Atheists and superiority complexes

[DeeJayH]

But we all think through similar lines of reasoning, the only thing is that in the end, if you remove your bias and emotions, you'll end up agreeing if you remaing logical/consistent/reasonable.

1. if God is defined by a theists as supernatural, then by definition science cannot comment on it because science deals with reality, i.e. the universe, i.e. all that is "natural". That's straightforward, no wiggle room there. It's as certain as 1+1=2.

2. First cause makes no sense, and there is no evidence for it.
a. If any "thing" requries a causer, then who caused the first causer? And then who caused the second causer? And so on to infinity causes.....not very compelling is it. How would you know? You could not.
b. If nothing caused the first causer, then why can you not just say nothing caused the universe? It's more simple that way, and all evidence backs it up, namely, that there is no evidence of anything other than simply, the universe.

Let's assume godX created the universe. Well, who then created godX? If godX requries no creator, then apparently by that reasoning - things can exist without needing a creator, so then the argument that the universe cannot exist without a creator is dismissed as illogical in that context.

I think that human choices and ethical concerns are infinitely more important than fictional gods. I mean, if someone is about to be hit by a train, do you push them out of the way or do you sit back and watch the handy work of a god? (i.e. do nothing).

-Mach

sorry grasshopper

1+1= 0

 

[Jerry]

sorry grasshopper

1+1= 0

I've been down this road before, only I was the one arguing "1+1=2".

The counter argument cited Einstein’s postulation that "1" didn't actually = "1" because "1" wasn't actually an entire whole of anything. It was a fraction very close to a whole, but it still fell short of "1".

 

[Felicity]

I've been down this road before, only I was the one arguing "1+1=2".

The counter argument cited Einstein’s postulation that "1" didn't actually = "1" because "1" wasn't actually an entire whole of anything. It was a fraction very close to a whole, but it still fell short of "1".

Visions of FutureIncoming!!!!:lol:

 

[Jerry]

Visions of FutureIncoming!!!!:lol:

YES!!

That's who it was.

 

[Felicity]

YES!!

That's who it was.

I never really understood that until I just read your succinct explanation. It's crazy as i thought it was, but you made the point in 2 sentences whereas FI needed pages of pages of writing punctuated with fantasies of Giant Sentient Squid plotting against mankind with their breeding method. Dang--I actually miss him!

 

[Jerry]

I never really understood that until I just read your succinct explanation. It's crazy as i thought it was, but you made the point in 2 sentences whereas FI needed pages of pages of writing punctuated with fantasies of Giant Sentient Squid plotting against mankind with their breeding method. Dang--I actually miss him!

I don't miss the 5-post responces.

 

[Mach]

The counter argument cited Einstein’s postulation that "1" didn't actually = "1" because "1" wasn't actually an entire whole of anything. It was a fraction very close to a whole, but it still fell short of "1".

That's illogical, and you know it Jerry.
If X is not = 1, then X is not 1.

Keep in mind the ruling class in the U.S. wants you to feel as though you cannot really "know" anything. That's a key to maintaining power. you peasants are too simple to know the difference between a dog and an ear of corn. Meanwhile even Conan the Barbarian knows this, and he's non-existent, and he knows the riddle of steel.

-Mach

 

[Jerry]

That's illogical, and you know it Jerry.
If X is not = 1, then X is not 1.

Keep in mind the ruling class in the U.S. wants you to feel as though you cannot really "know" anything. That's a key to maintaining power. you peasants are too simple to know the difference between a dog and an ear of corn. Meanwhile even Conan the Barbarian knows this, and he's non-existent, and he knows the riddle of steel.

-Mach

Are you carfully trying to tell me that you're FI?

 

[John_Gault]

reminds me of this...

 

[Felicity]

Are you carfully trying to tell me that you're FI?

Can't be--no mention of leprechauns, brownies, or giant squid. Now, if he had reference the impending Malthusian Catastrophe--I'd wonder also...

 

[Ethereal]

But we all think through similar lines of reasoning, the only thing is that in the end, if you remove your bias and emotions, you'll end up agreeing if you remaing logical/consistent/reasonable.

1. if God is defined by a theists as supernatural, then by definition science cannot comment on it because science deals with reality, i.e. the universe, i.e. all that is "natural". That's straightforward, no wiggle room there. It's as certain as 1+1=2.

