Atheism is Scientifically Impossible

In response to the original post.

There is no god. We are not all connected. your just a lump of living matter on a rock hurtling through space no different from a bacteria. If god existed, then he is a hateful evil thing that created a world of torment and suffering. I prefer to accept that were just a big fractal hologram of the 5th dimension in a multiverse of infinite possibilities in which most possible universes are not capable of supporting any kind of life at all. We just happen to be in a environment which supports the existence of life. It's random. It just is what it is.

reply to post by guyopitz


See you say it like you know everything about life. You don’t now anything. I know you don't because you just showed us by saying there is nothing after death with so much certainty, just proves that you really no nothing.

Originally posted by john124

Agnostics don't presume to know the answers - but they are usually willing to discuss possibilities and look at evidence.

That's your opinionated analysis without any substantiated facts or proper use of terminology. People who aren't agnostics, but are athiests certaintly do look at all of the evidence, and the evidence of that is abundant.

Because athiests are generally more logically thoughtful (whether agnostic or not), they are more likely to disregard flawed evidence that requires faith or a pseudo-scientific approach.

So to sum up..... athiests are everyone who isn't a theist, and athiests often have other opinions or beliefs; such as belief in ET; dancing pixies at the bottom of their garden; or even that a deity is unknowable.

The idea that all athiests are boring people without imaginations and with closed-minds is a myth that thiests often propagate with the other gibberish they almost constantly spout !

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

You seem to have no idea what an agnostic is - you can't seem to see beyond your own view of things which is locked into belief.

Agnostics don't believe in god, neither do they disbelieve - period.

Personally, I don't hold any belief - belief is simply a lazy mental process - where a single model is substituted for reality and considered to be the 'way it is'.

I try to understand things - I don't believe them. Everything i 'know' is simply a piece of evidence, it is not 'true' or 'fact' - it simply is. It is in a state of possibility - and I do not feel the need to resolve that data into the binary result of true=1, or false =0. Each piece of data has infinite possibility.

Agnostics can hold multiple conflicting models of reality at the SAME TIME. I don't need a single answer, I don't think reality works like that.

You talk about discarding evidence - because it is 'faulty'. That is why belief is destructive - you set an internal set of rules about what evidence is, what constitutes good and bad evidence and so on - and run off discarding more than half of the data you come across.

As an agnostic - I don't discard ANY data. It all has some value - even the guy who see's pixie's at the bottom of the garden. The data will fit somewhere, into some useful model - even if the model turns out to be - "Someone is putting '___' in the water.".

I am not an atheist - but I am often mistaken for one.

If the god of the Christians exists, then he certainly doesn't overtly demonstrate his existence. That doesn't mean he isn't there - just that there is little to no evidence. The model corresponding to his existence shows a lack of correlating data - its a weak model, and extra data rare, and I have not been able to source any directly using my senses.

Unlike an atheist, I do not assert - there is no christian god. In fact, simply because so many claim that he exists must be considered as some evidence that something resembling him might exist but weakly interact with our reality.

Atheists and christians alike form beliefs. That dimensions exist into which we cannot penetrate with our senses is plausible - so, it seems pre-emptive to discount such things.

I don't disbelieve in god - I am simply ready to accept more data. If he did exist then I would find it slightly surprising considering the weak model - but it is not implausible.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Amagnon]

Original Post:

"There is no god. We are not all connected. your just a lump of living matter on a rock hurtling through space no different from a bacteria. If god existed, then he is a hateful evil thing that created a world of torment and suffering. I prefer to accept that were just a big fractal hologram of the 5th dimension in a multiverse of infinite possibilities in which most possible universes are not capable of supporting any kind of life at all. We just happen to be in a environment which supports the existence of life. It's random. It just is what it is."

