Atheism Peaks, While Spiritual Groups Move Toward Convergence

[abaddon]

A reason to “reject” deities… Hmm, for me that came after I realized that I was an atheist, which I’ll get to in a moment. But first the whole “rejecting” thing. I “reject” deities because I reject the whole platonic impulse to an “ultimate realm” where things are eternal and perfect and such, and compared against which the earth becomes just a veil or shadow. The real is made to seem less real and fantasy is made to seem more real to people poisoned with any of the “forms” of the platonist impulse.

But I came to my “rejecting” only after realizing one day that I lacked a belief in God. I’d been apathetic to otherworldliness for long enough that, when I eventually thought on it again, I realized the belief-in-God just wasn’t there. The word God had once seemed meaningful for some reason, and now it didn’t; it sounded alien and weird and only inspired a “what the fuck are you even talking about?” reaction in me. So apathetic theism had slipped into apathetic atheism. What “supported that conclusion” was a healthy apathy. And the apathy’s supported by God just not being there. No one talks about God unless they’re taught to. That notion is not something we get from the world, it’s something we get from schizotypal “visionary” otherworlder-type people.

 

[atrib]

No I understand that clearly. You seem to be missing the direction of my objection. I’m challenging the materialism you employ to conclude there is no evidence.

So why not present the evidence now? What is stopping you? With a few strokes on your keyboard you could convince all of us here that god exists.

Feel free to provide evidence of a non material reality and I will be happy to listen.

The laws of logic.
How can materialism account for the laws of logic? It reasonably can’t.

Logic arises from material minds. Without material minds logic would not exist. Pray explain how the development of the tools of logic demonstrates the existence of gods that transcend our material universe.

Yes, we know. You are not going to do that either.

By the way, do you find it logical that an immensely powerful supernatural creator would fuck up its creation by creating imperfect humans, then try to fix the mistake by cloning itself in human form, and having the clone sacrificed to itself so it could forgive some humans for their imperfections? Can you tell me with a straight face that you find this human sacrifice story in the Bible logical?

Thus, the reasoning of your rejection is faulty and that is what I was challenging.

I told you why I don't believe in gods. Unless you are willing to change the situation and provide evidence, my lack of belief remains firm.

Immaterial entities do exist.

Prove it. Name some of these entities and describe how we should go about detecting their presence.

Caution; I’m not claiming that all fictional characters exist. That is the categorical error I was addressing earlier as annoying. You can’t assume that all fictional characters are actual immaterial entities. It would be irrational to place the laws of logic in the same category as unicorns.

You have not explained how the development of logic by material minds demonstrates the existence of gods. Now would be a good time to stop making empty claims and provide some answers.

You are able to post on this internet forum using tools developed using naturalistic methods of science. It works. What other defense is required?

Does the “scientific method” presuppose the laws of logic?

The scientific method works. The scientific method lights up the electric lights in churches where theists worship their supernatural friends, which is ironic when you think about it. Can you use prayers to light up your church? Or heal the sick? Or fly across the globe? Or take pictures of distant galaxies? Or post your god stories on the internet?

 

[dystopian]

What burden of proof? The burden of proof only applies to people who make positive claims. Even if we were to accept the idea that atheism is a worldview, then we'd still be left with the fact that atheists do not make positive claims.

Ok
What better explains reality: atheism or theism?

Theism is a poor explanation of reality, failing to provide any proof for its claims and failing to produce any useful results with them. And any time an aspect of theism is disproven, the theists simply try to fit god into the gaps that are left. Theism is essentially the adult version of two kids engaged in a battle about which of them would be a better superpower, with one kid saying he´d be best because he´d be super powerful, with the other kid saying that that doesn´t matter since he has a special shield that lets him take all those powerful hits, only to have the other kid retorting that the shield can´t stop infinitely powerful punches, leading to the other kid saying that ´duh, the shields power is infinity plus one, so it could.`

Atheism is simply a rejection of theism, and thus not only can´t explain anything, it isn´t expected to.

If you want something that explains reality, you will have to look elsewhere. I would suggest science.

 

[dystopian]

The laws of logic.
How can materialism account for the laws of logic? It reasonably can’t.
Thus, the reasoning of your rejection is faulty and that is what I was challenging.

