[youtube] akercocke interviewed by irish christians

[cookiecutter]

Ok, it's just that one argument really pushes my buttons.

Back on topic: The interview was kind of cool but it would have been better had they been speaking intelligible English.

 

[Pessimism]

Russell's Dick Theory

Again though, most people who do not believe in a God are usually ones that have a scientific mindset (or TheY'Re FrUkiNg C00l):
1. there is no evidence to physically prove the existence of God; if God is indeed "beyond the physical realms of man"; seeing as one cannot test the existence of said God, talking about it's existence becomes a mute point as the whole question becomes unfalsifiable.
2. Many of the characteristics that are attributed to the current incarnation of the Abrahamic God have conflicting qualities (personal, omnipotent, omniscient, slew of other horse shit). Usually though this is justified by also not being applicable to testability....that doesn't rule out logic though
3. The entire roots of the Abrahamic faith have been seen in other religions countless times over; not only that, but faith (especially here in the U.S.A.) is usually a cultural phenom (instead of a religious one). Persoanl conceptions of God are the fucking rage, whether the concept is illogical or true to the bible doesn't matter to most. And if you say they're wrong, you get yelled at


The only arguments I've actually heard (remember would be a better word) would be saying that God is beyond physically knowing or testing (in a teleological, epistemological, ontological, fucktastilogical, etc.)in any sense.
In which case, I then refer to FSM.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm not particularly scientifically-persuaded, nor do I think I'm cool for being an Atheist, but yeah. I am one. I guess, if it needs a name, really. I prefer to just call it not giving a shit about religious faith or afterlife belief.

Well, of course Christianity has a hell of a lot of assumptions to deal with (none of which can be dealt with), but that doesn't necessarily validate atheism. Atheists still have 'faith' in there being no god at all. Which is kind of ironic, really...

WTF no? Religious faith and semantically-defined faith (as in, mere confidence instead of devotion or worship as in religious faith) are completely different and you just compared them. In order for that argument to be logical, atheists would need to have faith in something. Nothing is not something, by the way; it's the absence of anything. How can I have faith in something that doesn't even exist?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

^.

Back that with a scientific mindset, and one usually finds that there is really no evidence to be found in show any traces of the existence of some supernatural creator...besides the obvious (and fallacious) "look around you! God made all this!".

Consider it a form of "active non-participation"

Actually, a scientific mindset is arguably what makes the idea of a god so tempting. We come to believe, though observation, that every event has a cause. This becomes a problem once we discover that something has to exist which causes things and yet is not itself caused.

Since atheists are ruling out the possibility of a supernatural origin, they're basically accepting that matter and energy exist for no discernible reason, which isn't a very scientific conclusion to make. I find this ironic, since atheists generally seem to be scientifically-oriented thinkers.

While science has done a great job in eliminating the need for a big, complex mythology to explain things like weather, disease, astronomical objects, etc., it has never gotten us anywhere in offering an explanation for the origin of existence. And there's no good reason to assume it ever will.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This is the worst argument of all time. As Necuratul and Ars Diavoli have pointed out, you can't make a claim and then say "You can't disprove it". That's utterly illogical.

Atheists basically do the same thing, though. The claim "there is no god" can't be proven or disproven, yet atheists believe it regardless.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

WTF no? Religious faith and semantically-defined faith (as in, mere confidence instead of devotion or worship as in religious faith) are completely different and you just compared them. In order for that argument to be logical, atheists would need to have faith in something. Nothing is not something, by the way; it's the absence of anything.

I wasn't implying that atheists "worship nothingness". What I meant was that atheists make an assumption about the nature of the universe, just as religious people do. Religous people just make a lot more assumptions.

 

[skeptik]

God needs a cause, my friend.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

We're heading into "humans can't prove/disprove anything" zone now.

As an atheist, I, myself, make no assumptions about the origin of the universe (or anything to do with it, really, for that matter) and instead let it exist without questioning.

 

[CAIRATH]

The interview was kind of cool but it would have been better had they been speaking intelligible English.

Asking an Irishman to speak intelligible English is like asking a one-legged man to run a marathon.

