Christianity

[Djevv]

Your list does not imply "fundamentalism" it just a list of positions, most of which have nothing to do with atheism. I have said often enough that atheism is only one thing, so I know you know and therefor claims to the contrary can only be fallcious and intentionally so. I cannot see how it could be otherwise? Not sure what the point is about doctrines. Again...atheism a position about theists claims...that's it.

None of those positions are empirically based so how can you hold them and remain true to yourself.

Only if you take philosophy to have the ultimate say in these matters. As a pysical being in a physical universe I can think on these things for an eternity but that won't reveal the nature of gravity, or the source of stars' energy, or the relationship between matter and energy. This knowledge comes only from empirical science. You can apply rules of philosophy to it, but this is navel gazing.

The basis of the empirical sciences IS philosophy. Also please demonstrate how all knowledge comes from science? Do you, for instance, believe in History, or can we know nothing about it?

So stop lying about what atheism is and I'll stop making you uncomfortable about the fact that you are lying.

We are both honestly disagreeing. I honestly believe atheism has all the characteristics of religion.

And we get to the silly bit where the person who uses flowery philosophical mumbo-jumbo to muddy the waters attempts to shift the burden of proof. Philosophically you know this wrong. Why do it? You know that theists claim to know something they cannot prove. You know that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim (that is the theist). This is disingenuous. There is no philosophical grey area here. Atheists are not making any claims, so what can we possibly require proof for? If I were an anti-theist and I claimed there are no gods that might be different. But I have never made that claim.

You denied the existence of God. Thats a claim. Claims attract the burden of proof. Off you go....

 

[evo]

There is plenty of evidence for a beginning.

Come on dude, are you massaging the truth again mate. As a man of science you know only too well the maths only goes back to the 'first momnents after the big bang". There is zero evidence of what existed prior to the big bang.

My proposition is 'everything' existed prior to the big bang. Reasoning tells me so.

What that everything looked like, I don't know.

 

[Djevv]

Exactly as I said.

Your position has shifted now you've been called out and realised you can't bluff us with a "mathematical proof for the existence of god". A familiar pattern is emerging here Djevy

Exactly as I said.

And yes, it's all about the axioms in this case.

You need to actually read what I wrote before you reply to me. Yes of course you are correct here it all comes down to the believability of the axioms. I have never denied this. But they are there for all to see. Which do you deny? Otherwise it is a proof.

 

[Djevv]

I wouldn't call you a liar. You are often disingenuous in your lines of argument though. For example - "my holy book says don't lie, so how could you think I would?"

The whole of human history stacks up against that being a true statement. :hihi

So it is impossible to honestly disagree about subjects like these :hihi. I don't think you are lying but I do think you are wrong!

 

[Djevv]

You can also use similar patterns of modal logic to disprove the existence of a god.

Go on.

 

[Djevv]

Come on dude, are you massaging the truth again mate. As a man of science you know only too well the maths only goes back to the 'first momnents after the big bang". There is zero evidence of what existed prior to the big bang.

My proposition is 'everything' existed prior to the big bang. Reasoning tells me so.

What that everything looked like, I don't know.

I think it is a pretty fair and reasonable representation of the science to say there was a beginning. Just check any text on cosmology. I thought I was being pretty generous granting the multiverse as a possible cause of the universe.

Also the steady state theorem has been gone since the 50's. Only a static changeless universe could fit the bill for being a necessary thing.

 

[AngryAnt]

Here's a few responses to some of your more outrageous allegations against atheism.


2. Believe that only empirical evidence is acceptable.

Not quite right - I've always stated god and faith and beliefs and therefore not falsifiable, but when an eager theist like yourself claims to have definitive evidence and/or an argument (eg fine-tuned universe) then surely you are buying into empiricism yourself?

4. Deny believing that there is no God - rather taking the 'lack of belief' option to avoid any burden of proof.

I'd say that's the agnostic position rather than the atheistic one. And it's completely rational. And you have it the wrong way round. The agnostics say that they don't believe in god (or know one exists) because they have seen no evidence for him/it. Show me the money, as Tom Cruise once said.

5. Believe science has all the answers and is the only legitimate basis for epistemology (how we know things).

This is probably the most wrong thing you've said (at least recently). Science is a method, not a book with all the answers. It's the most effective method we've yet found for understanding the physical universe. It does not claim to understand things beyond the physical universe.

The atheists you talk to don't understand science if they say this.

6. Believe morals are based on emotion and are imaginary.

Sorry, that's almost worse than your science statement. Better to say that an atheist thinks that morals are relative, not universal, and are largely socially constructed. Slavery was once acceptable and commended by the church, now it's not. My personal belief is that "morals" and later "ethics" derived from early humans learning that if they cooperated, they be less likely to starve to death or be eaten by smilodons. Cooperation is more effective if people are, you know, nice to each other. Later morals became complicated, codified and negotiated. And of course corrupted by politics and economics. And *shudder* religion.



14. Deny human freewill (Harris, Coyne)

And yet Dawkins explicitly accepts freewill. As do I. I would say that the scope of our freewill is limited often by our genes, upbringing, environment etc - but at the end of the day I could choose to do this thing or the other thing or something completely different. Or at least I think I could.... :hihi

 

[evo]

I think it is a pretty fair and reasonable representation of the science to say there was a beginning.

even if we agreed that science says it was "a" beginning, which I don't, it certainly hasn't claimed that it was "the" begining of everything.

 

[AngryAnt]

Go on.

MODAL ANTI-ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
(3) And if something is unnecessary, then it IS necessary ... that it doesn't exist.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

There are literally hundreds of these by the way. Google 'em.

