Board 8 > Hey guys, I'm a New Atheist and I've just disproved God.

(+) Yeah! (+)

People say that God created the universe, right? But then what created God? lol

/religion

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

A bigger God.

--
TheRock ~ Death By Misadventure, Not Suicide
"Would've liked to see that." - Ayuyu on my boner

God created the people
The people created God

--
_foolmo_
'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1 (Mod)

Andrew Hussie

--
~LtM
http://img.imgcake.com/1309914563818gifpa.gif

From: foolm0ron | #003
God created the people
The people created God

Holy s***

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

From: BoshStrikesBack | #001
People say that God created the universe, right? But then what created God? lol

okokok now I'll do the super smart religious answer


BUT GOD OPERATES OUTSIDE OF REALITY.

He always existed!

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

Shall the clay ask of the potter, what maketh thee?

...and now I want to go play Civ 5

--
We are thought, and reality, and concept, and the unimaginable

From: ExThaNemesis | #006
okokok now I'll do the super smart religious answer


BUT GOD OPERATES OUTSIDE OF REALITY.

He always existed!

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

--
Nanomachines: The cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5980/861756874pp6.jpg

also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.

oh hell yeah. if i didn't love my football team so much, i'd sig this **** in five seconds

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

only five?

hahaha

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

Hey guys I'm an old atheist

why are we even debating this question

most religious folk don't even believe in a deity most of the time because even they know it's false and they laugh, pity or scorn those who do.

so why are we hung up over such an elementary question

oh right

biology textbooks, women rights, tax loopholes and mental abuse imposed upon children

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

most religious folk don't even believe in a deity most of the time because even they know it's false and they laugh, pity or scorn those who do.

Serious response time: you're biased because you've only been exposed to lukewarm Western protestantism, which has essentially become a feel-good social club with no strict commitment to moral principles or religious doctrine. The world at large, however, takes religion very seriously, particularly in the Islamic world. If you don't want to consider religion a weighty subject, that's your choice- but it's a poor one.


anyway back to being a hipster

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

If God created everything, then it logically follows that God created God, right?

--
90s games > 00s games

From: BoshStrikesBack | #013
anyway back to being a hipster

I would say you never stopped. =P

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

If God created everything, then it logically follows that God created God, right?

God presumably created everything within temporal existence, he himself being outside of this boundary. I'm not sure, but I think Aquinas at least touches on this in his Suma Theologica. It's a quick read; check it out!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

It seems more like you've shown that saying "God created the universe" is not a good answer to "How did the universe come into existence?" rather than showing God doesn't exist. I mean if your answer to "How did the universe come into existence" is "It just did somehow" or "It always has been" then you really can't call religious people silly for saying these things about God.

Well either way, there is no contradiction.

--
90s games > 00s games

God is dead, let us make way for the ubermensch.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

I propose mandatory teaching of creationism in all public schools, at every grade level.

--
90s games > 00s games

God is dead, let us make way for the ubermensch.

And what is man but a bridge to the overman?

I propose mandatory teaching of creationism in all public schools, at every grade level.

This necessarily follows from the logic of what has been said. I fully endorse this course of action.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

From: BoshStrikesBack | #021
God is dead, let us make way for the ubermensch.

And what is man but a bridge to the overman?

Just as an ape is an embarassing amusement to man, so shall be man to the ubermensch.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Also, let's cut taxes on the super rich (top 1/10 of 1%) and pay for it by levying a 500% surtax on all media and literature that promote evolution.

--
90s games > 00s games

Just as an ape is an embarassing amusement to man, so shall be man to the ubermensch.

Yet to embrace existence- to embrace the eternal return- must one not affirm all existence, even the all-too-many?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Yes, and look at which group of people invented the internet, airplanes, transistors, refrigerators and spaceships. And even if a religious person did it, they certainly did it without some god putting it into their heads.

If you don't want to consider religion a weighty subject, that's your choice- but it's a poor one.

Religion as a social and psychological phenomenon is very important. It's a very good example of a high effective and contagious meme that has persisted for much of written history. A lot of people have their identities tied into it and would, at least in the short term, suffer great harm from deconversion.

