Fed up of non believers

[Ryedo40]

By creative force I mean something which was initiated intentionally by an intelligent being, not for one second saying there is one but simply not discounting the possibility.

 

Assuming there was an intelligent being responsible, you've got to ask other questions like where did that being reside before creating the universe, who created that being and so on... ad infinitum. Asserting an intelligent being doesn't really answer anything.

 

Have you read 'A Short History of Almost Everything' by Bill Bryson? If not I would recommend that you do. It's scientific explanations for the general non scientific layman, like me. The number of factors required to enable life to survive on this planet is frightening. Take one away and the house of cards comes down.

 

If that's the book where he pushes the idea of fine-tuning, then it's bad science. There are numerous reasons why the universe isn't fine-tuned.

 

Also, many of the elements responsible for life are extremely common throughout the universe; so it's inevitable that, somewhere, if the conditions are roughly right, those elements and chemicals are going to react. It just so happens that our planet, out of a vast multitude of others, happens to have the roughly right conditions. This planet is also quite hostile to life.

 

For the layman, I'd recommend books by Victor J Stenger.

 

What is bleak about science? Well how about the fact that if it is all simply down to chemicals, there is no purpose whatsoever to life? Apart from having a laugh of course.

 

And so what if it is all down to chemicals. Why should that matter?

 

There also doesn't seem to be any purpose to life. All it does is live, consume, reproduce and die - and, if it's unlucky, go extinct. If there was no life, the universe would carry on regardless. Life is what it is... and it, like countless other things, doesn't need some special purpose.

 

 

On the last point, I wrote 'I have a feeling that wouldn't be a universally accepted view.'

 

Well humanism isn't a universally accepted view.

[RootsBooster]

Well then why do some appear to get so defensive? as if the odd one out is showing some kind of disloyalty to the group.

 

Like I said, can you give an example of what you mean?

Even a hypothetical one would do, if you can't find a genuine one.

[milquetoast1]

If that's the book where he pushes the idea of fine-tuning, then it's bad science. There are numerous reasons why the universe isn't fine-tuned.

 

Bill Bryson is the travel writer, he's also an atheist. I really like the book that mjw47 refers to, and there is no fine-tuning nonsense in there, just good science presented to the layman in a very readable way.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 17:59 ----------

 

Do all atheists have to follow the same set of rules or something?

I'm asking because it often appears evident that some atheists get quite angry when one of their own steps out of line by expressing an individual opinion not in tune with the atheist forum majority.

 

That's quite ironic coming on a thread titled "fed up of non believers" from the person who started the "angry atheists rant thread".

 

You certainly like to herd us together and attribute the "angry" word to us. I wonder why.

[Lockjaw]

Well then why do some appear to get so defensive? as if the odd one out is showing some kind of disloyalty to the group.

 

I suspect you are mistaking a mild exasperation at people attempting to argue a point by using a word/words of which they don't appreciate the actual definition for defensiveness. Can you see that if people can't agree on the definitions of the words they are using that the debate is likely to be fruitless?

 

I have learned the correct meaning of the word "jealous" and the term "coin a phrase" on this forum. Prior to that I had misconceptions regarding their correct meanings and had used them incorrectly for a long time previously. On being corrected, both times, I checked the veracity of the claims made by the correctors and altered my use accordingly. This seemed the logical thing to do.

 

I have observed a contributor to this thread being corrected on his use of some words and the response has been to argue the toss and then hurl insults at those correcting him. I have seen the same poster, very recently, admit to being "a layman" with regard to "science", yet he continues to argue the toss with those who aren't - some of whom are relative experts. Can you see how all that is likely to provoke exasperation? It's not about being defensive or following some sort of "atheist code"; it is, simply, that people want to be speaking the same language.

[mjw47]

Assuming there was an intelligent being responsible, you've got to ask other questions like where did that being reside before creating the universe, who created that being and so on... ad infinitum. Asserting an intelligent being doesn't really answer anything.

 

 

 

If that's the book where he pushes the idea of fine-tuning, then it's bad science. There are numerous reasons why the universe isn't fine-tuned.

 

Also, many of the elements responsible for life are extremely common throughout the universe; so it's inevitable that, somewhere, if the conditions are roughly right, those elements and chemicals are going to react. It just so happens that our planet, out of a vast multitude of others, happens to have the roughly right conditions. This planet is also quite hostile to life.

 

For the layman, I'd recommend books by Victor J Stenger.

 

 

 

And so what if it is all down to chemicals. Why should that matter?

 

There also doesn't seem to be any purpose to life. All it does is live, consume, reproduce and die - and, if it's unlucky, go extinct. If there was no life, the universe would carry on regardless. Life is what it is... and it, like countless other things, doesn't need some special purpose.

 

 

 

 

Well humanism isn't a universally accepted view.

 

Well if we are accepting that this intelligent being created everything, I think we may have to also accept that our intelligence will never be sufficient to understand, and it might be better to just accept it and 'go with the flow.'

 

Not as far as I remember it isn't, I read it when it first came out and made the mistake of lending it to someone.

 

As I recall it was very informative and kept the information at a level which even I could understand, some feat let me tell you.

