Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization?

[purist]

It actually does indicate a lesser level of intelligence. You formed an existential belief based on feelings. You should avoid using "intellect" and "supernatural" in the same context. Yes your god is supernatural by necessity, unless you worship a corporeal being.

What if I told you I believe Santa Claus exists? Would you question my intelligence? How about my sanity?

If you told me Santa Claus exists, I wouldn't call you stupid. I would ask you to explain. In none of my prior posts did I mention "feelings". Feelings do not prove or disprove Existence of God. I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us. Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

[Blake]

I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us. Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

This is just a fancy spaghetti monster post.

I'll leave the possibility open because I don't care enough to militantly close it, but exactly how are you yourself exploring in your search for god?

if you've already dismissed every religion and you've delved into first cause problems, what's intellectually left for you to do?

[purist]

This is just a fancy spaghetti monster post.

I'll leave the possibility open because I don't care enough to militantly close it, but exactly how are you yourself exploring in your search for god?

if you've already dismissed every religion and you've delved into first cause problems, what's intellectually left for you to do?

You are basically asking me to give you my witness, based on your post. I won't do that because I suspect you will find it pointless, if not offensive to your personal sensibilities. What I will tell you is that my "pursuit" of answers had been a lifelong one, just as it has for countless others. I do not have all the answers, but thebjourney of discovery is continual. From the peaks to the valleys to the mundane of life, I have learned that I don't know it all, and perhaps more importantly, I don't need to know it all. That said I don't believe it served us well to ever stop trying to learn -- about all things but mostly about ourselves and our place and purpose in life. Admittedly, I cannot nor do I wish to convince you of the existence of God. I can just tell you that I believe my life has been more fulfilling and hopeful because I had such belief. So, I've made that choice. I do not want to do as some self righteous do and claim moral superiority to you or anyone else, but in return I hope you do not claim intellectual superiority because you choose atheism.

[DMC]

If you told me Santa Claus exists, I wouldn't call you stupid. I would ask you to explain.

That's been going on for two thousand years with Christianity and no explanation has ever held up to critical examination. Most falls apart at a glance in fact. That's why faith keeps getting invoked.

In none of my prior posts did I mention "feelings". Feelings do not prove or disprove Existence of God. I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be.

You clearly don't understand possibilities if you think supernatural is one. You not knowing doesn't mean the possibilities increase.

To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us.

No it's not. It's to remove the non-falsifiable as a hiding place for one stop answer shopping. There are a finite number of possibilities even with the supernatural angle, so you're just adding one more unknown, except you're going a step further and making it unknowable.

Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that.

Yet those same people worshiped the same god some of you do for the same ignorant reasons. You laugh at their flat Earth belief but invisible sky man is still non falsifiable so it's still cool.

As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident?

Or the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster, why posit what you just said isn't yet evident?

Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive.

They are unless you're a pseudo-scientist who holds onto the belief of creation while trying to discover the cause of the universe.

That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

There's the "in the end" faith trump card again. Make believe doesn't give us a complete view of anything but imagination. Thousands of years ago religion was law, now you're trying to shoehorn it in with the legitimacy of science because as people learn more about the world around them, the god of the gaps recedes further into the abyss of the untapped, undiscovered realms.

In thousands of years not one verfiable account can be presented as evidence for the existence of a god. There's not one test you can run. In fact, we could both pray for different things, you to your god and me to whatever rock I find in my driveway. The odds of either being "answered" are the same, and won't rise above statistical noise in the long run.

But science keeps us moving in the right direction, while we drag your re ed bas stepchild named "religion" along with us like an old family heirloom no one really wants.

[xellos88330]

That's a red herring. Your emotional episode doesn't have any historical significance where supernatural existence is concerned. Don't try to equivocate again between existence of a god and existence of an emotion.



You just created a strawman (changing existence of god to existence of emotion) and now you cannot believe it.

Your children exist. No one is questioning your emotions. Your emotions don't prove that your children exist, you have to have a SSN for them at school, and probably they have to actually be there to get credit.

Since your emotions make you do probably irrational things, it could therefore be irrational that you believe in a supernatural being just because you feel emotional about the concept.

Science is incomplete. This is a fact.

My argument of atheism not being capable enough to support a progressive civilization is based on historical fact. There have been some more modern societies that have tried, but they all have failed, or are struggling mightily. Once again, this is a historical fact. So is it wrong of me to conclude that atheism is not a viable choice for the advancement of society?

[xellos88330]

Did you read the definitions like I suggested?

Let me help you out:

fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
?

