brings them.

In this analogy Boy1 and 2 represent Humanity and Boy2 specifically represents YOU. We the listener to the story have the privilege of knowing that not only is there another hypothesis, but it happens to be correct. They are entirely ignorant of this however and Boy2 feels that since only one hypothesis has been postulated in their veil of ignorance.... then it BY DEFAULT attains credibility or truth.

We are in that position. We are in a universe and we exist. We do not know how this has come to be. So we come up with hypotheses to explain this.

You play the part of Boy2 in that discourse. You have a hypothesis that is itself devoid of ANY modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it. But exclusivity alone somehow plays the part of verification in your mind.

It is a fallacy I can imagine you would only do well to divest yourself of.

Thankfully outside the desperation of the theists there are few realms of discourse where exclusivity lends credence. Can you imagine, for example, if a murder suspect was presumed guilty in cases where only one suspect was on the list. No need to evidence the suspect actually committed the crime. Merely being the sole suspect available is guilt already. Imagining a scenario like that leaves one merely grateful that reality does not match YOUR world in your head.

Nice bunch of scenarios there nozz but I don't see even an attemt at explaining how the Universe came about.

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in. I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done but I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

what a silly line of argument.

I was forced to learn this gibberish in school.

If it's as easy to formally renounce then surely you should be able to explain how it is done.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in.

I see no reason for surprise here. One does not have to believe in an idea to know a lot about it. Especially if that something permeates the modern society and history of the country we either live in or love. If a religion has that much influence in the present and in history on our society, then it behooves one to know as much about it as possible if they wish to influence, or be activist in, that society. Regardless of whether they believe in that religion or not.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done

I must warn you that I doubt there is a single user of this forum who will read this sentence from you as meaning anything but "I am bluffing, I actually have no idea, but I am pretending I do".

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

Thats exactly your problem. We have done this research, especially those of us who followed with interest the rise and fall of the count me out website. We know exactly what is involved, how canon law was literally changed to preclude it, and what the background of "chapter and verse" actually is.

Which is why a number of users are happily calling you out on it and testing to see if you can adumbrate the required steps yourself. Because we know the answers, and we here appear to suspect you are bluffing knowledge of it.

A hypothesis you can quickly falsify by displaying such knowledge however.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Nice bunch of scenarios there nozz but I don't see even an attemt at explaining how the Universe came about.

Given I gave one scenario and not a "bunch" it appears you just replied to my post with a one liner without actually reading it at all.

Especially given the point of my post was not to explain how the Universe came about, but to make the point that even if I could offer no such hypothesis, this in no way, even a small way, would lend credence to any claim there is a creator of it.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in. I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done but I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

Since you can't be bothered proving your claim.....

A quick google and presto;

A formal act of defection from the Catholic Church (Latin actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica) was an externally provable juridic act of departure from the Catholic Church,[1] which was recognized from 1983 to 2009 in the Code of Canon Law as having certain juridical effects enumerated in canons 1086, 1117 and 1124. The concept of "formal" act of defection was narrower than that of "notorious" (publicly known) defection recognized in the 1917 Code of Canon Law[2][3] and still narrower than the concept of "de facto" defection. In 2006, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts specified in what a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church consisted.[4] In 2009, all mention of a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church and of any juridical effects deriving from it was removed from the Code

Source

So looks like your claim of formally leaving the Catholic church is incorrect as of 2009.

realdanbreen

SW wrote: »

Since you can't be bothered proving your claim.....

A quick google and presto;

So looks like your claim of formally leaving the Catholic church is incorrect as of 2009.

Well here's another quick google--You file a copy of 'Defecto ab ecclesia catholica actu formali' with the office of the Bishop and Bob's your uncle.But I guess anyone serious about quitting would have found that out themselves.

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well here's another quick google--You file a copy of 'Defecto ab ecclesia catholica actu formali' with the office of the Bishop and Bob's your uncle.But I guess anyone serious about quitting would have found that out themselves.

Your googling was too quick. This method was abolished in 2009.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well here's another quick google--You file a copy of 'Defecto ab ecclesia catholica actu formali' with the office of the Bishop and Bob's your uncle.But I guess anyone serious about quitting would have found that out themselves.

um, the link I provided clearly states the document you refer is no longer available as per 2009.

So the option you are citing is no longer available.

From my previous post.

A formal act of defection from the Catholic Church (Latin actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica)

realdanbreen

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Your googling was too quick. This method was abolished in 2009.

And was replaced as well you know.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

And was replaced as well you know.

with what? When did this happen? Link to this announcement?

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

And was replaced as well you know.

By what? Enlighten me.

looksee

efb wrote: »

Like when the woman in the hospital asked "what religion are you"- None",
"No", she goes, "what religion are you..."

