Intro

AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Intro

Hey guys,

One of my friends frequents this site and has recently got me into it. I'm a twenty year old college student living in NYC. I am studying philosophy so I am always up for a debate. I was raised Catholic but have deconverted at least somewhat. I have become virulently anti- religion since then. However, I apparently still maintain enough hang ups from my previous ideology that you all will classify me as a theist. I would with great reservation self identify as a deist/pantheist.

My evidence for the existence of a God is the fact that we exist. That something exists rather than nothing. And that the world is beautiful when there is no reason it has to be. Yea pretty weak I know.

I'm not sure if "God" is conscious or just some sort of unconscious force that tends towards life, harmony, simplicity, beauty etc. And I have no idea if there is an afterlife although I sure hope there is. I always envisage it as some sort of nirvana like state of bliss and unity with everyone and everything else.

I absolutely believe in Science and evolution have never doubted them even in my deepest darkest fundy days. I think that once the physicists work everything out in terms of parallel universes, eleven dimensions, and mysterious dark energy and matter, we are going to discover some really cool shit about the universe. And out of all this really cool shit something is going to be so awe inspiring people will associate it with "God"

Science is based on the premises of making a best guess and then improving that guess when new evidence is brought to light. Some sort of God or god like force/energy/boson that has the potential to defy or change the laws of physics and is eternal is my best guess as to why anything exists or exists the way it does.

 

 

In terms of universal justice and morals, the only rights we have are the ones we take either individually or as a society. All morals are just subjective interpretations of physical events. We all have either subconsciously or consciously developed principles or codes that are displayed in all of our actions. The aggregate of these codes and the relative impact they have determines the character of society. How we act reflects what we think the character of society should be which puts a huge amount of responsibility on the individual. If we all focus on improving our own actions and decisions then society will invariably progress forward.

My personal code is a mix of Sartre, Nietzsche and Fight Club. But mostly Fight Club. In fact so much Fight Club, that i shaved my armpits so that I am more aerodynamic when I fight.

sorry if that was long winded but it felt good to finally just write some of those ideas down. In summary: Hey! glad to be here


Robby_C
Robby_C's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:My evidence for

AAR wrote:

My evidence for the existence of a God is the fact that we exist. That something exists rather than nothing. And that the world is beautiful when there is no reason it has to be. Yea pretty weak I know.

 

It is pretty weak to be honest. the only reason you think something exists is because we evolved the consciousness to examine ourselves and our environment. Just my opinion.

AAR wrote:
And I have no idea if there is an afterlife although I sure hope there is.

Why do you want there to be an afterlife?

AAR wrote:
My personal code is a mix of Sartre, Nietzsche and Fight Club. But mostly Fight Club. In fact so much Fight Club, that i shaved my armpits so that I am more aerodynamic when I fight.

 

If you have "Nietzsche" morals how does that jibe with your earlier moral statements or your views on God?

And welcome to the forum Smiling


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:Hey guys,One of my

AAR wrote:

Hey guys,

One of my friends frequents this site and has recently got me into it. I'm a twenty year old college student living in NYC. I am studying philosophy so I am always up for a debate. I was raised Catholic but have deconverted at least somewhat. I have become virulently anti- religion since then. However, I apparently still maintain enough hang ups from my previous ideology that you all will classify me as a theist. I would with great reservation self identify as a deist/pantheist.

My evidence for the existence of a God is the fact that we exist. That something exists rather than nothing. And that the world is beautiful when there is no reason it has to be. Yea pretty weak I know.

I'm not sure if "God" is conscious or just some sort of unconscious force that tends towards life, harmony, simplicity, beauty etc. And I have no idea if there is an afterlife although I sure hope there is. I always envisage it as some sort of nirvana like state of bliss and unity with everyone and everything else.

