Well, saying the universe is finely balanced is exactly like saying you believe in God, and doesn't tell us much about either balance or God.
Atheism and Autism
Studies show link between autism and nonbelief
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Re: Atheism and Autism
#181 
by Cito di Pense » Sep 13, 2013 11:32 pm
Well, saying the universe is finely balanced is exactly like saying you believe in God, and doesn't tell us much about either balance or God.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв
Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
-
Cito di Pense - Name: Amir Bagatelle
- Posts: 30794
- Age: 24
- Country: Nutbush City Limits
Re: Atheism and Autism
#182 by THWOTH » Sep 13, 2013 11:39 pm
Whoopie wrote:OK. Let us start with a scientific premise that exposes the limits of a purely naturalistic understanding.
Yes, scientific understanding has limits. This is not a particular cause for concern unless one is demanding that a scientific explanation for something-or-other must be forthcoming.
Whoopie wrote:... The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but is only transferred between states. The finite energy present in the universe is thus a constant. While the law is a description of the conservation of energy, it says nothing of the origination of energy and appears to imply an infinite regress. There are two ways in which we can approach this problem:
i)If the universe is to be regarded as eternal, then there is no need to account for the origin of its energy as it has always existed. However, this raises a question as to why the total amount of energy is what it is. Is it arbitrary or is it specific? Is it of a critical value (like the amount of HEU in an atomic bomb)? If the latter is true, then what specified its quantity?
ii)If the universe is not eternal, but had a definite and absolute beginning (as scientific observation suggests), then the energy present in it must itself have arisen from non-energy: but this is in direct violation and contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics. The only way to avoid this is to conclude there is a source of energy extraneous to the universe.
iii) We don't know.
Whoopie wrote:Therefore, we have two arguments, one cosmological, the other teleological...
And a third, epistemologically secured. We can know what we do not know without resorting to wishful assertions about what should be the case.
Whoopie wrote:... in support of a potentially supernatural cause for the creation of the energy in the universe and for the specific amount of this energy (both positive and negative).
Phooey! An eternal or or non-eternal does not support the existence of a super-natural cause axiomatically. You are simply asserting: because Univers then God. Assertions all the way down.
However, when we accept that we do not know, as yet, the conditions which preceded the Universe's beginning -- and indeed, may never know -- we still have no need to rule out a natural cause and rule a super-natural cause in, regardless of 1/2/3LTD. The fact that a naturalistic explanation is not forthcoming does not lend any credence to, nor bolster, nor support, nor mandate, a wishful super-natural assertion.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
-
THWOTH - RS Donator
- Posts: 38753
- Age: 59
- Country: Untied Kingdom
Re: Atheism and Autism
#183 by Whoopie » Sep 13, 2013 11:46 pm
It strongly leans towards conscious design more than it does to unconscious non-design, especially given the essentially infinite number of alternative values. We have to choose the most plausible option even if we cannot be 100% certain.
Present evidence for that claim.There is no such consensus much less evidence for it.
The scientific consensus is that the universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago. Shame you didn't know this.
Yet another blind appeal to ignorance. Not to mention the positing of a false dichotomy.A third option after all, is that the universe has always existed.
But it hasn't always existed in its present form. It has emerged out of a singularity and is currently expanding.
Depends on your definition of universe.
Fine, it shows that Nature is not self-contained but requires an agency extraneous to itself in order to exist.
Except that it isn´t. Do continue to boldy assert things in an attempt to defend your faith though.
Naturalism assumes that Nature is self-contained and self-originating. Supernaturalism contends that Nature is neither.
-
Whoopie - Banned Sockpuppet
- THREAD STARTER
- Name: Simon Whittaker
- Posts: 45
- Country: England
Re: Atheism and Autism
#184 by THWOTH » Sep 13, 2013 11:49 pm
You recklessly conflate 'agency' with 'cause' there Whoopie.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
-
THWOTH - RS Donator
- Posts: 38753
- Age: 59
- Country: Untied Kingdom
Re: Atheism and Autism
#185 by Thomas Eshuis » Sep 13, 2013 11:57 pm
It doesn't.
That's what you want it to be, that doesn't mean it's more likely, let alone true.
Whoopie wrote:especially given the essentially infinite number of alternative values.
Appeal to incredulity and improbability in one statement.
Whoopie wrote:We have to choose the most plausible option even if we cannot be 100% certain.
Keyword being plausible.
And once again you're ignoring the option of saying: We don't know.
Whoopie wrote:
Present evidence for that claim.There is no such consensus much less evidence for it.
The scientific consensus is that the universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago. Shame you didn't know this.
The consensus is that the current configuration of the universe came about billions of years ago.
The jury's still out on whether the universe as whole ever began to exist.
Whoopie wrote:
Yet another blind appeal to ignorance. Not to mention the positing of a false dichotomy.A third option after all, is that the universe has always existed.
But it hasn't always existed in its present form.
Not only are you moving the goal post, it's also completely irrelevant.
