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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Tin,
It is actually a healthy outlet in these crazy times to let out my frustrations on a pompous idiot who deserves contempt in spades. So he plays a useful part and I thank him for it in that sense. Much better than yelling at the wife and kids, kicking the dog or knocking the cat off the shelf.
@Skep
Good point... *chuckle*...
NewSkeptic,
It is your claim there are no atheist beliefs. Prove it.
Do you think nature exists? yes. Do you think God exists? you don't assent to that. So nature is all that exists for you. Prove it.
Krauss is an atheist and he believes quantum fluctuations burped and the universe popped out. He is quite honest in saying he can't prove it. It is a belief.
Denying you have beliefs is a non-starter. Grab a hunk of reality.
There are no requisite beliefs to be a member of the set of atheists. Members of this set (atheists) might have all different kinds of beliefs; but the set itself does not.
Apollo - here’s a thought...
P E O P L E have “beliefs”. A person sets their standard for their belief.
“Atheist” has been repeated numerous times, even by you, is a description of “god” in which a PERSON withholds or does not believe.
Re: “ atheist beliefs. ”... in other words “a person who does not hold a belief in god beliefs”.... fuck you’re a moron is a belief this person who withholds belief in god has about you.
English lesson for Apollo.
Newskeptic never said atheists don't have any beliefs, he said there is no such thing as atheist beliefs. Are you genuinely this stupid, or are you trolling?
Appo,
I'll try again, as many others have, not that it will dent your brain.
I'm an atheist. I hold many beliefs. However, none of those beliefs are mandated by the fact that I'm an atheist and many of those beliefs would be contrary to the beliefs of other atheists.
All we share as atheists is the lack of belief in any god of gods. Period.
Do many atheists tend to share some other beliefs? I would say yes, likely the result of applying skeptism to any number of other claims besides the god claim, but none of them could be then called atheistic beliefs as they are not mandated by a simple disbelief in any gods, which has been explained umpteenth times is not a claim, but a rejection of a claim, and therefore carries no burden of proof.
@Apollo
"But there seems to be much opposition to questioning atheist beliefs."
Oh for fuck sake!
Have you learned NOTHING since you've been here?
To be an atheist is to simply lack a belief in god(s) . NOTHING ELSE IS IMPLIED OR MAY BE INFERRED .
There are no such things as atheist beliefs BY DEFINITION.
Lawrence Krauss is physicist and does not use 'nothing' in a philosophical sense. Eg 'Empty space does not contain nothing; it contains particles .At least that's how I understand it. But then I'm only an atheist, not a physicist. Why should I know? I have made no such claim.
It has always bemused me that virtually ever theist who comes here insist on asking questions about science, evolution, ,history philosophy, biblical hermeneutics, and cosmology , in a way that presumes that " as atheists" we should have some answers.
Well guess what ? WE DON'T have opinions on ANY other topic 'as atheists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOWEVER, most of the people here tend to be smarter and far better read than any apologist I've so far seen here. That means we have opinions on a whole range of things. Some simply as human beings. Other things through formal education or from simply an avid interest in and an unquenchable curiosity about a broad range of subjects , ABOUT WHICH WE READ! Nothing to do with being an atheist.
I have a headache. I think I'll go and have a nice atheist lie down.
Muppet.
Atheism is not a belief. Though atheists will hold beliefs, and I cannot speak for other atheists, as theists like you seem to love doing, but all my beliefs remain tentative in the light of new objective evidence. So you are simply lying again to misrepresent atheists, your endless trolling is pretty tedious Apollo, and against forum rules as well, so I should tread carefully if I were you.
Now I'm going to call you on your lie, please list a belief you think I hold that I won't question? If you say atheism, or make up a belief I don't hold, be prepared to be called a liar.
Sheldon wrote, "Atheism is not a belief. Though atheists will hold beliefs..."
That's a defining statement. "Though atheists will hold beliefs...." Wonderful. You just jumped from 1920 to 2020. And you are starting to talk as if you are no longer a Fundamentalist Atheist.
Ok, so let me see if I have this right: atheists hold beliefs, but belief in God is not one of them. If that is what you are saying, I can buy it.
"Ok, so let me see if I have this right: atheists hold beliefs, but belief in God is not one of them. If that is what you are saying, I can buy it."
How long did it take you to grasp this simple truth?
If anything, I'd take it one tiny step further. "Religion is fiction, and the gods described are variations on a character type commonly recurring in such fiction".
Similarly, "space aliens" are a commonly recurring character type in fiction. They vary widely, like gods, but they're fictional characters. This doesn't demonstrate that no alien species exist. But if they do, I see no reason to think anyone knows anything important about them. That's another belief I hold.
Tom
What a sanctimonious clown you really are. Nothing in that post was not made clear to you months ago, you have just chosen to ignore it, or are too stupid to grasp a simple sentence. In fact you could simply Google the word atheism and work it out for yourself if you had even a basic grasp of English.
