AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Atheism

122 28612
Ro13ey
offline
Ro13ey
21 posts
Nomad

Most cultures shun non-believers like atheists. (which I am and will take no offense if you disagree with me)What do you think about it?

  • 122 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

I'll sum of my beliefs then I suppose.

I believe that there is not evidence for any supernatural beings in the world. I believe that you can only rely on your own moral reasoning to determine what is and what is not right. I believe that religions are attempts at doing so, but in an illogical manner that are based on emotional whims and hopeful thought. I recognize that no person holds the exact same belief as another, and unless proven unfounded all beliefs are of equal validity.

I do not believe there is an after life of any sort, and that you die once all brain functions cease. I believe that it is immoral to kill any living thing without a purpose, and that purposes are subjective.

I do not believe in any absolute morals, but that they are instead determined by the mass consensus of the human population. I believe that many of these are gut-reactions and may or may not be biologically caused.

I do not believe that any one political system is correct, they are all means to an end and may or may not fit depending upon the circumstances. I do believe that some political systems are superior to others, but that does not make those others wrong.

I am open to all ideas if evidence can be provided, until then I shall remain duly skeptical of all claims of any supernatural kind.


Does anyone find anything wrong with this?
DairyHick
offline
DairyHick
134 posts
Nomad

Does anyone find anything wrong with this?


I would have to agree withe the majority of this. However...

I believe that there is not evidence for any supernatural beings in the world.


I do have to point out that evidence is a relatively subjective matter. What one person might see as evidence, another person might dismiss it.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

This is my problem over here. Can nature truly guide? or is there something that is more "grand" that is guiding this.


Yes nature can truly guide. Let's take an example from evolution with natural selection. In an environment let's say the surrounding covering is mostly brown and we have two variation of beetle, one bright green and the other a tan/brown color. In this environment there are predators that eat the beetles. Because the bright green beetles stand out more against the brown covering they are spotted and eaten more than the brown beetles. As a result the brown beetles reproduce more eventually leaving just brown beetles that can blend into the surroundings. The selection process for brown beetles is entirely natural and non random.

Another example is the effects of earth's magnetic field on stratum deposits, This gives rise it a dating method known as Magnetostratigraphy. We can also use the non random natural process of radioactive decay in the method known as radiometric dating. These are methods that simply wouldn't work if there weren't non random natural processes going on.

I do have to point out that evidence is a relatively subjective matter. What one person might see as evidence, another person might dismiss it.


So if someone said they had a ball and held up a ball the evidence that a ball is in their hand is a subjective matter? Subjective evidence would be if some just said they saw the ball without providing anything further that could be independently verify, we would just have to accept this person at their word.
ThroatLozenge
offline
ThroatLozenge
146 posts
Nomad

I'm making my first post in this thread so forgive me if it's random. It's a response to Mage but it contains my overall view on the subject.

So if someone said they had a ball and held up a ball the evidence that a ball is in their hand is a subjective matter? Subjective evidence would be if some just said they saw the ball without providing anything further that could be independently verify, we would just have to accept this person at their word.


All evidence is subjective if you consider that for all we know our perception of our world is extremely limited. And the lack of any evidence to our senses that a ball is there does not necessarily mean a ball isn't there.

All our science will forever be limited by the fact we cannot escape the limits of our bodies and the confines they trap our minds in. We will never TRULY know. For we can only see, touch, smell, taste, and hear. Yet we discuss things that are beyond those senses.

You can talk of radioactive decay. But if there truly was a supreme being, and they truly did not want to be proven to exist and they were undetectable by our senses if they wished to be, then anything we prove with our science could easily be refuted. It does all come down to faith no matter which way you go about it.

-Note: I am an atheist :P
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Subjective evidence would be if some just said they saw the ball without providing anything further that could be independently verify, we would just have to accept this person at their word.


Perfect example of subjective evidence: "I feel in my heart that God is real." That's nice, but it doesn't prove anything. It may for you, but no one else can see/feel anything. Plus, you can't really feel your heart anyways.

As a result the brown beetles reproduce more eventually leaving just brown beetles that can blend into the surroundings. The selection process for brown beetles is entirely natural and non random.


