Atheism and faith

[psyche101]

44 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Of course, I would object. You now have a burden of proof to demonstrate that the non-existence of God is a fact.

Now comes the belief in quantum vacuums, multiple universes ect.

Quantum vaccums are not belief, and the multiverse theory is based on m theory which opens the possibility of branes supporting other universes. Its not a personal on the spot version of ancient superstitions. 

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, JMPD1 said:

Walker, that is total BS even from you.

Cite sources.

Aw shucks paw, do we have ta? 

Paw he ain’t got nuffen, he ain’t, I tell ya he ain’t.......

 

 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

Never argue your Faith based on books with the learned; they know books very well and will eviscerate your argument, every time--at least, to their satisfaction. One can not prove Faith; one can not teach Faith; one can not compel or impose Faith. Faith is not an intellectual argument; one either believes or one does not--and that's it. Faith is not science; it is simple belief for that which there is no acceptable scientific evidence. A theist trying to validate their religion from a lectern is as out of place as an atheist preaching apostasy from a pulpit. Sorry, but the twain will never meet.

No one can either prove nor disprove God, one can only offer intricate arguments and rationalizations--often quite eruditely, I might add--in validation of one's belief or one's dismissal. 

To paraphrase myself--go out at night beyond the pollution of city lights and look up at the stars, the milky way arching overhead. Look out on the vast expanse of the Universe and ask yourself this one question: Could minds of such tiny finite creatures, as human beings are on the cosmic scale, ever understand something that could have created all of that? No, if God exists--the biggest of ifs--God is something quite beyond our quaint human theology.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Only_]

33 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Quantum vaccums are not belief, and the multiverse theory is based on m theory which opens the possibility of branes supporting other universes. Its not a personal on the spot version of ancient superstitions. 

There is no evidence for a a Universe created out of a quantum vacuum. Neither is there any evidence of a Multiverse.

You take it on faith.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[psyche101]

30 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

There is no evidence for a a Universe created out of a quantum vacuum. Neither is there any evidence of a Multiverse.

Yes there is evidence in scientific theory which is not faith. It's theory based. A quantum vacuum is a state of emptiness at absolute zero and M theory leads to the possibility of a Multiverse through branes.  Virtual particles are supported mathematically. Its not fact they are hypotheses and equations which are not faith. 

Quote

You take it on faith.

No, that's all you can relate to with religion hobbling your thought processes there is evidence in the hypothesis, there is not proof supporting the hypothesis. 

That's nothing like continuing some ancient goat herders imaginary friend is it now. 

You just don't understand science at all do you? Honestly, your one of the few who seem to be deliberately unlearning everything they can. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by psyche101

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Most modern education systems explicitly do both For example Australaian govt schools have explicitly stated value statements in their curricula which teachers must try to inculcate in their students without presenting viable alternatives  

the govts assume that they do not have to critically examine or justify those values because the y are already socially accepted. Examples include; honesty, racial and gender tolerance, refraining from physical or social bullying,  and other forms of violence in conflict resolution,     sustainable living, social rather than individual  priority of wants  and  sustainable/ environmentally friendly, living. 

Values are  usually based on opinions about things which are based on  the priorities of an individual or government . 

One does not believe in facts one knows them but when it comes to values etc.,  these are formed, not from facts, but from beliefs. 

Hi Walker

It:s not uncommon for people around here to ignore facts in favor of belief.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

To be an atheist a being must first, be able to consider the question, and second, to have decided in the negative 

Hi Walker

Isn't your negative subjective as it is based on how you see life from a limited perspective?

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Honestly if you cant see this i am not sure how anyone could explain it to you.

But for example 10 years extra life, better physical health, better psychological health and well being lower incidences of alcoholism drug taking   and sexual promiscuity    These are some of the proven benefits of faith belief and religious observance

Faster wound healing, lower pain,    greater and faster recovery form serious trauma and illnesses 

Then there  are the social benefits. western society basically remains constructed on Judaeo christian values (not those of mayans, american natives, or Mongolian shamans) You owe your safety and prosperity to those values  

Hi Walker

What is the significance of this rebuttal when you openly admit that you do not belong to a religion nor have the organized fellowship of one.You are trying to argue a value that you will not personally accept which devalues your claim of a benefit.

jmccr8

[Only_]

36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes there is evidence in scientific theory which is not faith. It's theory based. A quantum vacuum is a state of emptiness at absolute zero and M theory leads to the possibility of a Multiverse through branes.  Virtual particles are supported mathematically. Its not fact they are hypotheses and equations which are not faith.

It's theoritical. An abstract concept. There is no evidence for a Multiverse.

If you want to claim that there are multiple universes, you have to take it on faith.

Quote

That's nothing like continuing some ancient goat herders imaginary friend is it now. 

You just don't understand science at all do you? Honestly, your one of the few who seem to be deliberately unlearning everything they can.

I have come to the conclusion that atheists steal reason, evidence, science, and other arguments from God in trying to make their case for atheism. If that sounds contradictory, it’s because it is! Atheists can’t make their case without appealing to realities only theism can explain.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

It's theoritical. An abstract concept. There is no evidence for a Multiverse.

Sigh, not even scientific  theory  it's simply hypothesis, a hypothesis is evidence in that its a supposition based on sound evidences. Its not proof, its a hypothesis. 

Its not an ancient superstition that some insist is realistic. 

Quote

If you want to claim that there is multiple universes, you have to take it on faith.

Do you understand the definitions of

Faith

Evidence 

Proof

??? 

Edited May 30, 2018 by psyche101

[Only_]

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Sigh, not even scientific  theory  it's simply hypothesis, a hypothesis is evidence in that its a supposition based on sound evidences. Its not proof, its a hypothesis. 

It's arguable that the Multiverse is even within the domain of science. It's more philosophy. It cannot be proven. 

[LINK] Not Only Does the Multiverse Not Exist, It's a 'Useless Theory,' Expert Says

[LINK] Why the Multiverse May Be the Most Dangerous Idea in Physics

Quote

Do you understand the definitions of

Faith

Just to be clear, I define 'faith' as:

confidence or trust in a particular system 

religious or not.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[D.O'N]

Atheist means this basically...if someone came to me and said "there is such thing a god" and I go "well do you have any proof?" and they go "no" and I reply "well I don't believe then"...no faith needed. 

[Only_]

7 minutes ago, Baldylocks said:

Atheist means this basically...if someone came to me and said "there is such thing a god" and I go "well do you have any proof?" and they go "no" and I reply "well I don't believe then"...no faith needed. 

If he then asks you the following questions: ''If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?

Edited May 30, 2018 by Brother_Spirit

[D.O'N]

20 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

If then asks you the following questions: ''If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong? If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?

All that doesn't mean there is a God. And you can MAKE meaning to life even if there isn't any meaning unless you count reproducing. And you really telling me you need something to tell you to not murder? knowing right and wrong, evil and good is what you learn through out life, like upbringing etc. I was bullied as a kid for example, made my life hell, so its the last thing I wanna do to someone else cause I don't want them to feel my pain. 

If death is just that...nothing. For me, that makes life more precious cause you have only one chance. 

And why is there a conscious? well a conscious is electrons and what not, how it all got here to begin with no one knows yet really. And something rather then nothing? again I don't know, I still need proof that God, what seems to have came from "nothing" itself did it.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Baldylocks

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

If he then asks you the following questions: ''If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?

Trust your own opinion, stop looking for heros and be realistic.

[SHaYap]

When one is deficient of hope, one lives on the abundance of faith ...

~

[danydandan]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Sadly i must once again disagree.  When it comes to any VALUE, rather than fact, there is no difference between education and indoctrination  The latter has come to have a negative connotation, but every time we teach someone to hold a certain value we are indoctrinating them into that value, and the underlying reasons why they should hold it, rather than another value. Every society, and many govt education systems have explicit values  which they indoctrinate their young into.(or do their best to)  

When we teach children to be kind, that is indoctrination.  When we teach them to be honest that is indoctrination   When we teach them to resolve conflict with negotiation, not violence, that is indoctrination. When we teach them the oposite values tha t is also indoctrination  ie instilling a doctrine of belief and values into them. 

I disagree,

Here is what I said earlier,

"Even the semantics are wrong here, Education is the aquiring of skills, knowledge, beliefs, habits or values through learning, education does not define how this learning occurs, it can be through teaching, storytelling, discussion or experiment. You can even educate yourself.

Indoctrination is just teaching or forcing a person or group to accept what's being said, taught or witnessed uncritically.

A teacher can be used in both cases.

In my opinion, people who think indoctrination is education are of a result of a poor education.

One of the primary values in education is critical thinking, especially in college and university. Where you must back up your conclusions with verifiable evidence and citations. In primary or secondary learning you could argue that indoctrination is occurring, as to pass exams one must remember what it says in this book rather than be creative and think up your own hypotheses. However these books are based on current accepted scientifically backed up hypotheses and as a result need to be learned to develop a better platform from which to create your own ideas. So yes in most, if not all, primary and secondary schools indoctrination of a accepted hypotheses is happening. Also you will notice that school text books will change over time and evolve, albeit slower than universities."

So with that being said, families, very few teachers (as I feel the vast majority of teachers don't care enough to indoctrinate anyone), society and religion can and do indoctrinate people to a certain extent. In terms of education, once you reach university levels it certainly isn't the case unless you are in a seminary.

Edited May 30, 2018 by danydandan

[Truthseeker007]

13 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Because the definition ''A lack of belief in a God or gods'' does not represent reality.

By that concept, a book could be an atheist. My computer screen may be an atheist too.

When you debate an atheist, positive beliefs are put forward, to explain their ''lack of belief in a God or gods''. That requires faith.

 

My dog is an atheist, I tried telling him there is a Source of Consciousness but he don't believe me.

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

There is no evidence for a a Universe created out of a quantum vacuum. Neither is there any evidence of a Multiverse.

You take it on faith.

There is more suggestive evidence for it than God, whom there is zero evidence for.

 

[Truthseeker007]

11 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

I'm pretty sure children who grow up in the Westboro church can leave and do whatever they want when they turn 18. I think it might be just as wrong to deny a child religious teaching. But, in America children are free to rebel which is part of growing up.. Atheism could be forced on them next by an angry parent. And I think it might be a little different being Muslim, not that's it's not possible, but it has a little crusader energy left in it.

I have taught my kids about Christian,Muslim,Hindu,Egyptian and Babylonian religions just to name a few. I think it's wrong to make them think that only one religion is right.

[danydandan]

11 hours ago, JMPD1 said:

why is religious teaching a positive thing?

I think it is an important subject, everyone should know a little about what everyone believes so we don't have ignorant idiots running around the place, who assume their beliefs are the only true beliefs. Oh wait we do.

Anyway I find the subject interesting.

Edited May 30, 2018 by danydandan

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

If he then asks you the following questions: ''If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?

We don't know that yet. Its not dangerous to say "I don't know".

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet,

Its a product of 3,5 billion years of evolution.

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?

I make my own meaning. No need for a book written thousands of years ago to tell me what to do with my life.

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?

What about trying to live your life in such a way that you leave a world that is better than the one you came into ? That seems like a very worthy goal to me. 

If anything doesn't it make life all the more precious if it is finite, rather than just a precursor to some vague eternal life we have no evidence of ?

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?

You really need an old book to tell you not to do things that harms others ? 

We have laws made by people to govern how people interact. If we don't think those laws a good anymore we can change them, unlike religion which is still clinging to laws that stopped making sense a long time ago.

2 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?

Your own opinion and the opinion of people you trust and respect. Not the opinion of Middle Eastern sheppards.

[danydandan]

I think we need to clear up an issue, having doubt in the existence of a God is not the same as having faith in God. Thus there is no such thing as having faith in the non-existence of a God. Not believing is doubt and believing is faith.

[danydandan]

11 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

As well as that, it might teach people spiritual values. Hinduism can tell people about reincarnation, and Buddhism has 'inner technology'. There is wisdom in religion.

Actually, I'm thinking Sun Tzu, but prefer Lao Tsu better, because I read taoism first.

War happens with or without old doctrines. Bad things happen in it just in the present.

But, I think the children can leave the church just fine in America, and it's up to the other family members if they want to stay in contact or not.

 Children are going to have to go through things regardless, which is why we have freedoms to let children rebel on their own.

It's really on parental basis if the parent is abusive or not, and they would probably be abusive with or without religion.

I think children have to face a different kind of abuse in school, being statistics, and having to do things they are conformed to do.

So, that's like the case in old Russia, where people were murdered just for believing in God, and not conforming to atheist reprogramming.

Do you honestly think if individuals were not indoctrinated into religion as children, and were allowed to read, study or do whatever they felt like, they would then as adults turn to religion?

I would be skeptical that it would be the case, I'd suspect that the numbers of religious people would dwindle rapidly if it were allowed to happen.

[Horta]

8 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Of course, I would object. You now have a burden of proof to demonstrate that the non-existence of God is a fact.

Now comes the belief in quantum vacuums, multiple universes ect.

A couple of things.

Firstly, you seem intent on derailing your own thread. I would also point out that you have yet to respond with anything more than a "quip" or a bit of cherry picking to any relevant point I have posted. This is beginning to give the impression that you either don't have much grasp of the topic outlined in your op, or have no real interest in it.

Secondly, as to your cherry picking above, your logic dials might need a little tweaking. I can reach any personal opinion I like concerning god, fairies, or telekinesis without acquiring any burden to anyone. Especially the burden of proving a negative. This doesn't mean fairies are real however.

When I claim to know that the non existence of god, fairies or telekinesis are genuine demonstrable facts that I wish to convince you of (you know, like gravity) then you can be sure I will knowingly acquire the accompanying burden of proof. 

Though if it makes you feel better I consider the non existence of leprechauns and elves to be a practical fact too. Yet strangely I don't feel the requirement of regaling anyone with quantum physics or cosmology over it. I have strange idea s that way, like if you claim something exists and expect people to take you seriously, you provide sufficient evidence.

Now back to the topic of your own thread...what do you think of say post 1136? I thought it was an attempt at relevant discussion re some of the claims in your op yet you seem intent on veering discussion towards "atheist geological structures" (lol) or quantum physics.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Horta