I absolutely believe in Science and evolution have never doubted them even in my deepest darkest fundy days. I think that once the physicists work everything out in terms of parallel universes, eleven dimensions, and mysterious dark energy and matter, we are going to discover some really cool shit about the universe. And out of all this really cool shit something is going to be so awe inspiring people will associate it with "God"

Science is based on the premises of making a best guess and then improving that guess when new evidence is brought to light. Some sort of God or god like force/energy/boson that has the potential to defy or change the laws of physics and is eternal is my best guess as to why anything exists or exists the way it does.

 

 

In terms of universal justice and morals, the only rights we have are the ones we take either individually or as a society. All morals are just subjective interpretations of physical events. We all have either subconsciously or consciously developed principles or codes that are displayed in all of our actions. The aggregate of these codes and the relative impact they have determines the character of society. How we act reflects what we think the character of society should be which puts a huge amount of responsibility on the individual. If we all focus on improving our own actions and decisions then society will invariably progress forward.

My personal code is a mix of Sartre, Nietzsche and Fight Club. But mostly Fight Club. In fact so much Fight Club, that i shaved my armpits so that I am more aerodynamic when I fight.

sorry if that was long winded but it felt good to finally just write some of those ideas down. In summary: Hey! glad to be here

Most of us here have "teetered" as you seem to be admitting here. Let me help you out and complete the journey.

I see no credible way to replicate or falsify the claim of a brain with no brain(an invisible magical super brain). It is much more rational to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans make up gods and merely like believing in them.

That is not to say that atheists go around claiming they know everything, we don't. But if a claim starts out as a naked assertion, it won't fair well with the rigors of testing.

If you haven't already, I would suggest knowing the following list of terms and list of recommended reading.

1. Bentrand Russell's "teapot"

2. Infinite regress(the problems caused by the "everything is created" argument)

3.The fallacy of all claims being a "50/50" proposition by proxy of utterance. Not a term, but best explained by using "Ocham's Razor(sp).

Recommended Reading:

"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins

"God, The Failed Hypothesis" Victor Stanger(sp)

"God Is Not Great" Christopher Hitchens

"Portable Atheist"(not really "portable", more like the size of a phone book) Christopher Hitchens(still a good read. It is a collection of atheist an scientist writings Hitchens put together.

 

Thats for starters.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:My personal code

AAR wrote:

My personal code is a mix of Sartre, Nietzsche and Fight Club. But mostly Fight Club. In fact so much Fight Club, that i shaved my armpits so that I am more aerodynamic when I fight.

sorry if that was long winded but it felt good to finally just write some of those ideas down. In summary: Hey! glad to be here

Welcome to the forums, my philosophy has gotten a little rusty since my college days but maybe if we get some good philosophical discussions going I'll have a reason to find my copy of Zarathustra. 

I do have to point out you broke the first two rules. "You don't talk about fight club" 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
I enjoyed Twilight of the

I enjoyed Twilight of the Idols (the first Nietzsche I read in full) and next on my list is "Thus Spake Zarathustra."  A friend actually gave me a nice hardbound edition so when I have time to find it I will crack it open.

As for Sartre, I read snippets but it seems to me that he wasn't saying anything you couldn't already get from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

IC XC

David


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:I'm not sure if

AAR wrote:

I'm not sure if "God" is conscious or just some sort of unconscious force that tends towards life, harmony, simplicity, beauty etc. And I have no idea if there is an afterlife although I sure hope there is. I always envisage it as some sort of nirvana like state of bliss and unity with everyone and everything else.

 

Kittens and rainbows - got it.

 

AAR wrote:

sorry if that was long winded but it felt good to finally just write some of those ideas down. In summary: Hey! glad to be here

 

Have fun.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Robby_C wrote: It is pretty

Robby_C wrote:

 

It is pretty weak to be honest. the only reason you think something exists is because we evolved the consciousness to examine ourselves and our environment. Just my opinion.

well i think of it more like this: there is thing that may possibly exist. If it does exist it would have the tendency to create life. Life exists. Therefore it is possible that the thing exists.

