A few questions for fellow atheists

[Frogman]

from Master Zen

So, just when something is missing there must be a reason for its existence? Hmm... so there must be sea monsters and dragons somewhere out there right?

Also, why must a "spritual" dimension not be science-based? Just because we many not be able to explain other dimensions which our current knowledge of science doesn not mean the unknown followes a divine constitution. There is only one constitution which governes the entire universe, it is science, and we haven't even begun to understand the first article.

A spiritual dimension would be science based if science could accept it. Science is about proof, testing, predicting and duplicating results. The spiritual phenomenon seem to not fit into any of those categories. I don't know squat about the spiritual dimension beyond the claims made by others. I think there is a good chance it exists but am certainly willing to admit to being wrong in the face of evidence to the contrary or if we can otherwise explain the anecdotal proofs.

I'm not sure what you mean about science being a constitution. Science is a method of discovery. If something governs the universe, its not science, but science will help us find it. I can think of three options for what governs the universe. They are God, chance, or natural order, maybe there are some others.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Elok


Because you have to be pretty wilfully dense to see a variety of currently inexplicable, isolated incidents from diverse parts of the world, know that the only common thread is a shared religion, and just decide there's no connection so you can spite said religion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and holds up seventeen trees since the time of the Byzantine Empire like a duck, it's reasonable to say it's a duck, unless you have decided beforehand that ducks do not exist, in which case you argue that it's an unusual, scattered breed of flat-billed, swimming chicken, huh?

Of course, the implication of this statement is that there are no "miracles" or scientifically unexplainable phenomena occurring anywhere but in Christian areas. That's a pretty bold assertion.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Frogman


A spiritual dimension would be science based if science could accept it. Science is about proof, testing, predicting and duplicating results. The spiritual phenomenon seem to not fit into any of those categories. I don't know squat about the spiritual dimension beyond the claims made by others. I think there is a good chance it exists but am certainly willing to admit to being wrong in the face of evidence to the contrary or if we can otherwise explain the anecdotal proofs.

But why call another dimention "spiritual"? That's immediately categorizing something we don't know. Perhaps science will one day explain it, perhaps not.

I'm not sure what you mean about science being a constitution. Science is a method of discovery. If something governs the universe, its not science, but science will help us find it. I can think of three options for what governs the universe. They are God, chance, or natural order, maybe there are some others.

The laws of science and the laws of math explain everything. From the composition of a leaf to the greatest feats of our mind. The scientific method is a tool, but science is a noun which refers to that complex machinery which is nature. I have never witnessed a miracle so I can truthfuly say that science has so far explained 100% of everything that has occurred in my life. Most people in the world also haven't witnessed miracles or any other spiritual events so I cannot see why you people put God over science (or nature or whatever you want to call it) in explaining how the universe works.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Lincoln

That's why I have a logical questioning mind. That logic led me to God. By the way did you bother to check out the link or are you too stunted by fear and superstition to break out of the mold?

Have you checked out my really really long post 2 pages back? It says the same thing than your link. I am not a complete atheist (agnostic if you wish) in saying that God doesn't exist.

However, unlike some people, I'm smart enough and logical enought to see the world and realize that it is most likely not the result of divine inspiration but that something scientifical and mathematical is behind it all.

Now, are you too stunted by fear to break out of your own religious mold or do you fear that perhaps believing in God is not the most logical of outlooks?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Elok


It is the very nature of miracles that they are rare, bud. They break the mold of what we expect to see. Were my scant evidence more common, we would marvel to see a body that didn't last for centuries. And it's still evidence, little or no. Whatever you mean by "science-based miracles," I don't see how they work to disprove the existence of god. If you're referring to the day-to-day mechanics of reality, like chloroplasts soaking up light, hydrogen fusing in a star's core, or whatever, you're essentially arguing that our means of perceiving the universe disproves the unknown.

You really do not pay attention to what I say. I say that we are unable to explain the unknown so it is foolish to categorize it by making it work of the divine. Are you so naive to just accept than unexplained phenomenons like miracles are works of god? Why not just accept that we don't know the answer to why they happen and get on with life? Not knowing something is not ignorance. Ignorace is giving the first lame excuse you can find to answer what you really don't know and that's what religions push down your throat.

That is what science is-a method of describing reality in terms of natural cause and effect. And, pseudo-mystical hyperbole aside, you haven't answered the bloody question I asked you before. Answer, and I will try to rejoice each time your eternal miracle produces a new and more efficient way for our spiritually depraved people to hurt each other.