 

[skeptik]

In that it's hilarious to witness. Right?

 

[Death Animal]

hey was that Rob Halfor in the audience.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

We're heading into "humans can't prove/disprove anything" zone now.

As an atheist, I, myself, make no assumptions about the origin of the universe (or anything to do with it, really, for that matter) and instead let it exist without questioning.

This has been my whole point, really. Since we can't prove or disprove the existence of a god, why assume one way or the other about one?

I'm a bit confused, though, since you are still describing yourself as an atheist. Maybe you mean you're agnostic?

 

[skeptik]

The truth is that neither position could ever be entirely logically sound or scientifically valid. But believing that there is no higher power comes a lot closer to it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The truth is that neither position could ever be entirely logically sound or scientifically valid. But believing that there is no higher power comes a lot closer to it.

Not if we have no explanation whatsoever for the origin of matter and energy. But whatever; we can argue about this forever.

 

[skeptik]

There are no inherent contradictions in the idea of there being no higher power. It's merely a case of drawing a conclusion from not entirely complete premises. But then again, assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow morning falls to the same fate. Which is why I'm comfortable in my position.

 

[NinjaGeek]

We're heading into "humans can't prove/disprove anything" zone now.

As an atheist, I, myself, make no assumptions about the origin of the universe (or anything to do with it, really, for that matter) and instead let it exist without questioning.

I'm pretty sure you're an agnostic. Agnostics are the ones who make no assumptions about the universe. Being agnostic means to not know if there's a god or not. If you declare your self and Atheist you are saying that you believe that the idea of god is an impossibility and that you are making whole heartedly the assumption that he is not real.


On the discussion about if god makes sense scientifically, I don't know about it enough myself to argue. But, my physics teacher was telling me that a lot of atheist quantum physicists who got really deep into it said that the universe doesn't make sense without a god. But on the other hand thousands of years ago lightning wouldn't have made sense without a god. Personally I think that if we do discover "god" or whatever it is that created the universe, it will be so completely different from how we define it in our religions that the term god won't be appropriate anymore.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

I dont think god/s are supposed to make sense scientifically

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There are no inherent contradictions in the idea of there being no higher power. It's merely a case of drawing a conclusion from not entirely complete premises. But then again, assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow morning falls to the same fate. Which is why I'm comfortable in my position.

If there was no 'Creator', then it appears that matter and energy either sprang out of nowhere, or it simply has existed forever without a cause. I'm pretty sure neither of those conclusions will ever be drawn by any scientific theory.

And what are the inherent contradictions in assuming there is a higher power? I thought the whole idea of the 'God model' was that it's simply a convenient way of explaining away everything that remains to be explained. I can easily conceive of a god who did nothing but create all the universe's matter, and all of its laws of physics, and then sat back and let the universe run its course. I don't see anything contradictory about that.

If you want, you could say that it's contradictory to assume an entity which originated from nothing. But, as I showed, that's the same problem the atheist is going to have.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Akercocke seem a lot more logical than those christians.

Arguments over whether or not God is real are pretty dumb, but you guys have made a slightly interesting discussion.

 

[skeptik]

If there was no 'Creator', then it appears that matter and energy either sprang out of nowhere, or it simply has existed forever without a cause. I'm pretty sure neither of those conclusions will ever be drawn by any scientific theory.

It doesn't "appear" anything. The atheist doesn't claim to have a theory of the origins of the universe.

And what are the inherent contradictions in assuming there is a higher power? I thought the whole idea of the 'God model' was that it's simply a convenient way of explaining away everything that remains to be explained. I can easily conceive of a god who did nothing but create all the universe's matter, and all of its laws of physics, and then sat back and let the universe run its course. I don't see anything contradictory about that.

I was framing the debate with regards to religions vs non-believers, not deists. All religions have some sort of conception of god beyond 'a dude that created shit,' as far as I'm aware, and the contradictions in these depictions are well documented.

If you want, you could say that it's contradictory to assume an entity which originated from nothing. But, as I showed, that's the same problem the atheist is going to have.

It's not the atheist's problem. The atheist is merely stating that the theist is wrong, not posing an alternative theory.