 

Yea I understand how the existence of life does not motivate a God. I'm not suggesting it does but it at least lends support to it. Once again my belief in a God is based on a best guess. When more conclusive evidence/arguments present themselves I will modify my belief.

Robby_C wrote:

Why do you want there to be an afterlife?

Why wouldn't you want an afterlife? When alive I have experiences, I can enjoy things be happy, form relationships. Even if I am generally unhappy at least I have an identity and the possibility of being happy in the future. Assuming that having those qualities is better than not having those qualities, which i do assume. And assuming that I do not have those qualities in death which i also assume. Then Life would always be better than death. So now if it was possible to extend the qualities of life unto death then I would want that.

Keep in mind that I am completely realistic about death, how everyone dies given a long enough time line and do not believe in an afterlife because there is no evidence for one that I can think of. But given the choice, I would prefer an afterlife to not having an afterlife.

 

Robby_C wrote:

If you have "Nietzsche" morals how does that jibe with your earlier moral statements or your views on God?

And welcome to the forum Smiling

Nietzsche assumes that there is no God. I assume that there is a God but that an afterlife does not exist. These are essentially the same assumptions in terms of they affect our lives. Sartre has said that the most important question to decide is how we should live our lives. I agree with him and my assumption has the same effect on my answer as Nietzsche's assumption.

If you want to be Philosophically exact, I am a virtue ethicist and form my principles by looking at the totality of life and consider my character through that prism rather than by examining each moral event in isolation as do Kant and Mill. Nietzsche dis the same thing aand the total character he came up with that he feels humans should embody is that of the Ubermensch.

 

 

 


Robby_C
Robby_C's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:well i think of it

AAR wrote:

well i think of it more like this: there is thing that may possibly exist. If it does exist it would have the tendency to create life. Life exists. Therefore it is possible that the thing exists.

 Yea I understand how the existence of life does not motivate a God. I'm not suggesting it does but it at least lends support to it. Once again my belief in a God is based on a best guess. When more conclusive evidence/arguments present themselves I will modify my belief.

1. There is a thing that possibly exists= this could be anything, Zeus, Thor, the flying teapot, The Flying spahgetti monster, purple dirt you name it.

2. If it does exist it would have the tendency to create life= This is a big jump here, this possibly existent being now has the faculties and powers that are necessary to create life? Where did this come from?

3. Life Exists= true

4.Therefore it is possible the thing exists= hmmmm...

 

This is some real strange thinking to be honest. Is this really your justification for your theism?

 

Oh, and thanks for answering my other questions, it's always good to have thoughtful people on the board Smiling


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Most of us

Brian37 wrote:

Most of us here have "teetered" as you seem to be admitting here. Let me help you out and complete the journey.

I see no credible way to replicate or falsify the claim of a brain with no brain(an invisible magical super brain). It is much more rational to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans make up gods and merely like believing in them.

I agree that every traditional conception of a God was man made. I tried to form my view of God on evidence. In my mind there is extremely little evidence for God so my conception of God for now is extremely simple. However it appears to me as i have mentioned above that there is at least some evidence for the existence of a God, mainly that we exist.

Brian37 wrote:

If you haven't already, I would suggest knowing the following list of terms and list of recommended reading.

1. Bentrand Russell's "teapot"

2. Infinite regress(the problems caused by the "everything is created" argument)

3.The fallacy of all claims being a "50/50" proposition by proxy of utterance. Not a term, but best explained by using "Ocham's Razor(sp).

I am familiar with all of them. If you think that my views can be refuted by any of these arguments let me know.

Brian37 wrote:

Recommended Reading:

"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins

"God, The Failed Hypothesis" Victor Stanger(sp)

"God Is Not Great" Christopher Hitchens

"Portable Atheist"(not really "portable", more like the size of a phone book) Christopher Hitchens(still a good read. It is a collection of atheist an scientist writings Hitchens put together.

