U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Ross Dolan]

I'm not suggesting it. It is fact. Indisputable. No phenomenon attributed to God has ever failed to be explained by science. You logic says that I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery, because I either will or I won't. That's ridiculous.

You are making a blind guess about the REALITY of existence...and refusing to concede it might be wrong.

You are doing what theists do.

I continue to wonder which of you two blind guessing groups has gotten it right.

 

[Concart]

You are making a blind guess about the REALITY of existence...and refusing to concede it might be wrong.

You are doing what theists do.

I continue to wonder which of you two blind guessing groups has gotten it right.

Once again, no. It is not blind. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, and make no mistake it is a lie, it will not become true. I have explained it to you. You seem uninterested in refuting my explanation, or even acknowledging it. instead you just keep repeating yourself over and over again like some kind of bizarre magical incantation. I think we're done here, since you have no interest in a dialogue. Carry on.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Once again, no. It is not blind. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, and make no mistake it is a lie, it will not become true. I have explained it to you. You seem uninterested in refuting my explanation, or even acknowledging it. instead you just keep repeating yourself over and over again like some kind of bizarre magical incantation. I think we're done here, since you have no interest in a dialogue. Carry on.

Sounds like a plan to me.

I've made my point. Atheism and theism are essentially both the product of blind guessing (belief)...and insistence that the guesses are correct (faith).

Go in peace.

 

[domer76]

Can't you fucking read.

There may well be a difference between "the physical universe" and what we humans call "the physical universe."

I am only talking about what WE HUMANS CALL "the physical universe."

You’re shitting me, aren’t you? THAT’S the difference?

“The creator of the universe” vs “what we humans call the creator of the physical universe”?

Fuck, man. You are desperate.

 

[Cypress]

Well, that's convenient. And unnecessary. And it speaks to the adage that if you start with a false premise you can prove anything. Your creator does not have to be created, but the universe does. Why, exactly? The organization and balance of the universe IS a random accident. There is nothing to suggest it was anything but. And no reason to think that's impossible. The balance of the universe exists because if it didn't the universe wouldn't exist. If there are other universes, they may have completely different rules that provide balance, and we would not recognize that universe in any manner, but if we had the ability and the technology to measure it, we would be able to determine how that balance works. A creator creates unanswerable questions without adding anything. A creator is superfluous.

If time didn't exist before the big bang, and an a priori something caused the big bang, then that something has to exist outside of time and space.

That means it's eternal and doesn't need a cause.

I'm not sure where on the internet this claim that there can't be an uncaused cause came from. It must be a relic left over from Aristotle, etc. We can experimentally show that uncaused things do and can pop into existence, aka virtual particles and the quantum foam.

I don't believe science will ever be able to conclusively answer why the universe exists, and why it is rationally and precisely organized on mathmatical laws and properties.

I think we would need a new theory of knowledge to answer that, if it's even possible.

Based on current conditions, I don't think it's any less rational to say the universe exists because of rational agency, than it is to say the creation and organization of the universe was a random accident.

 

[Concart]

If time didn't exist before the big bang, and an a priori something caused the big bang, then that something has to exist outside of time and space.

That means it's eternal and doesn't need a cause.

I'm not sure where on the internet this claim that there can't be an uncaused cause came from. It must be a relic left over from Aristotle, etc. We can experimentally show that uncaused things do and can pop into existence, aka virtual particles and the quantum foam.

I don't believe science will ever be able to conclusively answer why the universe exists, and why it is rationally and precisely organized on mathmatical laws and properties.

I think we would need a new theory of knowledge to answer that, if it's even possible.

Based on current conditions, I don't think it's any less rational to say the universe exists because of rational agency, than it is to say the creation and organization of the universe was a random accident.

Ever is a very long time, and I do not agree with that statement. There are many things we take for granted today that we had no knowledge of just a few hundred years ago. What I DO know is that science will never be able to prove the existence of something that does not exist in the physical universe. And science has proved time and again that it can discover that we would would have dismissed as impossible.