• a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
• vs
• 
  
  
• fal·li·ble
  ˈfaləb(ə)l/
  adjective
  capable of making mistakes or being erroneous)
  
  • 
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion. The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic.

There are a host of arguments out there that have been shown to have formal fallacies at the center of them, ontological argument, Pascal's wager, etc...

Fallible is a good thing, it's how science maintains integrity. Claims must be falsifiable, therefore scientists must allow that they are fallible. Religion, not so much. In religion you start off with a conclusion and work to support it, disregarding anything that doesn't agree with it like trimming away portions of a T-bone steak to call it a filet mignon... because that's what the label said it was.

So scientists don't create fallacies. They don't use flawed reasoning to come to conclusions, they misinterpret data and sometimes lie about it. Fallacies would be more like "hey this tree has an apple growing on it, therefore all trees have apples growing on them" where as fallible would be "hey there's an apple under this tree, this must then be an apple tree" when it's possibly not.

How many friggin people believe the big bang theory is correct? It could very well be a fallacy because it is a mistaken belief in the big bang being correct. This happened because the scientist themselves are capable of making mistakes or erroneous.

Scientists being fallible are more than capable of producing fallacies. Reputation matters in the science world and if you publish your work, you better have an awful lot of faith in it to put your career on the line.

[ChumpDumper]

So basically it doesn't matter what god/s some "civilization" believes in, just that they do?

[DMC]

Science is incomplete. This is a fact.

E=MC is incomplete, doesn't mean the possibilities open up. It's still 2, known or not known. Saying "E=MC God" Doesn't answer the equation any more than "E=MC?"

Calling science incomplete is just a way of attempting to normalize religion and science to show both of them as flawed. So what? Science is a process of study and research and discovery. Religion is the worship and lifestyle according to ancient texts regarding an invisible sky master. Stop trying to compare them. It's like comparing apples and pancakes.

My argument of atheism not being capable enough to support a progressive civilization is based on historical fact. There have been some more modern societies that have tried, but they all have failed, or are struggling mightily. Once again, this is a historical fact. So is it wrong of me to conclude that atheism is not a viable choice for the advancement of society?

You keep using that circular reasoning. It's true because it's a fact. Saying it twice doesn't make it more true. Give some examples and I'll show you how they weren't actually using atheism as a form of government.

[DMC]

How many friggin people believe the big bang theory is correct?

Doesn't matter. Argument by popularity is a fallacious argument. If it's true it's true regardless who believes it, but it wasn't just posited and ridden in with "faith" as a precursor.

It could very well be a fallacy because it is a mistaken belief in the big bang being correct. This happened because the scientist themselves are capable of making mistakes or erroneous.

Belief in scientific discoveries isn't in the same epistemology state as belief in a god. With the BBT, there's no life altering change required to accept it until proven otherwise. With religion, you accept it against all evidence otherwise. In fact, the evidence against your belief is what your texts say should strengthen it, for what man could devise such a system and hide it so well? Babel fish you know.

Scientists being fallible are more than capable of producing fallacies. Reputation matters in the science world and if you publish your work, you better have an awful lot of faith in it to put your career on the line.

Scientists can use fallacious reasoning to come to wrong conclusions or they can use it to come to correct conclusions. The reasoning is what's at stake here, not the conclusion.

If a scientist said "because water freezes at -32 degrees Celsius, this ice cube will not melt in this freezer that's at -33 degree Celsius"

The ice cube wouldn't change states simply because the reasoning was flawed. It's still cold enough in the freezer to keep the ice cube frozen, even though the scientist used flawed reasoning to state a true statement "this ice cube will not melt". With religion, the conclusion is posited first, a god exists. After that the reasoning begins...because the universe exists, because trees don't look man made, because a watch in the desert, because a tornado missed my house, because miracle of birth, because I heard someone healed, because we don't know...

At the end of all those "because" statements you can put the conclusion "god exists". None of them change the fact of the existence or non existence of god, but they are flawed reasoning. Since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (or the flying spaghetti monster), we rely heavily on the reasoning to be pristine and infallible to draw extraordinary conclusions. It's far from it.

I have published works and there's no faith involved. You do the method and you do it again and then you do it again. Then you have someone else do it, then you try to defeat it, to find an exception, and when you don't and when they don't you publish it. There's no faith. If anything there's a total lack of faith. That's why it's called "peer review".

[xellos88330]

So basically it doesn't matter what god/s some "civilization" believes in, just that they do?

Trying to turn this into a religion vs. religion thing huh?

