Atheists: what would it take?

[Polymath257]

I don't think so. Inflation has evidence, singularity is not known, Big Bang is hypothetical. Being an atheist, I am open to correction.

No. Expansion has evidence, as does the Big Bang (a description of that expansion). Inflation is one particular phase of exponential expansion very early on that has very limited evidence. A singularity is a description, not a noun.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A carbon atom in your body is identical to a carbon atom in coal. it is not alive.
The way those atoms and molecules capture and redirect energy, the motion produced by that, the senses gathering information, THAT is what makes the organization alive.

I differ with you on this point. Sure, a carbon atom in my body is just like the one in coal, and both are alive - i.e., live to the level of elementary particles, why would you consider them dead? Like you said, they make the body alive.

No. Expansion has evidence, as does the Big Bang (a description of that expansion). Inflation is one particular phase of exponential expansion very early on that has very limited evidence. A singularity is a description, not a noun.

That is what I meant. Even if we have limited information, we do have some. We have limited information on nearly all things that science studies (the limits vary). However, that is better than having no information at all.

 

[Five Solas]

I've never understood WHY it was necessary for an omnipotent God to set up a human sacrifice to [him]self before [he]'d alter the rules about sin.

Hi,
One cannot understand what Jesus did without a thorough understanding of sacrifice in the Old Testament. The Bible is, among other things, salvation history.

So, yes, He could have done it your way - He chose otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

I differ with you on this point. Sure, a carbon atom in my body is just like the one in coal, and both are alive - i.e., live to the level of elementary particles, why would you consider them dead? Like you said, they make the body alive.

They don't reproduce. They don't grow. They don't have a metabolism. They don't maintain homeostasis.

So they are not alive.

Why *would* you consider them to be alive?

I might not say they are 'dead' since that would imply they were once alive.

That is what I meant. Even if we have limited information, we do have some. We have limited information on nearly all things that science studies (the limits vary). However, that is better than having no information at all.

Yes.

 

[Brian2]

If 'spirit' had detectable and regular properties that can be modeled, then it could be studied by science. The label 'physical' is rather irrelevant.

Remember that light is physical. Electromagnetism is physical. Neutrinos are physical.

If you can take a picture of a ghost, that means it interacts with light, which would make it physical. If that ghost can make sounds, then it causes waves in the air and so is physical.

That would not necessarily mean that spirit would have the same properties as ordinary matter. it just means it could be studied by science and would be labeled as physical.

Do you think that because something is outside the realm of being studied by science, that means it has the same properties as something that does not exist and so does not exist. So basically are you an empiricist in that respect, someone who believes in scientism?

 

[Heyo]

But, of course, those eyewitnesses have to actually observe something to be able to report it.

Nope. Even if they aren't outright lying, we know that their brain may have created details to fill in gaps of knowledge. Eyewitness testimony can be just an overactive imagination.

 

[Heyo]

Do you think that because something is outside the realm of being studied by science, that means it has the same properties as something that does not exist and so does not exist.

It means it isn't real. Mathematical entities aren't real but they exist non-the-less. Dumbledore isn't real but he exists in the Harry Potter universe. And there are differences between numbers and Dumbledore.
See 5 Planes of Existence

So basically are you an empiricist in that respect, someone who believes in scientism?

You are confusing two different concepts here.

 

[Brian2]

No, that is not the assumption. That is the discovery. All processes of life that we have seen can be described via chemistry.

It's not much of a discovery. I could have told them that bodily processes are governed by chemistry. That does not say anything about what life is however.

Nope. Not the reason. For example, in the 19th century, there was a concept that life had an 'vital force' that was in addition to the chemistry and physics. Over time, it was found that chemistry always played the role of that vital force.

But this also shows that *if* something along that line can be detected, then science would be OK in investigating it.

So a vital force that cannot be detected is said to not exist. So why is it that science is silent on religious things such as the existence of a soul? Is it that science is actually not silent about such things when it says life is chemical in nature?

No, actually explaining the processes of life by chemistry is the strong evidence that life is chemical in nature. Take a good look at a biochemistry book sometime.

That surely would also include the non discovery of a vital force.

But it is physical only by definition: if spirits and ghosts could be detected, then they could be studied by science.

But to define life as physical does cross the boundary of science not being able to say yes or no to spiritual things. In theory I guess no it does not but in popular culture science is saying :"Hey world, life is nothing chemistry". And of course atheists and sceptics use science to say that there is no spirit.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So they are not alive.
Why *would* you consider them to be alive?

Physical energy is always live. See, what all is happening inside the atom. How can it be called dead?

 

[Brian2]

It means it isn't real. Mathematical entities aren't real but they exist non-the-less. Dumbledore isn't real but he exists in the Harry Potter universe. And there are differences between numbers and Dumbledore.
See 5 Planes of Existence


You are confusing two different concepts here.

OK that was interesting.
What 2 different concepts did I confuse?

 

[Heyo]

OK that was interesting.
What 2 different concepts did I confuse?

Scientism (which is a derogative for naïvely believing in science) and empiricism (which is an epistemological theory). They are somewhat related but play in different leagues.
Personally, I'm a "the right tool for the job" guy. Science for anything real, philosophy for ideas and ideals, jurisprudence for legal matters and literary sciences for the imaginary. And in my opinion religion and spirituality are a subset of fictional stories but I'm open to debate that.