If that is supposed to be a logical argument in favor of the notion that the laws of logic discredit materialism... then you really don´t understand the laws of logic very well. You can´t go from an assumption (materialism can´t account for logic) to a conclusion that is essentially the same as the assumption. That´s called circular reasoning, and it´s a big no no. In actuality, the existence of logic is pretty easy to justify in a materialist worldview. Logic is simply the process by which one uses reasoning (specifically, the use of either inductive, abductive, or deductive reasoning) in order to arrive at the closest approximation of truth. A materialist universe is subject to certain processes, which we can consider to be rules or laws for linguistic ease, such as the laws of physics, which produce predictable results according to their internal rules. This then allows one to use logical reasoning to ascertain certain truths within that materialist universe. To give a very simplified example, we might observe a pot of boiling water, but nothing else due to freak circumstances which prevent our eyes from seeing anything else. We might use abductive reasoning to come up with an explanation. First we note the fact that water tends to boil after being exposed to a heat source for a period of time. Secondly, we might note that the pot is an artificial container designed to hold liquids. Conclusion, the pot is on a stove, and we´re in someone´s kitchen. Exactly how is this in conflict with materialism?

Immaterial entities do exist.

Not in any sense relevant to disproving materialism. Especially not if we consider that materialism and physicalism are essentially synonymous terms. There are no entities in existence that do not have some sort of material/physical form. One can go two ways to try and argue for immaterial entities/phenomenon. The first way is to point to things like weather and the like, which simply demonstrates an ignorance of the terms since weather is a physical system. The second way is to point to abstract concepts like fictional characters, but this still doesn´t really establish immaterial entities as existing, since these abstract concepts only exist in thought... and these thoughts are produced by physical biological systems.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What burden of proof? The burden of proof only applies to people who make positive claims. Even if we were to accept the idea that atheism is a worldview, then we'd still be left with the fact that atheists do not make positive claims.

Ok
What better explains reality: atheism or theism?

Does atheism claim to explain reality?
I mean, beyond 'I do not believe in deities.' There's not really much else about reality that atheism explains.

Theists have tried to say that i hate their god, but that's about like saying i hate Grand Moff Tarkin for all the murders he committed.
Or they say that i use science or philosophy or something else in the place of religion. But there are plenty of theists who use religion and science, or use religion and philosophy, so i think i can use science AS science without there needing to be something IN the 'religion place.'
Some have said i pretend not to believe in God because that way i can revel in my sins. But i live such a beige life, really. I've only ever had sex with my wife, i drink less than a Mormon, and never murdered. I have stolen some pens from work, but i brought in my own stapler for the office, so that's a wash. So if that was my motivation, i'd probably be reveling in some substantial sinning. Embezzling, adultery, etc.

All in all, the part of the universe Atheism tries to explain, which is my stance on gods, seems to be far more accurate than theism.

 

[bilby]

First

This is nothing I was hiding. I assumed my past posts here going back to the infidels days would have defined my theism.

I am not suggesting that you are hiding anything; Just that I don't happen to know your personal definition - without which, further discussion of that position would, of course, be futile. I don't recall exactly what I had for breakfast, so expecting that I would remember the full details of someone else's religious claims from years ago is, I am afraid, too much.

But God is the beginningless, necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Could you clarify; what does it mean for an entity to be 'necessary' in this context? How could a changeless entity influence anything at all, much less be 'enormously powerful'? For that matter, how could an immaterial entity interact with material entities? What does the word 'Personal' mean in the phrase 'Personal Creator of the universe'?

Norse mythology explains reality; but not very well. It is a theist hypothesis.

Mormonism explains reality; also not very well. It too is a theist hypothesis.

True, but each lack the reasonable support to be considered plausible.

Yes, as do all theist hypotheses. It is telling that every religious sect is happy to discard the claims of all the other religious sects as nonsensical; basically, you disbelieve in thousands of Gods, as do I - The difference between us is that I disbelieve one more (out of thousands) than you do.

Quantum electrodynamics explains some aspects of reality, and does so very well indeed. It is an atheist hypothesis.

General Relativity explains some aspects of reality, also very well. It's atheist too.

These are scientific hypothesis. An unreasonable weak stretch to claim they are atheistic to support atheism.

No; These hypotheses do not include any Gods, so they are atheistic hypotheses. That's not support for atheism, it's just a simple statement of fact. Many theists (perhaps not including you), claim that God is needed to explain anything that happens; Explanations that work very well indeed but do not invoke any Gods are proof that that particular claim is false.

The philosophical structure of science limits hypothesis of science only to the natural.

Yes. And reality can, it seems, not only be explained by reference ONLY to the natural; but there is simply no 'handle' by which the supernatural could possibly effect any material objects at human scales. We know about every particle and force that is able to influence objects from the size of atoms up to the size of planets, at the temperatures and pressures that exist on Earth. There are no unexplained phenomena, outside those few particles and forces; things are never observed to behave in ways inexplicable in terms of natural law. If there is a God, then it cannot be currently interacting with humanity in any way - including, but not limited to, allowing for life to continue after the destruction of the physical brain. That simple fact alone rules out a huge swathe of proposed God claims.

Yet scientific truths, theories and hypotheses can support either.

Can you demonstrate this, or give an example?

Asking whether theism or atheism are the best explanations for something is also just a mistake.

Basically, I’m espousing a Biblical-Christian theism. Is my position on theism settled for you?

No. Not even close.

'Theism' is an umbrella term for myriad disparate and often mutually incompatible beliefs. Within this, you have now narrowed down your personal belief to 'Biblical-Christian theism'; But that too is an umbrella term for myriad disparate and often mutually incompatible beliefs. The Roman Catholics and Jehova's Witnesses, to give just two examples, differ hugely in what they believe. Yet both come under the umbrella of Biblical-Christian theism.

Am I free to refer to it as theism with those identified parameters? Or can you suggest a better term?

Sure, you can refer to it in that way; but it's not a sufficient description for me to understand what you do or do not believe.

If I tell you that I drive a motor vehicle, you don't know much about my vehicle. If I tell you it is a Toyota, you still don't know whether I drive a Prius, or a Landcruiser, or any one of dozens of other, very different, vehicles. Before we can discuss, for example, whether I could get better gas mileage by changing vehicles, we need first to establish what vehicle I currently drive. Just because you know it isn't a bicycle; or after questioning, that it isn't a Ford, does not imply that you know enough to have a sensible discussion about my choice of automobile.

Right now, I simply don't know enough about what you believe to be able to discuss your beliefs.

Before you or anyone begins to oppose clearly define your form of atheism.

Sure, no problem. I am confident that there is nothing non-fictional that has the necessary characteristics to justify the label 'God'. ie, Gods do not exist.

Further to address several reference to my hang up on denominations of atheism. I’m fully aware you do not espouse denominations. I was using the term pejoratively.

Why? I am sticking to the facts, and avoiding needless pejorative language; Is it too much to ask that you do so too?

I don't know what a God is - I know of hundreds of contradictory definitions of 'God', and none of them are both falsifiable and compatible with observed reality.

Why do they have to pass some arbitrary self-refuting condition to be compatible with reality?
Is your worldview one of empiricism and falsification?

Yes. If it is in-principle impossible to detect an entity in any way, then that's sufficient for me to declare its non-existence.

The condition is not self-refuting; just the concept to which it is applied. All definitions I have yet seen for Gods either:

1) Are indestinguishable from nothing; or
2) Are incapable of influencing my life in any way; or
3) Lead to logical contradictions; or
4) Are indestinguishable from purely natural entities.

Sometimes they fit more than one of these categories.

 

[abaddon]

Ok
What better explains reality: atheism or theism?

Does atheism claim to explain reality?
I mean, beyond 'I do not believe in deities.' There's not really much else about reality that atheism explains.

He might mean “atheistic philosophies” when he says “atheism”.

It’s a bizarre question to ask atheists so I suspect it’s another example of his tendency to play loose with the terms. He might have thought dystopian’s phrase “atheists do not make positive claims” was a concession that atheism does not explain reality and so therefore theism explains reality (and added “better” as if that logically followed too).

I think it’d help everyone, especially remez, if he’d just accept that atheists aren’t playing a trick when they say atheism isn’t a philosophy. “Atheism”, “atheistic philosophy”, and “forms of atheism” are different and shouldn't be used interchangeably. Atheism is not believing in God or gods. Atheistic philosophy is a philosophy that doesn’t turn to “god” to explain things. And “forms of atheism” would be “positive atheism” and “agnostic atheism”. It's misleading to call naturalism or empiricism "forms of atheism" as that's not the central point of them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So do you think he's playing loose with the terms, or just not really clear on the differences?