But the chance of it being right is so low that it's far more likely for me to have had consistent and complete hallucinations in my life than for a particular god to exist.

It's true that the rest of the world takes it very seriously, but that shouldn't significantly change the probability of it being true when there's so much evidence against it.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

From: BoshStrikesBack | #024
Yet to embrace existence- to embrace the eternal return- must one not affirm all existence, even the all-too-many?

I'm going to end this now, I have a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra next to me, so I could probably go all night.
^5 though.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Yes, and look at which group of people invented the internet, airplanes, transistors, refrigerators and

Premise: Science gives us new toys, shiny cars, and bombs.
Conclusion: The scientific account of the world is the true account.

^5

Religion as a social and psychological phenomenon is very important. It's a very good example of a high effective and contagious meme that has persisted for much of written history.

As is science. But I agree with all this.

But the chance of it being right is so low that it's far more likely for me to have had consistent and complete hallucinations in my life than for a particular god to exist.

Actually, let me go ahead and take this a step further: the odds of religion being true empirically are exactly 0%, unless you redefine "religion" in some radical way. But no true Christian would disagree anyway; religion leans upon a faculty above reason.

It's true that the rest of the world takes it very seriously, but that shouldn't significantly change the probability of it being true when there's so much evidence against it.

There's no evidence for or against religion empirically, because it's not an empirical claim. Now, you'll probably argue that only empirical claims are worth something, which is itself an unsubstantiated value judgment. Have fun finding a way out of the labyrinth you've set up for yourself, champ.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Any god whose existence could be tested by us isn't worth believing in. Thus, our inability to run empirical tests is exactly what would be expected with the true God.

--
90s games > 00s games

meisnewbie posted...
Yes, and look at which group of people invented the internet, airplanes, transistors, refrigerators and spaceships. And even if a religious person did it, they certainly did it without some god putting it into their heads.

If you don't want to consider religion a weighty subject, that's your choice- but it's a poor one.

Religion as a social and psychological phenomenon is very important. It's a very good example of a high effective and contagious meme that has persisted for much of written history. A lot of people have their identities tied into it and would, at least in the short term, suffer great harm from deconversion.

But the chance of it being right is so low that it's far more likely for me to have had consistent and complete hallucinations in my life than for a particular god to exist.

It's true that the rest of the world takes it very seriously, but that shouldn't significantly change the probability of it being true when there's so much evidence against it.



I take this as a personal affront to JS Bach and no longer take you seriously.

--
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

From: BoshStrikesBack | #027
Premise: Science gives us new toys, shiny cars, and bombs.
Conclusion: The scientific account of the world is the true account.

not what he was getting at I don't think.

As is science. But I agree with all this.

Your whole 'science is the new religion' gig is really baffling to me. I don't know how someone gets to that conclusion. Especially not someone as smart as you.

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

not what he was getting at I don't think.

Like most of what I say, I was being half facetious and half serious. The idea that science is somehow true because it's useful is just silly, yet newbie has said this plenty of times!

Your whole 'science is the new religion' gig is really baffling to me. I don't know how someone gets to that conclusion. Especially not someone as smart as you.

There's a fine line between science and scientism. "Science," properly understood, is a synonym for free thinking, and doesn't confine itself necessarily to universal laws/axioms/methods that most science-types do. In fact, I'd argue that the true scientist is actually the philosopher, since he can employ methods without holding an unjustified faith in the absolute power of said methods.

But yes, your original point about me is true. We live in a highly religious age, and modern science is the new religion.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Premise: Science gives us new toys, shiny cars, and bombs.
Conclusion: The scientific account of the world is the true account.

^5

Conclusion: If your philosophy and religion are true why hasn't anything been done with them?

As is science. But I agree with all this.

......How long has science existed? How is it anywhere near an effective meme as religion?

Actually, let me go ahead and take this a step further: the odds of religion being true empirically are exactly 0%, unless you redefine "religion" in some radical way. But no true Christian would disagree anyway; religion leans upon a faculty above reason.

