The religion of Atheism.

[Free]

The FSM, IPU and Teapot are all False Analogies. Why is it that modern atheism resorts so much to ridicule?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

How are they false analogies?

 

[platos_cave]

How are they false analogies?

Seconded.

 

[Free]

Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.

As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.

 

[Gabe]

I never thought of it like that before. It makes sense.

 

[Dante-Alighieri]

Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.

As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.

They are not false analogies in any respect
"God" is as verifiable as IPU or the Teapot. To accept "God" as true without any objectively verifiable evidence to support the idea of a God is as ridiculous to rational people as believing in the IPU, teapot or FSM seems to Christians.



Dante

 

[Zechariah]

Atheism is merely a title. If you haven't noticed atheists could care less how they act. They have no official guidelines or laws to follow. Most atheists do as they please, and enjoy themselves in whatever way seems suitable. Atheism is a clear REJECTION of religion, and most definitely should not be taken as a religion. It is merely a point of view and a title.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Atheism is merely a title. If you haven't noticed atheists could care less how they act. They have no official guidelines or laws to follow. Most atheists do as they please, and enjoy themselves in whatever way seems suitable. Atheism is a clear REJECTION of religion, and most definitely should not be taken as a religion. It is merely a point of view and a title.

Yep, I just run around doing whatever I wish.

Mostly that consists of spending time with my family and friends, and trying to understand the world around me in its many different aspects.

 

[Gabe]

Atheism is merely a title. If you haven't noticed atheists could care less how they act. They have no official guidelines or laws to follow. Most atheists do as they please, and enjoy themselves in whatever way seems suitable. Atheism is a clear REJECTION of religion, and most definitely should not be taken as a religion. It is merely a point of view and a title.

They have something very 'official' called THE LAW and then there is the human CONSCIENCE. We ALL have a sense of right and wrong. We know it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie and commit adultery, whether we are religious or not. Atheists are not indifferent towards any of these acts.

 

[Zechariah]

All I am saying is that human law in the mind of a christian is their own laws. There are indeed many atheists who just don't care what happens to others, but themselves.

 

[Free]

Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.

As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.

They are not false analogies in any respect
"God" is as verifiable as IPU or the Teapot. To accept "God" as true without any objectively verifiable evidence to support the idea of a God is as ridiculous to rational people as believing in the IPU, teapot or FSM seems to Christians.

Dante

No, the point stands. This is the whole problem with these arguments--science, by definition, deals only with the empirical, yet it is the atheists who want to determine what is evidence and what is not. But the theist is arguing that the world itself, the fact that it does exist, that we exist, is evidence enough.

The IPU type arguments use physical things in the universe, things which if they existed, science would be able to find evidence of. But God, as the ground of the universe's existence, would not necessarily be able to be proven in the same ways. And there is no reason to suppose that he could, but this is what these atheist parodies do.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

All I am saying is that human law in the mind of a christian is their own laws. There are indeed many atheists who just don't care what happens to others, but themselves.

As there are many religious who feel the same way.

Whats your point?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.

As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.

They are not false analogies in any respect
"God" is as verifiable as IPU or the Teapot. To accept "God" as true without any objectively verifiable evidence to support the idea of a God is as ridiculous to rational people as believing in the IPU, teapot or FSM seems to Christians.

Dante

No, the point stands. This is the whole problem with these arguments--science, by definition, deals only with the empirical, yet it is the atheists who want to determine what is evidence and what is not. But the theist is arguing that the world itself, the fact that it does exist, that we exist, is evidence enough.

The IPU type arguments use physical things in the universe, things which if they existed, science would be able to find evidence of. But God, as the ground of the universe's existence, would not necessarily be able to be proven in the same ways. And there is no reason to suppose that he could, but this is what these atheist parodies do.

No, the IPU would not be detectable through evidence.


I do not agree that the IPU is a completely false analogy, but do agree that its not a good or useful analogy.

They are likely intended to be more for parody than useful.

 

[Gabe]

All I am saying is that human law in the mind of a christian is their own laws. There are indeed many atheists who just don't care what happens to others, but themselves.

You will find many people of ALL beliefs who care for no one but themselves. Being selfish is not something that is exclusive to atheists.