That happened to me in the last few months. I said 'none' and she poked at the computer doubtfully, then said, it won't allow me to check you in without a religion...So I lied.

Huntergonzo

There can't be varying degrees of atheism, you either believe in God or you don't, the grey area are agnostics. But because there are many many forms and extremes of religious belief believers often confuse atheism as a religion itself, as though it is actually a belief system.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God given the lack of evidence, any strings and bells attached to it are done so by individuals, but there are no atheist teachings.

oldrnwisr

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough. So has anyone got a plausible explanation or theory ?
Rubbishing the existance of God doesn't equate to an alternative theory.

As Nozz has already pointed out, successfully refuting the claims that there is a God does not require an alternate explanation to be offered. It is enough to just show where the theistic claim is unsupported.

Having said that, yes there are plausible explanations for a naturalistic origin to the universe, several in fact.

For example, right now we are in the stelliferous era of the universe, the age of stars. Once stars such as our sun begin to burn out, the universe will eventually only consist of white dwarfs, brown dwarfs and black holes. At this point we will enter the degenerate era. During this time white dwarfs will assimilate dark matter and proton decay will begin leaving only black holes. Then we enter the black hole era. Over time, the black holes themselves due to Hawking radiation will evaporate. At this point the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light. This dark era will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, becomes meaningless. This is the heat death of the universe. At this point, the infinite eternity of one universe is no different, scientifically speaking, from the singularity beginning of the next universe. It is possible, and plausible, that the universe may exist in an infinite series of cycles with the death of each universe being the big bang of the next.
This isn't just a nice story. It is a coherent physical framework which fits within our current understanding of cosmology and quantum physics. Moreover, there has even been some preliminary experimental support for it:

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big Bang activity

On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky

Data gathered from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) suggests that there are variances in the cosmic background radiation (CMB) consistent with a cyclic conformal rescaling.

For more basic explanations of this hypothesis you can read more here:

The Five Ages of the Universe

Heat death of the Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

There are also books on the subject, one dealing specifically with the hypothesis above:

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe

and one dealing more generally with the various cosmogonical theories that have been proposed:

The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos


However, there are several key points to be made here.

1. It is possible that the answer to the origin of the universe may be outside of our capacity to test, just like abiogenesis. We can propose theories and frameworks which fit our understanding of science but until we can go back in time and (in this case) outside our spacetime, we can't know which theory, if any, is correct. It's like discovering a murder victim after he's been cremated. You can hypothesise that he was stabbed or shot or smothered but there's no way to discern from the available evidence which theory is correct.

2. The answer "I don't know" is perfectly valid in this, or any other context. The fact that person A has their claim utterly refuted by person B doesn't require person B to offer an alternate explanation to replace A's broken idea.

You might want to have a look at this, it may help to explain things a bit better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

shaymus27

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough. So has anyone got a plausible explanation or theory ?
Rubbishing the existance of God doesn't equate to an alternative theory.

Not knowing scientifically with 100% certainty is not a basis for the exposition that means there has to be a God.

Rubbishing the belief about the existence of God - not the existence of God.

Look, if you were brought up on an island with no connection to the outside world and no-one ever mentioned to you the concept of God, chances are you wouldn't believe in a God.

If you grow up in a country where a belief in God exists and go to school controlled by a religion, chances are you will believe in God.

If you grow up in India in a part where they believe in re-incarnation and that rats etc could be the re-incarnation of people, that's what you will believe if everyone around you believes that. It's environmental brain-washing.

Hotblack Desiato

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God given the lack of evidence, any strings and bells attached to it are done so by individuals, but there are no atheist teachings.

True, but I dislike the phrase 'lack of belief' as it normalises belief and/or makes out that non-believers are missing out on something or are somehow incomplete

I don't believe in any god. I don't LACK something.

'Absence of belief' is a better phrase, I think.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

'Absence of belief' is a better phrase, I think.

Or 'lack of certain common delusions' even :pac:

realdanbreen

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As Nozz has already pointed out, successfully refuting the claims that there is a God does not require an alternate explanation to be offered. It is enough to just show where the theistic claim is unsupported.

Having said that, yes there are plausible explanations for a naturalistic origin to the universe, several in fact.