No it's not, because if, for example, I had access to my own source code, had some way of verifying, to arbitrarily high amounts of certainty that what I'm seeing was true AND THEN miracles occurred in front of my eyes that contradicted everything I knew so far, and everyone else in the world, with similarly high certainties on what they've seen told me so too then yes, yes I would convert!

You do not have 0% probabilities. Ever. Because the chance of your entire life being a lie is a definite non-0% probability.

There's no evidence for or against religion empirically, because it's not an empirical claim. Now, you'll probably argue that only empirical claims are worth something, which is itself an unsubstantiated value judgment.

And where did you learn that empirical claims are not worth something? Did you NOT see, NOT hear, NOT feel, NOT smell, NOT use any of your sensory organs to arrive at this argument?

Do you think your eyes and ears were invented to DISTRACT you from the truth of a bloodthirsty predator running toward you?

Extha: I don't mind Jaffar calling science the new religion. After all, we're the religion with the most miracles, the most people reliant upon our holy books to get by from day to day and the only religion where fanatics from other religions have to invoke in order to get anything done at all. I bet Bin laden didn't get anything done just by praying and looking at scripture after all.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Science is as old as mankind.

--
90s games > 00s games

Conclusion: If your philosophy and religion are true why hasn't anything been done with them?

Case in point: something has to be useful for it to be true. No basis for this belief; just mere assertion and condescension. In other words, the classic newbie approach.

......How long has science existed? How is it anywhere near an effective meme as religion?

Over the course of a mere four centuries, modern science has dominated the philosophy of the Western world. I'd consider that highly successful, wouldn't you?

No it's not, because if, for example, I had access to my own source code, had some way of verifying, to arbitrarily high amounts of certainty that what I'm seeing was true AND THEN miracles occurred in front of my eyes that contradicted everything I knew so far, and everyone else in the world, with similarly high certainties on what they've seen told me so too then yes, yes I would convert!

That wouldn't prove God, I'm sorry to say; all it would prove is that the natural universe was chaotic. Which is something I believe to be true as a Nietzschean, by the way- no God required.

You do not have 0% probabilities. Ever. Because the chance of your entire life being a lie is a definite non-0% probability.

This is a simple restatement of the principle of inductive knowledge: "knowledge that can be otherwise." If there's even a hypothetical alternative to something, its probability can never be 100%. The only possible exception to this rule is a logical tautology, such as the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction (although, as a Nietzschean, I would reject these as well. Chaos.)

And where did you learn that empirical claims are not worth something?

I didn't say that. They're worth a great deal to me in my personal life. As far as their application to truth? Probably suspect, certainly not absolute- which is my point. Not absolute.

Did you NOT see, NOT hear, NOT feel, NOT smell, NOT use any of your sensory organs to arrive at this argument?

I did. And I used my mind. Again, empiricism proved useful in the construction of this argument. For ascertaining truth? Probably suspect, certainly not absolute.

Do you think your eyes and ears were invented to DISTRACT you from the truth of a bloodthirsty predator running toward you?

And you've hit on something profound: human beings are programmed not for truth, but for survival. Our constitution is equipped with a necessary mix of truths and falsehoods. Unless you're planning to argue that all truths encourage survival, which would be silly.

But again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. Even if I happen to trust my senses in day-to-day affairs, how does that confirm that the scientific method is the One True Way to Absolute Truth?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Science is as old as mankind.

Modern science dates back to Bacon (who's an absolute genius, by the way; about a hundred times Descartes' superior). The phusikoi of ancient Greek society, like Thales, wouldn't exactly count, and neither would the Form-bound Aristotelians.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I am an Atheist.

All hail Athe!
All hail Athe!
All hail Athe!

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

Well, to be more precise, the exercise of reason is as old as mankind.

Truth > Usefulness. Just like capitalism would be morally superior to communism even if communism made everyone better off.

--
90s games > 00s games

Jaffar/newbie arguments are so much fun.

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

newbie doesn't actually make arguments, he makes condescending remarks and asks questions.