 

[Dante-Alighieri]

yet it is the atheists who want to determine what is evidence and what is not.

Actually, it is scientists who determine what is evidence. Evidence must be objectively verifiable.

But the theist is arguing that the world itself, the fact that it does exist, that we exist, is evidence enough.

The theist is wrong.
Neither humans nor the world are objective evidence of any sort of deity. It fails at evidence because there is no objectively verifiable (or fallible) measures to demonstrate that the existence of the world or humans point to the existence of a deity.

The theist (apparently) wants a free ride through science and make claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. If you can point out the objective evidence that the existence of the world or us points to a deity, then please do tell.

Biology and cosmology explain humans and the world naturally, and don't rely on an unverifiable deity playing behind the scenes.

But God, as the ground of the universe's existence, would not necessarily be able to be proven in the same ways.

God is unverifiable. Therefore, there's no reason to accept the existence of a deity when there's no falsifiability and no objective evidence.
Such a notion has no place whatsoever in science.




Dante

 

[Free]

The theist (apparently) wants a free ride through science and make claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. If you can point out the objective evidence that the existence of the world or us points to a deity, then please do tell.

No one is looking for a free ride. Even Dawkins stated that although there is the appearance of design in nature, it doesn't mean that there is a designer. But that is really a silly argument. If there is the appearance of design then the most obvious explanation is that there is a designer. In the very least, there is no reason to not believe in a designer, other than precluding the existence of one. In every other area of life, if there it appears that something is designed, it is assumed that there is a designer, not that there isn't one.

I would not only argue from design but from fine-tuning, the existence of morality, joy, truth, and love. The latter few in particular which science cannot adequately explain, if at all, without shooting itself in the foot.

Biology and cosmology explain humans and the world naturally, and don't rely on an unverifiable deity playing behind the scenes.

Firstly, biology and cosmology have their limits. There is much they don't explain, the most obvious being how the universe came into existence and how life came into existence, or rather how the information for life came into existence.

Secondly, my very point is that there isn't a supernatural being "playing behind the scenes." The very argument of the theist is that God is very much involved directly in his creation and that in doing so, has left evidence that points to his existence.

God is unverifiable. Therefore, there's no reason to accept the existence of a deity when there's no falsifiability and no objective evidence.
Such a notion has no place whatsoever in science.

Just because there is no direct objective proof for the existence of God, that neither means he doesn't exist or that there are no empirical effects in the world which point to his existence.

As I stated earlier, science deals with the natural so looking for direct objective evidence for something which is supernatural is beyond science. But this in no way suggests that belief in God has no place in science. There are many scientists who, as Christians, find that their scientific study provides evidence for a Creator.

Actually, it is scientists who determine what is evidence. Evidence must be objectively verifiable.

As Rachel Tulloch states: "Just because atheists do not have to prove empirically that God does not exist does not mean that they get to set up a standard of empirical proof for theists to meet. The real point is that such a narrow view of proof is inadequate to the question!"

In the end, if one wants to argue that the FSM is a sufficient analogy for God, in that it is the same in nature as God, does the same things as God etc., making it identical to God, then the analogy has changed "God" to "FSM" and merely appealed to ridicule, nothing more.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

No one is looking for a free ride. Even Dawkins stated that although there is the appearance of design in nature, it doesn't mean that there is a designer. But that is really a silly argument. If there is the appearance of design then the most obvious explanation is that there is a designer. In the very least, there is no reason to not believe in a designer, other than precluding the existence of one. In every other area of life, if there it appears that something is designed, it is assumed that there is a designer, not that there isn't one.

I would not only argue from design but from fine-tuning, the existence of morality, joy, truth, and love. The latter few in particular which science cannot adequately explain, if at all, without shooting itself in the foot.

No, it is faulty to assume that something is designed just because it appears to be.

You have to have solid evidence of design to make that claim.

It is similar to the sky at night. In the past, people connected star-dots to make pictures. Some claimed these pictures to be designed or real things that affect the earth. We know that was a faulty assumption.

