What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you elaborate on this?

What about me do you find that makes me a theist in your eyes?

I'd like to understand your ideas about theism and your ideas about what makes someone a theist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@wynn --

Judging from your behavior and the topics you frequently post about I highly doubt if you'd really like to understand anyone else' position on anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

technically no.

I think you would be hard challenged to indicate a single model that isn't based on the idea of it rising spontaneously.

Polytheistic systems tend to either avoid discussing how a pantheon and the nature of existence arose (those leaning towards animism) or attribute it to a singular cause (for the greeks it was the "chos" or void, which gives us words such as "chasm"). Amongst the greek pantheon it was Prometheus who created man.

Either way, you don't see any indication that the creation of life is simply a problem of technical application (as opposed to the numerous atheist ideas hell bent to suggest otherwise)

I don't see how this addresses the point of regressing the question of the origin of life by having a universe already existing with god

You were suggesting that an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for god.

You also suggested that an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for occurring on the backdrop of chaos (or chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded) .

I challenged you to indicate such an explanation that meets both sets of criteria.

My point being, that the role afforded to god by the theist is the same sort of role afforded to forces of chance by the atheist .... Hence its from this point forward that the two world views diverge in terms of what they anticipate/predict.

The amount of time life is guessed to have existed on earth plays little or no bearing on the guesses about the nature of the universe being infinite or finite

at the very least, its not common enough to enable scientists to produce the evidence necessary to corroborate their convictions beyond post-dated rain cheques.

Then I guess you have to explain why it appears that the further in history one goes, the more numerous, speculative and often contradictory they become.

For instance compare models of abiogenesis on earth to models of the very early universe to models beyond the big bang.

We see a clear progression of scenarios that shaped the current consequences as we know them becomes more murkier the further one travels down the chain of cause and effect.

Its what one would naturally expect since the information tends to J curve off into being completely a guess the further back in time we go.

my point is that the guesses that surround the nature of the earth's atmosphere are sufficient to render the problems of evidencing abiogenesis unregenerate

Or maybe its the guesses that surround the chronology of abiogenesis that are sufficient to render the problems of evidencing abiogenesis unregenerate

Or maybe its the guesses that surround understanding the base inanimate requirements for abiogenesis that are sufficient to render the problems of evidencing abiogenesis unregenerate

Either way, we see a clear pattern emerging ...

Having claimed previously that you have an adequate education in theistic matters, do you really need me to explain this or are you simply being rhetorical?

Feel free to explain how something (anything that has consequences of effect/value/judgment) is superfluous in the absence of an alternative explanation/object fulfilling the same criteria ....

IOW this point you make would be fine if we were talking about the atheism of chairs and tables ..... the moment one starts giving reasons for "core ontological elements" (things that dictate the nature or context of how one defines aspects of reality) existing or not existing is the moment one is driving home a world view.
There is no escaping this simple fact.

science anticipates nothing/predicts about what the next life affords, the purpose of sentient driven universe, etc.
An atheist (at least the variety that aren't tables and chairs) will go on for pages about it.
If it appears that science is commonly confused with atheism its because atheists commonly cite scientific models (that are nothing more than models and guesses) to lend credibility to their reasoning.

Actually what we can see is that many scientists have a deep commitment to the notion that life derives from matter ..... yet they admit that they can’t produce the evidence to corroborate their convictions due to being besieged with unregenerate problems. They’re convinced that life arose from matter /is reducible to matter, yet at the same time they must confess to having limited scientific grounds for their conviction.

Their messianic hope is that someday, someone, somehow may be able to validate it..... in the meantime their faith is unshakable.


Abiogenesis is but one classic example.

 

The Usual Error.

 

Oh, the faith! The faith!

 

The original request was:

and it was meant as a request, a request for an experiment.

I don't know how many people did it, or what they found.



And clearly, the word "chaotic" was used in context, and it's clear from the context what "chaotic" was intended to mean (ie. in the ordinary dictionary sense).

 

Do you know any such theists, or, better yet, do you know any established theistic traditions whose doctrine states that life arose from non-life?

Can we invite such theists for discussion here?

So what does an atheist mean by "I don't believe in God"?

 

These days, I prefer persons above flakes.

 

wynn

So that precludes that you be able to admit that the Chaos in Nature has beauty? Do you also have a problem walking and chewing gum at the same time? The appreciation of beauty is an important part of what being a "people" means, take the time to stop and smell the Roses.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It was introduced in this thread as a quote by LG, I think. I don't know what its original context was, wherever it originated. I'll be happy to go through it line by line now though.

I believe that events in the physical universe conform to the regularities that we call 'natural laws'. I'd characterize human beings as systems that are kind of emergent from that "machine language" level, and human beings obviously operate according to personalities, motives, intentions and so on. But obviously I don't know what all the 'natural laws' are and typically don't have a clue about initial conditions. Nor am I familiar with most people's personalities and motivations, and doubt that I could predict their behavior if I did. So... in real life, my experience kind of approximates towards your conditions of chaos, at least at times.

Of the universe? I don't think that there's any "anyone" who is.

I think that we are.

At least on the larger metaphysical level, I do believe that. On the local level in my daily life, I have all kinds of interests, occupations, relationships and so on that kind of give the days of my life some larger meaning. Maybe I have some affinities with the French style of existentialism in all this, and you can probably see how Buddhism fits in.

I just performed your experiment. Now you need to analyze the results.

That's how I use the word too. I think that the 'chaos theory' sense is a slightly-unfortunate analogy to that primary use of the word. I get the impression that today, unlike the 1990's when this stuff kind of burst on the scientific scene, mathematicians and physicists seemingly prefer to use the phrase 'nonlinear dynamics', probably because they want to avoid spurious associations with all the connotations of the primary meaning of the word 'chaos'.

 

I have an entirely different view of God and religion, which is a blend of science and religion. My theory, based on study and observation, is the human personality is based on personality firmware. These personality firmware regulate human nature and evolve over time.

These brain firmware are genetic based and start out empty at birth. They develop, as we grow and age, in a way loosely analogous to plant from a seed. The genes drive the growth of the seed, into a characteristic life form, such as a tomato plant with fruit. The same is true of the initial empty firmware. They have a genetic seed form at birth and develop and progress.

Our interaction with the environment, internal (imagination) and external (sensory input) is analogous to the external parameters used by a growing plant, like the sun, water, soil, pH, major and trace nutrients, bugs, mold, etc. These external parameters will impact the final genetic based firmware result, just like a green thumb or black thumb will impact the final tomato plant. It can become perfect or mutant using seeds from the same pack with the same DNA.

Religion and mythology tell us a lot about the evolution and the development of the human brain firmware, since these symbols project this. The goddess of love is connected to firmware of love, which is part of human nature.

The gods of greek mythology were projections of the firmware within the ancient Greek mind. It is quite interesting how their firmware was similar but also different than the modern mind. It too was based on a chaos model like atheism, where the whims of the gods (firmware) were not definite. This was not due to seed DNA but willpower, culture and external reality. This all tells us about the typical personality of that time.

What is interesting to me was the change in Christian dogma associated with the trinity. This projected a major upgrade within the personality firmware, implying a multicore model of the central CPU of the mind (inner self). This happened before computer programmers started to think this way in terms of multicore processing. This suggested the human brain went through a major upgrade.

I often wondered why the ancient world seemed so bright and creative, such as the glory of Rome only to go into the dark ages where there was a regression in all this advancement. It appears to have been due to a major brain update which took centuries. Picture installing a quad core processor into an old computer using ancient software. It will not appear to do much, except cause inner conflicts. One would need to modernize the firmware/software to match the core performance, then the brain started to crank; age of enlightenment.

To me religion tells us about the evolution of the mind including predictions of the future state of the human mind. It also provides good soil for allowing the firmware to grow to it natural potential. If you look at nature, animals don't have a social safety net because their firmware coordinate with efficiency. This modern loss of efficient (too many mops needed to clean up) reflects unnatural firmware progression. You can tell a tree (firmware) by the fruit it bears.

 

I originally posted it here, and to my great surprise, it was quoted in another thread.

Sure, the view I posted seems like an accurate description of "how things usually are."

But upon seriously considering such a view, I find it deeply disturbing.

This is actually a quote from the Four Dhamma Summaries:

The Four Dhamma Summaries

1.
The world is swept away.
It does not endure.

2.
The world offers no shelter.
There is no one in charge.

3.
The world has nothing of its own.
One has to pass on
leaving everything behind.

4.
The world is insufficient,
insatiable,
a slave to craving.


Of course, here, we'd need to discuss what exactly "world" means in this context.

Do you think that the holy life is subject to aging, illness and death too?

The Buddha said:

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

To the best of my knowledge, the Buddha never said that "life is suffering" or that the five aggregates are all there is.
Nor did he say that discernment was stressful.

As he noted on several occasions (such as in the Kalama Sutta), the Dhamma is admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end.
There is the Dhamma, and the Dhamma is not stressful.

That's just it: I don't see how Buddhism fits into such a view.

 

wynn

The theism within what you say is pretty obvious, the reaction to what I said about the Bible's miracles was one that one would expect from a theist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... It really doesn't make a difference if the duck calls itself another name, it's still a duck. Theism or atheism is not bestowed by what one calls themselves(for whatever purpose), it is inherent in the ideas one espouses. You espouse the ideas of a theist(when we can get you to express anything at all, that is).

Deism and Spinozism are just two that come to mind. Besides, what does it matter what religions believe to be true if it has been evidenced that they are wrong?

Depends on which god your speaking of. I don't believe in Spinoza's or a Deist's god simply because I don't think he is neccessary, not because there is evidence that contradicts what followers of that god say is true(in fact, believers in Spinoza's god agree with me that what science says about the Universe is valid, including life arising from non-life). If you are speaking of a fundamentalist's claims about god, we're talking a whole 'nother can of worms.

But, generally, an atheist just does not accept any god claims, whatever the specifics of the particular species.

You know, I gave a very detailed response and got nothing back from you. In the context of the word chaotic you are using, the Universe is not chaotic. It is ordered, predictable(to the limit of our understanding of initial conditions), regular and rational and no one knows if it is all there is. As to ageing, illness and death, it applies to everything that lives, no exceptions.

Actually you have been railing against the chaos that scientists say is a component of the Universe, so you are talking about what scientists mean by chaos, not the simplistic definition you gave.

Faith-belief without evidence. And I did not say I believe it will happen in his lifetime, I said I hope it does. As to being likely, I don't need faith, I have evidence that shows it is likely. There's no magic component that makes life different from the same pile of chemicals that is not alive. Life is a complex chemical reaction that occurs within those chemicals, no different in kind that any other chemical reaction. It is the complexity and structure of the reactions that is the difference.

lightgigantic

Panspermia, at least as far as life on Earth is concerned. Life may have existed in this Universe for as long as the chemicals which make it up have existed and been spread throughout the Universe(including to Earth)by the natural forces of the Universe. Our whole solar system was formed from the debris of at least one, and probably several, generations of stars.

Yes, we do see that life is a natural part of the Universe and we do have copious evidence that it is no different in kind to any other natural chemical reaction. Understanding life is an excersize in understanding the complexity and structure of it's chemical reactions(a technical thing), not trying to understand it's basic chemistry(we've got a good(but not yet complete)understanding of that).

Not to mention the infinite regress of who/what created that god. It is no more irrational than saying "god did it".

There is no evidence to base any other conclusion on. If you have any explanation you think neccessarily needs a god to be rational, bring it. By the way, the evidence indicates that there will be no ultimate destruction of the Universe. "Heat Death" is not destruction, it is just the end of usable energy, the matter will continue even if it all falls into Black Holes(which, if the Universe is designed at all, is what it was designed to produce. It is what it is best at.).

Neither you, nor wynn has a clue about what science says chaos is. You both should probably either educate yourselves or avoid the subject altogether. And you both ignore the explanations we have given you, rejecting those explanations to reset to your personal misunderstanding and misrepresentations in the next post. This is why you are considered...unresponsive and dishonest in the tactics you use. We don't need any more strawmen, you've already populated the thread with dozens(as we have pointed out to you ad nauseum).

Not chance, probability. Life arose because of the laws of the Universe acting on the matter within it. Even many theists agree and science shows it likely to be true. While there is an element of chance, it is actually only a small part. The probability that life would arise on Earth and lead to your existence is close to unity(there's always that small sliver of probability that we are all a computer program running in somebody's den). It happened. The probability that a particular atom 4.5 billion years ago would end up as part of your nose is nearly infinitely small. Neither the high nor the low probability of these two related things makes a bit of difference to the fact that it happened(though it does inform us). And chance plays it's role whether or not a god exists, it is not a replacement for god. I can't replace things I have no evidence of in the first place. The default is what you can show evidence of.

Having heard and discussed many different claims it is reasonable to pin down the particular claims you are being so coy about. Do you come back to life inside a cow? Or are 72 virgins waiting for you? Do you go to the Big Spaghetti Dinner in the Sky?

This is not just apples and oranges, this is a whole fruit salad.

In Cosmology we have the advantage that we can directly observe and measure the past almost all the way back to the Big Bang. About the history of life on Earth the evidence can be weighed in tons(literally), but the further back the less evidence we have. And beyond 900 million years are so there is very little because bacteria really don't normally leave fossils(but where do you think petroleum comes from, or chalk?)though we do have fossil stromatilites over 3.5 billion years old. As to pre BB theories, you are right, they are largely guessing, but they are educated guesses guided by math, they just can't be tested.

It is not a guess, it is a measurement based on the half lives of radioactive isotopes(there are over 40 different radioactive clocks). And the beginning of the Universe is an observed fact, therefore it cannot ever be infinite.

Guesses are for those too ignorant to actually look at the evidence, evidence removes the ignorance. I can guess how tall you are or how much you weigh, or I can measure both parameters and have no need of guessing. We have measured the time that has passed since molecules were incorporated into the stromatolites that seem to be the oldest known lifeforms and we find the time that has passed is over 3.5 billion years. We can measure the distance to the furthest visible object and we find it is over 13.5 billion light years, and since light takes one year to travel one light year the furthest things we see are 13.5 years in the past. The only thing beyond that is the Cosmic Microwave Background which is all that remains of the flash of the BB. It is evidence and reason that leads to these conclusions, if they are in error it is evidence and reason that will indicate that.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? Those guesses lead to testing that indicates which guesses are more likely to be correct. This removes it from the guess column into the educated guess column, further evidence can then be looked for, leading to firmer conclusions. We don't have enough information to have firmer conclusions on many things, sometimes "We don't know" is the only valid answer. But that doesn't mean "god did it", you would have to go through the same process on that guess, too.

They aren't guesses, life existed on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. Life began within that one billion year window. Those are scientific facts based on scientific measurement(you know, like rulers are). Believe whatever you like, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

We have a pretty good, but not exhaustive, understanding about how life incorporates non-living matter into living matter, it's the complexity that is the biggest problem in understanding how the chemical reactions began. Fortunately, like the Japanese after WW2, we have lots of examples to reverse engineer on.

So, atheists base their worldviews on what can be evidenced, IE reality. And that is a bad thing how, exactly? Beats magical thinking by a long shot. It also explains why the vast majority of scientists are atheists.

We're starting to see a trend here...more education and more knowledge lead to less mysticism and less magical thinking. A fairly good synopsys of the last few centuries of human civilization. Plato based all of his knowledge on guesses, and argued that that was valid. Scientists base their conclusions on evidence, build their models(theories)on that evidence and test those models against the evidence, they don't guess. That you seem unable or unwilling to understand that changes nothing.

That is just a lie, whether from ignorance or prejudice against the facts. And your constant repeating of that lie...you do the math.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@wynn --

You really like talking out of your ass don't you? I haven't assumed that people think like I do, in fact given that I have a rather unusual pattern to my thought processes it's highly unlikely that any given individual thinks like I do. However your posts often lack relevance to the topics being discussed. This isn't the "usual error", it's your inability to stay on track.

 

Since you missed out on the play of words, my dear flake, I prostrate myself before your glorified daffodil feet.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry to the above, but I do know that your views of theism are severely limited and severely biased.

My my, if what you call "theism" would actually pass for theism ... :m:

 

I know. You're speshal and such.

Ah, I need some diversion too!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey. I got an idea for a game. Let's see how long we can carry on a conversation wherein everyone addresses the argument and no one addresses the arguer. First one to commit an ad hominem (either direct or indirect*) loses the debate.

Who's game?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is my opinion that non-believers must rely on believers to lay out the foundations of what to "know God" means. Any discussion must begin with the laying out of this premise by the team opening the debate (the believers).

Counter?

* an example of an indirect ad hominem would be "that argument is laughable/ignorant"

 

Count me in!

Agreed.