 

I started reading the Dawkins book, got bored and never finished. I have never heard of Victor stranger. I love Christopher Hitchens. I have never read anything of his but have spent hours listening to him on youtube. Like I said I am virulently anti-religion. I think that Christianity is the single worst thing that has happened to the human race ever. Christopher hitchens then might be one of the best.

Honestly, my views on God have never influenced my life enough to motivate me to go out of my way to read another person's thoughts on the issue. I enjoy actively thinking about the issue but yea I'm probably not going to read those books. I'm sure I've been around the block enough that I have heard every argument they have made. If you think that there is something in particular that I'm not taking into account, again let me know.


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I do

Beyond Saving wrote:

I do have to point out you broke the first two rules. "You don't talk about fight club" 

haha, ahh shit you got me. In all seriousness though Fight Club is one of the best philosophical works to be accepted into popular culture ever. Today's philosophers are our writers, directors, singers and artists. They are the ones people are listening to, not some old guys sitting in their ivory towers. They have the power to change things and unfortunately very few of them are stepping up to the plate. This kind of sucks for me though because my highest aspiration is to be old and sit in the proverbial ivory tower.


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Robby_C wrote:1. There is a

Robby_C wrote:

1. There is a thing that possibly exists= this could be anything, Zeus, Thor, the flying teapot, The Flying spahgetti monster, purple dirt you name it.

2. If it does exist it would have the tendency to create life= This is a big jump here, this possibly existent being now has the faculties and powers that are necessary to create life? Where did this come from?

3. Life Exists= true

4.Therefore it is possible the thing exists= hmmmm...

 

This is some real strange thinking to be honest. Is this really your justification for your theism?

 

Oh, and thanks for answering my other questions, it's always good to have thoughtful people on the board Smiling

(1) yea statement 1 was a tautology. Saying something either exists or does not exist is always true

(2) this i guess comes down to my definition of God. Gods are conceived to explain the origin of the universe and ultimately life. It would be pretty useless to define a God and then say, "but he probably wouldn't do anything. He would just chill by himself and do whatever it is god does when he is alone" However intriguing such a God may be he is useless and irrelevant. Therefore i don't think it is that unreasonable of an assumption to say that if God exists he will creates life. My definition of God is therefore "a being or force etc that has the tendency to lead to the creation of life".

(3) true

(4) Yea like i said it doesn't motivate the existence of god and only really affirms the possibility of one.

As there is no other coherent explanation for existence that has a stronger motivation, the existence of a god is still my "best guess".

 


Robby_C
Robby_C's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Well you're honest, I'll

Well you're honest, I'll stop trying to attack you now.

 

And again, welcome to the forum Smiling


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to the forum.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
First, welcome! Second, you

First, welcome! Second, you said this:

AAR wrote:
That something exists rather than nothing.

Implicit here is that "nothing" somehow should be the default, and thus an explanation is needed why it isn't the case. Why make that implicit assumption? Why can't "something" be the default?


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:First, welcome!

KSMB wrote:

First, welcome! Second, you said this:

AAR wrote:
That something exists rather than nothing.

Implicit here is that "nothing" somehow should be the default, and thus an explanation is needed why it isn't the case. Why make that implicit assumption? Why can't "something" be the default?

Well because our universe is expanding and entropy is increasing. This suggests that as you go back in time, all of matter was condensed into a singular point, aka a singularity. Space-time and matter did not exist "before" the singularity. There can only have "been" complete and utter nothingness. The big bang theory states that nothingness is the default.

I would also use the first cause argument to approach the issue from a logical standpoint but that has such a theistical stigma that i dare not.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the site, Tyler.

 

We have fights but it's good clean fun for the most part. We look forward to contributing to the last of your deconversion.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
hmmm thats kind of creepy

hmmm thats kind of creepy that you got that name. Thats not my name but the name of my friend who put me on to the site. How did you get that and how can I turn it off? I doubt he is going to want his personal info floating around. Can you ping people's IP addresses or something or did he accidentally put it down somewhere when he forced me to sign up?