As I told you months ago, humans start to hold beliefs about the world from the minute they are born, it's the only way we can interact with reality. However those beliefs can be false, and the most effective way we have of validating them is by demonstrating objective evidence to support them, as science does, and the more objective evidence we can demonstrate for any belief the more confidence we can have it is true.
The pinnacle of scientific thought is a globally accepted scientific theory, the least confidence we should have is when a belief has existed for thousands of years, and yet remains unfalsifiable and unsupported by a shred of objective evidence, and if that belief also outrages reason, and denies, or is contradicted by, known scientific facts, just as christianity is of course, then it's perfectly rational to withhold belief.
So stop with the word games, and the bullshit, you're nowhere near as clever as you seem to think, and you haven't offered shit to support Christianity since you have been posting here. Hell, you haven't even pretended to try and justify or evidence christianity.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
From Sheldon and Cognostic:
"You don't seem to want to answer Cognostic's question:
If as you claim no objective facts exist, and everything is therefore presupposition, then what do you use to determine the validity of any claim or belief? You said it is a fact that the world is not flat, but not an objective one, so you're saying there is no objective evidence the world is not flat, it is only personal opinion, you must see how stupid that claim is."
1. I have answered this numerous times. Coherence theory of knowledge/truth.
https://www.google.ca/search?client=opera&q=coherence+theory+of+knowledg...
Coherence theory of knowledge employs reciprocal reasoning, or, stated in other words, mutual implication.
2. I don't say "everything is therefore presupposition". Your presuppositions guide you in selecting/deselecting phenomenon and ideas about phenomenon that you find meaningful. For example, the atheist assumption (belief) that the only thing that exists is nature, would guide an atheist to seek only natural explanations for the origin of the material of the universe. "The only thing that exists is nature" is an assumption that precludes/excludes theist assumptions. So in this case we end up with two differing perspectives and no clear way to determine the veracity of either perspective. It doesn't mean there is no empirical observations and everything is presupposition, rather it means atheists will devalue evidence theists use, and theists will devalue evidence atheists use. Facts and evidence are always assigned a value according to the assumptions of the person.
@Apollo
1. You have explained nothing, merely offered a bare claim, how does "Coherence theory of knowledge/truth." validate the claim the earth is not flat as a fact (as you claimed it was) without relying on any objective evidence.
It's your claim, neither Cognostic nor I will be researching it for you.
So again what separates the assertion the world is flat, from the assertion the world is not flat, other than presupposition, to make the claim the world is flat wrong, and the claim (according to you) the world is not flat a fact?
I am an atheist, and I make no such assumption, as you have been told, you are a bare faced liar Apollo, as I have told you this repeatedly.
You have not offered any evidence for your deity claim, nothing, so this is another lie.
@Apollo ...” . Facts and evidence are always assigned a value according to the assumptions of the person.”
And time and time and time again you have demonstrated your low standard for evidence. Your attempt to drag everyone down to your “standard” is sad, really. BeLIEve whatever you like Apollo, you sad fuck, however try all you want - not everyone is at your “level”.
"1. I've been posting here off and on for about 5 years and the best post of all time by an atheist here was cognostic who posted something to the effect that science doesn't prove anything. Science devises models/theories to explain facts, but doesn't prove anything. Theories can't be proven. Krauss also notes early in the video that science changes; it throws out old theories like "yesterdays newspaper" and replaces them with new models/theories. Many participants here don't seem to get that and instead mistakenly reifiy theoretical constructs."
Few thoughts on this. While it's true that science in itself does not dictate anything. It mainly provides you with scientific method with falsifiability and once a different discovery is made that is not consistent with the current model it moves to form new hypotheses. However this certainly does not mean there is nothing to be learned from the previous hypotheses. Quite the contrary, most of the time previous understanding of a phenomenon provides the basis to formulate new understanding.
Many examples of this: Netwonian view of the gravity is entirely different than Einstein's theory of special relativity. In this case, it's not that gravity has somehow changed, but rather our understanding of gravity has improved. Newton's equation to represent law of gravitational force still works.
Same thing with Big Bang. It's quite possible that our models that explain Big Bang may change to account for missing pieces or newer discoveries, but those models still MUST StILL ACCOUNT FOR discoveries we have made so far in terms of Cosmic Microwave Background, the expanding universe, Quasars that we can see far away, myriads of elements that exist in the universe etc. Scientific process is incremental. Theories evolve to better understand, not to throw everything out.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
AWWWW FUCK! Another fucking feather in my cap. The assholes around this place are gonna start calling me Chief Cognostic! This damn hat is getting so heavy I can't wear it in public any more! Anyway, I'll say "Thanks for the complement" but I was probably just repeating something I heard someone say. Monkeys do that!
As for the rest of the post --- improving on existing models or coming up with better ones... IS ... what science is all about! AGREE
HumeMystic,
You make a lot of sense. I don't see anything incoherent in your post.
Of course gravity doesn't change; it was a shift in perception of gravity which provided a more reliable understanding. Progress is incremental: yes, from Aristotle, to Newton, to Einstein theories on the motion of bodies became increasingly coherent with practice.
Parenthetically, you use the word "falsifiability" which opens the door for me to give Karl Popper another plug. The falsifiability principle was thought up by the philosopher Popper. I would urge readers here to read his Logic of Scientific Discovery and his paper on Objectivity. I think they can be obtained free in a pdf. In part fasifiability means if a hypothesis isn't falsifiable, it isn't part of science.
The thread is about the origin of the universe. I dare say any views on the origin of the universe are not falsifiable, and assuming the falsifiability principle, not part of science. Instead, it is metaphysics.
Too, the traditional definition of atheist as disbelief in God, taken as a declaration God does not exist doesn't appear to be falsifiable, so it too is metaphysics.
The non-traditional atheist definition as a lack of belief in God is what? It relies on the claim "there is no evidence for God", so I "lack belief in God". It is not a declaration God does not exist, but relies on beliefs about evidence itself. It relies on beliefs about what constitutes evidence and a faith in whatever one thinks constitutes evidence.
"The thread is about the origin of the universe. I dare say any views on the origin of the universe are not falsifiable, and assuming the falsifiability principle, not part of science. Instead, it is metaphysics."
No, that's not how science works.
So far, none of the various opinions on this subject have demonstrable evidence. Some have been falsified, but mostly not. People are still working on evidence, which isn't yet very conclusive. That's not the same as "unfalsifiable", we just haven't gotten there yet. That's in stark contrast to the common Christian claim that the universe was magicked into existence a few thousand years ago. That's been thoroughly debunked.
Tom
@Apollo
Is your belief in a deity falsifiable, if so please explain how, and then explain why science hasn't tried to falsify it?
Based on new objective evidence, that's how science works. The evidence is contained in an entirely separated scientific theory. The two theories Newton's and Einstein's working together to advance our understanding, again this is how science works, for an accepted scientific theory to be entirely falsified is extremely unlikely. However one of science's great strengths is that all facts, no matter how well established must remain tentative in the light of new evidence. Religion is doomed to cling to errant nonsense it claimed from the start was the inerrant word of an infallible deity, and one error is enough to show this claims to be false.
You said earlier in this thread you never used god of the gaps polemic?
That is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
That was a quote from Krauss, not me. Why are you quoting Krauss and claiming it was me who wrote it?
Watch the video hour 2, minute 11 to 30.
I employed that quote to show his philosophical motive for devising a natural view of the origin of the universe. His philosophical motive derives from his atheist beliefs/preconceptions/philosophy.
It looks like he employs the traditional definition of atheist for himself, namely, disbelief in God taken as a claim God does not exist.
No evidence he employs the non-traditional definition of atheist as a "lack of belief in God".
Incidentally, the non-traditional definition as a lack of belief in God relies on the claim there is no evidence for God. I suppose if there is a burden of proof for the claimant, then the claim "there is no evidence for God" would need to be proven.
"No evidence he employs the non-traditional definition of atheist as a "lack of belief in God"."
What does the word you used here, "non-traditional", mean in this sentence? It looks to me like the traditional misrepresentation of Non-theism to me.
Tom
Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Regardless of your opinion or any opinion you assign to any atheist.
It's in the dictionary, and that is the commonly understood definition.
FYI I still don't care what Krauss believes, nor need any other atheist, its theists who are tied to dogma, atheists are not. No matter how many times you repeat your lie they are.
Reality is, there's no need to claim it "came from" anywhere. Least of all a magical wizard.
Isn't it time for a Spring Cleaning???
Nah, let him go on, the longer Apollo blathers his nonsense, the clearer it demonstrates he has an empty bag, and his faith based superstition is based on naught else but blind blinkered faith.
10 pages, and he hasn't even pretended he can demonstrate any of the evidence he keeps insisting he has. Flawed first cause arguments, and god of the gaps fallacies are all he has offered.
QED....
Do these people actually think they are making any kind of sense at all? Do they not care how bad they make themselves and their woo woo bullshit beliefs look?
Is Ajay actually sitting there thinking that he has made some good points? This is just sad! Someone should put the poor puppy out of his misery. It would be the humane thing to do.
@Cog - Fuck you asshole!!! Re: “Someone should put the poor puppy out of his misery”
That THING has no relation to dogs or puppies (which could have an implication). IF “it” had been MY puppy, I wouldn’t have let it survive this long (nature has a way)...
Speaking of which....I never did get the money you promised from our offspring ...AND don’t tell me that “Tinman” ran off with it!!!
Pages