I for one believe in a transcendent god. God could take any form, or as many forms as it wishes. It is possible that all of them are right.

Science is not capable of testing transcendence. A person cannot say that god does not exist when they have no means to test transcendence.

[xellos88330]

Doesn't matter. Argument by popularity is a fallacious argument. If it's true it's true regardless who believes it, but it wasn't just posited and ridden in with "faith" as a precursor.

Belief in scientific discoveries isn't in the same epistemology state as belief in a god. With the BBT, there's no life altering change required to accept it until proven otherwise. With religion, you accept it against all evidence otherwise. In fact, the evidence against your belief is what your texts say should strengthen it, for what man could devise such a system and hide it so well? Babel fish you know.

Scientists can use fallacious reasoning to come to wrong conclusions or they can use it to come to correct conclusions. The reasoning is what's at stake here, not the conclusion.

If a scientist said "because water freezes at -32 degrees Celsius, this ice cube will not melt in this freezer that's at -33 degree Celsius"

The ice cube wouldn't change states simply because the reasoning was flawed. It's still cold enough in the freezer to keep the ice cube frozen, even though the scientist used flawed reasoning to state a true statement "this ice cube will not melt". With religion, the conclusion is posited first, a god exists. After that the reasoning begins...because the universe exists, because trees don't look man made, because a watch in the desert, because a tornado missed my house, because miracle of birth, because I heard someone healed, because we don't know...

At the end of all those "because" statements you can put the conclusion "god exists". None of them change the fact of the existence or non existence of god, but they are flawed reasoning. Since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (or the flying spaghetti monster), we rely heavily on the reasoning to be pristine and infallible to draw extraordinary conclusions. It's far from it.

I have published works and there's no faith involved. You do the method and you do it again and then you do it again. Then you have someone else do it, then you try to defeat it, to find an exception, and when you don't and when they don't you publish it. There's no faith. If anything there's a total lack of faith. That's why it's called "peer review".

Then how are published works still found to be wrong? Wouldn't you need faith in your colleagues' ability to correctly go through the same processes as diligently as yourself? No matter what you do, a degree of faith is always required. ESPECIALLY if you are working with other people.

In order for god to exist, god must be transcendent. Science is incapable of testing transcendence so the possibility remains. Is it really that hard to understand?

[spurraider21]

Trying to turn this into a religion vs. religion thing huh?

I for one believe in a transcendent god. God could take any form, or as many forms as it wishes. It is possible that all of them are right.

Science is not capable of testing transcendence. A person cannot say that god does not exist when they have no means to test transcendence.

what specifically has led you to this exact belief? so you believe in a creator... cool. why is it transcendent and can take any or as many forms as it wishes? where did that part of your belief come from?

[xellos88330]

E=MC is incomplete, doesn't mean the possibilities open up. It's still 2, known or not known. Saying "E=MC God" Doesn't answer the equation any more than "E=MC?"

Calling science incomplete is just a way of attempting to normalize religion and science to show both of them as flawed. So what? Science is a process of study and research and discovery. Religion is the worship and lifestyle according to ancient texts regarding an invisible sky master. Stop trying to compare them. It's like comparing apples and pancakes.

You keep using that circular reasoning. It's true because it's a fact. Saying it twice doesn't make it more true. Give some examples and I'll show you how they weren't actually using atheism as a form of government.

That is not what religion is at all. You once pointed me to the dictionary, so now I will do the same.

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Isn't science trying to find the cause, nature and purpose of the universe too? How is it so ridiculous to compare the two? They both are doing pretty much the same thing. Science also uses ancient texts and teachings as well. 1+1=2 was probably figured out before there were even written languages.

[xellos88330]

what specifically has led you to this exact belief? so you believe in a creator... cool. why is it transcendent and can take any or as many forms as it wishes? where did that part of your belief come from?

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

[ChumpDumper]

Trying to turn this into a religion vs. religion thing huh?

Nope.

I for one believe in a transcendent god. God could take any form, or as many forms as it wishes. It is possible that all of them are right.

Science is not capable of testing transcendence. A person cannot say that god does not exist when they have no means to test transcendence.

Well good for you. It's just as possible that all of them are wrong, so it's just as easy to not believe in any god or simply not waste time trying to define something that one admits can never be defined.

[ChumpDumper]

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

lol

Who created the transcendent creator?

[Koolaid_Man]

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

Wow...very well stated...I dont think there's a legit arguement to this...sure there are questions on both sides but there's way more clarity on the side of the creationist vs.the evolutionist....because you've just disproved their own theories with science...and validated our own through that same science beyond a reasonable doubt.