What you are doing, with all due respect, is exactly what the Trumpers do. 'The election was stolen, but it is not provable because of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth'. That is a false assumption which is used to explain their lack of proof. You are using the 'something had to exist outside of space and time'. I reject that. Just because you and I cannot imagine something other than that, it doesn't mean it's impossible.

What you are doing differently than RD is claiming that a prime mover IS necessary (or to be fair, that something had to have existed outside of space and time). I reject that. I will trust that science can, given enough time and enough technological advancement, make that determination. Because it is beyond our imagination, that does not make it impossible. And once we understand it, it will almost certainly obey the immutable laws that we know exist.

If the prime mover turns out to be a middle school kid in another universe who is playing with his chemistry set, then that is a natural occurrence. And that middle school kid did not exist outside of space and time. Only outside of space and time as we currently understand them.

 

[Mason 22]

Prime has a great documentary ,Bad Faith ,it's about
Christian Nationalism!

 

[Ross Dolan]

You’re shitting me, aren’t you? THAT’S the difference?

“The creator of the universe” vs “what we humans call the creator of the physical universe”?

Fuck, man. You are desperate.

I am not desperate at all.

There is a HUGE difference between "the universe" (everything that actually exists, whether humans know/or CAN know about it)...and "what we humans call 'the universe.'"

If you cannot see that...your problem. Perhaps this is not the kind of discussion in which you should engage.

Although I am not willing to make a guess on whether there are gods or not (creators), I am willing to make some blind guesses....and this is one of them. My blind guess about the REALITY of existence is that there probably is a lot more to REALITY than humans suppose exists. A LOT more.

I may be wrong, but we are merely the currently dominant species on a relatively non-descript speck of dust circling a relatively non-descript sun in a relatively non-descript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies spread out over an area so vast it takes light billions of years to traverse. We humans call all that "the universe."

But among "all that exists"...that thing we humans call "the universe" may be relatively the size of a grain of sand here on Earth.

I will not make guesses about its true nature...and I will laugh with gusto at atheists and theists who deign to suppose they have guessed the definitive answer.

 

[domer76]

I am not desperate at all.

There is a HUGE difference between "the universe" (everything that actually exists, whether humans know/or CAN know about it)...and "what we humans call 'the universe.'"

If you cannot see that...your problem. Perhaps this is not the kind of discussion in which you should engage.

Although I am not willing to make a guess on whether there are gods or not (creators), I am willing to make some blind guesses....and this is one of them. My blind guess about the REALITY of existence is that there probably is a lot more to REALITY than humans suppose exists. A LOT more.

I may be wrong, but we are merely the currently dominant species on a relatively non-descript speck of dust circling a relatively non-descript sun in a relatively non-descript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies spread out over an area so vast it takes light billions of years to traverse. We humans call all that "the universe."

But among "all that exists"...that thing we humans call "the universe" may be relatively the size of a grain of sand here on Earth.

I will not make guesses about its true nature...and I will laugh with gusto at atheists and theists who deign to suppose they have guessed the definitive answer.

You’re claiming there’s a HUGE DIFFERENCE between “the creator of the universe” and “what we humans call the creator of the physical universe” when it’s not even a distinction without a difference. What the fuck do you think the “universe” is other than “what we humans call it”?

You’re performing mental gymnastics to the degree that you’re going to injure yourself. Actually, with that word salad, it’s obvious you already have.

 

[Cypress]

Ever is a very long time, and I do not agree with that statement. There are many things we take for granted today that we had no knowledge of just a few hundred years ago. What I DO know is that science will never be able to prove the existence of something that does not exist in the physical universe. And science has proved time and again that it can discover that we would would have dismissed as impossible.

What you are doing, with all due respect, is exactly what the Trumpers do. 'The election was stolen, but it is not provable because of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth'. That is a false assumption which is used to explain their lack of proof. You are using the 'something had to exist outside of space and time'. I reject that. Just because you and I cannot imagine something other than that, it doesn't mean it's impossible.