 

[Djevv]

Here's a few responses to some of your more outrageous allegations against atheism.


2. Believe that only empirical evidence is acceptable.

Not quite right - I've always stated god and faith and beliefs and therefore not falsifiable, but when an eager theist like yourself claims to have definitive evidence and/or an argument (eg fine-tuned universe) then surely you are buying into empiricism yourself?

You've got to give the punters what they want. My beliefs don't stand or fall on any argument.

4. Deny believing that there is no God - rather taking the 'lack of belief' option to avoid any burden of proof.

I'd say that's the agnostic position rather than the atheistic one. And it's completely rational. And you have it the wrong way round. The agnostics say that they don't believe in god (or know one exists) because they have seen no evidence for him/it. Show me the money, as Tom Cruise once said.

Agreed

5. Believe science has all the answers and is the only legitimate basis for epistemology (how we know things).

This is probably the most wrong thing you've said (at least recently). Science is a method, not a book with all the answers. It's the most effective method we've yet found for understanding the physical universe. It does not claim to understand things beyond the physical universe.

Agreed - at least on the limitations of science.

The atheists you talk to don't understand science if they say this.

Yep

6. Believe morals are based on emotion and are imaginary.

Sorry, that's almost worse than your science statement. Better to say that an atheist thinks that morals are relative, not universal, and are largely socially constructed. Slavery was once acceptable and commended by the church, now it's not. My personal belief is that "morals" and later "ethics" derived from early humans learning that if they cooperated, they be less likely to starve to death or be eaten by smilodons. Cooperation is more effective if people are, you know, nice to each other. Later morals became complicated, codified and negotiated. And of course corrupted by politics and economics. And *shudder* religion.

Some things are always right/wrong in my view.

14. Deny human freewill (Harris, Coyne)

And yet Dawkins explicitly accepts freewill. As do I. I would say that the scope of our freewill is limited often by our genes, upbringing, environment etc - but at the end of the day I could choose to do this thing or the other thing or something completely different. Or at least I think I could.... :hihi

Didn't Dawkins say 'we dance to the tune of our DNA' or something. Sounds deterministic to me. But OK I may have him wrong there. In my view when you deny something as basic as freewill - which we all seem to experience - then you've got to question what IS actually real. You end up in Solipism in my view.

 

[Djevv]

MODAL ANTI-ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
(3) And if something is unnecessary, then it IS necessary ... that it doesn't exist.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

There are literally hundreds of these by the way. Google 'em.

I'd deny 1,2 & 3. No God worthy of the term has anything less that necessary existence. The other two surely can't be serious! I doubt they would have fed this one through a computer.

 

[Djevv]

even if we agreed that science says it was "a" beginning, which I don't, it certainly hasn't claimed that it was "the" begining of everything.

The universe IS everything. So if it began, everything began.

 

[Djevv]

If you don't believe in a universal beginning, try this for size.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

 

[evo]

In my view when you deny something as basic as freewill - which we all seem to experience -

Did you have any part in the decision making that set the course of your

genes, upbringing, environment etc

? No. So how are your decisions totally "yours"

then you've got to question what IS actually real.

that's easy: Reality is real. :hihi

You end up in Solipism in my view.

solopsism??? Understanding that your will isn't totally free is the very opposite of solopsism! It's acknowledging extrenal influences!

 

[Djevv]

Come on dude, are you massaging the truth again mate. As a man of science you know only too well the maths only goes back to the 'first momnents after the big bang". There is zero evidence of what existed prior to the big bang.

My proposition is 'everything' existed prior to the big bang. Reasoning tells me so.

What that everything looked like, I don't know.

Look, for the sake of argument, I'll grant the eternal multiverse. Now why is there something and not nothing?

 

[evo]

The universe IS everything.

On the one hand you claim the universe is everything, on the other you claim that God existed prior and created it.

You havent really thought this through , have you?

 

[evo]

Look, for the sake of argument, I'll grant the eternal multiverse. Now why is there something and not nothing?

A better question is why would you expect there to be nothing?

 

[Djevv]

id you have any part in the decision making that set the course of your ? No. So how are your decisions totally "yours"
that's easy: Reality is real. :hihi
solopsism??? Understanding that your will isn't totally free is the very opposite of solopsism! It's acknowledging extrenal influences!

If your senses are not reliable wrt something as basic freewill that applies to your logic as well. 'Reality is real' doesn't really advance us any. I would say there are many thing that do influence and control our decision, but fundamentally we can choose, to have a Pepsi and no a Coke. I recently lost 7Kg. It was an act of my will to change my eating habits.

 

[AngryAnt]

Appreciate all the hard work you are doing in this thread djevvy...

You've got to give the punters what they want. My beliefs don't stand or fall on any argument.

And therein lies the nub. They are your beliefs that will remain unaffected by any argument. Because they are beliefs that lie outside rationality - fair enough.

Some things are always right/wrong in my view.

Yes and this is a tough one. Intellectually I think that morality is relative - yet I "believe" that murder/torture/rape etc etc are "always" wrong. But at the end of day I can rationalise even this - murder is always "wrong" because it causes other humans to suffer and it's rational not to want others to suffer. As beings that have evolved reasoning and rationality, we can choose to minimise the suffering of others.

Kinda wishy washy but you get the idea.

On the other hand the idea of an imposed morality (behave this way because God tells you too) doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me either.

 

[Djevv]

On the one hand you claim the universe is everything, on the other you claim that God existed prior and created it.

You havent really thought this through , have you?

Everything physical - the universe. Do you believe in non-physical realities? I do but those are NOT part of the physical universe that began.