The fact remains that there is no evidence for the claim that the universe as whole began to exist.
Whoopie wrote:It has emerged out of a singularity and is currently expanding.
And the universe could be cyclical: expanding, imploding, expanding, imploding etc. etc.
In the end there is still no evidence that the universe as whole began to exist.
Think about it: how does time, 'begin' to exist?
Whoopie wrote:Depends on your definition of universe.
Fine, it shows that Nature is not self-contained but requires an agency extraneous to itself in order to exist.
Except that it shows no such thing.
Nature, just like universe is not limited to the current configuration, resultant from the Big Bang.
Whoopie wrote:
Except that it isn´t. Do continue to boldy assert things in an attempt to defend your faith though.
Naturalism assumes that Nature is self-contained and self-originating.
What naturalims assumes is of no relevance. Zero, zilch, nada.
You claim X exists. You cannot prove the existence of X by disproving Y.
Whoopie wrote:Supernaturalism contends that Nature is neither.
It can contend whatever it wants, without out evidence it's just navelgazing.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
-
Thomas Eshuis - Name: Thomas Eshuis
- Posts: 31091
- Age: 34
- Country: Netherlands
Re: Atheism and Autism
#186 by SafeAsMilk » Sep 14, 2013 12:36 am
Really? Has he been behind all these idiotic trolls?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
-
SafeAsMilk - Name: Makes Fails
- Posts: 14774
- Age: 44
Re: Atheism and Autism
#187 by Calilasseia » Sep 14, 2013 1:03 am
Oh dear, it seems that this tired, recycled canard is making another appearance. It's PETUNIAS TIME folks!
Wrong. Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Asking supernaturalists to support their assertions isn't "faith", or "belief", or any other of the tiresome supernaturalist misrepresentation thereof we keep seeing here, it's merely the proper conduct of discourse. Indeed, since belief consists, at bottom, of treating unsupported assertions as fact, regardless of whatever reality has to say about this, NOT doing so constitutes the very antithesis of "belief". Do learn this before posting more embarrasing failures.
Oh no, it's "argument by dictionary" time once more. Yawn.
Dictionaries are concerned with common usage of language, not rigorous exposition of concepts. FAIL. See above for the rigorous definition of atheism.
Wrong. See above.
What part of "an atheist dispenses with belief itself" do you not understand?
Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn. Go to the top of this post, and read the rigorous definition of atheism once more. Slowly this time.
The rigorous definition I provided above does nothing of the sort. Learn it.
Wrong. They simply refuse to treat unsupported assertions about the existence of mythological entities as fact, the way supernaturalists do.
Wrong. NOT treating an assertion as fact doesn't neessarily mean treating the converse assertion as fact. It simply means that one doesn't consider the original assertion to be anything other than a mere assertion, upon account of the absence of supporting evidence for that assertion. In short, any assertion, when erected, has the status "truth value unknown". The means by which we remedy that deficit of knowledge, is to subject the assertion in question to test. Do learn the diference.
Actually, the rigorous formulation of the agnostic position, is that the question of the existence of such entities is forever beyond our remit to answer. Because if it is within our remit to answer, then an answer can in principle be found, either yes or no. At which point, even if we don't know how to arrive at a definitive answer, we know what questions to ask in pursuit thereof, which a rigorous agnostic claims is not possible.
Wrong. We dismiss unsupported supernaturalist assertions because they are precisely that - nothing more than unsupported assertions. Which, once more, from a rigorous standpoint, we regard as possessing the status "truth value unknown". The ones erecting the positive assertion are those supernaturalists who claim that the existence assertion is true, and thus purportedly an established fact about the world.
Red herring. And another duplicitous apologetic bait and switch on the different (and non-rigorous) usages of the word "belief".
Those of us who consider extraterrestrial life possible do so on the basis that we have evidence of life arising on at least one planet, namely Earth. Likewise, we have an array of scientific papers presenting testable natural mechanisms, in the form of chemical reactions, that are demonstrably capable of playing a part in said origin, not least because said chemical reactions have been demonstrated to work in the laboratory. We also factor in here the large body of evidence available, telling us that life is, in effect, chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die. Considering the aforementioned evidence as supporting the postulate that life can exist on other planets, and may indeed do so, ins't "belief". Learn this.
As for the multiverse hypothesis, one, this is still a hypothesis awaiting test, and two, this hypothesis is entirely consistent with known physics, Unlike certain supernaturalist assertions about various fantastic past events. Which means it still enjoys better support than those supernaturalist assertions.
No it doesn't. One cannot "deny" that which is merely asserted te exist. Learn this.
Wrong. Disbelief, treated rigorously, consists of NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact. It doesn't consist of treating the converse assertions as fact. Learn this.