 

[Brian2]

Scientism (which is a derogative for naïvely believing in science) and empiricism (which is an epistemological theory). They are somewhat related but play in different leagues.
Personally, I'm a "the right tool for the job" guy. Science for anything real, philosophy for ideas and ideals, jurisprudence for legal matters and literary sciences for the imaginary. And in my opinion religion and spirituality are a subset of fictional stories but I'm open to debate that.

I can't debate anything now. I'm going to bed.............. way too late again.

 

[F1fan]

That statement is true for those who do not believe in God.

Which is the wise and rational position. Believers believe, but can't explain why they believe. They just accept non-rational ideas to conform to social norms. What better way to ennsure trust than to accept absurd ideas as a test?

The Bible says "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1Cor1:18)

Irrelevant.

Jesus did not come to bring meaning but rather to die on the cross.
However, once you believe you discover the true meaning of life.

This is contradictory. And absurd. The Jesus myth makes no sense, as it suggests God can't get his creation right. The Fall from the Garden. The Global Flood. Then got a woman pregnant to create a human to have executed as a sacrifice to himself. Wow, what a mess. It still didn't fix anything.

That is most probably true. But that does not make them Christians.

There are no true Christians. Christianity is a set of religious beliefs where anything goes. You can be a liberal, a conservative, a member of the KKK, a domestic terrorist, all saved by Jesus. What a mess.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think that because something is outside the realm of being studied by science, that means it has the same properties as something that does not exist and so does not exist. So basically are you an empiricist in that respect, someone who believes in scientism?

I don't know how to give meaning to the term 'exists' for something that is real and cannot be detected.

Science cannot give answers to all important questions. For example, it cannot answer questions of morality or aesthetics (it can inform such questions, but not answer them). It cannot say what our goals should be, although it might be able to help make them possible.

The difference, I suspect, is that I consider questions about morality, goals, and aesthetics to be matters of opinion and not matters of fact. I don't believe there is a truth value in these subjects, as important as they are to us humans.

 

[Polymath257]

Physical energy is always live. See, what all is happening inside the atom. How can it be called dead?

It can certainly not be called alive by the standard definitions of 'alive'. Being active and reactive are not the same as being alive.

 

[Polymath257]

It means it isn't real. Mathematical entities aren't real but they exist non-the-less.

I would say they only 'exist' in our minds.

Dumbledore isn't real but he exists in the Harry Potter universe. And there are differences between numbers and Dumbledore.
See 5 Planes of Existence


You are confusing two different concepts here.

Meh. I would not say that Dumbledore exists, except as a fictional character. Mathematical entities 'exist' as linguistic conveniences. Neither exist in the 'real world'.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not much of a discovery. I could have told them that bodily processes are governed by chemistry. That does not say anything about what life is however.

I disagree. For example, the reason some compounds are called 'organic' is that it was once thought they could only be part of life processes: that there was something special about them because they were part of living things. We now know that isn't the case.

So a vital force that cannot be detected is said to not exist. So why is it that science is silent on religious things such as the existence of a soul? Is it that science is actually not silent about such things when it says life is chemical in nature?

If you can give a way of detecting a soul, it would become a matter of science. Science has investigated these questions and found no evidence that souls or spirits exist. At that point, the best bet is that they do not. And until a way is found to detect them, that is the best description.

That surely would also include the non discovery of a vital force.

Yes, in spite of actively being searched for.

But to define life as physical does cross the boundary of science not being able to say yes or no to spiritual things. In theory I guess no it does not but in popular culture science is saying :"Hey world, life is nothing chemistry". And of course atheists and sceptics use science to say that there is no spirit.

Until there is a way to detect 'spirit' there is no good reason to postulate that such exists. And, until there is actual evidence for such a thing, there is no reason to include it in our explanations.


Sure, go ahead and speculate about such. But realize that for it to be meaningful to say such exist, that some method of detection must be found. Until that happens, all it is is speculation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It can certainly not be called alive by the standard definitions of 'alive'. Being active and reactive are not the same as being alive.

Well, my definition is a bit different. All which happens in the universe is because of that. That is why I consider it alive. That is my 'Advaita' definition which does not recognize any difference between humans, animals, vegetation and non-iving substances. All which exists is Brahman.

 

[blü 2]

Hi,
One cannot understand what Jesus did without a thorough understanding of sacrifice in the Old Testament. The Bible is, among other things, salvation history.

So, yes, He could have done it your way - He chose otherwise.

Quite obscene, don't you think, to sacrifice your envoy to yourself as a condition for something you could effortlessly do anyway? Especially if that envoy was your son, genetic or adopted.

Who'd think a god like that was worthy of worship?

 

[Alien826]

Is it even possible for a single Utopia to match the utopian preferences of billions of individuals? How would the alien/aliens satisfy everyone?

I think I would rather maintain a higher level of input and autonomy and work for/participate in, a system of least worst compromises that are mutually agreed to by my fellow human beings in the trenches.

I'm not sure a utopia has to satisfy everyone. On the other hand it's not too difficult to imagine a world where there vast majority of people would consider it to be pretty close to perfection. at least when compared to what we have now.

How about,
- No more destructive conflict at any level.
- Resources are shared equitably.
- The planet is respected and maintained.
- Everyone is free to do whatever they want, within the boundaries described above.

No doubt the rulers of Saudi Arabia wouldn't like women walking around without their faces covered, but as you say, we can't please everyone.