And I have not answered your question any more than you have answered it yourself. You say it is work of a deity. I'll say its the work of Jupiter's magnetic rays holding up a stone roof. Happy? Now I'm just as naive by inventing an answer to something I have no friggin clue about.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Of course, the implication of this statement is that there are no "miracles" or scientifically unexplainable phenomena occurring anywhere but in Christian areas. That's a pretty bold assertion.

Well, other religions have miracles. I won't fight with them. If you know of any similarly miraculous occurences without any religious relation to them, please tell me.

And I have not answered your question any more than you have answered it yourself. You say it is work of a deity. I'll say its the work of Jupiter's magnetic rays holding up a stone roof. Happy? Now I'm just as naive by inventing an answer to something I have no friggin clue about.

I was referring to my remarks re: the irrationality of human beings on a casual level; I said that science can tell us why the moon has phases but it'll never do anything to make us better people. If you answered that, I missed it.
And what I am saying, and have said all along, is that inexplicable occurences have come up precisely in line with the lives of human beings devoted to a particular religion, but you refute them for no rational purpose other than the fact that you have decided there is no god and that is that. Instead you have apparently decided there must be some unexplained mystery that affects all of these things but absolutely nothing else. You say you're only 99% atheist but you're going a great distance out of your way to avoid the obvious. Who's so bloody close-minded here?

[Frogman]

from Master Zen

The laws of science and the laws of math explain everything. From the composition of a leaf to the greatest feats of our mind. The scientific method is a tool, but science is a noun which refers to that complex machinery which is nature. I have never witnessed a miracle so I can truthfuly say that science has so far explained 100% of everything that has occurred in my life.

Your use of the word science to mean what your describing is a bit confusing. I would suggest laws of nature vs laws of science. Science does not really refer to the complex machinery of nature. The entry for science in the dictionary is long, with several slight differences, but I didn't find any definition to fit that use.

I understand your position. I bounced around from being an atheist, agnostic and antitheist. Now I'm a theist, but i still question. \

from Master Zen

But why call another dimention "spiritual"? That's immediately categorizing something we don't know. Perhaps science will one day explain it, perhaps not.

What else would you call a place where ghosts, demons, angels and God exist if not a spiritual dimension? Its my term for it. You might call it the realm of twisted superstition, but I like mine better. I question the existance of it, but there are people who testify to witnessing these phenomenon. People witness aliens too so you gotta be careful who you believe, but I can't rule them out for certain either.

[Odd]

I have been a die-hard atheist myself... until I realized that it was ilogical seeking to desconstruct religious beliefs, since my whole atheist position was based on the assumption that I did not had any knowledge about supernatural stuff. Because of that I did not had any motives to believe in god, but I also did not had any to believe in his non-existance.

In a nutshell: if you take out all the "NO"s of a militant atheist speech you´ll get a perfect christian preaching.

Later on reading some philosophy stuff I agreed that not only we cannot PROOF the existance of god, but we cannot be absolute sure of anything at all. The human being has an incredible ability to immerse itself in ilusions (hey I don´t live in an illusion!!! - as long as you believe in an illusion it´s not an illusion but reality for you, get it? You only perceive it as an illusion the moment you stop believing in it). All of us have some sort of faith, faith that you girlfriend or your mom loves you; faith that New Zealand actually exists and it´s not something invented by a government conspiracy, even if you had never been there; faith that all the things contained in your memory actually happened (these are very different things - "true reality" and what is in our memory)... I could go on and on...

So I think the most beautiful thing about science is that it does (or should) not have the arrogance of saying "I have the one truth", buy it says "so far this is the best explanation we could get about this phenomenon as we have perceived it". That way it can make a huge mistake (there have been many) and still be a valid answer, since it does not perceives itself as being infallible. Don´t take science as an alternative to religion, otherwise you´ll still have a religion - science. Science is NOT a replacement for religion, nor a substitute. There´s no absolute truth for science, no definitive answer. Be sure - many, many things stated by science that we believe in are wrong and are not real. But that´s not important as long as it´s useful for us.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Logic leads to theism, not atheism: The Blind Atheist.

No it doesn't.

We went through this in what possibly is the longest running thread on 'Poly. I still have the thread saved (actually just the second part), do you want a copy?

Originally posted by Lincoln
Science cannot make a definitive satement about God so it is a lack of logic that uses science as the source of all truth.

