Dear Atheists, tell me what you DO believe

ChristineM said:

Are physical laws defined or discovered?

Click to expand...

They are designed for life and living. Where would you be if earth had no gravity? Understanding it was a discovery, but it was designed.

ChristineM said:

Fair enough, i sometimes use a capital because i can...

Click to expand...

I've seen fairly convincing arguments on why it's appropriate, but I don't believe it is. No dramas if you do. Us atheists often have different beliefs even whilst holding the same unbeliefs...lol

KenS said:

They are designed for life and living. Where would you be if earth had no gravity? Understanding it was a discovery, but it was designed.

Click to expand...

Mass provides the gravity. Mass does not need design.

ChristineM said:

Mass provides the gravity. Mass does not need design.

Click to expand...

If mass produces gravity and there is no design for mass, gravity wouldn't be the byproduct.If gravity is necessary and mass is what needs to be designed to make it... mass has design.

lewisnotmiller said:

Do you think myths can teach us anything?

Click to expand...

They can teach us about the culture/society where they originated.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Now we are talking about humans in the everyday world. And you want to limit it to religion. That can't be do, because both religion and science are connected in humans.

In effect you use a contextual understanding of religion and science. I use another. And neither are objective.
E.g. to be meaningful is to vague because it has no objective standard. In effect your standard for meaningful is meaningless to me and so in reverse.
But we can't have that, because you are the standard for meaningful, right?

Click to expand...

Sorry, no idea what point you are trying to make here.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Then test that: then at least a cogent argument that does not rely on unsupported assumptions.
Spoiler alert. It has already been done and it is not possible.
So for you to test it, you have to accept that it is not possible. So before you start testing it, you have to ask yourself if you can accept that it might not be possible.

Click to expand...

mikkel_the_dane said:

If reason has a limit and everything can't be do using reason alone.

Click to expand...

In what way does "reason have a limit"?

KenS said:

LOL...It is amazing many posts and how many people have entered into the fray just because there is design... it is as if people don't want there to be design because there would therefore be a designer.

Click to expand...

Ironically, this perfectly describes your position.
You have presupposed the existence of a designer, therefore you need to find evidence of design when're there is none.

I do not care if there is a designer or not. My only concern is that my position be rational and in line with what the evidence points to.
If the evidence points to a god, then I will accept that as a possibility. However, if it is the god of the Bible (or Quran) I would not worship him because he's a massive **** who does not deserve worship.

I exit with one last thought...
Opposition to truth cannot be excused on the basis of ignorance, because from the creation of the world, the invisible qualities of God’s nature have been made visible, such as his eternal power and transcendence. He has made his wonderful attributes easily perceived, for seeing the visible makes us understand the invisible. So then, this leaves everyone without excuse.

Click to expand...

Meaningless platitude.
And of course, religionists of all types are just as convinced as you are that theirs is the truth and yours is wrong. And it is all based on belief rather than evidence or rational argument. So where does that leave you?

KenS said:

without the design of physical laws, would the artistic formation of all that we see be here?

Click to expand...

Without the laws of physics being as they are, reality might indeed be different.
However, nothing you have presented shows that they must have been designed by a conscious entity. Therefore it is unreasonable to insist on a designer.

KenS said:

If mass produces gravity and there is no design for mass, gravity wouldn't be the byproduct.If gravity is necessary and mass is what needs to be designed to make it... mass has design.

Click to expand...

Your entire position seems to be based on question begging.
You simply assume that everything must have been designed, therefore you can introduce a designer.
Your entire argument falls apart because your initial premise is what you are trying to demonstrate.
This is basic stuff, even for religionists.

KenS said:

They are designed for life and living. Where would you be if earth had no gravity? Understanding it was a discovery, but it was designed.

Click to expand...

What, specifically, about gravity shows it was designed by a conscious entity?
It appears that your criteria for "design" is "it exists". lol!