Well I for one would be extremely surprised to discover such entities on another planet. Not least because so many historical contingencies would have to occur, in almost identical fashion, to the historical contingencies leading to equines appearing on Earth, that the probability of them so doing is extremely tiny. Which assumes at the start that the same chemistry is applicable to those organisms. It's entirely possible that a different chemistry could be applicable to life on planets other than Earth, and indeed, one candidate for study in this regard is the Saturnian moon Titan. Of course, we have yet to acquire the requisite data, and any hypothesis in this regard remains simply a hypothesis until that data arrives. But, given evidence for one collection of organic reactions resulting in life, it's not unreasonable to suppose that other organic reactions could lead to the emergence of a different strand of life. If it is ever discovered that alternative chemistries for life are viable, then that probability I've just discussed above becomes even tinier.
This is how postulates are treated within proper discourse. Do learn this.
I haven't accused you of anything yet, other than erecting tiresome and previously destroyed canards. It isn't just religious fundamentalists who do this, though they tend to do so on a florid scale.
Once again, go to the top of this post, and read the rigorous definition of atheism. Slowly. Meanwhile, learn in addition that one cannot "deny" that which is merely asserted to exist.
And I've covered the rigorous formulation of agnosticism above as well. Learn it.
Yawn, yawn, yawn. Go and read the start of this post again ...
Dealt with that above. From a rigorous standpoint, agnostics consider the question to be beyond our remit to answer.
I don't recall nucleic acids ever being mentioned in the requisite mythology. Unless you can point me to instances thereof, of course. In the absence thereof, this is merely another supernaturalist apologetic fabrication, of which we see many here. The absence of complete perfection within nucleic acid replication, arises from the fact that we're dealing with chemical reactions, which, as any chemist will tell you, can be interfered with by other molecules, if those other molecules are present. We don't need a superstitious magic explanation for this. Plus, there's the little problem that we have evidence for those replication reactions taking place over a 3.5 billion year period, which rather flushes down the toilet certain other supernaturalist assertions about life on Earth. Imperfect replication has been taking place for 3.499 billion years or so before human beings turned up, which flushes the apologetic assertion you refer to above down the toilet hard.
Those of us with an enlightened view of autistic spectrum conditions don't regard them as "defects". But then, we're not in the business of trying to prop up the assertions of a mythology.
Would this be ἀβλέπτημα, perchance?
Referring to said diagram:
It is possible to consider the question beyond our remit to answer definitively, but simultaneously to consider one of the two possible answers to be true. That's what that diagram above is telling you.
Ahem, belief is NOT knowledge. But of course, we're used to supernaturalist conflation of terms in this manner, usually for purposes of apologetic convenience.
Actually, as I've already informed you, rigorous agnosticism is even stronger than this - it consists of the position that the question is forever beyond our remit to answer. Because if the question were within our remit to answer, it would be possible for us to answer it, at which point, provided the answer was arrived at with due care and attention, we would have genuine knowledge about the existence or otherwise of such an entity. At which point, the agnostic position would cease to be viable.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ....
Once again, go to the top of this post, and read what atheism actually is. Slowly.
Correction:
3. Atheist: I'm still waiting for this assertion to be evidentially supported.
Wrong. See above.
Because, wait for it, belief is NOT knowledge.
Belief: I regard assertion X as true.
Knowledge: I accept the evidence supporting assertion X, and thus consider assertion X to be an evidentially supported postulate.
Wrong. That's the very definition of faith - treating your favourite assertions as true, regardless of the presence or absence of supporting evidence for them.
No you don't. You merely think this to be the case. See above.
Once again ... WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ....
Go and read the start of this post yet again ...
So what? If you think that a fantastic magic entity exists, support the requisite assertion. We've been waiting for supernaturalists to do this for 5,000 years.
Oh look, preparing the apologetic escape routes already, I see. How typically supernaturalist.
Your blind assertions do not equal evidence. Which is all you have provided above.
Please provide some real evidence, as opposed to the usual apologetic fabrications we see all the time from supernaturalists.
Exactly how does asking you to support your assertions about this "fail"?
Let's see if you understand the terms you're so casually tossing into the arena here, shall we?
No kidding? Oh wait, this has much to do with the laws of inertia, and the vastly different masses of the two entities. I seem to recall educating a Muslim apologist about this when he tried to tell us that the sun orbits the Earth. Though of course, from the standpoint of the requisite coordinate systems, one can choose a geocentric coordinate system when doing so makes certain other calculations convenient, because the results can be transformed to a heliocentric coordinate system once derived.
So?
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Please, this is [i[so[/i] funny. You do realise we've been in the business of refuting supernaturalist assertions right from the inception of this board?
Once again ... WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ....
Go and read the start of this post, and learn again what atheism actually is, as opposed to the usual supernaturalist strawman caricatures thereof.
And I've covered that one too.
Which of the transfinite cardinals are you referring to here?
Meaningless question.
Except that this applies to abstract rather than concrete entities. Entities which actually possess concrete existence in the observable universe are, in principle at least, amenable to empirical investigation. Especially when those entities are asserted to exert an observable influence upon that universe. So please, if you're trying to tell us that your pet invisible magic man is real, trying to dodge this essential requirement with more apologetic fabrications won't cut it.
Well this requires first that we establish the abstract or concrete status thereof in a rigorous manner, and second, in the case of abstract entities, whether or not there exists an appropriate mapping thereof onto relevant concrete entities.
Was it? As appetisers go, it was a weak one.
Oh this is going to be good.
Read what Rudolf Clausius had to say on this, have you? Which of course only applies to classical systems. But I digress.
Why this is a problem?
Er, no. You'lll see why in a moment.
Oh dear. Looks like I'll have to introduce you to some cosmologists. Be patient.
Be patient, those cosmologists will be along in a moment.
No we don't, we merely have yet more apologetic assertions. In reply thereto, [1] modern cosmologists postulate that the currently observable universe was instantiated by testable natural mechanisms, and [2] said mechanisms include terms leading to the amount of energy contained within the observable universe. I've already presented relevant scientific papers on this subject if you bother using the search function.
Not necessarily. If that zero term arises as a direct result of the instantiation mechanism, we don't need a magic man to explain it.
I think that covers the bases for now.
Whoopie wrote:Skate wrote:Whoopie wrote: But you need to present the evidence in support of atheism.
Not really. Atheism is the default position. I’ve never told my children (one of whom is autistic) about god, so they never had a belief in a supreme higher power that created nature. Rather, they learned and asked about god when exposed to the idea by peers in school.Evidence? That’s up to you, man.
Agnosticism is the default position. Atheism is the belief that there is no God or divine agency. That requires evidence or it requires a leap of faith.
Wrong. Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Asking supernaturalists to support their assertions isn't "faith", or "belief", or any other of the tiresome supernaturalist misrepresentation thereof we keep seeing here, it's merely the proper conduct of discourse. Indeed, since belief consists, at bottom, of treating unsupported assertions as fact, regardless of whatever reality has to say about this, NOT doing so constitutes the very antithesis of "belief". Do learn this before posting more embarrasing failures.
Whoopie wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:Incorrect. Atheism is lack of belief. Atheism is a belief like off is a TV channel, etc. Gnosis is knowledge, which is not belief. Perhaps you should do some more reading before making more n00b mistakes like the above?
I typed this into Google: atheism+definition:
https://www.google.com/#q=atheism+defintion
and got this: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Oh no, it's "argument by dictionary" time once more. Yawn.
Dictionaries are concerned with common usage of language, not rigorous exposition of concepts. FAIL. See above for the rigorous definition of atheism.
Whoopie wrote:So Atheism is not the lack of a belief in a god, but rather the belief that there is no God.
Wrong. See above.
Whoopie wrote:An agnostic lacks a belief in God but doesn't go so far as to claim there is no God.
What part of "an atheist dispenses with belief itself" do you not understand?
Whoopie wrote:Fallible wrote:Well, if Google says it it must be true. We've been round this block a few times, Whoopie. We can pull definitions to back up our position as well.
Please do present your dictionary definitons of atheism. Here are two more for you:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
2. A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
So atheism is not just the lack of belief in a god (the agnostic position), but is also a denial of the existence of God.
Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn. Go to the top of this post, and read the rigorous definition of atheism once more. Slowly this time.
Whoopie wrote:Fallible wrote:Really? You actually want to do this? Can I be arsed, that's the question. Well OK, since you asked nicely.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheismnoun
[mass noun]
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Now then, would you like to continue to tell us all what we believe, or are you going to be the first theist for some time to acknowledge that your pet definition isn't perhaps the best or only one?
The definition is imprecise because atheism entails disbelief in and lack of belief in a God or gods.
The rigorous definition I provided above does nothing of the sort. Learn it.
Whoopie wrote:An agnostic does not have a belief in a God, but neither does he have a belief that there is no God. Atheists, on the other hand, disbelieve in a God or gods.
Wrong. They simply refuse to treat unsupported assertions about the existence of mythological entities as fact, the way supernaturalists do.
Whoopie wrote:This is a positive assertion
Wrong. NOT treating an assertion as fact doesn't neessarily mean treating the converse assertion as fact. It simply means that one doesn't consider the original assertion to be anything other than a mere assertion, upon account of the absence of supporting evidence for that assertion. In short, any assertion, when erected, has the status "truth value unknown". The means by which we remedy that deficit of knowledge, is to subject the assertion in question to test. Do learn the diference.
Whoopie wrote:unlike the agnostic position.
Actually, the rigorous formulation of the agnostic position, is that the question of the existence of such entities is forever beyond our remit to answer. Because if it is within our remit to answer, then an answer can in principle be found, either yes or no. At which point, even if we don't know how to arrive at a definitive answer, we know what questions to ask in pursuit thereof, which a rigorous agnostic claims is not possible.
Whoopie wrote:Atheists do so on the basis that there is (apparently) a physical absence of evidence for the existence of God and that this can be construed as evidence for the absence of God.
Wrong. We dismiss unsupported supernaturalist assertions because they are precisely that - nothing more than unsupported assertions. Which, once more, from a rigorous standpoint, we regard as possessing the status "truth value unknown". The ones erecting the positive assertion are those supernaturalists who claim that the existence assertion is true, and thus purportedly an established fact about the world.
Whoopie wrote:But, even if this is true, and I would dispute it, that doesn't stop them believing in extraterrestial life or parallel universes.
Red herring. And another duplicitous apologetic bait and switch on the different (and non-rigorous) usages of the word "belief".
Those of us who consider extraterrestrial life possible do so on the basis that we have evidence of life arising on at least one planet, namely Earth. Likewise, we have an array of scientific papers presenting testable natural mechanisms, in the form of chemical reactions, that are demonstrably capable of playing a part in said origin, not least because said chemical reactions have been demonstrated to work in the laboratory. We also factor in here the large body of evidence available, telling us that life is, in effect, chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die. Considering the aforementioned evidence as supporting the postulate that life can exist on other planets, and may indeed do so, ins't "belief". Learn this.
As for the multiverse hypothesis, one, this is still a hypothesis awaiting test, and two, this hypothesis is entirely consistent with known physics, Unlike certain supernaturalist assertions about various fantastic past events. Which means it still enjoys better support than those supernaturalist assertions.
No it doesn't. One cannot "deny" that which is merely asserted te exist. Learn this.
Whoopie wrote:The former does not refer to a deficiency of belief, but instead an active disbelief in the existence of a god.
Wrong. Disbelief, treated rigorously, consists of NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact. It doesn't consist of treating the converse assertions as fact. Learn this.
Whoopie wrote:I may have a lack of belief in unicorns - I see no evidence for their existence - but I would't rule out the possibility of unicorns, especially on some other planet or world.
Well I for one would be extremely surprised to discover such entities on another planet. Not least because so many historical contingencies would have to occur, in almost identical fashion, to the historical contingencies leading to equines appearing on Earth, that the probability of them so doing is extremely tiny. Which assumes at the start that the same chemistry is applicable to those organisms. It's entirely possible that a different chemistry could be applicable to life on planets other than Earth, and indeed, one candidate for study in this regard is the Saturnian moon Titan. Of course, we have yet to acquire the requisite data, and any hypothesis in this regard remains simply a hypothesis until that data arrives. But, given evidence for one collection of organic reactions resulting in life, it's not unreasonable to suppose that other organic reactions could lead to the emergence of a different strand of life. If it is ever discovered that alternative chemistries for life are viable, then that probability I've just discussed above becomes even tinier.
This is how postulates are treated within proper discourse. Do learn this.
Whoopie wrote:So, I don't disbelieve in unicorns and positively assert that unicorns do not exist. Are you accusing me of being a crypto-fundie?
I haven't accused you of anything yet, other than erecting tiresome and previously destroyed canards. It isn't just religious fundamentalists who do this, though they tend to do so on a florid scale.
Whoopie wrote:
It seems to me to be quite important to this discussion. Clearly, both atheists and agnostics have a lack of belief in a God or else they would be believers in a God. The difference between them is that the former goes further to actively deny that God exists
Once again, go to the top of this post, and read the rigorous definition of atheism. Slowly. Meanwhile, learn in addition that one cannot "deny" that which is merely asserted to exist.
Whoopie wrote: whereas the agnostic would not go so far since he doesn't know if God exists or not. He just does not happen to presently have a belief in God.
And I've covered the rigorous formulation of agnosticism above as well. Learn it.
Whoopie wrote:Matthew Shute wrote:
First of all atheism is indeed used to mean, simply, non-theism. Think about it: a-theism.
Non-theism is different to atheism:
Nontheism is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence or rejection of theism or any belief in a personal god or gods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Yawn, yawn, yawn. Go and read the start of this post again ...
Whoopie wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:From your article in Wikipedia:Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
So the definition that fits everyone that is atheists is this one. Care to try again?
That definition includes agnostics and probably many Buddhists. The first definition offered is the correct one. Are you telling me that agnostics do not have an absence of a belief in a God? If so, then they would logically be believers.
Dealt with that above. From a rigorous standpoint, agnostics consider the question to be beyond our remit to answer.
Whoopie wrote:Skate wrote:
So, if, indeed, certain pathologies predispose individuals toward atheism and that it follows that atheism must then find its origins in genetics or neurological conditions, why did this supreme being responsible for creating nature create a genetic predisposition toward not believing in its existence?
The doctrine of "original sin" is used by theists to explain why there are copying errors in DNA replication
I don't recall nucleic acids ever being mentioned in the requisite mythology. Unless you can point me to instances thereof, of course. In the absence thereof, this is merely another supernaturalist apologetic fabrication, of which we see many here. The absence of complete perfection within nucleic acid replication, arises from the fact that we're dealing with chemical reactions, which, as any chemist will tell you, can be interfered with by other molecules, if those other molecules are present. We don't need a superstitious magic explanation for this. Plus, there's the little problem that we have evidence for those replication reactions taking place over a 3.5 billion year period, which rather flushes down the toilet certain other supernaturalist assertions about life on Earth. Imperfect replication has been taking place for 3.499 billion years or so before human beings turned up, which flushes the apologetic assertion you refer to above down the toilet hard.
Whoopie wrote:which lead to such defects.
Those of us with an enlightened view of autistic spectrum conditions don't regard them as "defects". But then, we're not in the business of trying to prop up the assertions of a mythology.
Whoopie wrote:Note that the NT Greek word for "sin" literally means "mistake".
Would this be ἀβλέπτημα, perchance?
Referring to said diagram:
It is possible to consider the question beyond our remit to answer definitively, but simultaneously to consider one of the two possible answers to be true. That's what that diagram above is telling you.
Whoopie wrote:Matthew Shute wrote:
Your definition of agnosticism, meanwhile, is nonsense. Would an agnostic theist tell you he lacks any belief in any god? Obviously not. He'll tell you he doesn't know there's a god.
I have never heard of a believer who says he doesn't know that there is a God - either you believe or you don't believe.
Ahem, belief is NOT knowledge. But of course, we're used to supernaturalist conflation of terms in this manner, usually for purposes of apologetic convenience.
Whoopie wrote:Agnostics lack any belief or knowledge in God.
Actually, as I've already informed you, rigorous agnosticism is even stronger than this - it consists of the position that the question is forever beyond our remit to answer. Because if the question were within our remit to answer, it would be possible for us to answer it, at which point, provided the answer was arrived at with due care and attention, we would have genuine knowledge about the existence or otherwise of such an entity. At which point, the agnostic position would cease to be viable.
Whoopie wrote:Atheists, however, deny the existence of God and do so with conviction.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ....
Once again, go to the top of this post, and read what atheism actually is. Slowly.
Whoopie wrote:Put it this way. if I were to ask the question "Is there a God?", would I not expect to get the following three responses?
1. Believer: Yes, there is.
2. Agnostic: Not sure.
3. Atheist: No, there isn't.
Correction:
3. Atheist: I'm still waiting for this assertion to be evidentially supported.
Whoopie wrote:Hence, the atheist positively denies the existence of God rather than simply claiming that he doesn't have a belief in God.
Wrong. See above.
Whoopie wrote:BlackBart wrote:Once again, it's perfectly simple. Theism pertains to belief. Gnostism pertains to knowledge. The A prefix means 'without.'
1. Gnostic Theist; I know there is a god.
2. Agnostic Theist; I believe there is a god, but I don't know that there is one or I think it's unknowable.
3. Agnostic Atheist; I lack belief in a god, but I don't know that there isn't, or think it's unknowable.
4. Gnostic Atheist; I know there is no god.
Most atheists fall into category 3 as I do - I see no utility in assuming the burden of proof by asserting there are no gods.
How can you believe in a god and not know if he exists?
Because, wait for it, belief is NOT knowledge.
Belief: I regard assertion X as true.
Knowledge: I accept the evidence supporting assertion X, and thus consider assertion X to be an evidentially supported postulate.
Whoopie wrote:That necessarily implies a lack of faith, or doubt at the very least.
Wrong. That's the very definition of faith - treating your favourite assertions as true, regardless of the presence or absence of supporting evidence for them.
No you don't. You merely think this to be the case. See above.
Whoopie wrote:Doesn't mean that you are right. Atheists believe that they know there is no God.
Once again ... WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ....
Go and read the start of this post yet again ...
Whoopie wrote:I think they are wrong.
So what? If you think that a fantastic magic entity exists, support the requisite assertion. We've been waiting for supernaturalists to do this for 5,000 years.
Oh look, preparing the apologetic escape routes already, I see. How typically supernaturalist.
Whoopie wrote:Skate wrote:
Again, why do you think atheists are wrong? Is it because of that evidence that you have that points to the existence of a supreme being that created nature? What is this evidence?
1. There is evidence for a Supreme Being or God.
2. There is no evidence that there is no Supreme Being or God.
Your blind assertions do not equal evidence. Which is all you have provided above.
Please provide some real evidence, as opposed to the usual apologetic fabrications we see all the time from supernaturalists.
Whoopie wrote:So atheism fails on both counts.
Exactly how does asking you to support your assertions about this "fail"?
Let's see if you understand the terms you're so casually tossing into the arena here, shall we?
Whoopie wrote:Matthew Shute wrote:
Err, there's no evidence for the absence of anything - goblins, alien anal probes, you name it. Scepticism of theism is not a positive claim. Theism presents a claim that fails to explain anything else, and then leaves us with an unexplained and untestable entity. Consider where the onus lies, here. See also, Ockham's Razor.
There is evidence that the idea that the sun revolves around the earth is false.
No kidding? Oh wait, this has much to do with the laws of inertia, and the vastly different masses of the two entities. I seem to recall educating a Muslim apologist about this when he tried to tell us that the sun orbits the Earth. Though of course, from the standpoint of the requisite coordinate systems, one can choose a geocentric coordinate system when doing so makes certain other calculations convenient, because the results can be transformed to a heliocentric coordinate system once derived.
