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.
Let me make it clear to you:
There is worldview A and worldview B. Invalidating worldview A does not necessarily validate worldview B; thought it would definitely strengthen worldview B.
Yet having no OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support worldview B makes worldview A the only true worldview.
See cuts both ways.
rmfr
"Dark matter" is just a label to a phenomena. We have developed math and the associated tools to explore the universe, and when experiments were conducted to ascertain the mass of the universe, the numbers came out very wrong. So those scientists went back to work and tried to disprove their methodology and results. Eventually they published their hypothesis, and the rest of the scientific community went to work, trying to sort it all out. The consensus was that there was more mass to the universe than we have observed, and a label was assigned to this invisible property.
Now, we come to the important part. For every step of the process a great amount of effort was spent attempting to disprove the conclusions. At no step of the process was anything taken at face value, and at this moment, thousands of physicists and institutions are hard at work attempt to understand this phenomena. And come up with a better explanation and understand. If a better explanation does arise, "dark matter" will be discarded.
JazzThesit, you are very incorrect in asserting that "instead of admitting that they don't know what's going on, scientists threw out the concept of some kind of ''invisible magic mass'' (which is not a straw man because I'm merely stating the obvious) to compensate for it."
Of course we do not know what is going on. To state anything else is dishonest. For "dark matter", this is just a label, not a description and definitely not a solution.
I understand; but it doesn't solve the problem. Dark matter indeed is a necessary scientific label; which is exactly why atheists' application of science to the supernatural is invalid and actually self-defeating in some sense. If the supernatural is subject to science, then I can still say that supernatural intervention is equally potentially responsible for why and how the math came out wrong.
@jazzthiest
What objective evidence do you have that the supernatural is real?
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/acans/caesar/images-coins/CNG-RRC-480-6.jpg
And I would have sane sufficient reasons to say these items were fabricated; and that people simply wished there were a leader like Caesar.
JazzTheist: "that people simply wished there were a leader like Caesar."
Which one?
rmfr
You tell me.
@JazzySquidbilly Re: Cesar
Damn, dude. I'm probably the least "history knowledgeable" person on this site, but even I know "Cesar" is a title and not a name for that time period. Wow.....
Another proof of being a Religious Absolutist.
They LIE by changing the subject.
They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.
You have just added two new items to the list.
Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:
And the biggest problem you have is that you have matched every last one, except number 8. But someone here may disagree. That makes you not just a Religious Absolutist, but a Religious Absolutist Apologist.
You are the one speaking about one of the Caesars. The burden is on you to let us know which one you speaking of.
All gloves are now off. jazztheist, you are about the most mentally retarded Religious Absolutist I have seen on these boards.
You truly need to go back to school and do not skip classes this time around young child.
rmfr
Same old shit over and over and over and over. WHY? PROVE THAT THE NON-PHYSICAL EXISTS. More screwy assertions with no evidence at all/
And i shall add: what is the definition of THE NON-PHYSICAL?
To give a clearer picture, I'll list a few things that are not non-physical.
Vishnu.
Zeus.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
A teapot orbiting Mars.
The universe.
So?
Which the philosophical God isn't.
Two things:
If the FSM and gawd are equally non-physical, then they are on equal footing, eh?
You said the universe is non-physical. Please define ‘the universe ‘.
You missread, he said not non physical.
Ah! Thx, I did indeed miss that!
What makes you think that? No; the FSM is NOT non-physical and thus not comparable to the philosophical notion of God. Same does the universe.
My belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as comparable as your belief in the Sky Faerie, Magic Lich Virgin, and the Rather Comedic Spook.
rmfr
As I've already said many, many times:
No; the Flying Spaghetti Monster, judging by its name, is another thing in the natural world bound by natural laws, if exists.
And, nice straw man.
And you are wrong. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is timeless, spaceless, infinite, and exists outside of space and time. It simply reaches into this universe with it Noodly Appendage. Of which it has decided you are not worthy of being touched by its Noodly Appendage. That is just sad.
rmfr
Er, these kind of rants are exactly what I'm intending to counter in the original post.
"Therefore, shouldn't we throw Caesar into the pit of non-belief?"
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you tell me that you met Barack Obama, I'm much more likely to believe you without much evidence than I am if you told me you personally met Abraham Lincoln.
"Dark matter"
Look, they named it "dark" because no one knows what it is. These are working theories that everyone is ready to throw out if better evidence or explanations come to light. No one is pretending to know more than they do. This is part of the scientific process.
"Even If God healed amputees, you'd throw in aliens or hidden tech as 'more believable' explanations."