What you are doing differently than RD is claiming that a prime mover IS necessary (or to be fair, that something had to have existed outside of space and time). I reject that. I will trust that science can, given enough time and enough technological advancement, make that determination. Because it is beyond our imagination, that does not make it impossible. And once we understand it, it will almost certainly obey the immutable laws that we know exist.

If the prime mover turns out to be a middle school kid in another universe who is playing with his chemistry set, then that is a natural occurrence. And that middle school kid did not exist outside of space and time. Only outside of space and time as we currently understand them.

Proving whether an election was stolen is nothing like trying to guess the ultimate truth about ultimate reality. They're not even in the same ballpark.

I simply lack your secure confidence that we have, or can have, all the answers about ultimate reality. That is really a claim that our chimpanzee brains are capable of omniscience.

Our souped up chimpanzee brains have very limited ability to understand physical reality, time, matter, energy. The entire 14 billion year history of the universe passes in an instant to a photon. Our brains have no way of comprehending that. And we have no science or theory of knowledge that can answer the deepest questions about the cause and rational intelligibility of the universe.

Newton's laws of mechanics, Einstein's field equation, the principles of quantum mechanics don't answer any of the deep questions about ultimate reality, and they aren't even capable of doing so.

Einstein himself was humble about it, and said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible. That is a very deep insight a brilliant mind would think of, because most people take the rational intelligibility of the universe just for granted and don't even think about it, let alone question it.

I admit that my chimpanzee brain is not omniscient, I admit that science explains very little about the deepest questions of ultimate reality, and I admit I simply don't know if the cause and organization of the universe is due to random accident, or due to some kind of rational agency.

 

[Cypress]

I may be wrong, but we are merely the currently dominant species on a relatively non-descript speck of dust circling a relatively non-descript sun in a relatively non-descript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies spread out over an area so vast it takes light billions of years to traverse. We humans call all that "the universe."

But among "all that exists"...that thing we humans call "the universe" may be relatively the size of a grain of sand here on Earth.

I will not make guesses about its true nature...

My rhetorical touchstone comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet:

'There are more things in heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies.'

 

[Ross Dolan]

You’re claiming there’s a HUGE DIFFERENCE between “the creator of the universe” and “what we humans call the creator of the physical universe” when it’s not even a distinction without a difference. What the fuck do you think the “universe” is other than “what we humans call it”?

You’re performing mental gymnastics to the degree that you’re going to injure yourself. Actually, with that word salad, it’s obvious you already have.

You seem to think humans determine what REALITY is. What IS....IS despite what humans may think or guess about it.

In any case, you read what I wrote wrong. There is a difference between what we humans call the universe...and THE UNIVERSE. We humans may not be aware...or even be able to imagine...what the REALITY is.

 

[Ross Dolan]

My rhetorical touchstone comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet:

'There are more things in heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies.'

EXACTLY. I may not be describing it correctly to Domer...but I think I am.

I like the way Shakespeare put it, though.

Thanks.

 

[Kafka]

I don't think that's a good analogy

Santa, leprechauns, the tooth fairy would have to have physicality, spatial dimension, mass.

Why?

Anything that caused the creation of the universe as we observe it, has to exist outside of space and time. Matter, energy, and time seem to have been created at the Big Bang.

But if it has any effect on reality it will have some measurable, verifiable quality.

If the goal is to debate a perfectly UNFALSIFIABLE CONCEPT then fine, but that has no actual value or meaning in the real world.

You can't compare non-being with dimensional being.

How do you know that the toothfairy is a dimensional being?

Santa and leprechauns aren't needed to explain anything.

But just saying "God did it" isn't really an explanation for the universe either, is it? Even less so if that God is perfectly unfalsifiable.

Something is needed to explain the creation and rational mathmatical organization of the universe.

That's a placeholder.

But I don't think it's irrational to imagine a rational organizing principle underlying the universe. It doesn't matter if we call it God, the Tao, or the flying spaghetti monster.

So effectively a meaningless placeholder. Got it.