Whoopie wrote:We can refute this model.
So?
Whoopie wrote:Not so with God.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Please, this is [i[so[/i] funny. You do realise we've been in the business of refuting supernaturalist assertions right from the inception of this board?
Whoopie wrote:Hence, atheism is already on shaky grounds if it purports to deny the existence of God
Once again ... WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ....
Go and read the start of this post, and learn again what atheism actually is, as opposed to the usual supernaturalist strawman caricatures thereof.
Whoopie wrote:(unlike agnosticism which admits ignorance).
And I've covered that one too.
Whoopie wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:Whoopie wrote:Matthew Shute wrote:
Err, there's no evidence for the absence of anything - goblins, alien anal probes, you name it. Scepticism of theism is not a positive claim. Theism presents a claim that fails to explain anything else, and then leaves us with an unexplained and untestable entity. Consider where the onus lies, here. See also, Ockham's Razor.
There is evidence that the idea that the sun revolves around the earth is false. We can refute this model. Not so with God. Hence, atheism is already on shaky grounds if it purports to deny the existence of God (unlike agnosticism which admits ignorance).
One is an empirical problem (sun and earth), one is not. Your premises better be fucking good ones.
What is the square root of infinity?
Which of the transfinite cardinals are you referring to here?
Whoopie wrote:What is God divided by zero?
Meaningless question.
Except that this applies to abstract rather than concrete entities. Entities which actually possess concrete existence in the observable universe are, in principle at least, amenable to empirical investigation. Especially when those entities are asserted to exert an observable influence upon that universe. So please, if you're trying to tell us that your pet invisible magic man is real, trying to dodge this essential requirement with more apologetic fabrications won't cut it.
Whoopie wrote:Doesn't make them any less real, now does it?
Well this requires first that we establish the abstract or concrete status thereof in a rigorous manner, and second, in the case of abstract entities, whether or not there exists an appropriate mapping thereof onto relevant concrete entities.
Whoopie wrote:Anyway, that was just a teaser.
Was it? As appetisers go, it was a weak one.
Whoopie wrote:OK. Let us start with a scientific premise that exposes the limits of a purely naturalistic understanding.
Oh this is going to be good.
Whoopie wrote:The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but is only transferred between states.
Read what Rudolf Clausius had to say on this, have you? Which of course only applies to classical systems. But I digress.
Whoopie wrote:The finite energy present in the universe is thus a constant. While the law is a description of the conservation of energy, it says nothing of the origination of energy
Why this is a problem?
Whoopie wrote:and appears to imply an infinite regress.
Er, no. You'lll see why in a moment.
Whoopie wrote:There are two ways in which we can approach this problem:
i)If the universe is to be regarded as eternal, then there is no need to account for the origin of its energy as it has always existed. However, this raises a question as to why the total amount of energy is what it is. Is it arbitrary or is it specific? Is it of a critical value (like the amount of HEU in an atomic bomb)? If the latter is true, then what specified its quantity?
Oh dear. Looks like I'll have to introduce you to some cosmologists. Be patient.
Whoopie wrote:ii)If the universe is not eternal, but had a definite and absolute beginning (as scientific observation suggests), then the energy present in it must itself have arisen from non-energy: but this is in direct violation and contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics. The only way to avoid this is to conclude there is a source of energy extraneous to the universe.
Be patient, those cosmologists will be along in a moment.
Whoopie wrote:Therefore, we have two arguments, one cosmological, the other teleological, in support of a potentially supernatural cause for the creation of the energy in the universe and for the specific amount of this energy (both positive and negative).
No we don't, we merely have yet more apologetic assertions. In reply thereto, [1] modern cosmologists postulate that the currently observable universe was instantiated by testable natural mechanisms, and [2] said mechanisms include terms leading to the amount of energy contained within the observable universe. I've already presented relevant scientific papers on this subject if you bother using the search function.
Not necessarily. If that zero term arises as a direct result of the instantiation mechanism, we don't need a magic man to explain it.
I think that covers the bases for now.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
-
Calilasseia - RS Donator
- Posts: 22640
- Age: 62
- Country: England
Re: Atheism and Autism
#190 by DarthHelmet86 » Sep 14, 2013 4:31 am
And the blue butterfly has flown in and dropped the nuke, glad I had my sunglasses on for that one.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
-
DarthHelmet86 - RS Donator
- Posts: 10344
- Age: 38
- Country: Australia
Re: Atheism and Autism
#191 by Briton » Sep 14, 2013 8:26 am
Scar wrote:I do wonder what theists think they gain by engaging in these kind of dishonest battles over the definition of atheism. People have been very clear by what they mean when they refer to themselves as such. No matter how many times Whoopie disagree -swith that defintion, that doesn't change one fucking about about what people actually fucking believe and don't believe according to what they've stated.
We are what we are. Stick whatever lable you want on it if you must.
