The Unreasonableness of Atheism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

dartagnan wrote:
Dart, I specifically asked what was the meaning to each of our lives and how that may differ from atheists to theists since theists often tell atheists there is no meaning to their life without a belief in a deity. So the answers were appropriate.

You thought that was rude?
If that was the distinction in your question then it is even less philosophical than the one I proposed, and yet it still produced boring, unimaginative responses. Nothing to debate or discuss ... maybe that's because there were no theists around who were willing to take the bait and fight back.


Well, I never said it was really philosophical and spoke to my attempts to pose questions in a rather straight forward uncomplicated manner... :)

I didn't bait that thread and I was eager for theists to pipe up and tell me how God belief gave them meaning. I wanted to know and asked with complete sincerity! Huckleberry participated and he's a theist, GIMR participated and she's a theist, Nehor participated (yet, do you want him on your team -- no offense hopefully, Nehor:), and I took the answers they gave and didn't try to trap them or do an "aha gotcha" type of move.

Like I said before, someone else that could pose a more philosophically challenging question could probably get a better conversation going. I'm happy with the lala threads I have where people feel free to participate. I think you're really quite negative.

Negative how? It is a simple fact that atheists tend to be less philosophical and more scientific. I think it was Einstein who said a scientist makes for a horrible philosopher. That is why he didn't really feel qualified to get into it. But he never rejected philosophy as meaningless, as some atheists here have in the past.


Well you apparently seem to think we have to debate all the time between theists and atheists. I just don't see it that way, at all.


I thought, for the most part, the thread wasn't attacking theism and was rather cordial.

That's because the few theists who were there, didn't bother to pick up the rocks that were pelting them in the head, and hurl them back.


Well, I had a rock hurled at me when I was told there was no meaning to my life, yet did I hurt back? No, dart. It's not necessary to do so. Instead of being nasty I wanted to understand the sentiments of those that say there is no meaning to atheists life -- I invited them in to tell me and discuss it and perhaps so we could learn where each other was coming from. I didn't deny theists have meaning to their life (yet, I wanted them to elaborate on that) it is atheists that are told there is no meaning to their lives.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Renegade, do you think it is unreasonable for humans to note the laws of the universe, recognize the common value they all share, and then do nothing with this knowledge?

The common value is that all of these laws appear to be finely tuned for one purpose: the existence of human life. That is the only value that all of these laws share.

Philosophy takes this knowledge and does something with it.

Religion takes this knowledge and says, "See, this is what we've been saying all along." And they can do that because most religions believe the universe was created for man.

For atheists, it is all just dumb luck that things turned out the way they did. So like Don Bradley said, there can be no "ultimate" meaning for atheists because for them humans are nothing special. We are just animals who happen to have more advanced brains than the rest. For theists, we are the prime creation of a divine creator; everything around us was created for us. The anthropic principle reinforces this strongly.

But scientists don't pursue it further because that gets into philosophical questions like: Why do all of these laws accomodate humans so well? Why is it that if one of these laws were slightly changed, that human life would be impossible?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Well you apparently seem to think we have to debate all the time between theists and atheists. I just don't see it that way, at all.


Neither do I.

You guys don't seem to realize that theists are mainly the objects of scorn here.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Dart,

What difference do you see between a universe that was specifically created for human life and one that is only that way due to happenstance?

I think that would be an interesting philosophical topic.


So you know where I'm coming from, I'm active LDS, but I feel like I'm becoming more and more cynical about life--both this one and the hereafter.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

asb wrote:I'd be willing to be that Renegade would not lean on science to support his libertarian views. Rather he might use science to explain why cooperation is more mutually beneficial than strict competition. That is one can use science to explain why certain beliefs are appealing without using science to say that those beliefs are the correct choice.

Correct asb. Kinda comes back to the 'Is-Ought' thread...

dartagnan wrote:The common value is that all of these laws appear to be finely tuned for one purpose: the existence of human life. That is the only value that all of these laws share.

I beleive the anthropic principle, combined with the evidence we have that point towards the multiverse, is perfectly capable of explaining this...
(Kinda funny that we both see the anthropic principle working for 'us' - huh? ;) )

...no, I don't believe the multi-verse is 'scientifically proven'. Therefore, I wouldn't say I even 'believe' in it. But I do beleive it is a distinct possibility - and it would explain the 'cosmological constants' we see in the universe.

...just at the anthropic principle also helps explain the possibility of abiogenesis...

Philosophy takes this knowledge and does something with it.

Indeed. So if I use this 'knowledge' and yet don't see the same things you do in it... then what?

Religion takes this knowledge and says, "See, this is what we've been saying all along." And they can do that because most religions believe the universe was created for man.

Seems to me you've already decided what the 'correct answer' is to your first paragraph in your post, and now you're running with it...

For atheists, it is all just dumb luck that things turned out the way they did.

Well, I often here things like 'random banging of molecules', 'dumb luck' etc.
Seems that's just another way of saying 'I don't feel comfortable with there being no 'master controller'...
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

dartagnan wrote:But scientists don't pursue it further because that gets into philosophical questions like: Why do all of these laws accomodate humans so well? Why is it that if one of these laws were slightly changed, that human life would be impossible?

Actually, I think scientists do wish to discover why the universal constants have the values they do. They also wish to discover evidence for (or against) parallel universes with potentially differing constants. They wish to obtain more information on how likely or unlikely a planet such as earth is in our universe and possibly in others. Scientists would like to know if it's even possible that the universal constants have different values and how those are determined (could pi have a different value in another universe?)
Last edited by Analytics on Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

dartagnan wrote:
Well you apparently seem to think we have to debate all the time between theists and atheists. I just don't see it that way, at all.


Neither do I.

You guys don't seem to realize that theists are mainly the objects of scorn here.


No, I do recognize that. Yet, unfortunately the few theists we do get here don't really seem to help the situation. <edited out names as don't want to derail>
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Oh! I must mention -- we are very fortunate that asbestosman posts on this board!
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

What difference do you see between a universe that was specifically created for human life and one that is only that way due to happenstance?


This is a problem some atheist philosophers encountered so they came up with the theory of the multiverse. Meaning, we are in only one of a multiplicity of universes. Given enough in number, the chances that this would would produce laws accomodating our existence would be more likely.

But the multiverse theory is supported by nothing scientific.

What we know is that this universe is governed by numerous laws. This suggests these laws were written by something intelligent. WHy? Because these laws seem to work together for the same exact purpose.

I recommend John Leslie's book "Universes," to further understand the various laws that appear to have been written for the single purpose of human life.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Moniker wrote:Oh! I must mention -- we are very fortunate that asbestosman posts on this board!

...amen to that!
Post Reply