Doesn't matter, those are just words. The basic concept of a rational creater doesn't seem irrational and batshit crazy to me.

It does presuppose an intelligence. Then you are stuck with the question of where did THAT come from.

Whereas pink polka dotted leprechauns do seem batshit crazy.

Then replace them with "unevidenced claim" and go from there.

 

[IBDaMann]

Poor Richard Saunders:

The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that Buddhism, Taoism, and Ethical Culture are religions that don't believe in a God or gods.

Nope. You are adding your own wishful thinking. By the way, the Supreme Court doesn't get to make these kinds of declarations.

The argument of the atheists on this forum is that one has to believe in some type of god in order to be considered being part of a religion.

Nope. I don't know why you feel the need to 1. pretend to speak for atheists, and 2. deliberately misrepresent atheism, but you sure seem insecure in your own faith.

You're an atheist; therefore, you are in a religion. Deal with that.

I feel sorry for you, especially about your learning disability.

 

[Cypress]

Why?



But if it has any effect on reality it will have some measurable, verifiable quality.

If the goal is to debate a perfectly UNFALSIFIABLE CONCEPT then fine, but that has no actual value or meaning in the real world.



How do you know that the toothfairy is a dimensional being?



But just saying "God did it" isn't really an explanation for the universe either, is it? Even less so if that God is perfectly unfalsifiable.



That's a placeholder.




So effectively a meaningless placeholder. Got it.



It does presuppose an intelligence. Then you are stuck with the question of where did THAT come from.



Then replace them with "unevidenced claim" and go from there.

I don't share your steadfast and unshakeable certainty that a rationally intelligible universe having finely tuned mathmatical organizing principles does not require any rational agency underlying it.

Did the rational intelligibility and precise mathmatical organization just occurr by chance, accident, or happenstance?


I don't know one way or the other myself

 

[Mason 22]

I don't share your steadfast and unshakeable certainty that a rationally intelligible universe having finely tuned mathmatical organizing principles does not require any rational agency underlying it.

Did the rational intelligibility and precise mathmatical organization just occurr by chance, accident, or happenstance?


I don't know one way or the other myself

"God doesn't play dice with the Universe"
Albert Einstein

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't share your steadfast and unshakeable certainty that a rationally intelligible universe having finely tuned mathmatical organizing principles does not require any rational agency underlying it.

But then again, you think a random dust cloud is "finely tuned."

Did the rational intelligibility and precise mathmatical organization just occurr by chance, accident, or happenstance?

It doesn't exist, except in your mind. You are simply regurgitating something that you read on the internet that you were unable to discern as not being true.

I don't know one way or the other myself

Frankly, you err in ways you wouldn't if you would only learn basic science, math and logic.

 

[IBDaMann]

"God doesn't play dice with the Universe"
Albert Einstein

I have found that very few people who recite that quote actually know what it means. Do you?

 

[Kafka]

I don't share your steadfast and unshakeable certainty

And yet again you grossly mischaracterize my position. Honestly if you are physically incapable of being honest about someone else's position perhaps discussing topics isn't for you.

I never said I was "certain". Why do you think I am "certain"????

that a rationally intelligible universe having finely tuned mathmatical organizing principles does not require any rational agency underlying it.

The water in the puddle does not marvel that it could find a hole that was exactly the same shape as the water.

I don't really see the shape of the hole so much as the fact that we filled the hole. Not the other way round.

Did the rational intelligibility and precise mathmatical organization just occurr by chance, accident, or happenstance?

Perhaps. If there is an intelligence then I am curious how you solve the BIGGER question of "where did that intelligence come from"? You see you have created an infinite regress which isn't really helpful in explaining anything but your immediate question while creating an infinity of new questions.

I don't know one way or the other myself

Nor do I. I simply operate from the position that I have no real evidence for that intelligence. Clearly you think that the existence of algebra somehow means it was an intelligence that created the universe.

That sounds like a "placeholder" and not really a developed concept that answers any meaningful questions.

I guess I just don't see the need to consider that placeholder any more meaningful that a lack of placeholder.