Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 91 of 414 (551596)
03-23-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Den
03-23-2010 9:47 AM


Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect, Nature is a perfect cycle of transformation, from the sun which transforms Hydrogen to Helium, to the plants that transform light into plant matter, to the tiger which transforms antelopes into baby tigers. Nothing is wasted, Nature in all its forms is perfect.
Only 10% of energy is passed between trophic levels. In layman terms, plants are only able to turn 10% of the energy they receive into food. When herbivores eat those plants they can only transfer 10% of that plant food into energy for themselves. When a carnivore eats the herbivore once again only 10% of the energy makes it to the carnivore. When a scavenger eats the carnivore only 10% of that energy makes it to the scavenger. From the plant to the scavenger only 0.01% of the energy from the plant through the web of life makes it to the scavenger. By my math, 0.01% is much less than a perfect 100%. This is just one example of many that we can cite for imperfection in nature.
And if nature were perfect why do we have vets and doctors? In America, we spend 1 dollar of every 6 just to fix this supposed perfection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 9:47 AM Den has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 10:18 AM Taq has replied
 Message 102 by Peepul, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 92 of 414 (551600)
03-23-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:03 AM


quote:
Evidence for an all powerful, all knowing, and ever present supernatural deity that created the entire univers and everything in it who also affects everyday events shouldn't be that hard to objectively identify, if that god actually exists.
If it is not hard as you say please provide an answer. I'm not asking you to provide proof, I asking what do you require as proof?
quote:
And if nature were perfect why do we have vets and doctors? In America, we spend 1 dollar of every 6 just to fix this supposed perfection.
Arent most vets dealing with the problems created by man made incestually inbred animals such as mutated cats, dogs and livestock? Anyway I think your are missing the point that perfection is a subjective matter, I dont believe that perfection and imperfection exists, its all perfect, I know you might find that hard to grasp, I probably need to work out how to explain this better.
Cheers
Den

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:03 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:23 AM Den has replied
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 11:05 AM Den has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 93 of 414 (551602)
03-23-2010 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Den
03-23-2010 10:18 AM


If it is not hard as you say please provide an answer. I'm not asking you to provide proof, I asking what do you require as proof?
God appearing to above a city of millions and predicting the outcome of the next lottery. That would be a nice one.
You know, the same evidence you would need to be convinced that Santa Claus exists. Or perhaps you could list the evidence you would require to believe in one of the thousands of gods you currently disbelieve in. Stealing from Stephen Roberts . . . I contend that we are both atheists. I just happen to disbelieve in one more god than you do. When you understand why you disbelieve in all those other possible gods you will understand why I disbelieve in yours.
ABE:
Arent most vets dealing with the problems created by man made incestually inbred animals such as mutated cats, dogs and livestock? Anyway I think your are missing the point that perfection is a subjective matter, I dont believe that perfection and imperfection exists, its all perfect, I know you might find that hard to grasp, I probably need to work out how to explain this better.
You seem to have confused the word "existence" with "perfection". The only requirement you seem to have for something being perfect is that it exists. That doesn't make any sense.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 10:18 AM Den has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:09 PM Taq has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 94 of 414 (551610)
03-23-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Den
03-23-2010 10:18 AM


Den writes:
I'm not asking you to provide proof, I asking what do you require as proof?
Let me try something here and see how it goes.
What evidence would you require to believe in Snarklepom?
No, this is not a trap, please try and answer the question, I promise it's not to make fun of you, it's to make a rather basic point I hope will get across.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 10:18 AM Den has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 12:54 PM Huntard has replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 95 of 414 (551627)
03-23-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Huntard
03-23-2010 11:05 AM


First there is proof so far that at minimum Snarklepom exists in your imagination, since if it did not, you would be unable to write it down, therefore this evidence is expressed in your written text.
For anyone to define or prove Snarklepom in reality, I guess if you wanted to make the case Snarklepom existed in reality you would first have to describe or define what is Snarklepoms purpose in our collaborative reality?
Nice try, but I dont think you can drawn a comparison since intellegent design has been attributed or dedicated to a purpose, snarklepom has not - yet.
Edited by Den, : fixed a squeak!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 11:05 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 1:54 PM Den has replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 96 of 414 (551629)
03-23-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:23 AM


quote:
You seem to have confused the word "existence" with "perfection". The only requirement you seem to have for something being perfect is that it exists. That doesn't make any sense.
Perfection and imperfection is based on a completely subjective decision. So I actually mean that everything just is.
You might have to think about it for a while and try to explain it to yourself, cause I've done my best, a good theology teacher can probably explain what Im saying alot better.
Edited by Den, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:23 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 1:19 PM Den has not replied
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 3:32 PM Den has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 414 (551632)
03-23-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Den
03-23-2010 1:09 PM


Based our current proven knowledge, perfection and imperfection can only be defined by the human mind, and it is based on a completely subjective decision.
I don't think so. Perfection just mean complete or flawless.
A droplet of water falling could still form a perfect sphere, objectively.
A region of space completely void of light would still be perfectly black, objectively.
So, there are things that exist that are not perfect.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:09 PM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 98 of 414 (551640)
03-23-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Den
03-23-2010 9:47 AM


I'm not following your line of argument.
You brought up the issues of rape and infanticide (here) as though you thought that they were bad things.
But now when I agree with you that they are bad things, you shift your ground completely and insist that they are "perfect".
Please explain yourself further.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 9:47 AM Den has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 99 of 414 (551641)
03-23-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 6:48 PM


I think the word 'religious' as used by CS CAN be appropriate when describing non-theistic beliefs.
For example, if people venerate a belief system, use it to define their values, resist criticism of it and changes to it, and criticize or judge others who believe differently, then it's fair to call their attitude 'religious'. Likewise if they treat an individual the same way. So for example, I would include extreme left and right wing politicians and some music fans in this group.
When Richard Dawkins describes atheists as 'brights', ie intellectually superior to the religious, he is entering this territory.
If I'm honest, I would say my own belief in the scientific method is religious. That provides the energy for my discussions with creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 6:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 8:25 PM Peepul has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 100 of 414 (551646)
03-23-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by marc9000
03-22-2010 7:46 PM


Marc9000,
quote:
I think it has a very comparable connotation in society. When atheists are asked about themselves or when describing themselves, the subject of evolution will come up just as quickly as the subject of God will come up for a religious person. Prominent atheist people, whether a biologist like Richard Dawkins or a commedian like Bill Maher, always seem to have a politically liberal point of view. Is there a such thing as a radical right atheist?
I don't agree with your first statement. Who brings up evolution? Is it the atheist or the person they are talking to? I don't bring it up when talking about myself.
I agree that there is a correlation between atheism and liberalism, but it's not absolute. I have come across right wing atheists. If I remember, there's somebody on Richard Dawkin's site whose forum name is that, or something similar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by marc9000, posted 03-22-2010 7:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 8:33 PM Peepul has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 101 of 414 (551647)
03-23-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Den
03-23-2010 12:54 PM


Den writes:
First there is proof so far that at minimum Snarklepom exists in your imagination, since if it did not, you would be unable to write it down, therefore this evidence is expressed in your written text.
The word most certainly does, and that's about as far as Snarklepom goes.
For anyone to define or prove Snarklepom in reality, I guess if you wanted to make the case Snarklepom existed in reality you would first have to describe or define what is Snarklepoms purpose in our collaborative reality?
Almost what I had in mind, but very close indeed. It's not the purpose that is of concern here (which was to make a point). Of concern here is that Snarklepom has not been defined at all. So if you ask me, what evidence would you need for god, my first response would be: "What is god?".
There are some rather nice videos on the subject I think would help clarify this all a bit, here they are:

Linky

Linky
Nice try, but I dont think you can drawn a comparison since intellegent design has been attributed or dedicated to a purpose, snarklepom has not - yet.
True, but what is an intelligent designer, other then the fact that it is intelligent and designs things.
Does this make the dilemma concerning your questions clear?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 12:54 PM Den has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Huntard has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 102 of 414 (551653)
03-23-2010 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:03 AM


quote:
Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect, Nature is a perfect cycle of transformation, from the sun which transforms Hydrogen to Helium, to the plants that transform light into plant matter, to the tiger which transforms antelopes into baby tigers. Nothing is wasted, Nature in all its forms is perfect.
Right, so the arthritis in my mother's hands is perfect? Whales who get the bends are perfect? The death of many animals in pain or by starvation is perfect? Disease and parasitism are perfect? Have a look at an encyclopedia of tropical human diseases.
I dread to think what imperfection would look like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:03 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Den, posted 03-24-2010 2:24 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 103 of 414 (551662)
03-23-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Den
03-23-2010 1:09 PM


You might have to think about it for a while and try to explain it to yourself, cause I've done my best, a good theology teacher can probably explain what Im saying alot better.
Yeah, just like I need a used car salesman to tell me that a car blowing out blue smoke is the "perfect family car".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:09 PM Den has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 104 of 414 (551668)
03-23-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Granny Magda
03-22-2010 4:54 PM


I wonder if we are seeing a trace of the "no-one is allowed to criticise religion" notion in CS's posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2010 4:54 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 5:04 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 414 (551670)
03-23-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Woodsy
03-23-2010 4:37 PM


I wonder if we are seeing a trace of the "no-one is allowed to criticise religion" notion in CS's posts.
Bwah? What's that supposed to mean?
Why would I call atheism a religion so as to make it so that it can't be criticized?
I'm pretty sure I've done my fair share of criticizing atheism...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Woodsy, posted 03-23-2010 4:37 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024