 

You say this planet is quite hostile to life? I would have said the exact opposite. Agree in as much as there's a food chain, and we're all in it, as predator or prey.

But as to life itself, well it seems to be the rule that wherever it can possibly exist it does.

There's even a worm like creature which lives in the outlet flumes of undersea volcanoes!

 

It would matter to people who's life has been devoted to religion, there's a lot of them!

Obviously it would only matter if proven prior to their death.

 

Yes I agree it would go on.

 

That's what I originally said, it wouldn't be a universally accepted viewpoint, we agree.

[redwhine]

Without of course becoming involved in a long protracted heart to heart conversation ,which this person has no wish to take part in.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head, are they? Stop posting here if that's how you feel.

[ivanava]

There's no club, no secret handshake, no code of honour.

 

 

Yes there is, we just didn't invite you to join it.

[mjw47]

No, just as smug as someone who's admitted they have no belief in gods but won't admit they're an atheist.

 

If I recall correctly, when we had this discussion on another thread a while ago I stated that I was an agnostic. Instead of simply accepting this and thinking 'fair enough', you decided to challenge my definition.

 

In response I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definition 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.' Once again this did not satisfy your nit picking nature, and you supplied a load of further definitions none of which had any interest to me.

 

To me, the statement 'cannot know whether or not' allows for the possibility of either being true.

 

This does not equate with 'having no belief in Gods', it equates with not knowing either way, which is not the same.

 

I later came to realise that you are totally obsessed with definitions and trying to fit people into boxes of your own construction.

 

Why you feel the need to behave in this manner is anyone's guess ,but it is somewhat irritating.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 18:45 ----------

 

Nobody's holding a gun to your head, are they? Stop posting here if that's how you feel.

 

What I actually said was that I had no interest in taking part in a heart to heart conversation with that particular poster.

 

That would entail meeting, sitting down and talking face to face wouldn't it?

 

Not the same as posting is it?

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 19:03 ----------

 

I went into this already and explained above? Did you look at it?

 

Entropy applies to a closed system. It is perfectly possible for part of a closed system to show more order, provided that there is an increase in disorder elsewhere in the system.

 

But my point is that at some point in the creation of the world it must have been sterile, with absolutely no means of sustaining any life form.

 

As I understood it the planet was once a ball of fire with incredible temperatures preventing any form of life whatsoever.

 

The earths core still has temperatures close to that on the surface of the sun.

 

That being the case I don't see how life could have come into existence.

 

Obviously it did, and there has to be an explanation.

[janie48]

Like I said, can you give an example of what you mean?

Even a hypothetical one would do, if you can't find a genuine one.

I wasn't only referring to this thread, and yes I could give you examples, but I doubt the person on the receiving end would be pleased if I did that.

 

I suspect you are mistaking a mild exasperation at people attempting to argue a point by using a word/words of which they don't appreciate the actual definition for defensiveness. Can you see that if people can't agree on the definitions of the words they are using that the debate is likely to be fruitless?

 

I have learned the correct meaning of the word "jealous" and the term "coin a phrase" on this forum. Prior to that I had misconceptions regarding their correct meanings and had used them incorrectly for a long time previously. On being corrected, both times, I checked the veracity of the claims made by the correctors and altered my use accordingly. This seemed the logical thing to do.

 

I have observed a contributor to this thread being corrected on his use of some words and the response has been to argue the toss and then hurl insults at those correcting him. I have seen the same poster, very recently, admit to being "a layman" with regard to "science", yet he continues to argue the toss with those who aren't - some of whom are relative experts. Can you see how all that is likely to provoke exasperation? It's not about being defensive or following some sort of "atheist code"; it is, simply, that people want to be speaking the same language.

Okay I accept that, but can you understand that on those few occasions when several posters challenge the same person in a sometimes aggressive manner, to an observer it can come across as a deliberate attempt to bully the person into submission.

[Ryedo40]

You say this planet is quite hostile to life? I would have said the exact opposite. Agree in as much as there's a food chain, and we're all in it, as predator or prey. But as to life itself, well it seems to be the rule that wherever it can possibly exist it does. There's even a worm like creature which lives in the outlet flumes of undersea volcanoes!

 

But a vast majority of life on this planet can't live next to flumes, or under the sea, in the desert, etc. There are also natural disasters constantly occurring around the planet: destroying life. Life is a struggle - and there is death and decay everywhere. And that's not something you'd expect if an amazing intelligence had anything to do with it. Just as equally, if some amazing intelligence created a universe fine-tuned for life, you'd think it would make it easier for life to evolve; and you also wouldn't expect it to take 9 billion years from the point of the big bang for this planet to form before that can happen.

 

It would matter to people who's life has been devoted to religion, there's a lot of them!

Obviously it would only matter if proven prior to their death.

 

It may matter to them, but what matters to them doesn't change the fact that we are a bunch of bio chemical beings whose desires are driven by a bunch of chemicals.

 

Given you were saying that if it all revolved around chemicals, humanism wouldn't be a universal, then I agree. And I agree because our desires and emotions are driven by a bunch of chemicals and the humanist viewpoint isn't a universal.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Ryedo40