Are Atheists More Religious Now?

[Sophus]

Are you saying you believe a singularity can exist as its own cause and act spontaneously?

I don't know anything about the matter coming from nothing theory, although there was a lengthy video posted on this forum somewhere that I hear is pretty good at explaining how it could happen. Perhaps I'm wrong (especially since I don't know anything about it) but I don't see how it's possible either. Thus far I've seen this issue along the lines of: Both atheist and theist must believe that something has always existed. The difference is that atheists think it was something most austere which over an infinite amount of time led to a complex universe, whereas theists believe something more complex and grand than the universe itself created it. But again I could very well be wrong. I'm no physics major and I haven't even gotten around to that video yet.

In order for time to exist matter must exist, no? Given an infinite amount of time anything seems possible.

[Edward the Theist]

You're kidding, right?

Are you presently enganged in testing your hypothesis? If so, how?

I'm not kidding, and yes, I am trying to test my hypothesis. I have done a lot of reading research into the subject of consciousness, and in a paper I have on my website, I detail a philosophical argument for why consciousness can't arise from central nervous systems. If that argument doesn't convince you, I have reports of my own precognitive episodes that leave no doubt, at least in my mind, that consciousness is not a result of our central nervous system. And if that is no good, then there is the direct observation of protozoa, especially paramecium, who display apparent consciousness but have no CNS. I have witnessed their behaviour several times under a microscope, but I have found the exact same thing now on YouTube videos which you can see for yourself. The link is in paper, or you can search under "paramecium feeding" on YouTube.

If none of those convince you, then I guess you're just going to have to disagree. But if you agree with me that consciousness is outside of the CNS, then we have to try to hypothesize what it is. I think I can do that by modeling its actions mathematically, and hopefully using that model perhaps to solve paradoxes or some other mathematical mystery. That's what I'm hoping to do anyway.

[Edward the Theist]

Why not?  You are saying your god acted spontaneously, a cause without cause.  There is just as much evidence that the singularity is a cause without cause.  You have just named this un-caused cause, god.  You could have named it singularity just as easily.

And you could have called it God. We're only arguing semantics now.

[Edward the Theist]

In order for time to exist matter must exist, no? Given an infinite amount of time anything seems possible.

I think time is an illusion. It's nothing more than something we measure according to the relative motion of objects i the universe. Take away the relative motion, so during the singularity or before, and there is no time, only an eternal present. And you may be right that anything is possible with enough time, but I don't believe it is possible for something to come from nothing. The idea itself is a contradiction.

However, the way around all this is what I am currently hypothesizing now, but I am not quite there.

[i_am_i]

You're kidding, right?

Are you presently enganged in testing your hypothesis? If so, how?

I'm not kidding, and yes, I am trying to test my hypothesis. I have done a lot of reading research into the subject of consciousness, and in a paper I have on my website, I detail a philosophical argument for why consciousness can't arise from central nervous systems. If that argument doesn't convince you, I have reports of my own precognitive episodes that leave no doubt, at least in my mind, that consciousness is not a result of our central nervous system. And if that is no good, then there is the direct observation of protozoa, especially paramecium, who display apparent consciousness but have no CNS. I have witnessed their behaviour several times under a microscope, but I have found the exact same thing now on YouTube videos which you can see for yourself. The link is in paper, or you can search under "paramecium feeding" on YouTube.

If none of those convince you, then I guess you're just going to have to disagree. But if you agree with me that consciousness is outside of the CNS, then we have to try to hypothesize what it is. I think I can do that by modeling its actions mathematically, and hopefully using that model perhaps to solve paradoxes or some other mathematical mystery. That's what I'm hoping to do anyway.

Search under paramecium feeding on YouTube, no I'm not going to do that. I'm not here to do homework assigned by Christians or by anyone else.

You say that you've done a lot of reading on the subject of consciousness. What have you read?

Then you say that you've got a philosophical argument for why consciousness can't arise from the central nervous system. But a philosophical argument is not science. Anyway, show us that philosophical argument.

Then you say that you "have" reports of your own precognitive episodes that leave no doubt, at least in your mind, that consciousness is not a result of our central nervous system. So, let's see those reports. Are you saying that somehow you knew what was going to happen before it happened?

No, I do not want to go to your website. You came here, so show us what you've got.