--
90s games > 00s games

I just feel like the usefulness of science isn't what grants it merit, but rather the provability (which then lends itself to being useful).

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

But it's okay because Jaffar's pretty condescending too.

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

^true

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Personally, I never understood why people put religion and science into a rivalry. Why do some people insist that one is right and the other wrong? I was going to say more, but I'd rather avoid the debate. It's just something that's always bothered me.

--
Zachnorn - <D
http://board8.wikia.com - Board 8 Wiki | http://www.stickam.com/profile/zachnorn - Board 8 Stickam

I feel like you have to know who everyone is and what they actually believe to even make sense of reading this topic

Personally, I never understood why people put religion and science into a rivalry. Why do some people insist that one is right and the other wrong? I was going to say more, but I'd rather avoid the debate. It's just something that's always bothered me.

It's not so much science versus religion, but rather science versus philosophy: science claims to be the best access we have to truth and knowledge, but philosophy asserts that all scientific truth rests on fundamental philosophical principles. Religion is simply one world perspective derived from philosophy- as is science.


Who's right? I am.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

also I don't understand how this topic sprung from the earlier today topic, since the earlier today topic was quite well measured and intelligently argued by pretty much everyone there

but this one has meisnewbie so that's a plus

From: OmarsComin | #044
I feel like you have to know who everyone is and what they actually believe to even make sense of reading this topic

You definitely do. Like you'd peg Jaffar a theist instantly from reading this topic. Not so.

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

Case in point: something has to be useful for it to be true. No basis for this belief; just mere assertion and condescension. In other words, the classic newbie approach.

Can you name something which has no predictive value which you would also consider to be "true"...?

Over the course of a mere four centuries, modern science has dominated the philosophy of the Western world. I'd consider that highly successful, wouldn't you?

A fraction of the population actually practices science. Fewer still know that science is a method, not the magic that powers your icebox. And very little of that proportion practice well enough that they transcend the limitations of the scientific method to make predictions on so little data that most experimentalists would clutch their chest and start hyperventilating.

But seriously, what do you mean by "dominated the philosophy of the Western World." and "successful"...? Most religions are relatively inert and nonevangelical and so of course not as memetic as the scientific method. But, for example, Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam all managed to convert a far greater amount of people to act far more in line with their religion than science. I don't know of many scientists who would actually keep track of their own sleeping, eating and productivity data outside of work. I do know many religious people who purposefully restrict their diets, fast, donate all their money and preach about their religion because the religion said to do so.

I don't see how you can consider science as a method (and you don't I think) and consider it more popular and more effective than the most virulent forms of religion.

Also, are you making the empirical claim that RELIGIOUS thought and SCIENTIFIC thought have similar impacts upon the human brain? If not, why bring up science?

That wouldn't prove God, I'm sorry to say; all it would prove is that the natural universe was chaotic.

how does this follow.

(although, as a Nietzschean, I would reject these as well. Chaos.)

yes if nietzschean thought is so chaotic and inductive knowledge is so unreliable why are you using inductive knowledge of what nietzsche wrote

As far as their application to truth? Probably suspect, certainly not absolute- which is my point. Not absolute.

oh no not absolute you'll still act as if it has a near 0% of being false.

And you've hit on something profound: human beings are programmed not for truth, but for survival.

Unless you're planning to argue that all truths encourage survival, which would be silly.

I do admit that there are certain "truths" which wouldn't encourage survival. Basilisks by definition don't. Self deception is an integral part to the signalling game.

But all of those are consequences of our current brains and societal structure. With brains that don't have basilisk (impossible) or social structures which incentivize truths over nontruths (impossible with our current brains), I cannot think of a single truth which would be antiproductive to survival JUST BECAUSE it was known to some intelligent agent. I suspect I'm not thinking hard though, so I invite you to produce some.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Can you name something which has no predictive value which you would also consider to be "true"...?

If you were willing to stretch the definition of "useful" enough, then you could argue that since any idea, belief, or truth can inspire someone to action, anything could be considered useful. Of course, this also means that falsehoods are useful. See: propaganda.