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol.

 

AAR wrote:

hmmm thats kind of creepy that you got that name. Thats not my name but the name of my friend who put me on to the site. How did you get that and how can I turn it off? I doubt he is going to want his personal info floating around. Can you ping people's IP addresses or something or did he accidentally put it down somewhere when he forced me to sign up?

 

 

It's not creepy at all - spiritually the guy's the main bloody character in the film. If we talk fight club we really talk tyler durden. No one would have thought twice about it had you not mentioned the personal side of this.

I'd edit it out but this thread doesn't allow it. If it makes you feel any happier my real name's John...but shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Hi, and enjoy the ugly

Hi, 

and enjoy the ugly world of reason and facts. Smiling

I am curious about a few things that you've expressed in your first post.

AAR wrote:

My evidence for the existence of a God is the fact that we exist. That something exists rather than nothing. And that the world is beautiful when there is no reason it has to be.

...

I absolutely believe in Science and evolution have never doubted them even in my deepest darkest fundy days. I think that once the physicists work everything out in terms of parallel universes, eleven dimensions, and mysterious dark energy and matter, we are going to discover some really cool shit about the universe. And out of all this really cool shit something is going to be so awe inspiring people will associate it with "God"

Science is based on the premises of making a best guess and then improving that guess when new evidence is brought to light. Some sort of God or god like force/energy/boson that has the potential to defy or change the laws of physics and is eternal is my best guess as to why anything exists or exists the way it does.

 

First, science is NOT based on the premises of making the best guess.  Science is based on collecting facts, testing hypotheses, and building theories that explain collected facts and predict new facts.

 

Second, regarding the beautiful world, science, and god (my favorite):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7WXoMp8Ews

 

Third, how would you enjoy some delicious foods... say like this:

http://fundivision.net/?p=2123

 

Fourth, after all the beauty of the would depends on the perspective:
http://nreusch.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/war-journalism/starving-african-children-aids/

 

Enjoy.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:AAR wrote:I'm not

cj wrote:

AAR wrote:

I'm not sure if "God" is conscious or just some sort of unconscious force that tends towards life, harmony, simplicity, beauty etc. And I have no idea if there is an afterlife although I sure hope there is. I always envisage it as some sort of nirvana like state of bliss and unity with everyone and everything else.

 

Kittens and rainbows - got it.

 

AAR wrote:

sorry if that was long winded but it felt good to finally just write some of those ideas down. In summary: Hey! glad to be here

 

Have fun.

To quote the movie "Scarface" " I like you Tony, there is no lying in you".

Thanks CJ for the refreshing and bluntly honest "Kittens and rainbows, got it" sarcasm.

In all seriousness to AAR, look, we are being sarcastic about your stated concept. But it leaves out the harsh reality of things like tsunamis, anthrax, childhood cancer, meteors hitting the earth, black holes, ect ect ect. Don't let your "sense of awe" fool you into thinking everything is pretty, it isn't.

There is no "harmony" to life or the universe. There are merely non-cognitive processes that end up in patterns that we observe. Unfortunately our evolution as a species has lacked the ability to filter out our tendency to fill in gaps of knowledge with bad guesses. We often as a species, far too often, assume a pattern is there when it is not or make up an explanation for a pattern that is there but doesn't mean the explanation for the pattern is credible.

It is easier for humans to make up an explanation for something, than to look for ways to test our claims to insure quality control.

I treat the "harmony claim" as merely "theism light". Half the superstition of ancient myth with all the flavor of the same woo. The universe is big and has lots of stuff in it that is "neat" and most certainly a kitten is cute. But our sun will expand eventually frying our planet and my cat, no matter how much I love my cat, will die. I don't think making up answers to "what is" is a good filter for quality control. The universe is neither good or bad. It has no capability of morality. It is a thing, an object, nothing more.