For example, right now we are in the stelliferous era of the universe, the age of stars. Once stars such as our sun begin to burn out, the universe will eventually only consist of white dwarfs, brown dwarfs and black holes. At this point we will enter the degenerate era. During this time white dwarfs will assimilate dark matter and proton decay will begin leaving only black holes. Then we enter the black hole era. Over time, the black holes themselves due to Hawking radiation will evaporate. At this point the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light. This dark era will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, becomes meaningless. This is the heat death of the universe. At this point, the infinite eternity of one universe is no different, scientifically speaking, from the singularity beginning of the next universe. It is possible, and plausible, that the universe may exist in an infinite series of cycles with the death of each universe being the big bang of the next.
This isn't just a nice story. It is a coherent physical framework which fits within our current understanding of cosmology and quantum physics. Moreover, there has even been some preliminary experimental support for it:

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big Bang activity

On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky

Data gathered from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) suggests that there are variances in the cosmic background radiation (CMB) consistent with a cyclic conformal rescaling.

For more basic explanations of this hypothesis you can read more here:

The Five Ages of the Universe

Heat death of the Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

There are also books on the subject, one dealing specifically with the hypothesis above:

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe


and one dealing more generally with the various cosmogonical theories that have been proposed:

The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos


However, there are several key points to be made here.

1. It is possible that the answer to the origin of the universe may be outside of our capacity to test, just like abiogenesis. We can propose theories and frameworks which fit our understanding of science but until we can go back in time and (in this case) outside our spacetime, we can't know which theory, if any, is correct. It's like discovering a murder victim after he's been cremated. You can hypothesise that he was stabbed or shot or smothered but there's no way to discern from the available evidence which theory is correct.

2. The answer "I don't know" is perfectly valid in this, or any other context. The fact that person A has their claim utterly refuted by person B doesn't require person B to offer an alternate explanation to replace A's broken idea.

You might want to have a look at this, it may help to explain things a bit better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

TBH I got as far as 'stelliferous' before I nodded off.
I have yet to meet anyone who can provide an explanation that doesn't get lost in completely meandering gobbledegook other than creation by a higher power .

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

TBH I got as far as 'stelliferous' before I nodded off.
I have yet to meet anyone who can provide an explanation that doesn't get lost in completely meandering gobbledegook other than creation by a higher power .

I know. It takes some concentration and thought. Forget the hard stuff.


You must have been a hoot in science class...

realdanbreen

Pherekydes wrote: »

I know. It takes some concentration and thought. Forget the hard stuff.


You must have been a hoot in science class...

OK, so I concentrate and give it plenty of thought, then what?
Have you an explanation or is it just a case of 'well plenty of real clever fellas with degrees and stuff' seem to THINK that it all came about differently.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

OK, so I concentrate and give it plenty of thought, then what?
Have you an explanation or is it just a case of 'well plenty of real clever fellas with degrees and stuff' seem to THINK that it all came about differently.

rather than a priest seems to think differently?

realdanbreen

SW wrote: »

rather than a priest seems to think differently?

Another wiseguy with Zero to offer by way of an alternative explanation.

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

OK, so I concentrate and give it plenty of thought, then what?

Well, that's up to you. Come back with questions and observations...




...in about 10 years.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

Another wiseguy with Zero to offer by way of an alternative explanation.

you've been dismissive of/ ignoring any post that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notion that God did it.

oldrnwsr made an excellent post to which you basically said, "I fell asleep/couldn't understand it". :rolleyes:

realdanbreen

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, that's up to you. Come back with questions and observations...




...in about 10 years.

Really! And when you 'concentrated and gave it plenty of thought' what did you come up with?

realdanbreen

SW wrote: »

you've been dismissive of/ ignoring any post that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notion that God did it.

oldrnwsr made an excellent post to which you basically said, "I fell asleep/couldn't understand it". :rolleyes:

Fact of the matter is he did'nt make an excellent post. He cut and pasted and linked a whole series of theoretical 'what ifs' that some people who are either too lazy or think they are being cool are happy to go along with.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fact of the matter is he did'nt make an excellent post. He cut and pasted and linked a whole series of theoretical 'what ifs' that some people who are either too lazy or think they are being cool are happy to go along with.

Huntergonzo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

True, but I dislike the phrase 'lack of belief' as it normalises belief and/or makes out that non-believers are missing out on something or are somehow incomplete

I don't believe in any god. I don't LACK something.

'Absence of belief' is a better phrase, I think.

Fair enough, there's plenty of ways to say it but absence is a better word than lack.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

TBH I got as far as 'stelliferous' before I nodded off.
I have yet to meet anyone who can provide an explanation that doesn't get lost in completely meandering gobbledegook other than creation by a higher power .

Did you ever hear that story about the two naked people in the garden with the talking reptile? Or about the lad with the boat and all the animals? Or the lad with the long hair who was really strong? Or the one about the dead people walking about Jerusalem with not a bother on them? Or yer man who saw God's arse? Or the one about the seven-headed dragon messing with the stars?

Stelliferous means having something to do with the stars, by the way. I looked it up. Isn't it an education coming here?