2. First cause makes no sense, and there is no evidence for it.
a. If any "thing" requries a causer, then who caused the first causer? And then who caused the second causer? And so on to infinity causes.....not very compelling is it. How would you know? You could not.
b. If nothing caused the first causer, then why can you not just say nothing caused the universe? It's more simple that way, and all evidence backs it up, namely, that there is no evidence of anything other than simply, the universe.

Let's assume godX created the universe. Well, who then created godX? If godX requries no creator, then apparently by that reasoning - things can exist without needing a creator, so then the argument that the universe cannot exist without a creator is dismissed as illogical in that context.

I think that human choices and ethical concerns are infinitely more important than fictional gods. I mean, if someone is about to be hit by a train, do you push them out of the way or do you sit back and watch the handy work of a god? (i.e. do nothing).

-Mach

The only one exercising bias is you as the argument you are positing assumes that a supernatural explaination for anything is always wrong and never feasible even when a logical thought process leads one there.

Furthermore, you incorrectly assume that the metaphysical answer to the question of God somehow negates the logic used to arrive at the metaphysical answer to the scientific question of the universe. In one instance we start at metaphysics and end with metaphysics whereas the other starts with science and works its way to metaphysics by way of logical neccessity.

Being unable to elucidate the origin of God has no bearing on the origin of the universe because they are entirely different questions which follow divergent lines of reasoning. It makes no sense to use metaphysical contradictions to negate the explainations put forth for a contradiction in natural law.

 

[John_Gault]

Is it possible to be an atheist and not also harbor feelings of intellectual superiority toward the faithful? I know this sounds antagonistic toward atheists, but I really don't mean it to be. I mean, I admit that I can't help but feel somewhat intellectually superior to people that visit astrologers, or psychics or habitually drop wads of cash playing the lottery. How does an atheist avoid feelings of condescending superiority for those they view as practitioners of superstition?

When I catch myself questioning anyone's intelligence based on their religion I remind myself that many people much smarter than me are religious. That is probably the reason I call myself Agnostic vs Atheist. Intellectually it is dishonest for me to say that so many greater minds than mine HAVE to be wrong.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Will you expand on this comment?

Glad to-and I will keep this short. The Big Bang is supposed to be when the universe was "created" and it doesn't matter how long ago, whether 12-16 billion years ago or a quadrillion; however, this is contradictory to the natural laws such as the Law of the Conservation of Matter which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Also, this really assumes that the unverse "poofed" into something from nothingness, and this leads many to assume that something external from the universe acted in this situation i.e. a god. Just because because many scientists or whatever accept it as true does not mean it is, scientists are not omniscient nor above the current society. It was once common "scientific" knowledge that the Earth is the centre of the universe. It was not that long ago when scientists used genes to "prove" that Europeans or whatever were superior in especially intellect to Africans and whichever other race.

The life of the universe is somewhat similar to say yours or mine; the matter that you or I are composed of was never created nor will be destroyed, but it can definately change, when you are born you do not "poof" into existence like some theologians think their "souls" do, and when you do die your body doesn't just vanish, it decomposes, changes.

 

[Mach]

The only one exercising bias is you as the argument you are positing assumes that a supernatural explaination for anything is always wrong and never feasible even when a logical thought process leads one there.

It's just plain old definitions, nothing biased about it.

Look up the definition for supernatural, and science, and confirm it if you do not believe what I wrote. If a logical throught process leads you to believe you have information outside of reality...I can't help there (that too is a contradiction).

Furthermore, you incorrectly assume that the metaphysical answer to the question of God somehow negates the logic used to arrive at the metaphysical answer to the scientific question of the universe. In one instance we start at metaphysics and end with metaphysics whereas the other starts with science and works its way to metaphysics by way of logical neccessity.

I don't know about such complex things. I'm just demonstrating that if one writes down the definitions, and adheres to logic, they arrive at a conclusion. Nothing wrong with it, or biased, and certainly not privy only to the scholarly. Most people emotionally don't want to accept it. That's fine, but it's true nonetheless.

Being unable to elucidate the origin of God has no bearing on the origin of the universe because they are entirely different questions which follow divergent lines of reasoning. It makes no sense to use metaphysical contradictions to negate the explainations put forth for a contradiction in natural law.

Sounds intellectual.