But you and I both know that's not what's at issue here. Presumably, there is a true account of the world as it is. You've gone on record plenty of times before as claiming that science is the gateway to this true account of the world while rejecting any spiritual account; in the process, you've equated truth with usefulness, and dismissed any religious argument because it's not empirical.

I invite you to take back these comments. Unless you feel like you can back them up, naturally.

A fraction of the population actually practices science.

And the overwhelming majority of people in modern Western civilization have become intoxicated by its aroma of potential power and pleasure. The influence of something isn't determined by how many people practice it at its highest echelons. Consider: how many people during the Middle Ages were priests compared to the general population?

But seriously, what do you mean by "dominated the philosophy of the Western World." and "successful"...? Most religions are relatively inert and nonevangelical and so of course not as memetic as the scientific method. But, for example, Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam all managed to convert a far greater amount of people to act far more in line with their religion than science. I don't know of many scientists who would actually keep track of their own sleeping, eating and productivity data outside of work. I do know many religious people who purposefully restrict their diets, fast, donate all their money and preach about their religion because the religion said to do so.

What's this now? First, let me take a minor aside and mention that religions are always developing and growing. Even during the "dark ages," religion was undergoing some radical intellectual developments and, sometimes, schisms. See: Aquinas and the revolution of rational theism, the split between nominalism and traditionalism.

Now, I'm not particularly interested in comparing the "memetic influence" of religion against science, on the one hand because it's pointless and subjective, and on the other hand because we only have the proper historical distance to properly assess one of them. All that's worth mentioning is that science has been successful at memetically implanting itself into the social conscious.

I don't see how you can consider science as a method (and you don't I think) and consider it more popular and more effective than the most virulent forms of religion.

Earlier, I defined modern science as "scientism," which has certainly permeated the cultural milieu.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Also, are you making the empirical claim that RELIGIOUS thought and SCIENTIFIC thought have similar impacts upon the human brain? If not, why bring up science?

I wasn't, no- but I absolutely would. Though I suppose it depends on what you mean by "impacts," which is a completely empty word that I despise. If you mean that they've gone about instilling themselves in the collective subconscious of society in roughly the same way- making grandiose promises (afterlife and eternal rewards vs. longevity and rich earthly rewards)- then I'd agree. Otherwise, you'll have to be more specific.

how does this follow.

Even if you could calculate the entire universe according to the "laws of science," and "miracles" (i.e. exceptions) still occurred, then that wouldn't prove a God; it would simply prove that laws don't exist in the natural world, and are only meager human attempts to desperately explain what little slice of existence we have access to.

yes if nietzschean thought is so chaotic and inductive knowledge is so unreliable why are you using inductive knowledge of what nietzsche wrote

You'll have to do some reading yourself. Hint: Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers who doesn't contradict himself here, because he recognizes the limits of the human mind at understanding reality. Something you fail to appreciate.

oh no not absolute you'll still act as if it has a near 0% of being false.

There are no percentages when it comes to value judgments. No system can be proven more or less "likely" to be true by the fruits it reaps, any more than you can say "Planting this tree here is the correct place to plant it, because it's grown apples for us to harvest." What if you didn't want apples? What would compel you to in the first place?

But all of those are consequences of our current brains and societal structure. With brains that don't have basilisk (impossible) or social structures which incentivize truths over nontruths (impossible with our current brains),

That second point is suspect. As Nietzsche correctly points out, "truth" (i.e. laughably limited human truth, a mix of induction and deduction) is actually making a comeback against the traditional truth-falsehood mix, as pursuers of truth have proven themselves not just capable of survival and reproduction, but of acquiring great power.

For more, check out The Gay Science. Off the top of my head, it's around aphorism 100-110.

I cannot think of a single truth which would be antiproductive to survival JUST BECAUSE it was known to some intelligent agent. I suspect I'm not thinking hard though, so I invite you to produce some.

Well damn, now you're making me go look up the quote. Hang on... (yep, I was right! Aphorism 110)

Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge.

Oh, and fun talk as always, newbie.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd