The Folly of Atheism

Ad nauseum but, remember, Frank doesn't want to make this thread about him.

 

But you apparently do.

I wonder why that is???

 

There are some conflicts between sense experience and the B-Theory that I find very difficult to reconcile. If it's true, there is no temporal becoming. Our experience of things happening, the "flow" of time, if you will, is an illusion. That illusion and the need of an explanatory mechanism for it are one thing, but their implications are more problematic.

Without temporal becoming, the arrow of time seems completely inexplicable. If time is a static block, where the past, present, and future are all equally real, why do we only experience the present? Why do we move through time at all? And why is our passage through time biased toward the future? On the dynamic theory, where time is a dimension in which change takes place, all of that is to be expected, but there's no reason to expect change on the static theory, let alone change in a particular direction. Some try to explain this away by positing entropy as logically prior to time, but independent of the arrangement of words, or equations, I don't see a coherent idea there. It's saying that something which occurs is causing the existence of the environment in which it occurs, which seems to entail a logical contradiction.

Once we stipulate the block, we have to accept one of two unlikely possibilities for the difference between the past and the future.

If we want to preserve identity(in some sense) and causality itself, we have to posit an actually infinite number of slices between any two points in time. This entails that the temporal distance between now and one second ago is exactly the same as the temporal distance between now and a billion years ago. This definitely does entail a logical contradiction, so we have to reject it.

That forces us to conclude that time is quantized. This entails that I am not the same person who began to write this sentence, that there is a finite but very large number of "me"s, the form, thoughts and intentions of whom were somehow transferred from one to another, not through time, but across some other kind of gap. To preserve causality at this point, we would have to posit yet another mechanism by which conditions in one discrete unit of time can reach across and affect conditions in the next slice, and something to prevent that mechanism from affecting conditions in the slice prior to it.

Fortunately, we can accept the equations of special relativity without committing to Minkowski's 4D interpretation of them. Unless something has changed since last I looked(there's a pun in there somewhere), the observational expectations(other than the experiential ones I mentioned) are exactly the same on Minkowski's interpretation as on Einstein's initial interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation. People don't like Einstein's first interpretation, including Einstein who dropped it for Minkowski's interpretation, on account of the "wackiness" of a unique time and space for each reference frame. Lorentz posited privileged simultaneity relations in an all-encompassing time and space, which strikes me as much simpler than what we need to hold the 4D interpretation. All things considered, though, Einstein's first interpretation, wacky as it may be, does seem like the simplest of the three.

 

Frank, you hold the position that psychic snowflakes may exist. I don't. Do I think you are wrong? Yes I do. Can I prove it? No, I can't. It's not necessary for me to prove it. It's not necessary for me to prove or disprove every silly position that someone holds.

If you want to hold the position that unless a thing is established as impossible, like psychic snowflakes, it is possible, then that is your prerogative. I think it's silly, l but a lot of people have silly beliefs.

A lot of six year olds hold the position that Santa Clause may be real. Most of them will grow out of it.

 

Sounds like a Chuck Lorre Vanity Card.

 

we dont have to "disprove" god, it is on those who claim there IS a god to prove it and they can't. They are irrational, and try to make us disprove a negative. We don't indulge them in their bs and they hate that fact.

 

What is your belief system? You argue against TOE. So, how do you account for the fact that humans exist?

 

As I said...all you have to do is to produce ONE example of something that has not been established as impossible...but is impossible.

You will have shown me to be incorrect.

You cannot do that..so...you try, rather unsuccessfully to evade it.

No problem. I understand, Ecco.

 

MY GUESS:

No one has EVER asked you to "disprove god."

I doubt there are very many instances of anyone asking anyone else to "disprove god."

The truly irrational people are those who pretend there are others requiring them to disprove god.

It sounds to me, Whinot, that the hate is coming from you.

 

What part of my post confused you? I thought it was perfectly clear.

Maybe if I type slower..........I didn't make an argument, or pretend anything. I correctly pointed out you are scared to address the analogy.

 

Frank, I didn't evade anything. Here, I'll post it again. Maybe this time you should read actually read it before you respond.

 

I already find this comment suspect!

Yeah, I was correct.

Part of the folly of atheism...is that atheists persist in digging...after they are already deep enough. Meant in a figurative sense, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

I read it...and I re-read it, Ecco.

My comment in response holds.

You might pay attention to what I just said to Rahl...ON THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

 

Atheism is a result of scientific evaluation of theism...Science IS never ending digging for answers.

Theism IS deciding not to dig because you think you have dug enough...it is anti-science.

 

typing slower didn't seem to work for you. Maybe I can dumb it down further for you. You were presented with an analogy to show the absurdity of your position. You give an equal likelihood for the existence of a god, as for the non existence. When asked if you give the same likelihood to fairies, santa clause, easter bunny or psychic snow flakes existing as not existing, you dodge, weave and avoid the analogy. The logical conclusion is you are afraid to address the analogy, because you know it makes your position absurd.

 

I was not presented with an analogy.

An analogy has form...which I have not seen so far.

Quote me rather than paraphrasing me...as I am doing with you here.

That is not an analogy.

In any case, if you want to talk about fairies, Santa Claus (you even spelled that wrong), or the Easter Bunny...do it with a toddler...or an atheist. They both love to talk about those things...and usually do it with the same amount of intelligence.

There is absolutely nothing you have ever said or posted that causes me fright. Mostly, your posts make me giggle. Although I am laughing out loud as I respond to this latest effort of yours.

 

Of course you were.






[

was there something incorrect in my paraphrasing?



[

of course it is.

And this is you terrified to address it.
[/B]

Of course you're terrified frank.

 

What? That you are afraid of analogies? Heck, Frank, you made your own analogy. Ya know, equating the possibilities of a god with the possibilities psychic snowflakes.

 

I have consistently provided my beliefs as a theist. I believe that a Supreme Being originated life, the universe, and humanity by some process unknown to me at this time. I am open to any scientific theory, that might explain this process, but I see nothing now that has any scientific credibility. So until better information becomes available, I remain an origins agnostic.. or ignoramus, if you prefer..

 

That is absurd. If anything, the opposite is more commonly the case.
Most arguments I have gotten from militant atheists have NO science, NO evidence, & NO logic. They are filled with hysteria and logical fallacies.

Most of the world changing scientific discoveries have been by theists, working to understand 'what God hath wrought'. Yours is a revisionist view of history and a caricature of reality.
You falsely equate science with atheism, which is not related, at all. Atheism is a philosophical or religious belief, with no scientific evidence.

 

I'm not asking anyone to prove anything, because it is my contention that these are philosophical beliefs, that are outside the realm of empirical proofs.

The only hate I see is from irrational, hysterical, militant atheists, who seem unable to have a rational discussion about philosophical matters. Instead, they go ballistic, accusing others of hate, or some other fallacy that exposes their own shallowness and ignorance.

 

I'll get to the rest, later.
I disagree with this point. I see humans as being by default, agnostic.. IOW, not knowing. And one could argue that the majority opinion, for all of human history, has been some variant of theism, not atheism, as the 'default' human belief.

Atheism is indoctrinated as much as any religious belief. The USSR, Mao's China, and even modern progressivism (though much more subtly), all indoctrinate atheism.

 

No...I was not.

Yup.

Quote me if you want to take issue with what I write.

That absurdity is as much an analogy as a carrot is a banana.

I am not terrified to address anything you write or argue, Rahl, but if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that...be my guest. I laugh at it and you. Laughter is good.

Not in the least.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not afraid of analogies, Ecco.

If you have something to say about what I have written here...actually quote what I have said.

 

I agree that the strongest argument for the A-theory is its intuitive appeal, much like the intuitive appeal of mind/body dualism. However, the notion that the present is some sort of privileged position in time has a major roadblock: the relativity of simultaneity. Say you are zipping around in a jet and I'm chilling out in a lawn chair here on the ground. Now say we are both suddenly given magic telescopes that all us to look at everything in the universe that has happening simultaneous to us -- capable of giving us a universal, instantaneous snapshot of what the present looks like all over the universe. If we were to compare notes later, we would find that we each had events in our snapshot of the present that weren't in the other's set of events. There would be events in my present, maybe the collapse of a star or the collision of two asteroids, that hadn't happened in your present yet. These events would still be in your future. Similarly, some of the events in your present wouldn't be in my set of events either; they would instead be in my past. If we got really creative with our movement through space, we could even end up with a series of snapshots where you and I have a different order of events. How can the present be such a privileged position if, like a point in space, it is just a point of reference based on the observer?

If my present and your present are both equally real, but some events in my present are in your future and some events in your present are in my past (which relativity requires), then the past and future are just as real as the present.

You have a present and I have a present, but the universe itself objectively doesn't. It would appear that the concept of "present" -- indeed, the very concept of past, present and future tenses -- is like Newtonian physics. It is a useful tool for the scale that we usually work at, but it is just a tool of approximation and can't apply to the universe as a whole.

 

Pragmatic atheism is the view one should reject a belief in a god or gods because it is unnecessary for a pragmatic life. Its fine to speculate and debate points I quite enjoy it however in day to day life and for the advancement of our species one should focus on the pragmatic life since it deals with real issues and if we extend this reduces a waste of species resources and time (understanding recreation is important so should be calculated in as a need).

As in unless deities or a deity can be pragmatically proven to matter why waste so much on them materials for holy places, scholarly time diverted to theology and even human hours spent in churches and praying when this all could be used for things that matter the cost to build some cathedrals and funding a clergy could go to any number of useful things. How about a library, a school to teach trade skills, affordable small apartments for the poor or even some kind of recreational option to allow for ones physical and or mental and or creative outlet of some kind as ideas.

Now if angels and gods walked among us healing people and dealing with criminals I would say then they become a pragmatic issue, until demonstrated we are wasting so much on a flight of fancy but which makes good movies and recreational outlets for humans. I happened to like Thor, Clash of the Titans and playing role-playing games with clerics casting holy magic but that is all not pragmatic reality its a fiction.

 

With each atheist post in this thread...I become more sure of my guess that the main reason anyone uses "atheist" as part of their descriptor...is because of a "belief" or guess that there are no gods.

It doesn't matter if they designate themselves atheist, agnostic atheists, weak atheists, strong atheists, or pragmatic atheists...

...the driving force for use of the descriptor word "atheist" seems to be a "belief" or guess that there are no gods.

Yet so many of them seem unwilling to acknowledge that.

Interesting.