My reply:

To "there is no god," only a self-identified god could make such a comment. And that god would masochistically be devouring itself upon every occurrence of self-awareness, and it would do so instantaneously, because it has already made the CHOICE to do such. It has set its very own parameters. It is an act of free will, an aspect of creation and personal intelligent design, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

To "we are not all connected." Really, on the microcosmic level, in the relations that you have with other people, do not your perspectives, beliefs, choices, judgments, etc. regarding those people with whom you are relating, i. e. forming a connection, do not these mentalities and subsequent actions you take not alter in some way the other with whom you CONNECT. Do not their responses shape you in some way. Now, you see, in the dialogue of two people that seek some sort of connection, in this dialogue a monologue is created. It is a systematic creation. It is a system that bridges the gap between and transcends the two systems. In order for the monologue to emerge, there must have been something within both systems which is common, something systemic. Of course, leaving this encounter changed (if you used your free will to seek a connection), you then have a dialogue with yet another, and this creates yet another monologue ad infinitum. Moreover, if say you did not seek a connection in the dialogue, if you indeed did hate (naturally recoil from and reject) the other, then this dialogue still creates a monologue, but the monologue is one of war, one which seeks to destroy the other. Of course, this is assuring the destruction of both ultimately, as even if one succeeds first in destroying the other, this one has weakened itself through limited information. There will be other systems who sought peace, and as such, have a much larger, more cohesive structure. The dialogue that seeks to be the monologue is only assuring its own demise, as that dialogue has summarily rejected the other, and the other will summarily reject any system that does not reconcile itself with the essentially person it surrounds. This rejection assures its ultimate collapse. I hear, in the dark, many connections in all of this. It is quite a network in fact.

To, "your just a lump of living matter on a rock hurtling through space no different from a bacteria," I am sorry you perceive things this way. I certainly went through a circle, a web in which I shared similar views. In some ways the intents, I believe, are noble. You perhaps do not want the final solution of either of the following claiming some sort of God status and ruling over you for eternity: pompous, self-important, warring jackass who sees you as a mere object, or some manipulative, self-centered queen bee who sees you as a mere subject in her drama. This layer of the onion is quite wise. Maybe if the master controllers sought peace and if the master manipulators gained the holistic vision necessary to thwart and encase those who use their control for self-glory rather than benevolence, maybe if these occurred then we would stop running in circles.

To, "If god existed, then he is a hateful evil thing that created a world of torment and suffering. I prefer to accept that were just a big fractal hologram of the 5th dimension in a multiverse of infinite possibilities in which most possible universes are not capable of supporting any kind of life at all. We just happen to be in a environment which supports the existence of life. It's random. It just is what it is." To all of this I reply:

Lots of self interested people who were only interested in vainglory (as such loosing all wisdom) have spread their creations throughout time. So yes, evil gods (among others) have certainly created the world in which we can live. And you do not know (maybe?) how right you are about the evil thing part. Any thing viewing itself as god is merely a sort of master of things. As such, it can only control things, not essential people. Since it seeks to be God and mechanize people, it naturally mechanizes itself into separation from the other. The essential human naturally rejects such mechanization, and as the mechanical monster frankenstein looses its purpose, that of automatic parameters of control, then this pseudo wanna-be god of sorts ceases to exist, as it merely had a function which is no longer needed.

Oh yeah, if we live in a multi-verse of sorts(which I believe we do), then this multi-verse must have universes within it. The universes interact, connect, to explore the infinite possibilities, and to remember dead ends so as to not take the failing path yet again. Of course, you speak of a multi-verse which means, naturally (yes, I am being a little redundant), that all sorts of universes are within it. Now, these universes somehow live in proximity, with an occasional interaction between or even among them. Naturally, something connects these universes within the multi-verse. Perhaps that could be thought of as the essential universe? It is food for thought, anyhow.

If we are going to be wise as serpents, we must be peaceful as doves. Control for the sake of control (includes both DOMINATION AND MANIPULATION, which is important, as society can swing in a pendulum to view one as evil and the other as good in alternating currents, when they are in fact both evil, representative of one's search within oneself for control in relation to his and/or her world view of life. The mirror image of what is LIVE, but seen through the imprisoned and oppositional perspective of the one seeking power. EVIL, in a very real sense. This view tends, in the extremes, to either ignore logic (running in circles even though all I have met think the current drama can be made better) or ignore emotion (running into a wall, rinse, wash, and repeat.)