That reality to me, does not constitute pessimism or negativity and most certainly does not, nor ever will take away any sense of awe I might have for things I do find "pretty" around me.

I think the most positive thing any human can do is to face reality, accept it, an where an answer lacks, try to find a way to use current data to come up with new ways to fill in those gaps, without making stuff up.

"harmony" sounds nice, but that is not reality. Our planet itself has had a violent history since the first particles and meteors and comets and space debree violently clashed together because of multiple factors such as velocity, direction  and gravity.

There was a recent space experiment a couple years back, if I remember correctly, where an astronaut placed some tiny specs of something in a huge plastic bag, when unrestrained by the bag the specs arranged themselves in a pattern.  That is not "harmony", it is merely a process. The bigger that process slowly becomes the more violent it becomes and sometimes out of that violence "pretty things" (more precisely put, things we chose to view as pretty) arise, such as the moon(which in reality we cant live on , and a sunset at night(but we cant live on the surface of the sun).

An "attraction" is not cognitive anymore than an atom can chose to bond with another atom. At is merely a process, not a thinking entity and on a lager scale the universe is also an object as well.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

It's not creepy at all - spiritually the guy's the main bloody character in the film. If we talk fight club we really talk tyler durden. No one would have thought twice about it had you not mentioned the personal side of this.

I'd edit it out but this thread doesn't allow it. If it makes you feel any happier my real name's John...but shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone...

So you know about Tyler Durden???


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:well i think of it

Quote:
well i think of it more like this: there is thing that may possibly exist. If it does exist it would have the tendency to create life. Life exists. Therefore it is possible that the thing exists.

That is not what we see in the universe, quite the opposite. The overwhelming majority of the universe is inhospitable to life. That is not to say there isn't life elsewhere, if we could go to every one of the billions of planets around the trillions of suns it wouldn't shock me at all that some sort of life existed elsewhere, but it would still be in the minority of the sample rate. I would not advise you to assign the universe a "purpose". Especially one that claims that life is special. Life special anymore than this universe cared about (or had the purpose of providing dinosaurs a home), we know what happened to the dinosaurs.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Hi, 

and enjoy the ugly world of reason and facts. Smiling

I am curious about a few things that you've expressed in your first post.


First, science is NOT based on the premises of making the best guess.  Science is based on collecting facts, testing hypotheses, and building theories that explain collected facts and predict new facts.

Maybe guess was the wrong word; "best model" might have been better. I know how the scientific process works. A model however can only be as complete or as accurate as the data suggests. There is very little data on how the universe came into being. Based on the fact that something exists rather than nothing, and that the universe formed in a way to produce life, and that there is an inherent beauty built into universe I turn to the only explanation that is available that there is a "God". If you have another explanation I would be glad to hear it. that's why i came here. Saying I don't know and I'll get back to you in a hundred or so years when scientists form a consensus might be true and safe but isn't how science works. You make do with the information you have.

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

Fourth, after all the beauty of the would depends on the perspective:
http://nreusch.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/war-journalism/starving-african-children-aids/

yea everyone seems to be misinterpreting what I mean by a "beautiful world" I'll address this below

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I own the movie and have seen

 

it the requisite ten times, if that's what you mean. Anyone who knows the movie would know about tyler.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:In all

Brian37 wrote:

In all seriousness to AAR, look, we are being sarcastic about your stated concept. But it leaves out the harsh reality of things like tsunamis, anthrax, childhood cancer, meteors hitting the earth, black holes, ect ect ect. Don't let your "sense of awe" fool you into thinking everything is pretty, it isn't.

There is no "harmony" to life or the universe. There are merely non-cognitive processes that end up in patterns that we observe. Unfortunately our evolution as a species has lacked the ability to filter out our tendency to fill in gaps of knowledge with bad guesses. We often as a species, far too often, assume a pattern is there when it is not or make up an explanation for a pattern that is there but doesn't mean the explanation for the pattern is credible.