[Godlessons]

Most atheist forums say theists are welcome, presumably to look open-minded, but then berate and insult theists until they leave or get pissed off and banned.

It has been my experience that this is actually opposite of the truth.  I have found myself banned, or at least suspended from many theist forums for no reason.  I was even permanently banned from a forum, and all my posts deleted, for simply for standing up for Mormons right to claim to be Christian.  I was "Interfering with evangelism", which wouldn't have likely gathered any attention had I not been effective.

If you look at the rules for some of these forums, they actually have two sets of rules, one for Christians and one for atheists.

On the other hand, most atheists seem to allow all sorts of insanity from believers.  I have had theists make some really stupid statements on my blog, and have had some that have really pissed me off because they start attacking me, or because they just can't see the other side of the coin, and argue as if there were no statement opposing their position.  I have refused to continue to engage them in conversation, but I have never deleted a single comment that wasn't spam from my blog.  I think that would be dishonest.  Ideas should not be censored, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Caveat:  I would also delete any comment that was illegal, such as one calling for illegal activity.

The reason I ask is because I've been into forums like this for the last sixteen years, and it seems way back when atheists were more philosophical and willing to debate. Now I find more and more that they are extremely close-minded, scared of debate, blindly follow leaders like Richard Dawkins, request donations, and stick together very strongly--like the early Christians.

Once upon a time, the only "prominent" atheists were philosophers.  Dawkins and Hitchens have made atheism a little less philosophical in my opinion, although they both make some very good points.

Now, I have my issues with Dawkins, and to tell the truth I have only read his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, but I know enough about what he has written and said to be able to oppose some of what he says.  A true skeptic should never dogmatically defend anything.  I am a proponent of questioning everything purely for the sake of making sure you get the right information.

This isn't to say it doesn't happen, but I would say the majority of the "defense" of Dawkins is more along the grounds of what he is saying, and not who is saying it.

Maybe atheists just got sick of looking at megachurces and decided it's time for their piece of the pie. Maybe a lot of atheist leaders came to realize that you can take the god out of the religious, but you can never quite remove the propensity for religion--and the religious come pre-trained to give money.

What money are we talking about?  Atheists aren't out deconverting the converted and starting big atheist churches that tell people that they have to give money in order to be saved.  They are selling books, but the majority of the people I find buying these books are actually believers.  I have only come across a few atheists that have purchased atheist books.

Atheists don't generally need confirmation that not believing in gods is justified.  It is the people that are starting to doubt that benefit from this kind of thing.  Also, apologists are buying these books so they can keep up on the currently understood flaws in their view of things.  They buy books from Dennett, Harris and Ehrman too, just to keep up on the things they need to account for.

As for why atheists are being more outspoken, it is probably because with the current state of the world, more atheists are wondering why people can justify allowing religions to continue.  When you make it a virtue to believe in things without evidence, and you have a book that claims to be absolute truth and also condones all sorts of evils, you have a recipe for destructive and anti-social behavior that we have seen manifest in the Islamic community most recently, but can see happens in Christianity as well, such as in Bosnia, such as with anti-homosexual activism, such as with parents allowing their children to die from highly curable diseases, and as with all sorts of nasty behavior that has happened in the past or is currently happening in the name of Christianity.

Anyway, when atheists speak out, it isn't to reach hard core theists and deconvert them, it is to reach those that are legitimately questioning their faith, in order to give them validation of their questioning.  If a person finds the arguments about theism or atheism compelling, they were already on that path on their own.  People don't just change their core belief system merely because of a lost debate.  They have started questioning already.

[pinkocommie]

Suggesting that the big bang theory is in any way on equal footing in regard to plausibility with the idea that there's some god-ish entity that exists and has influenced the universe and mankind (which seems to be your position - though from reading through the replies, your position honestly seems very airy and at times is very reminiscent of Sagan's Dragon) seems either willfully disingenuous or, if earnestly proposed, unfortunately critically flawed.

We're dealing with a question - in this case, how did the universe come to be - which doesn't have a clear answer (if we agree that the whole 'in the beginning' stuff is bunk- which I think we do, but if not, I'm sorry I assumed that) regardless of your belief in deities or understanding of science, so the only way to really gauge the validity of any given explanation is the empirical evidence on which the explanation is based.  I am by no means an expert, but I have read up on the big bang quite a bit and I personally regard the evidence for that explanation to be far far far more compelling and scientifically sound than any evidence I've heard for any kind of God creating the universe.  One thing I have noticed is that people who do prefer a deity-centric explanation tend to have personal evidence which is very important to them, but unfortunately that kind of personal experience is only compelling to the individual and possibly the easily convinced.  

Also, the guy in my avatar is Charlie from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia.  And no, you would never ever trust Charlie with kids.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

What evidences do you present for this theory that there might be an eternal "nothing" as you say, if there is no god?

A. The inate logic that if there was no purpose for something to exist, then it wouldn't exist. To just say "Well, it does." is both faithy thinking and close-mindedness bordering on psychiatric denial at the same time.

I should expect that a philosopher ought to know the difference between "logic" and "evidence".  I'm just a redneck, and I know the difference.  The two are not the same.  Logic is a mental construct; evidence is physical residue, or affect.  The following syllogism is logically sound:

A: All bananas are Cadillacs
B: This is a banana
C: This is therefore a Cadillac.

Logic can be both correct and useless when the premises are faulty.  Because of this, logic cannot be evidence.  

Also, you do understand that you are begging the question in your first sentence, no?  You must demonstrate "purpose" independant of existence if you wish to use "purpose" as evidence for your god.  Just saying that it is so doesn't cut it.

Finally, the "psychiatric denial" trope is shit.  You shouldn't insult a person's sanity (even in such a tangential, slippery manner) simply because they disagree with you.  No one's called you crazy yet, and here you are positing a magical sky-guy.

[Godlessons]

No, it is an unlikely process. Even if it's true, it's extremely unlikely that abiogenesis, creation of something out of nothing, and evolution would occur and work. Especially when you compare it simply to nothing existing at all, which is the simplest possible state of being--absent a God.

I always find it funny that someone can say how unlikely it is that something that happened could happen.  Let me show why.

Either a god exists or it doesn't.  That means that there is a 50% or a 1/2 chance either way of either side of that particular statement being true.

The claim that a God doesn't exist always has a 50% chance of being true, since it makes no claims of what attributes God has.  On the other hand, the more attributes that you give God, the less likely it is to be true.

Let's start off with something easier to calculate, such as the possibility of any particular randomly generated picture being on a screen that was 100x100 and monochrome.  A screen that size has 10,000 pixels that can be on or off.  That means that the chances of any particular pixel being on or off depending on which way you like it is 1/10,000.  If you extrapolate that out for all the pixels in a particular picture, the chances of a picture being randomly generated are always going to be 1/10,000^10,000, or 1/10^40,000 power, no matter what that picture is.  That means that even if the picture just looked like white noise, the chances of that particular pattern being on the screen are statistically impossible, yet it is there.

To put that in perspective, the number of atoms in the visible universe is approximately 10^80.  That means that the chances of you picking the same atom in the universe that I pick are 1/10^80, which you must admit is a better chance.

But, when it comes to the chances of one thing being true or another, a God that put things in motion and has knowledge of the position of every atom in the universe is much lower, since you would have a 1/10^80^(number of possible positions in the universe) chance of every atom being where it is.  That's such a high number, I don't have time to figure it out right now.  I would have to calculate the size of the visible universe divided by the average size of an atom.  You should be able to get some idea of how large of a number that is with that explanation.

So, if you are going to go with the chances of something being statistically likely, you have to also put your God in the realm of the impossible, and you would certainly have to agree that there is more of a chance that there is no God than there is of there being an omniscient one.

This kind of argument therefore only works on someone that doesn't understand that without the absolute knowledge that something would be a different way under any circumstances, there is no way to say that anything is likely.

[Edward the Theist]

Search under paramecium feeding on YouTube, no I'm not going to do that. I'm not here to do homework assigned by Christians or by anyone else.

A 1 minute video, and you won't even do that, oh but you're sure there is no God. You're a religious fanatic. You're just an atheist one.

[Edward the Theist]

It might be a good idea, however, to start a new thread about cosmology and that way we can get this conversation back on track in regard to the alleged religiosity of atheists and start fresh in a new thread which focuses from the get go on cosmology.  That's only a suggestion, though, and I don't mean to be bossy.  :crazy:

Thanks for the info on the avatar, and I agree. We should start a new post on cosmology.

[Edward the Theist]

I should expect that a philosopher ought to know the difference between "logic" and "evidence".  I'm just a redneck, and I know the difference.  The two are not the same.  Logic is a mental construct; evidence is physical residue, or affect.  The following syllogism is logically sound:

A: All bananas are Cadillacs
B: This is a banana
C: This is therefore a Cadillac.

Logic can be both correct and useless when the premises are faulty.  Because of this, logic cannot be evidence.  

If the premises are faulty...if. And I'm not making an argument for God in this case, I'm making an argument against atheism. It's kind of like the way you guys are always saying you don't say there is no God, and you don't believe there is no God, you only say there is no proof for God and then go around acting as if that were the fact you believe in.

It' get's convoluted doesn't it?

[Edward the Theist]

Either a god exists or it doesn't.  That means that there is a 50% or a 1/2 chance either way of either side of that particular statement being true.

Right there is your problem: That either god does or does not exist does not mean there is an equal chance either way. There could be only a ten percent chance god exists or a 90% chance, and you could make the same initial statement.

All the other stuff you wrote is basically white noise. We first must define what god is and then we can try to prove one way or another whether god exists. In theist groups and atheists groups the one common denominator is that neither side actually agrees on a definition of what God is. So, no argument can go forward.

[Godlessons]

I think time is an illusion. It's nothing more than something we measure according to the relative motion of objects i the universe. Take away the relative motion, so during the singularity or before, and there is no time, only an eternal present. And you may be right that anything is possible with enough time, but I don't believe it is possible for something to come from nothing. The idea itself is a contradiction.

I'll deal with your second problem first.  If you don't think it's possible for something to come from nothing, then why is there a necessity for a god to "create" everything if it was there in the first place?  That would be rearranging, and if the stuff was already there for God to rearrange, why do you not think it's possible that it came about on its own?

If you think that God did create the something, what did he create it with?  Or, if you believe such an impossible thing such as a god could have just always existed, you admit that something could have 'just' always existed, why do you have to jump from the universe to a god?  (Thanks Segan)

Now the first problem with your statement.  You assume there was a singularity.  http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 may disagree with you.  Also, Lawrence Krauss has an interesting hypothesis about the origins of the universe, not from a singularity, but from a virtual nothing.  Second, it isn't at all clear that there can be matter without time, so even a singularity without time may not work.

[Godlessons]

Right there is your problem: That either god does or does not exist does not mean there is an equal chance either way. There could be only a ten percent chance god exists or a 90% chance, and you could make the same initial statement.

God not existing always has a 50% chance of being true where just adding a single attribute to God, such as omnipotence, brings that possibility down to 33%, omniscience brings that down to 25%, creator of the universe brings it down to 20%, Spoke to Abraham, brings it down to 16%, spoke to Isaac, father of Jesus, put demons in pigs, knows that I'm typing this conversation, etc. brings it down even farther.

You assume that all the other stuff I wrote is white noise because you don't understand it, not because it is meaningless.

I'm just saying that if you want to say that we can calculate the chances of abiogenesis happening, you must accept that the chances of just an omniscient God existing is much smaller than abiogenesis happening spontaneously, and the chances God doesn't exist are greater than both.  The reality is you can't calculate the chances of either thing existing.  Your argument was bad to begin with.

We first must define what god is and then we can try to prove one way or another whether god exists.

This is true, but not for the reason you think, and certainly not to show the statistical unlikelihood.

In theist groups and atheists groups the one common denominator is that neither side actually agrees on a definition of what God is. So, no argument can go forward.

It really doesn't matter all that much if you're going to claim God is supernatural, and you can't provide an ontology of God.  If you want to say that God is love for example, we know that love exists, and it is a chemical reaction in our brains.  That would be just redefining the word God to be something we know about and can demonstrate, but call by a different name.

On the other hand, if you want to say that God is a supernatural, immaterial spirit, or a disembodied consciousness, I would ask you to tell me what you're talking about.  Can you pour me out a measure of God stuff?  Is it measurable?  Can it be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, etc.?  What is God's ontology?

Essentially, your task as a theist, is to explain what demonstrable thing makes God any different from things that don't exist?  As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is nothing.