Listen I used to think evolution may have a point but their science could only take me to the proverbial waters edge....but thats where the road ended....when faced with 2 choices I had no choice but to go with creationism because even if there are deep questions on both sides creationism gave me more...and I logically concluded that if there is a God of course he would always remain a mystery to us because he's not physicsl he's spiritual...it's a different dimension and only reasonably minded,people get it....just like we cant understand how gas giants such as the sun are formed with a solid core to support and be replicated as the center of most galaxies we'll never understsnd the being or en y that created it all...if we die and become a spirit then it will all make sense....

Until then crestionism is the most reasonsble science....just because I cannot see wind gravity, and nuclear forces doesn't mean they arent there...

[purist]

Like I said before, my point is not to sway anyone into belief. It's quite obvious that the notion of belief is offensive to some of you and that you take a posture of superiority over those that claim belief. I don't understand why it matters so much to you that some choose believe. Does God exist? I say yes, but my response is based on my own personal experiences and reasoning. Certainly there are historical and archaeological artifacts that corroborate texts of the bible, but that doesn't necessarily prove god exists. I get it. But it is not "re ed" to believe. It's my prerogative, just as its your to not believe. So I guess what I'm trying to say is Get Over It!

[DMC]

Then how are published works still found to be wrong? Wouldn't you need faith in your colleagues' ability to correctly go through the same processes as diligently as yourself? No matter what you do, a degree of faith is always required. ESPECIALLY if you are working with other people.

In order for god to exist, god must be transcendent. Science is incapable of testing transcendence so the possibility remains. Is it really that hard to understand?

You're again falsely equivocating faith with trust. You don't use a friend/colleague. The editor handles the peer review, after all it's his neck on the line.

Besides, how do we ever know they are wrong? Other scientists line up in droves to disprove these things. Checks and balances. Can it still be wrong? Absolutely, but no one is worshiping it and everyone is attacking it non stop.

Again, not knowing doesn't increase possibility. Why do you bypass reason just re restate your flawed point? Are you trolling?

[DMC]

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

This is a form of the ontological argument or argument from design. It's been thoroughly debated and defeated by minds sharper than ours and the materials and videos are out there if you care to research it. If you don't, you shouldn't even be discussing it. Just lean on faith and tell that old devil to get behind you. You don't need an 11th century argument to support your faith in your god and it certainly doesn't discriminate between the thousands of suggested gods; any will do for the argument.

[DMC]

Like I said before, my point is not to sway anyone into belief. It's quite obvious that the notion of belief is offensive to some of you and that you take a posture of superiority over those that claim belief. I don't understand why it matters so much to you that some choose believe. Does God exist? I say yes, but my response is based on my own personal experiences and reasoning. Certainly there are historical and archaeological artifacts that corroborate texts of the bible, but that doesn't necessarily prove god exists. I get it. But it is not "re ed" to believe. It's my prerogative, just as its your to not believe. So I guess what I'm trying to say is Get Over It!

This is the "mad at god" argument.

Why don't you use reason in your approach instead of emotive jargon? Where are the historical artifacts that prove a god exists? Are you moving the goal posts to historicity of the bible?

It comes down to faith, again, because there's no evidence.

[DMC]

That is not what religion is at all. You once pointed me to the dictionary, so now I will do the same.

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Isn't science trying to find the cause, nature and purpose of the universe too? How is it so ridiculous to compare the two? They both are doing pretty much the same thing. Science also uses ancient texts and teachings as well. 1+1=2 was probably figured out before there were even written languages.

Science is doing none of the above. The "cause" aspect is construct of the human ego. Science explains how, not why, not in the sense you're referring to.

[xellos88330]

lol

Who created the transcendent creator?

This is where atheists often get confused by trying to apply laws that govern our realm of physical reality to that of transcendence.

Why would you try to bind transcendence to the laws of our physical reality, when it is perfectly capable of transcending that law to begin with? That makes absolutely no sense.

[xellos88330]

Science is doing none of the above. The "cause" aspect is construct of the human ego. Science explains how, not why, not in the sense you're referring to.

sci·ence


/ˈsīəns/


noun

noun: science




the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Sounds a lot like it is studying the nature of the universe to me. Otherwise, theories like the big bang wouldn't exist.

[Koolaid_Man]

If you told me Santa Claus exists, I wouldn't call you stupid. I would ask you to explain. In none of my prior posts did I mention "feelings". Feelings do not prove or disprove Existence of God. I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us. Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

Dam your good