It is easier for humans to make up an explanation for something, than to look for ways to test our claims to insure quality control.

I treat the "harmony claim" as merely "theism light". Half the superstition of ancient myth with all the flavor of the same woo. The universe is big and has lots of stuff in it that is "neat" and most certainly a kitten is cute. But our sun will expand eventually frying our planet and my cat, no matter how much I love my cat, will die. I don't think making up answers to "what is" is a good filter for quality control. The universe is neither good or bad. It has no capability of morality. It is a thing, an object, nothing more.

First, there is harmony built in to the universe. And I mean this only half jokingly, you would be surprised about how often harmonic functions and simple harmonic oscillators are at the core of the physics in a given situation. They occur at the macroscopic scale in terms of rotational kinematics and almost everywhere at the atomic level. Physics is very often based on harmonies.

 

Brian37 wrote:

That reality to me, does not constitute pessimism or negativity and most certainly does not, nor ever will take away any sense of awe I might have for things I do find "pretty" around me.

I think the most positive thing any human can do is to face reality, accept it, an where an answer lacks, try to find a way to use current data to come up with new ways to fill in those gaps, without making stuff up.

"harmony" sounds nice, but that is not reality. Our planet itself has had a violent history since the first particles and meteors and comets and space debree violently clashed together because of multiple factors such as velocity, direction  and gravity.

An "attraction" is not cognitive anymore than an atom can chose to bond with another atom. At is merely a process, not a thinking entity and on a lager scale the universe is also an object as well.

Second when i talk about the beauty of the universe, I'm not referring to a belief that everything will work out, that life is great you just have to appreciate it or that all life is precious and even worth preserving. I was alluding to beauty on a larger scale. About how physicists can predict the truth value of a given formula based on how beautiful it is and about how chalk boards worth of equations will eventually reduce down to a single pristine mathematical sentence such as e^(ipi)-1=0.

Renowned Mathematician Paul Erdos used to say his famous expression "this one is from the book!" when coming across a particularly beautiful formula. He was referring to a hypothetical book in which God keeps all of the most stunning formulas. Such beauty order and simplicity implanted so firmly into the universe suggests to me the existence of some sort of God-like force. Once again keep in mind I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge of the nature or even existence of God; I'm not saying that God is necessarily conscious or has any vested interest in the everyday comings and goings of our lives. All I am saying is that there exist some tendencies in the universe that go beyond what i would expect from a randomly created universe


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: it

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

it the requisite ten times, if that's what you mean. Anyone who knows the movie would know about tyler.

  

Haha yea sorry I was trying to make another fight club reference in order to divert from the fact that i had so completely and utterly misinterpreted your first post. My bad


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If the world was ugly it

If the world was ugly it would probably not be the world we evolved on. We find beauty and comfort in the things that work for us this is why "hell" is always described as a fire and brimstone kind of place where we would not survive. Beauty in other humans is not real beauty either, it is your mind at work making a decision about what bone structure etc will make good babies. In short beauty is what we think works and ugly is what we think does not but we are not always correct, nature is by no means perfect.

Just a response to one small item from the op.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:Brian37 wrote:In

AAR wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

In all seriousness to AAR, look, we are being sarcastic about your stated concept. But it leaves out the harsh reality of things like tsunamis, anthrax, childhood cancer, meteors hitting the earth, black holes, ect ect ect. Don't let your "sense of awe" fool you into thinking everything is pretty, it isn't.

There is no "harmony" to life or the universe. There are merely non-cognitive processes that end up in patterns that we observe. Unfortunately our evolution as a species has lacked the ability to filter out our tendency to fill in gaps of knowledge with bad guesses. We often as a species, far too often, assume a pattern is there when it is not or make up an explanation for a pattern that is there but doesn't mean the explanation for the pattern is credible.

It is easier for humans to make up an explanation for something, than to look for ways to test our claims to insure quality control.