[edit on 15-3-2010 by orwellianunenlightenment]

reply to post by guyopitz


I forgot, as this is important. If there is no god in your mind, you are naturally seeking God. You betray it with your words. This is a God of sorts, a God that seeks to know everything, to say no to everything that is not essential to its worldview. Of course, this is a worldview based on simple cause and effect, which requires at least two objects in order for it to not be a mere one object floating in space, mindlessly. When it is a mere single object or thing floating, the result of "NOing everything else," the worldview collapses, as it is grounded on the belief of cause and effect. Now, this could be a state possibly described as hopeless, lonely, purposeless depression. Who, I might ask, starts it up again in the search for something else. Certainly not a thing. The search for no thing can be completed by sitting still, but one must realize one is not a thing. This long-standing system of world slavery, economic, direct, and manipulative really tries to convince you of such. You know, that you are nothing more than a mere plaything golem for the amusement of and PRE SERVEment of the lying divine queens and kings ultimate ends. We can either succumb to hopelessness and a view of one's self as nothing but a tool, object or subject to blubbering idiots who fancy an ideological hat to look intelligent while remaining completely empty and without will (al least hid behind layers) on the inside, either we can do this, try to control the thing and become a mechanized thing, or we can climb a mountain of sorts to bridge the divide within and without and transcend.

Just because, say, some douchebag king years ago decided that it would be a good idea to turn men into personally purposeless, logically-controlled ants socially separated from intuition and women into intuitives socially separated from logic and hence fearful of any logic, whether benevolent or malevolent, all getting the world to rift into believing I am not half of the very mentalities that I knew deep down I am, and that I am just an ant producer or ant nurturer. (The following as is the previous is a run-on but deliberate, forewarning) Just because, say, some king with a penchant to feel like top excrement producer while releasing seminal fluids to the thought of inflicting pain in a vain attempt to ignore his own mirror image of self as rabid beast with an inferiority complex the size of a porn star's phallus decided to form a hidden alliance with a queen who felt so insecure in her understanding of sequential, foundational causality (or her ability to inflict it on her beast consort) that she felt the need to weave a whore's drama with her at the center so that it always began and ended with her, forever exalting her vainglorious image as vessel of all life and creativity while at the same time sucking the life out of all of the ants in her sphere of dominion, just because this long run-on sentence is symbolic of a parasitic dance that occurs in life (although it is unraveling, thank God), just because all of these mindless echoes in the world can reverberate in your direction, this does not mean that we are mere floating rocks (as a mere example and nothing more, masculine extreme) or hopelessly lost in the looking glass (as a mere example and nothing more, feminine extreme). I am sure you can go to a local bar and see, at least in a few of the patrons, elements of the beast and whore at work. I am not judging, BTW, just speaking of viral emergent patterns which can manifest in people, but we all constantly change according to our beliefs and choices and consequences. We can shift focus or spread out as far we can, when we achieve the desire to.

It is your CHOICE. It is my CHOICE. Chasing a death-colored rabbit will lead to death. The focus creates the destination, then another.....

[edit on 15-3-2010 by orwellianunenlightenment]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by orwellianunenlightenment]

I guess all of you forget that if something is Scientifically proven, It's only SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. You and I cannot understand How they prove these things. It's not really proven unless it's understandable i say haha!

"We just happen to be in a environment which supports the existence of life. It's random. It just is what it is."

