The Faith of Atheism

[emprworm]

yes, but i am talking about the laws of logic.

and no i did not put anything in Acriku's mouth when he said "That would assume logic applies to everything, in which we would not know if it did or not" even though that statement itself is a logical statement which is being applied to the whatever those things are that are "illogical"

[nemafakei]

"Yet this has nothing to do with the three options for the universe"

Well, I rather suspect that it depends on how you relate my idea to the words of your options that chooses which option.

The universe does not extend beyond (or, in one sense, even up to) a point, the 'big bang', but you cannot measure anything outside the universe, so it has always existed.

My interpretation of your options is that it has alwats existed. Humans use the idea of the beginning being a point in time as a theoretical marker, sort of like the imaginary component of a complex number.

Now let us consider what the universe could be like. In 'entropy' (hypothetical situation of uncertainty - Schroedinger's cat inside the box - 'entropy' never happened as entropy, it was immediately something else) there are many possibilities. Let us consider the simplest - the amount of matter in the universe. There could be lots of matter, there could be a little, there could be none (but the chances of there being 0 is minute). However much matter is in the universe, it is automatically all the matter that exists, from which can be defined everything.

The same happens with all other constants.

[quoudam72]

yes, but i am talking about the laws of logic

Yes this I understand about your argument there is no misunderstanding on my part.

The laws of logic are as follows

1. law of idenity: your screen name is your screen name. {math example x is x}

2. law of non-contradiction: the sun is shining the sun is not shining it is either shining or not it contradicts itself {math example x or not -x}

3. law of the excluded middle: same as the second law {math example x is x}

[Inoculator9]

In response to quandom, I wasn't specifically equating Buddhism with science, I was just saying that it can be interpreted as something other then a religion.

[emprworm]

yes, quandom that is what i'm talking about.

the statement "Either there is life on Mars or there isn't" is a logical statment. It is impossilbe to say there is "another option" because to do so violates the law of noncontradiction.

When I give you these two options:

There is life on Mars

There is no life on Mars

ONE of the MUST be true, while the other one is false. Period. There is no "Well, there could be a third option, we just don't know it yet." LOL, that is the same as saying "I am a Zen Buddhist who believes in Zeus"- talk about wild religious faith

the same logic holds true for all questions of things that exist.

the universe exists, we can pose the exact same question:

There is life in the universe

There is no life in the universe

Two options. There is not a third option.

Same with beginnings:

The universe began to exist

The universe did not begin to exist (has always existed in the past)

there is no third option. ONE of them MUST be true, and the other false.

period.

[TMA_1]

Athiests who say they are spiritual are full of it.lol You can be a humanist, you can be a filantrapist. You cant be spiritual though. That has to do with the metaphysical. You can have a philosophy dealing with the metaphysical and still be an athiest, but I see no athiest on this thread that has said so. You guys arent spiritual! lol thats my little opinion.

[Acriku]

From my point of view, if someone putting their hands together pointing northward and speaking to themselves can be spiritual, then myself meditating can be as well.

[quoudam72]

Buddhism is a description of the nature of the universe, as a science. A Buddhist seeking enlightenment could be compared to a scientist seeking his next discovery (whatever it might be).

That is what you said but I was not disagreeing with what you said Inoc9 as a matter of fact I looked at Buddhism from a different perspective due to your statement. It was really ment as just a comment but we can't talk about Buddhism or the 'Worm' will come. ;)

[TMA_1]

so you want to meditate and call it spiritual? I sense somebody being bitter.lol besides that defeats the purpose of materialistic athiesm. Sure you can meditate, but not pray to a being. Its funny that you say we pray to nothing, and if you talked to a real open minded person, they would say they wouldnt know because they have not seen God. Logic goes to agnostics, athiests are just crusaders without a purpose. Even if they think they do.

[Acriku]

I think someone doesn't like atheists...

Why does logic go to the agnostics? An atheist can accept that there is no way of knowing either way, but still lack a belief. So what are you trying to say tma? Calm down before you post.

[TMA_1]

Dont use that tactic man.lol I am perfectly relaxed. You are just spouting stuff out that doesnt make sense. I mean I have talked with you on this and you know that I dont "dislike athiests". That was slandor. Agnostics are true open minded people. They dont make direct decissions and attack the opposite opinion. You are just another falwell.