KenS said:

If mass produces gravity and there is no design for mass, gravity wouldn't be the byproduct.If gravity is necessary and mass is what needs to be designed to make it... mass has design.

Click to expand...

Most quantum particles and all atoms have mass. No design needed.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Well, you can spot the problem in that reality appears law-like, but that is no a physical quality. That is in the mind.

Click to expand...

The laws of physics aren't actual things. They are just concepts we have come up with to describe the fundamental nature of how things seem to behave.

Ken claimed that "[the fundamental nature of how things seem to behave] is design not happenstance". I wanted them to support their assertion. You merely pointed out that those laws are not physical things, which I agree with.

ChristineM said:

Most quantum particles and all atoms have mass. No design needed.

Click to expand...

The problem with creationists like Ken is that they will just cry "but that is designed!" to every example that does not necessarily show or require design. They do not seem to realise that it is the claim of design in the first place that they are obliged to demonstrate.

mikkel_the_dane said:

I don't believe in anything spiritual or supernatural. But nor do I believe that reality is physical, natural or any of these one factor explanation.

Click to expand...

You may not "believe in" it, but you are extremely sympathetic to the ideas and ideals of it (spirituality etc.). And in the end... what reality "is" is very likely just a bunch of matter and energy, what we call particles and waves, what-have-you, repulsed by one another, or attracted to one another to varying degrees - and that's possibly "it." But as self-aware constructions within that mess of matter and energy, (AGAIN!) there is a UTILITY to seeing things in a delineated fashion. You make the mistake of thinking I don't understand the ambiguity of what we call "reality" or "existence" - I do! It's just that I am not willing to sacrifice my experience as a living being just because "I'm not sure" about various other things. Within a rudimentary scope of activity I have some understanding that allows me to mete out existence in a subjectively comfortable fashion - and I am going to take advantage of that... and continue NOT TO CARE about your ridiculous shenanigans and claims that I shouldn't act on any experience or knowledge or inference because I can't be sure about any of it. Dash it all! You can't stop me! Hahahahahaha!

mikkel_the_dane said:

If you look in other threads, you will notice that I differ to some other atheists as to what reality is and whether it is e.g. natural or physical. That you have to believe it means I believe in the supernatural and what not, is your problem, not mine.

Click to expand...

Again, even if you don't "believe in" it, you are sympathetic to some "cause" or another you seem to think exists. You get that? You seem to think that there is a cause to be fought for regarding supernatural this or that, or spiritual doodads of various types. But guess what? That's just subjective and opinion, and is only layer on top of layer on top of matter and energy as well. So what now? You are exposed... nothing you say matters... just as nothing I say matters. And so I can go on about my business pretending that whatever I want to pretend matters is what matters... and you should just remain quiet. Or pipe up! And say what you think matters... but then I think you might just be betraying this "maybe nothing exists" crap you keep up with. Quite a strange little trap you have made for yourself.

mikkel_the_dane said:

So here is my problem, you have only stated the good aspects of science in effect, but I have found no evidence that we humans share a common good based on science alone.

Click to expand...

I haven't even used the word "science." Go ahead back through the conversation and look. If you find mention of it I will be shocked. Mutual experience and evidence. That's my schtick. Get it right.

KWED said:

Ironically, this perfectly describes your position.
You have presupposed the existence of a designer, therefore you need to find evidence of design when're there is none.

Click to expand...

Not really, it is actually the opposite. There is a design and it dictates there is a designer.

ChristineM said:

Most quantum particles and all atoms have mass. No design needed.

Click to expand...

that didn't negate my position.

KWED said:

What, specifically, about gravity shows it was designed by a conscious entity?
It appears that your criteria for "design" is "it exists". lol!

Click to expand...

Let me say this differently....

We design a computer to think - a conscious being creating. Our brain is also a computer. Design and designer are obvious unless you really are wanting to ignore what is seen.

KenS said:

that didn't negate my position.

Click to expand...

Position of guess makes you comfortable, fair enough.