I'm just stating:

P1: god is defined as a supernatural entity.
P2: the universe is defined as all of nature (or synonymous with nature)

Therefore: the concept of god is outside of reality.
That means, logically, not real (not reality).

But that's trivial, most people already know gods aren't "really" real. They just don't like to accept it or admit it for a variety of human reasons. Usually because death is scary stuff. I agree, I do what I can to help with that.

-Mach

 

[scourge99]

The Big Bang is supposed to be when the universe was "created"

Wrong. The Big Bang is an event theorized by the fact that everything is seen moving away from a common point. And the cosmic background radiation that is approixmately equal throughout space. It makes no predictions on what banged, what was before the bang, why it banged or even if there was a "BANG" noise. Those are all different theories SEPERATE from the Big Bang theory.

 

[Mach]

. Intellectually it is dishonest for me to say that so many greater minds than mine HAVE to be wrong.

It's intellectually dishonest for you not to observe basic true vs false, oddly the hallmark of objectvist thinking (although taken to some really illogical places). And by intellecutally dishonest, I just mean, incorrect (What's intellectual have to do with it?)

It doesn't matter if every single living human on the planet disagrees with you. If you are correct, you are correct. In times troubled more than the times we live in (at least in our comfy republics), people died in defending those truths. People's education, degrees, language, status, mean nothing. If you think other people know better, you are already a slave. No one knows better than you.

It's amazing that our culture can produce a mind that while seemingly well-read, would claim that supporting the truth is intellectually dishonest.

-Mach

 

[Mach]

Wrong. The Big Bang is an event theorized by the fact that everything is seen moving away from a common point. And the cosmic background radiation that is approixmately equal throughout space. It makes no predictions on what banged, what was before the bang, why it banged or even if there was a "BANG" noise. Those are all different theories SEPERATE from the Big Bang theory.

That's my understanding as well.

We don't even know if the question "before the big bang" has any meaning.

-Mach

 

[John_Gault]

It's intellectually dishonest for you not to observe basic true vs false, oddly the hallmark of objectvist thinking (although taken to some really illogical places). And by intellecutally dishonest, I just mean, incorrect (What's intellectual have to do with it?)

It doesn't matter if every single living human on the planet disagrees with you. If you are correct, you are correct. In times troubled more than the times we live in (at least in our comfy republics), people died in defending those truths. People's education, degrees, language, status, mean nothing. If you think other people know better, you are already a slave. No one knows better than you.

It's amazing that our culture can produce a mind that while seemingly well-read, would claim that supporting the truth is intellectually dishonest.

-Mach

"Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false, or is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. ... The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy."

Intellectual dishonesty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I use the phrase because I don't KNOW (I am without knowledge=Agnostic), and neither does anyone else. Not even the most die-hard religious fanatic or the most staunch Atheist can prove or disprove the existance of "God". Faith is not possible with proof. For me to claim in a debate or even in my own head, when I do not know it is true, that there is not a "God", I am being intellectually dishonest.

Also, Moral Objectivism differs from the Philosophical Objectivism.

 

[Mach]

I use the phrase because I don't KNOW (I am without knowledge=Agnostic), and neither does anyone else.

If you don't know, one is silent on the topic. You take it further however, and literally claim that YOU know, that no one else knows about <X>, including you.

That's a contradiction.

(for instance, think about how you could in theory arrrive at the certainty that no one else knows....what gave you that measure of certainty that you are intellectually denying others? It makes no sense because it's a contradiction)

I can assure you, you have plenty of knowledge, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. By virtue of your consciousness, you have knowledge, it's unavoidable I'm afraid.

Not even the most die-hard religious fanatic or the most staunch Atheist can prove or disprove the existance of "God".

1. We cannot prove anything about, or against, reality. Proofs are for the field of mathematics in which we define the entire system (and can therefore use proofs). So, you're mixed up about proofs and needing them to discussing existing things.

2. I have already demonstrated cleanly (With the help of an objectivist author no less) why the concept of a god that is supernatural (or an alien, or pig, or spaghetti monster), is by definition not real. If you want more evidence of it, you'll need to show where the really basic logic error is, I mean, it's three plain english sentences.

Faith is not possible with proof. For me to claim in a debate or even in my own head, when I do not know it is true, that there is not a "God", I am being intellectually dishonest.

I disagree. You may think you are being dishonest, but you're actually correct. Don't take my word for it, solve it with me here.

The difference is that you think you have to have knowledge of non-existence, to claim that something doesn't exist. That is another contradiction. Science is not based on non-existence, it's based on observation of reality, and logically testing it and integrating it into a larger logical framework of knowledge. It's also not based on proofs. If you require proofs for knowledge, then yes, by definition knowledge doesn't exist for you. But then what do we call the information in your head that tells you you're typing on a keyboard? Well let's just stick with calling it knowledge. Science/knowledge is as simple as seeing a rock, and picking it up, and handing it to a friend and saying, "hey, here is a rock". We don't need fancy degrees to do useful philosophy.

I can elabortate on any aspect of any of this, using your examples or mine. I can attempt to keep it short as well.

-Mach

 

[John_Gault]

If you don't know, one is silent on the topic. You take it further however, and literally claim that YOU know, that no one else knows about <X>, including you.

That's a contradiction.

(for instance, think about how you could in theory arrrive at the certainty that no one else knows....what gave you that measure of certainty that you are intellectually denying others? It makes no sense because it's a contradiction)

I can assure you, you have plenty of knowledge, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. By virtue of your consciousness, you have knowledge, it's unavoidable I'm afraid.

One of us misunderstands the other. There are things one cannot possibly know and it is not wrong to acknowledge them. Such as, is time travel possible? Time travel is just as possible or impossible as the existance of an omnipotent entity. No one will know if it is possible until: First its possiblity is proven on paper and secondly it actually happens.

1. We cannot prove anything about, or against, reality. Proofs are for the field of mathematics in which we define the entire system (and can therefore use proofs). So, you're mixed up about proofs and needing them to discussing existing things.

I believe we are getting to the point now. Understanding reality is only what has been discovered, there are plenty of things such as Gravity that were once unexplained forces of reality but now hold weight.

2. I have already demonstrated cleanly (With the help of an objectivist author no less) why the concept of a god that is supernatural (or an alien, or pig, or spaghetti monster), is by definition not real. If you want more evidence of it, you'll need to show where the really basic logic error is, I mean, it's three plain english sentences.

Supernatural is only Supernatural until it is explained Scientifically then it is Natural and therefore a part of our accepted reality.

I disagree. You may think you are being dishonest, but you're actually correct. Don't take my word for it, solve it with me here.

The difference is that you think you have to have knowledge of non-existence, to claim that something doesn't exist. That is another contradiction. Science is not based on non-existence, it's based on observation of reality, and logically testing it and integrating it into a larger logical framework of knowledge. It's also not based on proofs. If you require proofs for knowledge, then yes, by definition knowledge doesn't exist for you. But then what do we call the information in your head that tells you you're typing on a keyboard? Well let's just stick with calling it knowledge. Science/knowledge is as simple as seeing a rock, and picking it up, and handing it to a friend and saying, "hey, here is a rock". We don't need fancy degrees to do useful philosophy.

I can elabortate on any aspect of any of this, using your examples or mine. I can attempt to keep it short as well.

-Mach

I didn't mean I didn't have knowledge about anything, just a few things I know it is a rock because my observations tell me it is a rock. What if it is not a rock at all, but a carefully made imitation of a rock? I would not be dishonest if I called it a rock unless I knew or thought about the fact that it might not be a rock, I would be intellectually dishonest if I presented it as a rock while still having doubts in my mind.

 

[scourge99]

One of us misunderstands the other. There are things one cannot possibly know and it is not wrong to acknowledge them. Such as, is time travel possible? Time travel is just as possible or impossible as the existance of an omnipotent entity. No one will know if it is possible until: First its possiblity is proven on paper and secondly it actually happens.



I believe we are getting to the point now. Understanding reality is only what has been discovered, there are plenty of things such as Gravity that were once unexplained forces of reality but now hold weight.



Supernatural is only Supernatural until it is explained Scientifically then it is Natural and therefore a part of our accepted reality.





I didn't mean I didn't have knowledge about anything, just a few things I know it is a rock because my observations tell me it is a rock. What if it is not a rock at all, but a carefully made imitation of a rock? I would not be dishonest if I called it a rock unless I knew or thought about the fact that it might not be a rock, I would be intellectually dishonest if I presented it as a rock while still having doubts in my mind.

You're making a tragic error by slipping into the realms of nihilsm.

 

[John_Gault]

You're making a tragic error by slipping into the realms of nihilsm.

What is nihilistic about my statement?

I could never be a nihilist, from what I understand it's exhausting.:lol:

 

[Ethereal]

It's just plain old definitions, nothing biased about it.

Look up the definition for supernatural, and science, and confirm it if you do not believe what I wrote. If a logical throught process leads you to believe you have information outside of reality...I can't help there (that too is a contradiction).

What are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense. My belief in a first cause or prime mover is based in logic and science. The law of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, logically one could conclude, given our understanding of scientific law, that the universe could not have caused itself. Pursuant to this determination, and absent a scientific exemption to this contradiction in natural law, one could logically deduce that something supernatural has occured. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about this line of reasoning and to deny even the possibility of such an occurence is biased.

I don't know about such complex things. I'm just demonstrating that if one writes down the definitions, and adheres to logic, they arrive at a conclusion. Nothing wrong with it, or biased, and certainly not privy only to the scholarly. Most people emotionally don't want to accept it. That's fine, but it's true nonetheless.

Well, I'm afraid such a discussion requires complex reasoning and to claim that most people are emotionally incapable of accepting a positive non-existence of God is ludicrous as there is no way you can prove that God doesn't exist.

What I'm trying to say is that although you've identified an insoluble contradiction within the metaphysical essence of God's origin it has no bearing or logical relation to the scientific contradiction of the universe. The origin of God is a matter of metaphysical speculation whereas the origin of the universe is a matter of scientific and logical modalities which arrive at a metaphysical explaination by way of necessity.

Sounds intellectual.

I'm just stating:

P1: god is defined as a supernatural entity.
P2: the universe is defined as all of nature (or synonymous with nature)

Therefore: the concept of god is outside of reality.
That means, logically, not real (not reality).

This makes absolutely no sense. Just because something falls outside the bounds of our subjective reality does not mean it cannot exist.

But that's trivial, most people already know gods aren't "really" real.

This is ridiculous. Nobody can actually claim to know one way or the other God exists unless they are insane. All one can do is claim their position is logical or illogical, but they can never claim to know anything.

They just don't like to accept it or admit it for a variety of human reasons. Usually because death is scary stuff. I agree, I do what I can to help with that.

-Mach

That some people use the concept of God as a spiritual safety net does nothing to negate the logical merits of my position.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Wrong. The Big Bang is an event theorized by the fact that everything is seen moving away from a common point. And the cosmic background radiation that is approixmately equal throughout space. It makes no predictions on what banged, what was before the bang, why it banged or even if there was a "BANG" noise. Those are all different theories SEPERATE from the Big Bang theory.

I apologise for using misleading terms earlier.
The big bang was the event in which the state of "equilibrium" i.e. the entire universe in a single, finite point of space, ceased to exist. However, this state is conceived to be static, devoid of time as Mach pointed out, and then all of a sudden an event occurs! This occurance of this event is naturally attributed to a mythical god. However, nothing can exist "before" or devoid of time, thus have put this state as "nothingness." Also, I suppose a contradiction that has always existed with me and this theory is that I have never been able to conceive of a universe that is not infinite in space or time.

 

[scourge99]

The big bang was the event in which the state of "equilibrium" i.e. the entire universe in a single, finite point of space, ceased to exist.

What happened during or before the Big Bang is unknown and purely theoretical. From the evidence we are fairly certain of this because:

1) the observed expansion of space
2) the presence of cosmic background radiation
3) the abundance of primordial elements
4) galactic evolution and distribution

Once again, how or what occurred during the beginning are supplementary theories. The basis of the Big Bang theory is merely a scientific theory stating that the origin of the universe expanded outward from a common location. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, this state is conceived to be static, devoid of time as Mach pointed out, and then all of a sudden an event occurs! ... However, nothing can exist "before" or devoid of time, thus have put this state as "nothingness."

Theorizing about what happened before the Big Bang is extremely difficult if not impossible. Perhaps as our technology increases we can better understand what occurs in singularities and at the extremes of our universe. Currently (to my knowledge, I could be wrong) we are unsure exactly how such things work.Also, I suppose a contradiction that has always existed with me and this theory is that I have never been able to conceive of a universe that is not infinite in space or time.

This occurance of this event is naturally attributed to a mythical god.

Only by theists. Physicists offer no such God explanation as scientific because attributing God to something is equivalent to saying " I don't know".