There was also some rock formations off the coast of a place near Japan I believe. The people who discovered it claimed it to be a newly discovered ancient city. The believed the rocks were designed. Upon closer scrutiny, they turned out to be a natural phenomena.

Just because there is no direct objective proof for the existence of God, that neither means he doesn't exist or that there are no empirical effects in the world which point to his existence.

As I stated earlier, science deals with the natural so looking for direct objective evidence for something which is supernatural is beyond science. But this in no way suggests that belief in God has no place in science. There are many scientists who, as Christians, find that their scientific study provides evidence for a Creator.

I see this as having it both ways.

You say God is beyond science, therefore it is futile to try to observe God through science.

Yet, you point out many Christians who feel that the natural world provides positive evidence for a creator.

 

[platos_cave]

No one is looking for a free ride. Even Dawkins stated that although there is the appearance of design in nature, it doesn't mean that there is a designer. But that is really a silly argument. If there is the appearance of design then the most obvious explanation is that there is a designer. In the very least, there is no reason to not believe in a designer, other than precluding the existence of one. In every other area of life, if there it appears that something is designed, it is assumed that there is a designer, not that there isn't one.

So if I make a doll that looks exactly like a human being in all appearances, yet isn't, the most obvious explanation is that it is a human being because it appears to be...?

I would not only argue from design but from fine-tuning, the existence of morality, joy, truth, and love. The latter few in particular which science cannot adequately explain, if at all, without shooting itself in the foot.

Why?

Firstly, biology and cosmology have their limits. There is much they don't explain, the most obvious being how the universe came into existence and how life came into existence, or rather how the information for life came into existence.

You're right, biology doesn't explain how life came into existence, chemistry and biochemistry discuss this issue.
Cosmology offers many ideas on the existence of the universe.

Secondly, my very point is that there isn't a supernatural being "playing behind the scenes." The very argument of the theist is that God is very much involved directly in his creation and that in doing so, has left evidence that points to his existence.

Such as?

Just because there is no direct objective proof for the existence of God, that neither means he doesn't exist or that there are no empirical effects in the world which point to his existence.

Objective proof would be empirical. You're right, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist, it means there's no reason to think he does.

As I stated earlier, science deals with the natural so looking for direct objective evidence for something which is supernatural is beyond science. But this in no way suggests that belief in God has no place in science. There are many scientists who, as Christians, find that their scientific study provides evidence for a Creator.

And that would be an interpretation of science that does not support the scientific data.

As Rachel Tulloch states: "Just because atheists do not have to prove empirically that God does not exist does not mean that they get to set up a standard of empirical proof for theists to meet. The real point is that such a narrow view of proof is inadequate to the question!"

That's up to you, if you think that it is adequate to base your belief in God on nothing more than "Just so" stories and good feelings go right ahead. It doesn't mean that you can demonstrate the existence of God in any objective sense.

What would be an adequate standard of proof for theists, according to you?

In the end, if one wants to argue that the FSM is a sufficient analogy for God, in that it is the same in nature as God, does the same things as God etc., making it identical to God, then the analogy has changed "God" to "FSM" and merely appealed to ridicule, nothing more.

No, it's a reductio.

 

[LostSoul]

One question I cannot help but ask in light of this topic is....if it is so hard to believe in God without seeing Him or having proof in Him? Why is it scientists can be believed intelligent when they do not have all the answers? Or....why is it God who is unseen is so hard to believe in yet we as people still believe in cures for cancer when humanity yet has failed to provide proof of cures for numerous kinds?

In short...all that I am striving to say is this could go both ways. It is more or less, something perhaps nothing short of a pointless question that will only cause arguement seeing as various here believe one way or the other.

To have any one Christian say to a non-believer they are wrong is not going to prove anything any more than a non-believer telling a believer that their beliefs in God are based on nothing but man made works.

My appologies for any hurt feelings. I meant not to offend anyone. These are merely my thoughts. Take them as you will.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[carbon]

One question I cannot help but ask in light of this topic is....if it is so hard to believe in God without seeing Him or having proof in Him? Why is it scientists can be believed intelligent when they do not have all the answers? Or....why is it God who is unseen is so hard to believe in yet we as people still believe in cures for cancer when humanity yet has failed to provide proof of cures for numerous kinds?