Atheistic philosophy is a philosophy that doesn’t turn to “god” to explain things.

So you don't have to be an atheist to use atheistic philosophy.
If you can explain why money doesn't buy happiness without appealing to God, you can still believe in God, just not that he's required to answer all questions.

 

[abaddon]

So do you think he's playing loose with the terms, or just not really clear on the differences?

Atheism’s been explained enough that I’m having a hard time feeling sympathetic to incomprehension. But if “play loose” implies deception, that wasn’t my intended meaning. I meant being sloppy with important terms to research and carefully think over if they’re going to be used as the key elements of an argument.

Atheistic philosophy is a philosophy that doesn’t turn to “god” to explain things.

So you don't have to be an atheist to use atheistic philosophy.
If you can explain why money doesn't buy happiness without appealing to God, you can still believe in God, just not that he's required to answer all questions.

Yes, good point. Atheism is not the point of empiricism and other terms in a list remez gave above, and it’s not atheist's philosophy. So "forms of atheism" seems an odd way to categorize them.

 

[remez]

That seems rather the exact opposite of my claim, really.
I've seen claims of deities, but no deities.

I did not ask if you have seen deities. I was asking for the reasons you had to reject those arguments presented for an immaterial creator. Just because you said you rejected those arguments does mean your rejection is correct by default.

I am not aware that i need a foundation to find silly arguments to be silly.

So if you call arguments silly you then can reject them and that makes you right?

I don't know that i have any such formal foundation.

That’s it right there. You seem to believe you are correct by default. Sounds like some churchgoers that simply say you just got to have faith and it all works out trust me.
Well I’m too skeptical to simply trust what you are saying. Are you familiar with materialism? It seems to be the basis of your rejection of the arguments for something immaterial. Well materialism does not best explain reality. Thus materialism is flawed. So if your rejections are based on materialism then your rejections maybe faulty as well. You would reason the same to those using the Bible to claim that the earth is flat.

I just noticed that the arguments are by and large, not compelling unless one already agrees to the conclusion.

Like your assertion that there is no evidence for an immaterial creator. I must accept that materialism is true to accept that your rejection is true. Materialism isn’t true.

For an example, someone told me that there is a billion to one chance of life forming without divine guidance.
I tend to think that's a made-up number, but let's pretend it's scientific.
If that's true, then a comparison to the estimated number of planets in the universe makes it pretty much a certainty that life will form without divine guidance. The argument is only impressive if your math skills suck. So, what's that foundation? Counting-ism?

For example someone told me that there is no evidence for an immaterial creator.
I tend to think it faulty materialism but let’s pretend it’s true.
If that is true, then a comparison to leprechauns, bigfoot and UFOs makes it pretty much a certainty that a Biblical creator cannot exist.
The argument is only impressive if your fictionalizing sucks. So, what’s that foundation? Material-ism.

 

[remez]

I got it. You were mocking peoples beliefs about the worldview of atheism.
You bet, if you don't want mockery, why don't you bring out some evidence?
Perhaps you missed my point. I was not challenging your vague mockery. I was attempting to show that even atheists proclaim that atheism is a worldview. Thank you for your support.

I said no such thing.

Here…

Ah! What a world we live in where believing only in things for which there is supporting evidence is considered a controversial worldview!

The context of the worldview you were addressing was atheism.

All you've done is reinforce my view that religious 'intellectuals' have nothing but word-play and distortions in their bag of tricks. If you want to count my light hearted joke as 'supporting' your argument, that only shows how pathetic your argument is.

That's because I was trying to establish the word play that atheists were using.

The traditional definition “there is no god.”
New atheism “lack belief in god.”

I contend the redefining was to shed burden of proof.

To claim atheism isn’t a worldview is like saying anarchy isn’t really a political position. Anarchists purport the positive belief the anarchy is the best way to structure civilization, atheists purport the positive belief the atheistic materialism is the best way to explain ultimate reality.

 

[Kharakov]

We know about every particle and force that is able to influence objects from the size of atoms up to the size of planets, at the temperatures and pressures that exist on Earth. There are no unexplained phenomena, outside those few particles and forces; things are never observed to behave in ways inexplicable in terms of natural law.

Well, except they are, according to the hype. Dark matter and energy don't interact like regular m/e. Doesn't mean that it's not regular matter/energy, or anything more than a good storyline... but if we allow for the existence of exotic matter that can interact with matter without being directly affected by it, you know the implications.

There could be asymmetry other than CP violation. There could be beings that live as other forms of matter/energy that can interact with us more than we can perceive them, beings that could influence matter without matter influencing them.

 

[remez]

A misinterpretation in no way destroys infallibility.

A correct view in my opinion. Jesus isn’t a door in a literal sense. And you are not a goat.

Now I am convinced you are being deliberately obtuse. You know that I meant that the creation story in Genesis is not to be taken seriously.

Truly I did not know you were being so specific there.
Intentionally or not you just introduced a different Biblical interpretation style. Seriously vs literally. IMO seriously is a better way to interpret the Bible than literally.

The largest sect of Christianity certainly doesn't. The Catholic Church recognizes it as myth.

As a myth? Or as a general accounting? Truly I’m curious, what is your source for the assertion?

So, how old is the universe according to your sect? How old is the Earth?

Presently, about 13.7 billion is the best scientific estimation.

little things like redefining the length of a day.

No redefining. The word day is used three different ways in the first 2 chapters of genesis. It was unreasonable to always conclude that it meant simply 24 hours. Exs. He worked day and night (12 hours). Back in the day before electricity (unspecified @ of time). Open 24 hours a day. Yom meant all three. The context is what clarifies the word.

:laughing-smiley-014

Gotta love people trying to pretend (and actually convincing themselves) that what is plainly and clearly written means something other than what it says. But then what people who are struggling to justify their beliefs and faith by self denial no longer surprise me. The self delusion so common in most faiths is what created one of the earlier problems I was attempting to understand when I still thought that there was something worthwhile to understand.

You disagree with and mock the overt fact that day could mean 12 hours, 24 hours or unspecified amount of time. Then you disagree with and mock the truth. Google the word yom and find a secular source. I seriously thought you would have known this. Your tone indicates possibly you did not and are now upset that one of your contradictions just bit the dust because of a classical misinterpretation.

You do realize, don't you, that religious bull shit like this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the existence of god or gods? It is all about supporting those merely human people who establish the particular dogma, tenets, rituals, etc of the particular sects.

I didn’t bring up YEC, you did.

 

[remez]

No I understand that clearly. You seem to be missing the direction of my objection. I’m challenging the materialism you employ to conclude there is no evidence.

So why not present the evidence now? What is stopping you? With a few strokes on your keyboard you could convince all of us here that god exists.

Unclear. Are you asking me to present evidence for a Biblical creator or evidence that materialism is false?
The former is not my direction here. The latter is what I have been attempting to accomplish and continue to attempt here……

Feel free to provide evidence of a non material reality and I will be happy to listen.

The laws of logic.
How can materialism account for the laws of logic? It reasonably can’t.

Logic arises from material minds. Without material minds logic would not exist.

Before there were any humans on earth, was the statement, “There are no human beings on earth,’ true?”

The laws of logic were discovered not invented.

Human beings change the laws of logic do not.

The laws of logic provide a bridge between minds. That is needed prior to creating the laws of logic humanly. The laws of logic provide a bridge between our minds and the outside world. We use the bridge we did not create it. Logically think about it.

Or try this.

Your assertion that the laws of logic are human conventions is self-refuting. Examine.

You just made a claim that the laws of logic are a human convention. Notice that you think that is true regardless of how other human minds conceptualize it. In other words your claim relies of the laws of logic not being human conventions. You rely on them to be fixed laws independent of human minds. In fact all objective truths depend on that.

Thus in order for your claim to be true it would have to be false. Your claim of human convention is self-refuting.

The laws of logic remain immaterial.

BTW… I for the sake of brevity did not address your assertion that minds are material. Perhaps another time; my plate is quite full at the moment.

Pray explain how the development of the tools of logic demonstrates the existence of gods that transcend our material universe.

Again the laws of logic were discovered not invented. So in context here immaterial entities do exist. Materialism is false. Thus rejections of the evidence for immaterial entities based on materialism are meaningless. Also to claim there is no evidence for immaterial entities is defeated by the immaterial entities of the laws of logic.
The Biblical creator is an immaterial entity.

Yes, we know. You are not going to do that either.

Just did.

By the way, do you find it logical that an immensely powerful supernatural creator would fuck up its creation by creating imperfect humans, then try to fix the mistake by cloning itself in human form, and having the clone sacrificed to itself so it could forgive some humans for their imperfections? Can you tell me with a straight face that you find this human sacrifice story in the Bible logical?

Overt strawman. I thought you atheists new the Bible better than theists.

 

[remez]

Atheism is simply a rejection of theism, and thus not only can´t explain anything, it isn´t expected to.

If atheists simply “lacked a belief in God” and that’s all, they wouldn’t be continually trying to explain the world by espousing supposed alternatives to God. Dawkins. Hawking. Hitchens, Harris etc.

Also….

That simplistic representation of atheism leads to a very strange conclusion. Atheism is logically compatible with theism.

Observe.

If “lacking a belief in God” is the definition of atheism and not “there is no God” then atheism is true even if God really exists.
So what word should we use for “there is no God” if not atheism?

The laws of logic.
How can materialism account for the laws of logic? It reasonably can’t.
Thus, the reasoning of your rejection is faulty and that is what I was challenging.

If that is supposed to be a logical argument in favor of the notion that the laws of logic discredit materialism

It was not a formal argument. You have just a segment of the discourse there. I was challenged to provide an immaterial entity that would refute materialism.

Logic is simply the process by which one uses reasoning (specifically, the use of either inductive, abductive, or deductive reasoning) in order to arrive at the closest approximation of truth.

The context of the discourse was not how we use then. It was how materialism accounts for the existence since they are immaterial entities.

A materialist universe is subject to certain processes, which we can consider to be rules or laws for linguistic ease, such as the laws of physics, which produce predictable results according to their internal rules. This then allows one to use logical reasoning to ascertain certain truths within that materialist universe.

Precisely. But this does not render them material. Their existence counters materialism.

Immaterial entities do exist.

Not in any sense relevant to disproving materialism. Especially not if we consider that materialism and physicalism are essentially synonymous terms. There are no entities in existence that do not have some sort of material/physical form.

You have yet to provide any rationale the renders the immaterial entities of the laws of logic to be material. You are speaking to this as it is a foregone conclusion. Besides acknowledging their presence, all you have addressed is how we use the laws of logic. That does not account for the immaterial existence. Neither your weather nor fictional characters “ways” can render you any assistance here either.

 

[remez]

Ok
What better explains reality: atheism or theism?

Does atheism claim to explain reality?
I mean, beyond 'I do not believe in deities.' There's not really much else about reality that atheism explains.

Again

If atheists simply “lacked a belief in God” and that’s all, they wouldn’t be continually trying to explain the world by espousing supposed alternatives to God. Dawkins. Hawking. Hitchens, Harris etc.

Also….

That simplistic representation of atheism leads to a very strange conclusion. Atheism is logically compatible with theism.

Observe.

If “lacking a belief in God” is the definition of atheism and not “there is no God” then atheism is true even if God really exists.

Theists have tried to say that i hate their god, but that's about like saying i hate Grand Moff Tarkin for all the murders he committed.
Or they say that i use science or philosophy or something else in the place of religion. But there are plenty of theists who use religion and science, or use religion and philosophy, so i think i can use science AS science without there needing to be something IN the 'religion place.'
Some have said i pretend not to believe in God because that way i can revel in my sins. But i live such a beige life, really. I've only ever had sex with my wife, i drink less than a Mormon, and never murdered. I have stolen some pens from work, but i brought in my own stapler for the office, so that's a wash. So if that was my motivation, i'd probably be reveling in some substantial sinning. Embezzling, adultery, etc.

All in all, the part of the universe Atheism tries to explain, which is my stance on gods, seems to be far more accurate than theism.

Not sure how the address this in the context of which better explains ultimate reality.

How some theists have interacted with you does not address an explanation of reality.

Your exceptional moral conduct (sincerely stated) does not address the issue either.

When I asked which better explains reality. I was asking for a compelling case that everything has been cause by materials and only consists of materials.

The beginning of the universe.
The fine-tuning of the universe
The laws of nature
The laws of logic
The laws of mathematics
Information (genetic code)
Life
Mind and consciousness
Objective morality
Evil

 

[bilby]

We know about every particle and force that is able to influence objects from the size of atoms up to the size of planets, at the temperatures and pressures that exist on Earth. There are no unexplained phenomena, outside those few particles and forces; things are never observed to behave in ways inexplicable in terms of natural law.

Well, except they are, according to the hype. Dark matter and energy don't interact like regular m/e. Doesn't mean that it's not regular matter/energy, or anything more than a good storyline... but if we allow for the existence of exotic matter that can interact with matter without being directly affected by it, you know the implications.

Yes indeed - None at all.

Show me the effects of these purported interactions. You can't - so they either don't exist, or don't happen often enough to be a mechanism for an interventionist supernatural being to do all the 'woo' stuff people claim they He can do.

There could be asymmetry other than CP violation. There could be beings that live as other forms of matter/energy that can interact with us more than we can perceive them, beings that could influence matter without matter influencing them.

If they influence matter, then we can detect the influence; but we don't. If matter doesn't influence them, then they can't influence it in an intelligent manner; a God who just blunders around changing things He is unaware of is not worthy of the name God.

 

[bilby]

When I asked which better explains reality. I was asking for a compelling case that everything has been cause by materials and only consists of materials.

That is a false dichotomy; Materialism or God are not the only options.

The beginning of the universe.

Why does it have to have a beginning? You can't claim an uncaused and eternal God and then say that an uncaused and eternal universe is not allowed, that's special pleading.

The fine-tuning of the universe

The universe isn't fine tuned.

The laws of nature

Are ideas. Ideas are characteristic of brains. In the absence of brains, there are no ideas.

The laws of logic

Also ideas.

The laws of mathematics

More ideas.

Information (genetic code)

Evolved via natural selection.

Life

Is a poorly defined concept; and one that can readily come from non-life in the right conditions - although exactly how and when that happens depends on how you define 'life' to begin with.

Mind and consciousness

Are emergent properties of sufficiently complex brains.

Objective morality

There is no such thing,

Evil

There is no such thing as that, either.

 

[Kharakov]

That's because I was trying to establish the word play that atheists were using.

The traditional definition “there is no god.”
New atheism “lack belief in god.”

I contend the redefining was to shed burden of proof.

Well, it was more to capitalize on theist's doubt, in an attempt to get a foot in the door. Everyone doubts.

Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens is like a grain of mustard [seed] which a man took and sowed in his field; ³² which is less indeed than all seeds, but when it is grown is greater than herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and roost in its branches.

No wise man would sow the seed of doubt against his maker. But some men are born fools, and some men die fools. Learn to treat fools kindly, because you can laugh with the fools and hope they learn.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, except they are, according to the hype. Dark matter and energy don't interact like regular m/e. Doesn't mean that it's not regular matter/energy, or anything more than a good storyline... but if we allow for the existence of exotic matter that can interact with matter without being directly affected by it, you know the implications.

Yes indeed - None at all.

Nothing is awesome.

Show me the effects of these purported interactions. You can't - so they either don't exist, or don't happen often enough to be a mechanism for an interventionist supernatural being

or they happen when the being or beings decide to interact.

There could be asymmetry other than CP violation. There could be beings that live as other forms of matter/energy that can interact with us more than we can perceive them, beings that could influence matter without matter influencing them.

If they influence matter, then we can detect the influence; but we don't.

They're fucking with you. They can and do influence matter. You're perfectly fine where you are, and probably more entertaining with your lack of belief so... there is no grand law against fucking with atheists as long as you do not harm them. Keep that in mind. I know I do.

If matter doesn't influence them, then they can't influence it in an intelligent manner;

Ok, when they are measuring matter without affecting it (using tech that you don't have), they are influenced by it because it changes their mental state. Like looking at these exceedingly intelligent words affects yours. Note that I didn't say statements. Words. Words are smart.

a God who just blunders around changing things He is unaware of is not worthy of the name God.

But would definitely be fodder of a good story. And reminds me of my dad talking about some of his grad students fucking with his machines.