You are defining your god in such a way that it is unknowable, thus, it cannot be studied systematically, which is what science is.

However, it cuts both ways. Your god is unknowable, so anything you say about this god is just equally garbage.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frogman
Urban Ranger, I thought I gave my opinion on the transitional forms. I suggest there is a trigger in the dna that causes large scale changes in a short time. My contention is that the changes are more than a reaction to the environment they are a move along an already defined path. As I said above, I'm probably wrong but hey its my stab at it.

One of the major problem is this is of course this leads back to a creator. Otherwise where would you get such a "defined path?"

Take the roadrunner for example. How does your hypothesis explain how this curious bird came about? What about the new virus that causes SARS? That cannot be produced by any "defined path" at all.

Furthermore, transitional forms fit in perfectly with evolution, which they cannot be explained by any incarnation of Creationism.

Originally posted by Frogman
Which of course lead to the conclusion that everyone is wrong. I'm wrong, you're wrong and therefore its easy to punch holes in anyones belief.

Except that atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of beliefs.

Originally posted by Frogman
I think there is room in the universe for a spiritual dimension. Anecdotal evidence isn't solid proof, but the abundance of it leaves you wondering.

This is easily explained by anthropology and psychology.

Originally posted by Frogman
People like Edgar Cayce are hard to explain.

He's a crackpot. What more do you need?

Originally posted by Frogman
Not knowing anything else about a person, I would rather have my kids hang with the church going crowd than not. It does weed out the parents who just don't give a crap or would rather get high on Sunday mornings.

On the other hand, Christians have a tendency to be more conservative, therefore a higher percentage of them are bigots and racists. You go ahead and hang out with them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, other religions have miracles. I won't fight with them. If you know of any similarly miraculous occurences without any religious relation to them, please tell me.

What are miracles? Are miracles very rare occurances that can still be explained by the laws of nature, or are miracles that cannot be possibly explained by such laws?

Originally posted by Elok
I was referring to my remarks re: the irrationality of human beings on a casual level; I said that science can tell us why the moon has phases but it'll never do anything to make us better people.

You don't need religions to be a better person. Otherwise, you're implying that nonreligious people are bad, which you will have a hard time defending.

[Frogman]

from Urban Ranger
You are defining your god in such a way that it is unknowable, thus, it cannot be studied systematically, which is what science is.

However, it cuts both ways. Your god is unknowable, so anything you say about this god is just equally garbage.

God doesn't lend himself to scientific study, but that doesn't make Him unknowable. God reveals himself to people in many ways and many people will testify to the presence of God. You can say these people either make it up or delude themselves, but science is not the only way to gain knowledge. I think you are too quick to dismiss the power of revelation and direct experience.

[yavoon]

science is the only rigorous way we have of figuring things out.

everything else is anecdotal or redneck logic. neither of which should ever be taken seriously.

so while there most definitely are things our current understanding can't explain. there most definitely is not an alternative to the scientific method.

and its pure and utter convenience to throw away the only real way we have of figuring things out simply because you claim in the first place that it doesn't obey the rules.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Odd
In a nutshell: if you take out all the "NO"s of a militant atheist speech you´ll get a perfect christian preaching.

Okay, let me try.

"No wars"
"No violence"
"No bigotry"
"No racism"
"No profiting from others"
"No unethical behaviour"

Wow, those Christian preachings, they are awful.

Originally posted by Odd
Later on reading some philosophy stuff I agreed that not only we cannot PROOF the existance of god, but we cannot be absolute sure of anything at all.

You don't exist?

Originally posted by Odd
Science is NOT a replacement for religion, nor a substitute.

That's not the point. The point is there is no need for religion. You don't need religion for ethical behaviour. You don't need religion for hapiness.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frogman
God doesn't lend himself to scientific study, but that doesn't make Him unknowable. God reveals himself to people in many ways and many people will testify to the presence of God.

On what basis can you accertain that:

1. This presence is not a hallucination?
2. This presence is Yahweh, not Odin, Zeus, or some other divine figure?

Originally posted by Frogman
You can say these people either make it up or delude themselves, but science is not the only way to gain knowledge. I think you are too quick to dismiss the power of revelation and direct experience.

What is this knowledge you speak of? How do we know that it actually decribes the real world instead of a castle in the sky without the rigours of science? How can you explain the contradication between Christianity and other religions? What makes Christianity right and other religions wrong?