On Rules

324 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
Witness, why are you here

Witness, why are you here posting on the Atheist Republic site? What is your purpose in doing so? What are you trying to accomplish?

Witness1625's picture
I am trying to understand

I am trying to understand atheists better. And How they justify laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and morality.

CyberLN's picture
" I am trying to understand

" I am trying to understand atheists better."

1. First you need to understand that the ONLY commonality among atheists is the lack of belief in gods. Once you do that, you will be 99% there.
2. The remaining 1% can be accomplished by not attempting to ask how "they justify" anything unless you are prepared for hearing as many different answers as there are people who identify as atheist.
3. You have not effectively demonstrated that you are interested in understanding any of what is being said. For the most part, what you demonstrate is simply the urge to disagree with and argue about what others are saying.
4. If your goal is actually to debate your position then I suggest you own up to that.

Witness1625's picture
Okay, originally I came on

Okay, originally I came on here for that reason, now, I am debating my position. Also, I have learned a lot about Atheist, You did a nice summary.

AntigoneRisen's picture
Ok, so here's the thing. If

Ok, so here's the thing. If you want to understand Atheists better, you'd be far more successful if you stop trying to analyze through the lens of what the religious say. This is rather the same concept as not understanding Christians by reading what Muslims write about Christians and Christianity, or vice-versa.

Witness1625's picture
Onto the supposedly neutral

Onto the supposedly neutral ground? Or do I have to become an atheist to understand it?

AntigoneRisen's picture
You don't have to be an

You don't have to be an Atheist to understand it. Why would you need to be?

Witness1625's picture
So you want me to stop

So you want me to stop believing what Christians say about you, and start believing what you say about yourselves?

mysticrose's picture
The rules in in forum is fair

The rules in in forum is fair enough for me. Every forum should have rules in order to maintain a friendly community even if it's a debate room.

Witness1625's picture
Let's talk about the

Let's talk about the uniformity of nature. Meaning that when we do an experiment today, if we do the same experiment tomorrow we will get the same results. Because the uniformity of nature, gravity stays constant, 2nd law of thermodynamics stays constant, and many other scientific laws. If you don't believe that there are laws of nature, go ahead, but Stephen Hawking disagrees, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Stephen Hawking. Of course I disagree about the latter.

So basically without the uniformity of nature, tomorrow the earth might not turn in a circle around the sun because the gravity constant might have changed. If you can't explain the uniformity of nature it shows that you are a person of blind faith because you base your entire life on something you have no reason to believe in.

If you say that there is uniformity in nature because there always has been, that is circular reasoning and begs the question. It would be like saying, "In the past the future was like the past, therefore if the future is like the past, in the future the future will be like the past."

If you say, "Everybody knows that." that is not an answer, it is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I am not asking why everyone knows it, but rather why it is, and why do we know it.

If you say, "It is just an inherent property of matter." Well, if you want to discuss that way, "Creation is true and that is just the way it is." We need to have reasons for what we believe. We don't really know what the inherent properties of matter are, just what we experience about it.

Christians can know why there is uniformity in nature, and why the future will be like the past, because God has promised a certain degree of uniformity in nature. "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." Gen 8:22 Not to say that God doesn't some time lift the uniformity of nature, (miracles) but there will be a consistent uniformity in nature most of the time.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Witness1625 - "Meaning that

Witness1625 - "Meaning that when we do an experiment today, if we do the same experiment tomorrow we will get the same results."

That isn't actually true.
----------------
Witness1625 - "2nd law of thermodynamics stays constant"

The 2nd law is only true when it is true, which is only most of the time; it is statistical only.
----------------
Witness1625 - "gravity constant might have changed"

Constants don't change, that is why they are called constants.

Witness1625's picture
Please elaborate on "that

Please elaborate on "that actually isn't true." Another example of how we expect the future to be like the past is, for example, If you stubbed you toe last night, tonight when you get up you will be careful because you believe that the future will be like the past, and that if you stub you toe again it will hurt again. But you have no reason for believing this, why not every 3rd time you stub your toe it hurts. You believe in the uniformity of nature.

2nd law stays true in a closed system, why is that?

Saying that the law of gravity won't change, because if it did, it wouldn't be a law, is like saying gravity is constant if it weren't constant, it wouldn't be constant. I want to know why gravity is constant, the answer is the uniformity of nature, and you have not demonstrated how you account for it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Witness162 - "Meaning that

Witness162 - "Meaning that when we do an experiment today, if we do the same experiment tomorrow we will get the same results"

Witness162 - "Please elaborate on "that actually isn't true."

Because you will not always get the same result when you repeat certain experiments, because there is randomness. For example: send monochromatic polarized light through a filter rotated 45 degree to the polarization. Fifty percent of the time it will pass the filter, and fifty percent it will not. So if today you send light through and it passes though, it does not mean tomorrow that it will.
------------------------------
Witness162 - "2nd law stays true in a closed system"

not at all. The 2nd law is only true most of the time, not always. As I said it is statistical only.
------------------------------
Witness162 - "I want to know why gravity is constant, the answer is the uniformity of nature, and you have not demonstrated how you account for it."

They is just a consequence of simpler laws, namely very simple conservation constraints, for example: the conservation of energy; dE/dt=0. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face that god made that very simple constraint, but it isn't going to convince anyone here.

Witness1625's picture
"Because you will not always

"Because you will not always get the same result when you repeat certain experiments, because there is randomness. For example: send monochromatic polarized light through a filter rotated 45 degree to the polarization. Fifty percent of the time it will pass the filter, and fifty percent it will not. So if today you send light through and it passes though, it does not mean tomorrow that it will."
Still you expect the result to be fifty fifty. If we do it tomorrow we can expect that same result.

Do you believe there is uniformity in nature?

Nyarlathotep's picture
"Do you believe there is

"Do you believe there is uniformity in nature?"

I accept there are a handful of simple principles that seems to constrain nature. I really don't even know what you mean by uniformity in nature.

Witness1625's picture
By, uniformity of nature, I

By, uniformity of nature, I mean that the future will be like the past. Example, the gravitational constant will be the same tomorrow, and that is why we believe the sun will rise.

AntigoneRisen's picture
What you've said here is..

What you've said here is...confusing, to say the least.

What you are describing here isn't about a uniformity of nature. It's about cause and effect, and the intelligence to understand the two.
Why not every third time you stub your toe it hurts? Because your neurons will send the "pain" message to your brain every time. Well, so long as the neurons are functioning. If you take an analgesic, for instance, it will bond to the synapses of your neurons and largely prevent the transmission (which is why pain medication works).

Gravity is not a constant. It's a variable, determined by the mass of an object.

What I've described here is a very basic understanding of science that should be achieved before the freshman year of high school. This is not advanced.

Witness1625's picture
I am saying, how do you know

I am saying, how do you know that neurons will still work the same way in the future. As for gravity constant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
We could discuss this about any cause and effect that happens now, and we have to ask the question why will it happen in the future.
Do you believe there is uniformity in nature?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Notice how you said gravity

Notice how you said gravity is constant (it isn't). When called on that you switched gears to the gravitational constant is constant.

AntigoneRisen's picture
I don't know that my neurons

I don't know that my neurons will always work the same way. I hope that I won't develop MS, for instance, but I don't know that I won't.

Witness1625's picture
You don't? Therefore it is

You don't? Therefore it is possible if you stub your toe tonight it won't hurt. How do you know that the gravitational constant will stay the same?

AntigoneRisen's picture
It's possible, but only if

It's possible, but only if something has happened to interfere with the normal function of neurons.

Witness1625's picture
You know how your neurons

You know how your neurons function now, but how do you know they will function the same way in the future? How do you know there will be uniformity in nature?
BTW uniformity in nature is what makes all observational science possible.

AntigoneRisen's picture
I don't know that my neurons

I don't know that my neurons will always work the same way. I hope that I won't develop MS, for instance, but I don't know that I won't.

Johnny Moronic's picture
Sorry for my delayed response

Sorry for my delayed response. Batman has existed for exactly as long as your god. And god's rules are exactly as arbitrary as Batman's. I furthermore submit that Batman's rules, and behavior are demonstrably better than the rules and behavior of your god. Batman doesn't demand anything in exchange for his services, and doesn't threaten or punish people who do not believe in him. Batman is far superior.

The "swap" is designed to show you how goofy it sounds when you use your magic book to prove your magic book. If Batman doesn't sound god-like enough for you, just plug in "Quetzocoatl" wherever you see "god", and "Chillam Balam" wherever you see "bible". It's hard to read it without cracking up. Think about it.

Witness1625's picture
How do we know anything is

How do we know anything is true? Eventually, we must appeal to an ultimate standard, Eventually we get to the top of the staircase so to speak. "Every philosophical system must start with presuppositions—starting points or assumptions— that cannot be proven from anything more basic, but are accepted up–front as the foundation for all subsequent reasoning." ~Mike Matthews ~"The Bible claims to be this ultimate standard of truth, the “Word” given by the Almighty Creator God (see “2. Claims of Divine Authorship,” pp. 56–57). Most people point to one of three standards: their own personal opinion, public consensus, or great moral literature. But that is not an option if the Bible is true.

An appeal to any other standard, such as the opinions of people, automatically means you must reject the Bible as your ultimate standard." "ince we must appeal to some ultimate standard, the next question is how to determine the right one.

One—and only one—logical solution is available. The standard itself must be “self-attesting” and “self-authenticating.” In other words, it must speak for itself and defend itself in such a way that it (1) passes all its own standards of truth and (2) gives a foundation for successfully interpreting all other claims to truth.

Even before modern logicians recognized this limitation to every logical argument, God’s Word had already acknowledged and solved it.

Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6) and “God’s word is truth” (John 17:17). Jesus claimed to define what truth is, and He said God’s Word is the ultimate judge of truth (John 12:48). No truth exists apart from Him. As the Bible explains it, “In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). So the Bible clearly claims an exalted position as the ultimate authority.

Moreover, God’s Word concludes that all other standards outside of Christ must be “empty” because they depend on “the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). For the Bible to appeal to any other authority would be to deny its own place as the ultimate standard.""As it turns out, the only ultimate standard that can be logically self-authenticating is one that exactly matches the unique God of Scripture, who is true, holy, just, eternal, unchanging, and “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). He alone provides a solid foundation for knowledge and attests to His own truthfulness" Of course, if you want to believe the Bible and say that Batman is another name for God, I will point you to the Bible, showing you that there is no reasonable basis for believing that Batman is another name for God.

CyberLN's picture
"Eventually, we must appeal

"Eventually, we must appeal to an ultimate standard"

No.

No, 'we' don't.

Witness1625's picture
So if you have no ultimate

So if you have no ultimate standard, you have no reason to believe anything is true. Therefore you can't really know anything, even that God is unproven.

CyberLN's picture
Oy.

Oy.

1. I don't 'believe' things are true or false. I 'think' things to be so, based on the evidence I have at hand at the time.
2. I know a lot of things. Really.
3. I have no reason to disprove your god. I'm not the one making the assertion. You are. Bringing proof, therefore, is something for which you are responsible.

Witness1625's picture
1. And how do you know that

1. And how do you know that your senses are interpreting that evidence correctly? How do you know that the evidence it self is correct? Evidence doesn't lead a person anywhere, a person must interpret that evidence. That is the fallacy of reification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
2. Do you know anything that is absolutely true?
3. I didn't say you think God is disproved, I said unproven is what you think. Am I right?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.