I treat the "harmony claim" as merely "theism light". Half the superstition of ancient myth with all the flavor of the same woo. The universe is big and has lots of stuff in it that is "neat" and most certainly a kitten is cute. But our sun will expand eventually frying our planet and my cat, no matter how much I love my cat, will die. I don't think making up answers to "what is" is a good filter for quality control. The universe is neither good or bad. It has no capability of morality. It is a thing, an object, nothing more.

First, there is harmony built in to the universe. And I mean this only half jokingly, you would be surprised about how often harmonic functions and simple harmonic oscillators are at the core of the physics in a given situation. They occur at the macroscopic scale in terms of rotational kinematics and almost everywhere at the atomic level. Physics is very often based on harmonies.

 

Brian37 wrote:

That reality to me, does not constitute pessimism or negativity and most certainly does not, nor ever will take away any sense of awe I might have for things I do find "pretty" around me.

I think the most positive thing any human can do is to face reality, accept it, an where an answer lacks, try to find a way to use current data to come up with new ways to fill in those gaps, without making stuff up.

"harmony" sounds nice, but that is not reality. Our planet itself has had a violent history since the first particles and meteors and comets and space debree violently clashed together because of multiple factors such as velocity, direction  and gravity.

An "attraction" is not cognitive anymore than an atom can chose to bond with another atom. At is merely a process, not a thinking entity and on a lager scale the universe is also an object as well.

Second when i talk about the beauty of the universe, I'm not referring to a belief that everything will work out, that life is great you just have to appreciate it or that all life is precious and even worth preserving. I was alluding to beauty on a larger scale. About how physicists can predict the truth value of a given formula based on how beautiful it is and about how chalk boards worth of equations will eventually reduce down to a single pristine mathematical sentence such as e^(ipi)-1=0.

Renowned Mathematician Paul Erdos used to say his famous expression "this one is from the book!" when coming across a particularly beautiful formula. He was referring to a hypothetical book in which God keeps all of the most stunning formulas. Such beauty order and simplicity implanted so firmly into the universe suggests to me the existence of some sort of God-like force. Once again keep in mind I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge of the nature or even existence of God; I'm not saying that God is necessarily conscious or has any vested interest in the everyday comings and goings of our lives. All I am saying is that there exist some tendencies in the universe that go beyond what i would expect from a randomly created universe

Scientists to this day, have to pay lip service to the masses to get their work out. If it is nothing but a metaphor, which you are quoting this person, then scrap the damn word "god" because it is a useless piece of shit.

You again, are mistaking this guy's metaphor as being some implication of some yet to be known fact when all it is is a metaphor.

I am saying to you, and I would say to him as well, GODS ARE PRODUCTS OF HUMAN IMAGINATION!

It is nothing more than letting one's "sense of awe" go wild.

Just put it plain and simple, "There are REALLY REALLY REALLY BIG THINGS in the universe that make me say WOW".

Using the word "god" debases and demeans the reality of nature and the universe. It is a relic of myth and comic books and needs to die in the human lexicon as nothing but a display in a museum of bad claims.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AAR wrote:First, there is

AAR wrote:
First, there is harmony built in to the universe. And I mean this only half jokingly, you would be surprised about how often harmonic functions and simple harmonic oscillators are at the core of the physics in a given situation. They occur at the macroscopic scale in terms of rotational kinematics and almost everywhere at the atomic level. Physics is very often based on harmonies.

Harmonic functions and harmonic oscillators are well defined functions and systems, respectively, in mathematics and physics. On the other hand, your "harmony built in to the universe" is extremely ambiguous, and you have not demonstrated how it has anything to do with the aforementioned scientific concepts. I hope you are not attempting to employ a simple equivocation.

AAR wrote:
Such beauty order and simplicity implanted so firmly into the universe suggests to me the existence of some sort of God-like force.

All I see is a logical fallacy. Sorry.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare