An atheists perspective on how the universe came from "nothing"
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"I read Dawkins for biology. He sucks at theology."
Yair. Also at philosophy
. From what I've seen on TV the bloke's social skills could do with some work. However, I gather he's a competent evolutionary biologist. Though not the leader in his field his publicist likes to claim. I think it says a bit about Dawkins' character that he has allowed those claims be made. .
Right, you told us the amount of chemical energy in a substance is subjective. You told us proper distance is a value judgement. Sounds like new-age woo-woo central; which is even more odd coming from someone who is a Christian.
Ny...wait...hold on......does this mean I don’t have to worry about “calories” “carbs” “sugar” on food labels???? It’s all just “subjective” bunk?!?!? Fuck me, I always believed Dr. Now - maybe it has been “bloating” all along....
Right! Using Apollo's logic: since proper distance is a value judgement; seems to imply that that volume is is also just a value judgement. Therefore there is no difference between from eating 1 bite of cake, or the whole cake.
That is how divorced from reality his posts are. I mean imagine if you went to home depot and told them that the length of a board was subjective. They would probably call the people in white coats.
Nyarlathotep wrote, "I mean imagine if you went to home depot and told them that the length of a board was subjective. "
I think I get it. you went to Home depot for a board, and they asked how long of a board? You said the proper objective length. They replied, What are you talking about? You said, "well you know, the objective proper length." They replied, well what are you going to use the board for? You replied, "I can't tell you because that would be personal and subjective. I just want the objective proper length."
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Doesn't it dawn on you that the "proper length" comes from you, the subject, and is not 'out there" in the objective world?
Now supposing you said, "I want to use the board for a shelf". Ok now, that's your personal (subjective) project. And they say how long of a shelf. Then you give them a length according to your personal subjective plans.
Doesn't that make more sense compared to asking home depot for the 'proper objective length"?
All inertial observers will agree on the proper distance between the end points of a rod/board. That is why it is objective. And why your claim that it is a value judgement is ludicrous.
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
So moving on in this Joe Rogan interview with Krauss:
Minute 6+ Krauss talks of the difference between science and religion. he says science changes when it it recognizes it was wrong. But religion doesn't change, according to him.
1. Grinseed a poster on this forum and in this thread has noted and given examples of some changes in theism. that by itself calls into question Krauss' claim.
2. Does atheism defined in the traditional sense as disbelief in God change? If it doesn't change does that make atheism a religion? Interestingly, there is a church denomination that is entirely atheist. The atheist John Dewey advocated that people go to church even if one does not believe in God. Too he advocated that atheists use the term God, even though one does not believe in God. It is possible that the church populated by atheists was a result of Dewey's efforts. Too, Harvard university professor and theologian Paul Tillick, was an atheist. Does that suggest athesim is in some sense a religion?
But anyway, Krauss claims that religion doesn't change. So if atheism stays the same, is it a religion? After all, disbelief in a creator God implies that all that exists is nature. You atheists here are obsessed with proof. Can it be proven that all that exists is nature? If it can't be proven, yet you believe it implicitly or otherwise, does that give atheism a religious character?
Hey, anybody else notice how Apollo not-so-discretely sidestepped Nyar's point and conveniently moved along to another subject when he realized Nyar had handed his ass back to him?
Hey, Appalling, if you are a shining example of what a theist is suppose to be, then I think I am much better off being a godless heathen. Although, in all fairness to other theists out there, I would be remiss in assuming all theists are like you. (I actually happen to know a few very nice and respectable theists.) By the way, how is the view from under your bridge? Getting along okay with all your other troll buddies, I hope.
I sometimes speculate that a lot of the non-sense that comes out of these people's mouths is some kind of weird reflex defense.
A great example of this is when someone tells them that there is no contemporary source for the character of Jesus. Many, many times they've retorted that there is no contemporary sources for famous person X. And in EVERY instance I've ever witnessed, there are primary sources for the person they mentioned. Anyone think that is a coincidence?
Any former defenders of the faith have any experience with this kind of behavior (from when they were a believer)? Maybe a former believer could explain this behavior to us.
"Does atheism defined in the traditional sense as disbelief in God change? If it doesn't change does that make atheism a religion?"
There is no such thing as "atheism" An atheist lacks a belief in a god or gods. That is a DEFINITION, and definitions do not change.
No, atheism is still just the lack of belief in a deity or deities, it is not a set of beliefs, and therefore not a religion.
No it doesn't, this is still a lie you have made up. Who knows why you keep repeating this lie.
You do love to tell us what we think, I can only speak for myself of course, but I am not obsessed with anything, It is simply absurd to hold beliefs for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, even the straw man lies theists like you make up for me, like the one you have repeated here. And no, again, atheism is not a set of beliefs or any belief, it is the absence or lack of belief in any deity or deities, again why you keep lying about this is baffling, do you think you will convince a forum of atheists they can't read a basic word definition, or know their own minds?
If you believe something beyond the natural physical universe and world exists, then please demonstrate some objective evidence for it, as it is becoming pretty tedious watching you endlessly chase your tail with your god of the gaps polemic.
@Apollo...let me know when the Catholic church admits Jesus was never resurrected. Religion does not change core tenets despite obvious logical flaws.
Dont fucking use my name or distort the meaning of my comments to serve your personal opinions. Thanks.
I'm not an expert on Catholicism. I do know theists who don't literally believe in the Resurrection. I know I used to as a child, but later changed. In fact, I don't really care very much about many things claimed in the Bible.
Anyway thanks for giving some examples of how theism changed.
TIN: Apollo is a troll and nothing more. Same old bullshit. You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't make them think. A fucking library of information at his fingertips and he prefers to wallow in the shit. Sometimes choices people make are just amazing.
@Nyar...I’m the sloowww one so in common English let me know if I got this straight.
Object: stick broke off tree; I find it on the ground. I want to communicate the length of the stick
Subjective: I use my arm, from finger tip to elbow. Rush in to tell oldest giant son. He looks at his fingertip to elbow. Not the same as mine. If he doesn’t have my arm, he doesn’t know how long...so we agree on a measurement tool we can both use.
Sort of how the States use Empirical measurement but for science they have to use metric to be consistent with the rest of the world.
The stick doesn’t give a fuck if we measure it. It could fuckin’care less. It will lay there until some bird snatches it for nest material or I pick it up and burn it.
However,I must say Apollo is winning me over especially with cake portion sizes!!!! I “believe” therefore it “is” :)
Yeah, that seems to be the gist of it. That idea seems popular in new-age religions; and why I was a little surprised to see it from a self identified Christian.
Well I have addressed this issue many times. There are grades of confidence in the issue of objectivity. I get it that you measured the stick within a margin of error. But all instances are not that simple and with the same degree of confidence.
A different and more difficult example are these issues with Krauss' ideas. Not everyone agrees with him. Some people here don't agree with him on everything. If everyone is objective, why don't they agree?
...*sniff...sniff-sniff-sniff*.... *face scrunching*.... Eeeeewwww..... *gag*... Anybody else smell that?... *covering mouth and nose with shirt*... Starting to smell really Fishy in here.... *opening windows and turning on vent fans*...
The scientific method :)
This is the process - cool huh?!?!?! This is the “shredding” part.
Since you don’t seem familiar with this process how can you, with confidence say, your “beliefs” don’t conflict with science?
You're kidding right? Who ever said "everyone" is objective?
You don't know what objective means do you?
"If everyone is objective, why don't they agree?"
Just like the religion and atheist situation, Krauss has not presented enough evidence to convince most.
Just examine the criticism on Krauss and his book.
Bear in mind Apollo has also claimed in this thread that the world is not objectively round, it is mere opinion that it is not flat. I think we are doing him a massive favour in continuing any discourse after that gem.
His grandiose claims for philosophical expertise sound only too familiar to those of us who remember Breezy's grandiloquent claims for scientific expertise, because he was a student of psychology.
Appeal to authority fallacies are never more hilarious than when used by a poster to cite themselves as that authority, while ignoring the facts.
This kind of hubris is most common in young men, and a little education often seems to exacerbate this, when education should instead make us all painfully aware of how little we know.
Generally, isn't the earth a sphere? then again, I see mountains and valleys, so so it doesn't seem to be a perfect sphere. So when someone says its round, I guess they are forgetting about the mountains and valleys. but again you are picking an issue where the degree of confidence is high. It is a leap to generalize from a instance with a high degree of confidence to all instances.
What about Krauss' ideas. Does everyone agree with him? Apparently not as some physicists have criticized him. If they are objective, why don't they all agree?
The Logical Positivists/Empiricists were the champions of objectivity. Weren't you going to give me a title of a book by a logical empiricist that you had read and that you agree with?
I'm going to ignore your dishonest semantics, it is either an objective fact that the world is not flat, or it is not, you have claimed the latter, and all in order to sustain blind belief in a bronze age superstition, I think that is something of an own goal, but it seems no facts can dissuade you from your blind adherence to this nonsensical path.
How confident are you that the earth is not flat? You claimed to be certain a deity exists, care to compare the evidence for a flat earth that you claim may be possible, to the existence of any deity that you claim is a certainty, yet have been unable to furnish any evidence at all?
I don't care what Krauss thinks about physics because I am not a theoretical physicist, his hypothesis either will be validated by the scientific method or it will not. I am at a loss as to how anyone can be so ignorant of the basic methodology of science as you appear to be. Though the cynic in me suspects it is deliberate, so you can ignore inconvenient facts, as I have seen too many theists employ the same dishonest tactics to misrepresent science too often before.
No, you must be confusing me with another poster, and I fail to see the relevance anyway. If you want to pretend you have expertise here, I'll simply point out that you've claimed it is an objective fact that the earth is not flat, I think most sane rational readers will see that howler as undermining your grandiose claims for philosophical credentials.
If no objective facts exist then can you tell me if invisible unicorns are real? If not then can you prove they are not? As that argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy seems to be the benchmark you're stetting for validating your superstitious belief in an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition. Though of course we all know you only apply this to the one claim, theism, that you hold an a priori belief in. That bias has been manifest for some time.
How is your deity objectively different from any other deity, or any other unfalsifiable claim?
What other beliefs do you hold without any supporting objective evidence, but that form no part of your religious beliefs?
You keep ignoring that last question, why is that? Breezy used to do the same thing.
"Generally, isn't the earth a sphere? then again, I see mountains and valleys, so so it doesn't seem to be a perfect sphere. So when someone says its round, I guess they are forgetting about the mountains and valleys. but again you are picking an issue where the degree of confidence is high."
No, you are using a loose and incorrect definition of this planet. It is an oblate spheroid. In fact, do you know which mountain peak is furthest from the center of this planet? Hint: it is in Ecuador.
Once again you are attempting to force your ignorance as fact on us.
You're funny. OK its an oblate spheroid. thanks for the precision. Keep being precise.
Seems my perception is correct; Apollo is lacking in intellectual honesty and may be ignored. Good.
AND he may be a troll? Ok then, seems the instincts are still kinda working.
Oh yea, a blatant troll. I was actually prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt by optioning severe learning/memory disabilities, but the pattern of behavior indicates the troll does learn. It is just so dishonest.
The bottom line here is that despite the OP, atheism is neither a belief nor a claim, and nothing can be rationally asserted from it beyond an atheist not believing in any deity or deities.
And this won't change no matter how many disgruntled theists traipse through here espousing argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies in a futile attempt to reverse the burden of proof. As of course Apollo is obviously attempting here again as he has done many times before. He also claimed to want to critique The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins, yet in this thread claims never to have heard of a god of the gaps polemic, I must say I'm dubious.