I promise I am not picking on you. I just see an earlier version of me in what you wrote. Of course, feel free to accept or reject whatever. I just wanted to share what I see. Take "random," for example, Of course, this is linguistic intuition, but look at random. Dom, of course, means dominion, rule, or order. Ran is, of course, the past tense of run. In the tense lives of our past, we saw some thing we mistakenly saw as essential, and we ran. It is my intuition coupled with my ability to progress logically and tripled with all I have experienced that perceives that there was an instance in which the masculine and feminine overlapped, but maybe in the context following a war order. So, prior to the union, the man and woman were naturally averse to the other; they shared no single verse. Each thought it was the totality, in myopic, arrogant foolishness. They maybe fell into each other after every scapegoat and political enemy had been rooted out as the source of problems (more linguistic wordplay, enemy, enema. Also, political is a dualistic, anal term. So political enemies are those who wish to rinse out the other's butthole so that their very own feces becomes the image to be exalted. All hail the glorious mountain of poo which decomposes as quickly as the flies can eat it and the earth can dissolve it. But I digress.) The only thing left after all false problems, I suppose, was a sort of deus ex machina, superficial, artificial, androgynous, self-serving goat without regard for the other. The left hated the right and the right hated the left, so when they reconciled at point of shotgun, it revealed a fundamentally BS image, yet massively powerful in that the totality of people created such a monster. The thing which never existed except out of a world's fundamental aversion to the other. But it was mighty frightening. And we ran into an order that would reveal this thing yet again, this time faithfully and wisely dealt with so as not to run into an ant farm yet again. Peace. Individual and collective can easily coexist.

Honestly... Though most of the OP's things said were not backed up by any proof and then trailed off into a "God is real" discussion in the end.

I think there is some interesting thoughts in some of it.

First of all, I think Atheists are pretty ignorant. I also believe all the sheep that believe everything the church says nowadays are also ignorant.

Religion itself has gotten so skewed and corrupted, vandalized if you will. But that's another story...

Back on track, I think with the latest developments in stem cell research and the latest breakthroughs in DNA reading and sequencing has really opened a lot of peoples eyes, including scientists.

First off, to say we are the only planet in the universe that has life is a VERY ignorant assumption. And even more-so to say we are the MOST advanced race of the universe, is also a very ignorant statement.

I'm not here to argue any of these points, so I'll just get to my point of this all. I think that now we are seeing how perfectly pieced our DNA is and how there's almost a piece to every explainable reason we are who we are, physically, mentally and spiritually that can be found, altered, cloned, and fixed just by altering DNA. Though some of these "claims" are very much in their infancy, we are not that far from advancing enough to be able to do these things, they are entirely possible. And all of these scientific findings only support more and more that there is something on a larger scale going on than just evolution. More and more science is making it look like we were made and engineered not just evolved from organisms...

Though the existence of GOD cannot be proven, I still think there's enough fact and scientific breakthroughs that support more than enough information to make some Atheist reconsider their theories and beliefs...

[edit on 15-3-2010 by porschedrifter]

reply to post by bwinwright


bwinwright ~ very well said. I would also like to add that it takes takes more faith to disbelieve in God than it does to believe in Him. Ask any former atheist. They will all agree with that statement. Atheism is not lack of belief in God, it is the belief that God doesn't exist.

*SNIP*

I prefer to believe in nothing. Not in god, not in man, not even in the world around us. It's all an Illusion. The only thing real to me is when I close my eyes and think of nothing. The nothing is what is real.

The older I get the more I realize that everything is a scam. A hoax. A big elaborate lie. It starts with language. Even our words are a level of control put on us like a slave collar. School was just propaganda. Government is just a show, a play, and the politicians are the actors. We the people are watching the drama play out. We love to be told a story. We love our fiction. Behind the scenes though you find the ambitious greedy alpha males who want to control everything, own everything, control life and death itself.

What is the point of believing in anything. We live, we die. that's all folks.



Mod Edit: No Drug-talk or personal attacks please...come on dude. Cheers, alien

[edit on 17-3-2010 by alien]

In response to

“there is no overwhelming evidence contradicting my belief in God”

“Because there is NO evidence against what I believe”

“There is no evidence for or against a higher power or that a belief system is either correct or incorrect”

“There is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary”


Evidence for Atheists that there is no GOD

The Australian researcher, Ronald Pegg was asked “Do you believe in GOD ?”

He said “That is a religious question, set in a religious context, asked for religious reasons” then stated “I am not religious”.

“So you are an Atheist ?” was the response, to which Pegg replied “No” then clarified his position.