Some wouldn't consider that random though.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

All evidence is subjective if you consider that for all we know our perception of our world is extremely limited. And the lack of any evidence to our senses that a ball is there does not necessarily mean a ball isn't there.


So your saying that if we lack evidence then the evidence we do have is subjective?


You can talk of radioactive decay. But if there truly was a supreme being, and they truly did not want to be proven to exist and they were undetectable by our senses if they wished to be, then anything we prove with our science could easily be refuted. It does all come down to faith no matter which way you go about it.


No it doesn't come down to faith. We can use evidence that anyone can see and test to determine things. You can deny a claim in this way but not refute it.

Some wouldn't consider that random though.


Didn't say it was....
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Didn't say it was....


My bad, I'm tired and I mis-read.

No it doesn't come down to faith. We can use evidence that anyone can see and test to determine things. You can deny a claim in this way but not refute it.


I think what he's trying to say is, no matter how many times something is shown to happen, that doesn't mean it always will and in that way. Maybe I'm just mis-reading again, or maybe you already understand. I think I'll head to bed now.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

I do not believe in any absolute morals

Morals are best developed through objective and subjective means. There are absolute detail in terms of morality. For example:
Having an abortion could be considered immoral as it is the effort being made to prevent life.
Not having sex is not immoral because it's not an act being made, it's more or less "neutral".

I am open to all ideas if evidence can be provided, until then I shall remain duly skeptical of all claims of any supernatural kind.

As shall I.

I do not believe that any one political system is correct, they are all means to an end and may or may not fit depending upon the circumstances. I do believe that some political systems are superior to others, but that does not make those others wrong.

I believe each one has flaws or requirements that have not been dealt with or met, and as a result the ideology of having one over the other is not necessarily relevant when there is still advancements to be made. The way I like to do things ^^

I do have to point out that evidence is a relatively subjective matter. What one person might see as evidence, another person might dismiss it.

Evidence would genuinely be determined in court as something that supports an argument with credibility beyond reasonable doubt. I would usually do the same... if I'm still sceptical, as many a time there are different explanations (some able to be explained in more detail than others) and I usually like to take the most reliable one. Usually though the results are the same where, it doesn't matter that much. :P

Can nature truly guide? or is there something that is more "grand" that is guiding this.

Instincts?
Urges?
As MageGrayWolf had mentioned, the theory of evolution through natural selection.

So if someone said they had a ball and held up a ball the evidence that a ball is in their hand is a subjective matter?

That would be evidence as it doesn't necessarily prove that they have it. Talking about ownership, which was something you didn't specify (nit picking I know).

All evidence is subjective if you consider that for all we know our perception of our world is extremely limited. And the lack of any evidence to our senses that a ball is there does not necessarily mean a ball isn't there.

I used to have this ideology, where I'd consider any possibility without baring how radical it was. But really -- our senses tell us a ball is there, I am not mentally handicapped or insane. I have no physical attribute that inhibits the effectiveness of my judgement on the matter -- by all views, he has a ball in his hand, and even if that were not the case, that would be the idea it portrays.

All our science will forever be limited by the fact we cannot escape the limits of our bodies and the confines they trap our minds in.

It's an extra step we take to make sure we have the capabilities, not with our bodies but generally with technology.

We will never TRULY know. For we can only see, touch, smell, taste, and hear. Yet we discuss things that are beyond those senses.

And even then, you need to consider biological affects as a result of different circumstances that influence our actual perception. Alcohol, LSD, and other drugs.

But if there truly was a supreme being,

I'll stop this straight up -- the argument of a benevolent being as they're most often portrayed and them showing themselves is philosophical, being as they've the power to do anything, supposedly. As a result, any hints you can try and make out they leave is irrelevant since if they wanted us to know it isn't difficult without being cryptic.
In fact, it's insulting for the most part.

It does all come down to faith no matter which way you go about it.

That's if people are willing to shed any integrity they may have once had with logic and reason, in order to pursue an uncertain future. It's been argued many a time over, the topic of religion in these forums and it's never ended well for the religious end, by my recollection... which of course is subjective evidence, however what is proof I would say is the threads themselves.

As for Kasic's latest post. I'm not entirely sure what memory is as evidence and the like -- I'm willing to say its inaccessible proof to only the bearer, as long as he / she's not gone under too much influence on the subject -- anger or the idea of self defense in a debate can cause irrationality to occur and make aggressive actions feel justified by your brain later. You can even be witness to entirely different things in a sense of your perception, with different details being changed to better suit your point of view.

I would say it should always be degraded to subjective and furthermore secondary evidence, as a result.

Some wouldn't consider that random though.

The selection process for brown beetles is entirely natural and non random.

I'm confused.

- H
DairyHick
offline
DairyHick
134 posts
Nomad

Yes nature can truly guide. Let's take an example from evolution with natural selection. In an environment let's say the surrounding covering is mostly brown and we have two variation of beetle, one bright green and the other a tan/brown color. In this environment there are predators that eat the beetles. Because the bright green beetles stand out more against the brown covering they are spotted and eaten more than the brown beetles. As a result the brown beetles reproduce more eventually leaving just brown beetles that can blend into the surroundings. The selection process for brown beetles is entirely natural and non random.


Well... In this case I'm afraid the example goes much much deeper then mere natural selection. In a nutshell, the process of natural selection is caused by mutation, and mutation is caused by a change in the chemical bonds within the DNA/RNA, and a change of chemical bonding within the RNA/DNA can be cause by infinite kinds of reasons ranging from shortage of a certain element source to random nuclear decay within the DNA/RNA.

Another example is the effects of earth's magnetic field on stratum deposits, This gives rise it a dating method known as Magnetostratigraphy. We can also use the non random natural process of radioactive decay in the method known as radiometric dating. These are methods that simply wouldn't work if there weren't non random natural processes going on.


Again... Lets go a little deeper :P
What gives matter magnetic properties? A specific way in which electrons in the D orbital of an element are arranged. So why are the electrons arranged like that? due to the strong and weak force being of a fixed amount of "energy" <-- for the sake of easy discussion.

Haha! We Finally hit gold!

In "nature" things are a continues spectrum of variables.
However, when we near the building block of everything we can see that "stuff", particles specifically have fixed properties. Electron 1 has the same and exact charge and mass and density as any other electron.

So? who made these rules in "nature"?

again food for thought.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Well... In this case I'm afraid the example goes much much deeper then mere natural selection. In a nutshell, the process of natural selection is caused by mutation, and mutation is caused by a change in the chemical bonds within the DNA/RNA, and a change of chemical bonding within the RNA/DNA can be cause by infinite kinds of reasons ranging from shortage of a certain element source to random nuclear decay within the DNA/RNA.


Well I'm afraid the example doesn't really go that much deeper. Natural selection is not being caused by mutation. Mutation is another process occurring. Yes we do have complex biological interactions going on but that does not negate the non randomness of natural selection.

Again... Lets go a little deeper :P
What gives matter magnetic properties? A specific way in which electrons in the D orbital of an element are arranged. So why are the electrons arranged like that? due to the strong and weak force being of a fixed amount of "energy" <-- for the sake of easy discussion.


So your agreeing with me that it's non random or are you trying to show horn in that concept of god where you redefine something that is known and already defined as god?

So? who made these rules in "nature"?


No body needed to make these "rules" it's simply the properties these things possess.

It also seems to me your trying to ignore the point I was making.
DairyHick
offline
DairyHick
134 posts
Nomad

Well I'm afraid the example doesn't really go that much deeper. Natural selection is not being caused by mutation. Mutation is another process occurring. Yes we do have complex biological interactions going on but that does not negate the non randomness of natural selection.

My Good Sir

I am 100 percent certain that if you were to just read a little bit of Charles Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" you would agree that Natural Selection as the example you have given me (the moths) is in fact caused by mutation in the genome.

So your agreeing with me that it's non random or are you trying to show horn in that concept of god where you redefine something that is known and already defined as god?


This was just meant as a little bit of &quotrerequisite knowledge"... uhmm.... * scratches head*
please, tell me what you mean by this?

No body needed to make these "rules" it's simply the properties these things possess.


So you find that it is completely natural that specific things in "nature" are fixed, there are in fact "rules".

- No velocity of any object is able to surpass 299,792,458 m/s. <-- what do you call this? a property?

- If any sub nuclear particle (quarks to be specific) had a sudden change in its properties of the slightest, the elements that make up our entire universe would have never existed.

It also seems to me your trying to ignore the point I was making.


I apologize if you feel this way. Could you perhaps tell me what were trying get across?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I am 100 percent certain that if you were to just read a little bit of Charles Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" you would agree that Natural Selection as the example you have given me (the moths) is in fact caused by mutation in the genome.

Forgot about recombination? Natural selection just means there have to be heritable differences between organisms that are subject to selective pressure. Be mutation the cause or not; most often it's not.

- No velocity of any object is able to surpass 299,792,458 m/s. <-- what do you call this? a property?

How about physical constance, or threshold, due to the properties of particles?

- If any sub nuclear particle (quarks to be specific) had a sudden change in its properties of the slightest, the elements that make up our entire universe would have never existed.

Since we're still here, we can assume this hasn't happened and probably won't happen soon (or else it would already have; seems it's pretty stable).
ThroatLozenge
offline
ThroatLozenge
146 posts
Nomad

So your saying that if we lack evidence then the evidence we do have is subjective?


No. I am saying that your "evidence" cannot be taken as such when it is based on the fact that you only have 5 ways to perceive things. We use a large selection of processes in science to attempt to determine things that we can't using only our 5 senses. But none of these can ever be truly reliable. As for all you know you are being manipulated by a supreme being in every conclusion you ever reach with science, or are just observing the very systematic work of a supreme being.

The argument is futile.

It's an extra step we take to make sure we have the capabilities, not with our bodies but generally with technology.


This is answered in the above. We use technology often to learn of things that we have no way of actually seeing. But it's all assuming.

In my opinion, all we can rely on are our own senses to make daily decisions (Is the ball there or not?) But we cannot rely on these to discuss things like what we are discussing.

There is no answer to be found.

No it doesn't come down to faith. We can use evidence that anyone can see and test to determine things. You can deny a claim in this way but not refute it.


True dat :P

That's if people are willing to shed any integrity they may have once had with logic and reason, in order to pursue an uncertain future.


It's all uncertain.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an atheist. I would much rather believe there's nothing there. But I will never try and prove my independence from a possible supreme being with science. As I said before, if I were god and didn't want to be found. I would hide myself behind a neverending layer of plausible scientific explanation for things some might claim to be my doing.

Religious people would say that god WANTS it all to be about faith.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I am 100 percent certain that if you were to just read a little bit of Charles Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" you would agree that Natural Selection as the example you have given me (the moths) is in fact caused by mutation in the genome.


Don't know if you've checked out my profile, but yeah I have done quite a bit of reading go on the subject. The mutation of the genome to allow for the color to exist is not what is selecting for the treat to be passed on.

So you find that it is completely natural that specific things in "nature" are fixed, there are in fact "rules".


Yes would agree there are constants to the universe, this is what allows us to make prediction in nature. We can expect under X conditions that a certain outcome will happen.

If any sub nuclear particle (quarks to be specific) had a sudden change in its properties of the slightest, the elements that make up our entire universe would have never existed.


A fine tuning argument now?
Clearly they didn't change as we have a universe with the properties that we have. There may be very naturalistic explanations for why the universe is the way it is that doesn't require some greater mystical force to guide it. It's even quite possible that our universe is not the only one, as a result our universe having the set properties that it does is actually a random event.

It's possible we did experience other conditions that wouldn't allow for the universe as it is to day to exist. But those states were short lived finally leaving what we have now.

"Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527)."

I apologize if you feel this way. Could you perhaps tell me what were trying get across?


You asked if nature can truly guide, I provided examples of how it could because of there properties not being random but fixed. Then we got into this pedantic tangent.
Santi_
offline
Santi_
1,900 posts
Nomad

Well, yeah. Atheists are shunned, just watch anything on TV, or movies, or the internet. Personally, I'm not atheist, but that doensn't mean that anyone should lock them out of their society. Everybody just makes a big deal out of nothing. The way I see it atheists, just choose not too believe in any of the religions there are. But, everyone has too admit, the Force church, the force seen on Star Wars, church, is pretty unsual. So, I guess, live with everyone. My family is asian, so it's pretty weird when a little kid comes up to me and says "Mommy, is that a terrowist?" I don't even wear a turban, or whatever it's called. Just saying.

Showing 91-105 of 122