Let me try to answer your questions based as an objective scientist and Christian (objective, key word, scientist for science subjects, Christian for matters of faith ;P).
Scientists are believed intelligent because they have answers to a lot of what's present that we see. Look at the sky. Why is it blue? Because the shorter wavelength of blue light causes it to be reflected by particles far more than the longer wavelengths. How do plants synthesize energy? Photosynthesis (they'd die without it. Visible). Scientists have rational explanations for a lot of things people see. Tangible things. Especially on the surface. There is a *ton* of scientific literature out there on a wide variety of subjects. Chemistry is a bit more invisible, but we have significant evidence to back up our observations. We can see the reaction. We may not see the electrons move, but we see reactants, then we see a product. From the product we can work backwards to theorize how the electrons flowed. Physics can go both ways. From you lifting a BIble off a desk using X amount of work determined by mass x gravity x height (mgh) to the invisible to the theoretical. I'm referring to quantum mechanics when I say "invisible". However, there are experiments that help us make good hypotheses and theories about the nature of particles. For example, the double-slit experiment is a widely-known experiment that helped scientists find the particle-wave duality of matter and light. Now the theoretical gets fuzzy. I'm also not saying QM is perfect. I would bet that we're wrong in some light and 150 years down the road we'll realize it. The theoretical, however, is when scientists argue each other. Like string theory. I had a physics prof who thought string theory was a bunch of hogwash, another who thought it was brilliant. But how many people pay attention to QM or theoretical physics?

My entire point with that paragraph is the following: The tangible is what people people pay attention to. Evolution is a beautiful theory on the surface. The ideal gas law is beautiful on the surface. IMHO Evolution is not fantastic even from a scientific point of view. There is a Van der Waals equation to fill in the cases in which the ideal gas law does not fit along with another gas law that I'm blanking on at the moment. In reality *no* gas is ideal. The ideal gas law is only an excellent approximation for gasses in those conditions that is very close to reality. Basically...on the surface, science is beautiful. There are nearly no holes nor anything scientists don't know. When you look deeper, however, there is *tons* we don't know, and a good bit we are approximating or is only a theory and not a law which is what makes science *so exciting*. The deeper you go into science the more you realize the limitations and the unknown

There are people out there that are very logical in their thinking - who want *reasons* for what they observe. Something unexplained is bothersome and must be found out in the same manner as all other observational reasons are - the scientific method. Faith is hard to come by for them. Extremely difficult in fact. Because they can fall back on the surface of science and say that science has all answers or will have all the answers. God is in no way tangible nor visible in the same way that scientific answers are visible and tangible. It is an entirely different mindset.

On scientific limits: Chemistry and biochemistry have limitations and *do not* explain the origin of life with any scientific certainty.

Morality, joy, truth will not be able to be explained by science because as human beings, we have free will (if we were all robots, experiments would be far simpler, but that would be no fun). I would hate to say that my actions are governed solely by my DNA. And I honestly find that impossible. DNA is an unconscious molecule. In fact, every molecule that makes you up *is* unconscious. How is it that we have consciousness? Life is really amazing once you think about it. We are nowhere *near* understanding consciousness. Let alone morality or joy or truth. Perhaps joy you can explain by endorphins. Morality and truth are tricky. First: How do you define morality scientifically? In order to make an experiment with respect to morality, it needs a scientific definition. The only way I could think to do a scientifically viable experiment on that is if they had a pair of identical twins - one's moral and one's immoral. (which would be highly unlikely unless they cloned someone and trained the clone to be immoral). Then you'd have to find what the moral one has and the immoral one doesn't have. Even so...given they have the same DNA nothing could be proved conclusively. Why? They'd be so similar it would be difficult to find anything different. And I have a feeling that morality is far more complex than one simple molecule in our brains. On the same note: how do we define truth scientifically?

There's only so much we know about the brain...and *a lot we don't know*. Also, I think there is going to be a lot that is unexplainable with scientific data. Theoretical physicists won't prove string theory. They won't disprove it either unless they come up with a 'better' theory. There are limitations to science.

Anyways, that's my 10 cents. sorry for the length.