This kind of wibbling doesn't help his idiotic case in any way for sure. Unless he's intend of never getting to the point of actually arguing his position.
The clue is in his atheism requires a 'leap of faith' claim. Theists like him are desperate to project faith onto those of us that do not believe the claims that a God/gods exist. I think they see the gain as being a defence of what they know to be a weakness; and they want to assert, "well you have faith (are gullible ) too!"
-
Briton - Posts: 4024
- Country: UK
Re: Atheism and Autism
#192 by BlackBart » Sep 14, 2013 8:42 am
DarthHelmet86 wrote:And the blue butterfly has flown in and dropped the nuke, glad I had my sunglasses on for that one.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
-
BlackBart - Name: rotten bart
- Posts: 12607
- Age: 61
Re: Atheism and Autism
#193 by Varangian » Sep 14, 2013 9:16 am
Whoopie wrote:Skate wrote:
So, if, indeed, certain pathologies predispose individuals toward atheism and that it follows that atheism must then find its origins in genetics or neurological conditions, why did this supreme being responsible for creating nature create a genetic predisposition toward not believing in its existence?
The doctrine of "original sin" is used by theists to explain why there are copying errors in DNA replication which lead to such defects. Note that the NT Greek word for "sin" literally means "mistake".
I'm surprised noone spotted that clanger... Which theists? Those subscribing to the desert-nomad brand of monotheistic fuckwittery, or other theists, like those who believe in the Norse gods? No "original sin" there. But it is evident from Whoopie's use of capitalized "God" and references to the "original sin" hogwash what his preferred delusion is.
Edit: tpyo
Last edited by Varangian on Sep 14, 2013 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
-
Varangian - RS Donator
- Name: Björn
- Posts: 7298
- Age: 59
- Country: Sweden
Re: Atheism and Autism
#194 by Varangian » Sep 14, 2013 9:17 am
"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
-
Varangian - RS Donator
- Name: Björn
- Posts: 7298
- Age: 59
- Country: Sweden
Re: Atheism and Autism
#195 by Varangian » Sep 14, 2013 9:24 am
“There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not”. (Monty Python)
"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
-
Varangian - RS Donator
- Name: Björn
- Posts: 7298
- Age: 59
- Country: Sweden
Re: Atheism and Autism
#196 by THWOTH » Sep 14, 2013 10:14 am
Varangian wrote:Whoopie wrote:Skate wrote:
So, if, indeed, certain pathologies predispose individuals toward atheism and that it follows that atheism must then find its origins in genetics or neurological conditions, why did this supreme being responsible for creating nature create a genetic predisposition toward not believing in its existence?
The doctrine of "original sin" is used by theists to explain why there are copying errors in DNA replication which lead to such defects. Note that the NT Greek word for "sin" literally means "mistake".
I'm surprised noone spotted that clanger... Which theists? Those subscribing to the desert-nomad brand of monotheistic fuckwittery, or other theists, like those who belive in the Norse gods? No "original sin" there. But it is evident from Whoopie's use of capitalized "God" and references to the "original sin" hogwash what his preferred delusion is.
Of grandeur?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
-
THWOTH - RS Donator
- Posts: 38753
- Age: 59
- Country: Untied Kingdom
Re: Atheism and Autism
#197 by Aern Rakesh » Sep 14, 2013 10:35 am
And all of this relates to autism how? 
-
Aern Rakesh - RS Donator
- Posts: 13582
- Age: 75
- Country: UK (London)
Re: Atheism and Autism
#198 by THWOTH » Sep 14, 2013 10:48 am
Nora_Leonard wrote:And all of this relates to autism how?
Tangentially. Whoopie has to make the case that faith is the default, reasonable and rational position of every healthy-brained, 'normal' individual in order to justify his assertion that atheism is the product of pathologically disordered thinking.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
-
THWOTH - RS Donator
- Posts: 38753
- Age: 59
- Country: Untied Kingdom
Re: Atheism and Autism
#199 by Scot Dutchy » Sep 14, 2013 10:51 am
THWOTH wrote:Nora_Leonard wrote:And all of this relates to autism how?
Tangentially. Whoopie has to make the case that faith is the default, reasonable and rational position of every healthy-brained, 'normal' individual in order to justify his assertion that atheism is the product of pathologically disordered thinking.
So indoctrination is default?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
-
Scot Dutchy - Posts: 43119
- Age: 75
- Country: Nederland
Re: Atheism and Autism
#200 by Aern Rakesh » Sep 14, 2013 10:52 am
THWOTH wrote:Nora_Leonard wrote:And all of this relates to autism how?
Tangentially. Whoopie has to make the case that faith is the default, reasonable and rational position of every healthy-brained, 'normal' individual in order to justify his assertion that atheism is the product of pathologically disordered thinking.
Fair point, <P>. (I just went back and reread the OP.)
Okay, since this thread isn't really about autism, a subject that does interest me, I'll leave you guys to it.
-
Aern Rakesh - RS Donator
- Posts: 13582
- Age: 75
- Country: UK (London)
Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest