5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

Carpo wrote: »

And while spending time trying to answer a question which is by definition unanswerable may be interesting and entertaining, ultimately, without the means to resolve it, its just intellectual masturbation.

QFT, you have a way with words

You won't find many* on this board claiming to know anything with 100% certainty, in fact, thats why in most cases they are atheists to begin with.





*the visiting theists on the other hand...

One common element in both sides of the debate is the idea of having faith in something. The faith required to believe in a God or gods is obvious but on the other side there is a faith required in a scientific method and the idea that our ability to analysis objectively can uncover truth about the world around us.

One path leads us more away from emgaged edified individualism while the other leads us away from the immediacy of a subjective awareness of the universe. I only trust either path in so far as they can make me open my mind in wonder and go 'Wow!'

TedB wrote: »

Intellectual masturbation is fun

Seriously though, I can see what people are saying. I too have to make assumptions about reality in order to live day to day. All I'm saying is that NOTHING is definite - including reality. So don't be so quick to judge people or mock some very important questions. Thats the kind of small minded intellectual obstacles religious fundamentalists like to erect. (If you can recall my first post in this thread, I was effectively saying that ye were being too harsh. In truth, thats all I was saying.)

There's a difference between saying we don't know how the universe came into being and saying that a Jewish guy walked on water and to present as evidence an old story book. As I said earlier, just because you can make a philosophical argument that we are brains in jars does not mean that every crackpot theory has equal validity to something that has been verified using the scientific method

When people have nothing to back up what they're saying but believe it anyway it's called faith but when they have a mountain of evidence backing up what they're saying, it's called science

TedB wrote: »

All I'm saying is that NOTHING is definite - including reality.

We know this. We never claimed otherwise. It just doesn't matter, I'll explain below.

So don't be so quick to judge people or mock some very important questions. Thats the kind of small minded intellectual obstacles religious fundamentalists like to erect. (If you can recall my first post in this thread, I was effectively saying that ye were being too harsh. In truth, thats all I was saying.)

I won't mock very important questions. I will mock bad arguments and ludicrous claims. And I can state with authority that they are bad arguments and ludicrous claims because we appear to be operating within the same system. YES, all of this could be my brain in a vat being fed an artificial reality, but this claim has no evidence like the infinity of other claims that have no evidence.

Here is the most crucial point: If myself and a religious person are arguing about something, then we've both already made the assumption that reality is not a delusion of one of our brains. When we disagree on a point, we're disagreeing about an aspect of the universe we perceive.

I know The Matrix argument might seem very important right now but in the grand scheme of things it is in fact completely irrelevant, by definition.

And don't level claims of close-mindedness at people just because you can't convince them of your position. I'm open-minded, not gullible, you need to make a good argument before I agree with you.

Well Zillah is the second most evil atheist on here.

TedB wrote: »

*Yawn* A ram leads and the sheep follow. Find a new line mate.

This is hilarious. Are you really so obsessed with appearing to be a freethinker that you'll ignore what people say, even if they're right, just because you think it's 'textbook'?

robindch wrote: »

Any more truculence, and you'll be taking a holiday, mate.

Such a heavy hand! In all honesty I'm probably the most truculent poster in this thread - forum the internet.

Zillah wrote: »

This sentence wins the "Most Beautiful Sentence in a Terrible Post" award.



And yes I fixed the typo.

Fair cop on the typo. People are trying to put me in one camp on this. The point I'm making is that science makes so many assumptions in order to narrow it's focus down to what can be proven on it's own terms. As a method it has proven incredibly effective in the discoveries it has made but in the process it has left behind a holistic presence in the world that can't be just bolted back on after you have discovered the atom bomb or penicillin or E.

There is something lost in the attempt to become objectively detached from the world in order to study it. The belief that science will lead to a better future for the planet on it's own without a philosophical, religious or spiritual context in which to function is up there in terms of blind faith with the bible belters denying dinosaurs ever existed.

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

There is something lost in the attempt to become objectively detached from the world in order to study it. The belief that science will lead to a better future for the planet on it's own without a philosophical, religious or spiritual context in which to function is up there in terms of blind faith with the bible belters denying dinosaurs ever existed.

It clearly isn't because of what science delivers and that which is in bold never will. I will agree that philosophy has a place.

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

Fair cop on the typo. People are trying to put me in one camp on this. The point I'm making is that science makes so many assumptions in order to narrow it's focus down to what can be proven on it's own terms.

Science makes as few assumptions as physically possible, such as it has to assume that we are not brains in jars because there is no way to test that. If it is physically possible to test something, it will be tested

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

As a method it has proven incredibly effective in the discoveries it has made but in the process it has left behind a holistic presence in the world that can't be just bolted back on after you have discovered the atom bomb or penicillin or E. There is something lost in the attempt to become objectively detached from the world in order to study it.

The only way to get a better understanding of the universe is through science. People can yammer on about whatever enters their mind, whatever they might think is the origin of the universe but when they tell me their hypothesis, the first thing I will say is "prove it" and that's where science comes in. And if they don't want to try to find evidence to back up what they're saying it will always remain just a hypothesis. And if they want to assert that this hypothesis is true and that all others are false without any supporting evidence, that's where faith comes in.

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

The belief that science will lead to a better future for the planet on it's own without a philosophical, religious or spiritual context in which to function is up there in terms of blind faith with the bible belters denying dinosaurs ever existed.

Science is not on its own, it's is a continuation of philosophy. Someone comes up with an idea, a philosophy if you will, and then goes about seeing if his philosophy is correct. What you are talking about is the first stage in science, where the brainstorming takes place but for some reason a lot of people think it's acceptable or even advantageous to stop at that stage and accept whatever particular ramblings fit nicely into their brain.

How is it better to accept an idea that has never been tested for validity over one that has?

DJ Dodgy wrote: »

Fair cop on the typo. People are trying to put me in one camp on this. The point I'm making is that science makes so many assumptions in order to narrow it's focus down to what can be proven on it's own terms. As a method it has proven incredibly effective in the discoveries it has made but in the process it has left behind a holistic presence in the world that can't be just bolted back on after you have discovered the atom bomb or penicillin or E.

There is something lost in the attempt to become objectively detached from the world in order to study it. The belief that science will lead to a better future for the planet on it's own without a philosophical, religious or spiritual context in which to function is up there in terms of blind faith with the bible belters denying dinosaurs ever existed.

Seriously, dude, I totally see where you're coming from.

But where have you ever seen anyone claim that science on its own will make a better future?

Science is a tool by which to construct accurate models of reality; nothing more. We can use those models to make new and amazing medicines, or we can use it to torture all life to extinction.

When I talk about science making a better future for humanity I'm very much assuming that I share certain principles with my audience; such as respect for human life, a will to see an end to social injustice, bountiful food supplies etc. If someone doesn't agree with these things then we have an entirely different discussion on our hands.

I don't think we need religion or spirituality to direct science in a good way...we need simple, practical humanism -- nothing more.