You can't possibly know that because THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. It wouldn't take much to be able to prove that an amputee was spontaneously healed, but there's no way to know how anyone would respond because no miracles have ever been rigorously documented, even when thousands of dollars in rewards were available for those who could demonstrate one.
You believe in a God that you claim can defy the laws of physics, that can multiply a small bit of food to feed multitudes, that can literally raise a person from the dead. Let's not pretend that those things are difficult to document. Do you think God is intentionally hiding all of his miraculous actions? And if so, why would he do that?
I just want to add: In the case of the first rigorously documented miracle, say, an amputee regrowing a limb or a person being raised from the dead, it's likely that it would be met with skepticism. But the reason for the intense skepticism is because it's never happened before, not because atheists refuse to hear evidence for God/the miraculous.
If we were suddenly documenting hundreds and thousands of miracles (which Christians claim happen all of the time) with no scientific explanation, then I suspect we'd be in a completely different ball game and I have no idea what that would look like. It wouldn't be hard to show that amputees who are prayed for regrow limbs far more often than ones who weren't prayed for. Or even just that Christians get sick less often than non-Christians. Or simply that the flour in your kitchen cupboard keeps replenishing itself.
It's not that evidence for God is impossible to show. It's that there isn't any.
@ Stone Jade
You go girl!
rmfr
Well this is quite the woeful original post, but I feel obligated to discuss a few points.
- Firstly, Which Caesar? There was at least 77 of them.
- Secondly, No one here including yourself ever met your great, great, great grandfather.
Should we dismiss your existence just on the fact no on here and now had met him?
- Evidence for Caesar (I'm assuming Julius Caesar), I would say the preponderance of written works regarding him, a bust from the era and his own written commentary of the Gallic wars is reasonable evidence to suggest he existed.
Compare this to Jesus Christ, who had only one note made regarding his existence from a non theological source, and that was by Tactitus which briefly states that someone named Jesus was crucified.
Again, I have no issue with the authenticity of the Jesus figure, it is the miracles, immaculate conception, death, resurrection and being the son of god that demands a huge burden of proof.
Of which has never been met.
Now let us move on to Dark Matter.
No one (top scientists) proclaims that dark matter or dark energy exist, they are hypothesis that fit a model and have indirect clues to at least support the idea and make it worth continuing to explore.
This is a straw man, and a large one at that
Again it is a hypothesis, so you have to test and this takes time.
The way this comes across is if it were akin to say evolution or the laws of thermodynamics.
So once again, it is a hypothesis, not a theory and not a law.
Scientists do admit 'we don't know', fortunately they are the very few that are humble enough to say as such.
Again, in order to drum it home, it is a hypothesis for gravitational effects observed on stars and galaxies.
Another point is that we have the A and C, but we don't understand the B in this particular instance.
With lets say a 'First Cause', you have C-D-E-F and so on, but you do not know the 'first effect' nor what caused that, be that super-natural, natural or something else as yet undiscovered.
In conclusion, my issues with this entire line of thought are as follows:
- The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable
- It claims so much but fails to meet the burden of proof
- The 'first cause' point relies on outdated Aristotelian causality
- It's dependent upon classical general relativity
- If we accept this line of causality, you cannot demonstrate the first effect to occur nor the mechanics/mechanisms that brought it about.
- It is a full blown god of the gaps fallacy.
@ TBW
Have to do a small correction there TBW in case Jazzy runs away with the idea you are validating the theist fantasy of corroboration. Tacitus merely reported (secondhand) the beliefs of a certain small sect of Jews that were living in Rome in 64CE. Tacitus was writing some 30 years at least after 60CE (90CE to 115CE)
Just to make sure no fantasy mad theist argues the point here is the passage in English and Latin:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
In Latin: ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. [Wiki]
The most anyone can get out of this rather inaccurate passage (Pilate was Prefect not Procurator and there was not an 'immense multitude" of christians anywhere much less Rome in 60CE) Is that a Jewish Cult of Chrestus was in Rome in about 60CE according to reports some 30 - 50 years later. .
Not very convincing for the theist now is it?
Regarding the "Martyrdom" claim by Jazzy...well, some evidence would be really nice.
1. No one knows the original authors of the gospels so to say they were martyred for a good reason is piling nonsense on myth.
2. There are no records at all for the death of either 'Peter" or "Paul" only wild claims in Acts and a mass of much later superstition.
For supposedly such important revolutionary leaders in Rome, one would suppose someone contemporary, would have taken notes?
Jazzy seems to be very hot on evidence for figures that indubitably existed but resorts to special pleading when it comes to the veracity of his claims.
My apologies Old Man, and thank you for the in depth overview.
I will admit I was being somewhat terse in my response as I wanted to move on to the cosmological section.
However, In future I will be more detailed as and when I can.
Pages