[Acriku]

Agnostics just admit they can't know either way. I do that as well. But I am also an atheist, lacking a belief in god. I don't completely deny god, that would be arrogant just like completely accepting god. And your posts previously are always putting down atheists, so it is easy to conclude you certainly have something against atheists.

[TMA_1]

there is a difference. I proclaim truth about athiests. when it all comes down to the core, it is all vanity. You just like to cover it up with subjective happiness that wont last. I shouldnt talk about this stuff anyways. It wont cause any good. Geesh acriku, you used to be a great guy with this athiesm stuff. We would talk and you would listen to me intently and I the same. You are the one that is attacking. You are becoming what you hate. I have lost a lot of respect for you man. That is sad because you are a good friend.

[Acriku]

I don't think I attacked you once, yet. In the post right before this one, you attacked me with my "covering my vanity up with subjective happiness." You lost a lot of respect for me? Too bad, and if so then that respect was misgiven, because I haven't changed.

[TMA_1]

heh, I wish you knew. Those were attacks at athiesm. quit the defense. It is a tactic in argument taht is used all the time. Instead of commenting about my supposed "wrong doings", focus on yourself. Focus on what I said to you. You dont listen.

[Acriku]

You said "You just like to cover it[vanity] up with subjective happiness that wont last." Am I suppose to think that 'You' does not imply you are talking to me?

[TMA_1]

you are one of many athiests. hehe, all sound alike. that was a bash. You see if I want to bash something I will do it with full force. Other stuff is just opinion. I seem to remember you saying that we pray to nothing. the same level as what I said to you. hypocracy.

[Acriku]

No from my perspective you pray to nothing, because I lack a belief in your god, so how can I acknowledge your god? And really what else am I going to say? I'm an atheist for crying out loud, what atheist says you actually do pray to god?

[emprworm]

a point, the 'big bang', but you cannot measure anything outside the universe, so it has always existed.

My interpretation of your options is that it has alwats existed. Humans use the idea of the beginning being a point in time as a theoretical marker, sort of like the imaginary component of a complex number.

I think, nema, that you are actually postulating option 2, that it began, but was uncaused. You are saying that there is no such thing as 'before time' and 'before the universe'. well....this is precisely what beginning means. To have a point at which there was nothing prior to that point is precisely what we can define as a 'beginning'. In other words, your point of view is that the universe began to exist as time began to exist, yet without a cause and from nothing- in and of itself.

[nemafakei]

"In other words, your point of view is that the universe began to exist as time began to exist, yet without a cause and from nothing- in and of itself."

Not quite.

There was never a nothing.

The cause whas that there was either something or nothing, and it so happened that there was not nothing (for the chances of nothing is 1 in infinite, due to the previous logic of how much there is, assuming every amount has equal probability).

"Logic goes to agnostics, athiests are just crusaders without a purpose."

Atheists are often just agnostics who think it the most likely conclusion from the data they have available that there is no god.

[Anathema]

Crusaders? I have never told somebody what to believe or not and have never made any attempt to expand atheism or whatever else. What are you talking about?

[emprworm]

The cause whas that there was either something or nothing, and it so happened that there was not nothing (for the chances of nothing is 1 in infinite, due to the previous logic of how much there is, assuming every amount has equal probability).

ok, Nema, I think we need some clarification here. If the big bang came from something, then there was existence prior to the big bang. Yet I thought you just said that nothing existed prior to the big bang....?

[Edric O]

The notion of something before the Big Bang is flawed. There is no "before"! The Big Bang was the point at which time began. t=0. There is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time.

Earthnuker, the truth is that some atheists are slipping into fanaticism lately. Talk of "exterminating primitive beliefs", "faith is a cancer", "organized religion must be outlawed" is frighteningly common on many forums.

Rather than saying there haven't been any atheist "crusades", it would be more appropiate to say there haven't been any YET.

[emprworm]

The notion of something before the Big Bang is flawed. There is no "before"! The Big Bang was the point at which time began. t=0. There is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time.

if someone holds this view...that there is no such thing as a 'before' then that precisely means "beginning". In other words, said individual is postulating that the universe 'began to exist'. now the question becomes: "caused...or uncaused?"

[Edric O]

Let's see... I'm a Christian.

Now take a wild guess about my position on this. :)