A religious person believes in GOD with no evidence - its called faith.
An Atheist believes there is no GOD, also with no evidence. (Some also call this faith).
Producing evidence is the key to resolving these issues.

Pegg then presented evidence that there was and is no GOD as documented and described in religious texts.

Many of these world-breaking discoveries may be viewed on-line.
.

This has to be the dumbest thread I've ever seen.

Atheism scientifically impossible...? Really...?
Virgins giving birth without the benefit of sex is scientifically impossible.
Turning water into wine is scientifically impossible.
Walking on water is scientifically impossible.
Magic apples that give you knowledge when you eat them are scientifically impossible.

I could go on and on, but I think even the OP should be able to grasp my point.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


www.conservapedia.com...

Aristotle's dictum
From Conservapedia


The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself.[1]

based upon a 2300 year old philosophy it is the non biblical believers burden to prove that God does not exist, as the Bible claims to be the words of God and that God is the supreme being in the heavens and earth.

So really it is in the atheist religion ball park to prove that God does not exist.

Remember it takes faith for some one to believe that God does not exist.

and agnostic is just plain lazy as there is no true non bias in anything on earth by men. Those who claim so are just lying to them selves.

Yet another nonsense post by some creationist. So according to you, science can't fully explain evolution. And because of that, God must exist and is responsible for our creation???

Do you see the faulty logic in that? Just because we don't know something, or don't fully understand it, doesn't mean the "God" answer is correct. You criticize science, but in return, you have ZERO proof for your God theory yourself.

That's the main issue I have with Christianity (or religion in general), whenever they don't understand something, they look at it as proof for God. Guess what, in the Middle Ages they didn't understand fire, or comets, or that the earth is round, and a lot of times they tried to explain things through religion and God. Guess what, we proved them wrong, it just took time until we fully understood the science behind things. Give it another few years, and we'll solve evolution too...and we won't need God for it.

Nothing against religion if it makes you feel good, that's a good thing...but don't try to spam the forums with pseudo-science about how God is the only explanation!

I refuse to believe in explanations about evolution by people who believe in virgins giving birth, talking snakes, a God who commits genocide, a man walking through an ocean by creating a pathway, and that some woman was created out of a rib...comon' guys, a friggin' talking snake!! And you are trying to pass your faith as scientific fact just because you don't accept alternative theories or just because we can't fully understand something...ridiculous!

[edit on 16-3-2010 by MrXYZ]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by MrXYZ]

I am an "Atheist".

I have my own beliefs and morals. Not that of someone else or some religious organization.

Atheism has been defined two ways often.

1) I do not take part in any organized religion, and I have my own beliefs (Spiritual/Moral)
2) I do not believe in anything (Spiritual/Moral)

Of course the latter is very unlikely.. however I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible.

reply to post by Angus123


The thing you call impossible are by physical laws

but if you are true to yourself then you would realize that there is both a physical world and a spiritual world and God who is a spirit and able to do supernatural things such as create the entire universe would also be able to command the very atoms that make up the screen you are reading from.


But I know the super natural is not scientifically possible.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by Angus123

 

The thing you call impossible are by physical laws

but if you are true to yourself then you would realize that there is both a physical world and a spiritual world and God who is a spirit and able to do supernatural things such as create the entire universe would also be able to command the very atoms that make up the screen you are reading from.


But I know the super natural is not scientifically possible.

If this is a post claiming that science can prove god is real and atheism can't exist, then you gotta stick to the argument.
Playing the god is magic card when the logic of religion breaks down is a cop out.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

www.conservapedia.com...

Aristotle's dictum
From Conservapedia


The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself.[1]

based upon a 2300 year old philosophy it is the non biblical believers burden to prove that God does not exist, as the Bible claims to be the words of God and that God is the supreme being in the heavens and earth.

So really it is in the atheist religion ball park to prove that God does not exist.

Remember it takes faith for some one to believe that God does not exist.

and agnostic is just plain lazy as there is no true non bias in anything on earth by men. Those who claim so are just lying to them selves.

That's faulty logic. Whenever someone states a theory, that theory has to be proven scientifically if you want to validate it. If you don't, it's nothing but speculation, guess work, or pure faith. It doesn't matter which theory was stated first, in order for one of 2 alternatives to be correct, you have to prove or disprove them...and it doesn't matter which hypothesis you test first. And yes, the existence of God is nothing but a theory that hasn't been proven...just like saying God doesn't exist hasn't been proven either.

But stating something like "God exists" and even putting so much emphasis on it in your daily life without any sort of proof is stupid. You could say the same about atheists, but in their case, being an atheist doesn't influence their daily life.

FACTS:

1) No one knows if God exists: there's no evidence or scientific proof whatsoever
2) No one knows if God doesn't exist: again, no one disproved the God theory

So the only logical and rational consequence is that you accept that we just don't know.

You can of course follow Christian (Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu) teachings if you believe it has a positive influence on your life and if it makes you happy. We all have the right to be happy after all. But don't pretend you KNOW something is right if you can't prove it, because you don't really know it, you BELIEVE it.

Do you see the difference between belief and knowledge??

I continue to hear:

“there is no overwhelming evidence contradicting my belief in God”

“Because there is NO evidence against what I believe”

“There is no evidence for or against a higher power or that a belief system is either correct or incorrect”

“There is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary”

But there IS.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
So really it is in the atheist religion ball park to prove that God does not exist.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
FACTS:
2) No one knows if God doesn't exist: again, no one disproved the God theory.

Yes they have. His name was Ronald Pegg. His discoveries were first presented in October 2000.

People: Go to the cited website linked below.

PREAMBLE

Evidence has been released that contradicts what we have been told about the source and origins of religious legends and stories - including the Creation Account.

Brief summary of findings.

The stories about gods and God from the ancient Middle East, including Egypt, all came from the same non-divine source.

The story of Enki (as related by Sitchin) is not about an encounter with aliens.

Ancient Creation accounts all came from the same non-divine origin.

The Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim perceptions of GOD also came from this same source.

The story of Atlantis and the biblical story of Creation came from the same non-divine source.

Moses held in his hands this non-divine source - being one of the "tablets of stone".

Babylonian and Mesopotamian accounts called this same stone the "tablet of destiny".

Documented in the Old Testament, Ezekiel and Daniel's “visions” came from thissame non-divine source.

In Revelation (NT) John's “visions” also came from the same non-divinesource.

The story by Ezekiel about seeing “Wheels within Wheels” is not about seeing an alien spaceship.

In referring to “The Lamb (of God)” John was not referring to Jesus.

John documents being shown the source and origin of all these things.
He called it "A book with seven seals, written on the backside and the inside".

Egyptian scribes also held this object. They depicted and called it the "RA-Disk".

Hindu tradition documents this same object as "the Egg of Brahma".

Biblical Gospel scholars note a missing document (called the “Q”) that was the original source for some of the New Testament stories.

Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, documented holding "artifacts", and a mid 1800s picture shows him holding the case which held a specific "seer stone".

.
The "tablet of stone" held by Moses, the Sumerian "tablet of destiny", the Hindu "the Egg of Brahma", John's "book", the Egyptian "ra-disk", the "Q", and Smith's "seer stone" all refer to the same non-divine object.

In 1998 the Australian researcher Ronald Pegg identified this non-divine object, conducted investigations, and subsequently found the basis for all the above religious subject matter not to be of a divine origin.

There is now proof revealing that there is no GOD, and that this religiously perceived GOD did not create the earth 6,000 years ago.

It is presented on an Australian website:
2 videos show from where much of the above subject matter originated.
Also, there is a 10 Text Evaluation, a Case Study, 7 written News Reports, General Information, and an Overview of Findings. They ALL present from where various aspects of different religions and their sacred texts originated, and it is not from a divine source called GOD (or by what any name is used by religious people).

Link: www.worldbreakingdiscoveries.com.au/index.html
.

reply to post by bwinwright


One
People
One
Planet
One
LOVE