A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins

[Cypress]

Maybe they oozed into existence over a longer period of time.

Oozed? Sounds like a legitimate scientific term, lol
The mathematical laws of physics were there from the first fraction of a nanosecond.

Now that you're running away from physical materialism, scientism, matter-and-energy explaining it all, you basically have betrayed atheism, and are now confused about whether you are actually an agnostic, a pantheist, or a panentheist.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I would say there is zero empirical evidence of a creator.

But empirical (observational) evidence is not the only kind of knowledge. Reason (logic) is another perfectly valid way of acquiring knowledge.

We know the universe universe had a beginning. A beginning logically requires a cause.
We know from experience that order, design, lawful organization do not just appear from inanimate random chance. Order and design logically point to a designer.

Some people think it is logical to infer a purposeful organizing entity underlying the universe based on those premises.

Agreed, however the multiverse theory also fits.

Not an expert on it, but it seems lots of philosophers over the past 1500+ have tried to prove the existence of God through logic. All have failed. Probably because it's like seeing the back of one's own head by pure logic sans equipment/tech to look such as a mirror, camera, etc.

Logic says if one sees one cockroach in a pantry or one weed in a yard, there are probably others. Why assume there is only one since only one is seen? If one Big Bang can happen, why not more? Even if there is a God, why limit God to only creating one universe instead of an infinite number?

 

[Cypress]

If you have to google what zoology is, that’s pretty weak. I knew zoology was the study of animals in high school, maybe the ninth grade

The only reason I had to Google is because you wouldn't take my word for it that zoology is to a very large extent focused on animal behavior. So I had to Google to bring independent corroborating sources in.

If you had just accepted my claim, there would be zero need for me to Google sources that corroborate me.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed, however the multiverse theory also fits.

Not an expert on it, but it seems lots of philosophers over the past 1500+ have tried to prove the existence of God through logic. All have failed. Probably because it's like seeing the back of one's own head by pure logic sans equipment/tech to look such as a mirror, camera, etc.

Knowledge doesn't have to be true. It only has to be justified. Justified by logic or by observation. There are very few things outside pure mathematics we can say is absolutely true and secure knowledge.

You're right. There is no proof of God, higher dimensions, or multi verses.

Logic says if one sees one cockroach in a pantry or one weed in a yard, there are probably others. Why assume there is only one since only one is seen? If one Big Bang can happen, why not more? Even if there is a God, why limit God to only creating one universe instead of an infinite number?

I see what you're saying, but we have experience of seeing other cockroaches, flies, or mosquitos in the vicinity when we see one. The logical inference is that there are more if you see one.

Our intuition and our experience give us no grounding to infer other universes with different laws.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Knowledge doesn't have to be true. It only has to be justified. Justified by logic or by observation. There are very few things outside pure mathematics we can say is absolutely true and secure knowledge.

You're right. There is no proof of God, higher dimensions, or multi verses.

I see what you're saying, but we have experience of seeing other cockroaches, flies, or mosquitos in the vicinity when we see one. The logical inference is that there are more if you see one.

Our intuition and our experience give us no grounding to infer other universes with different laws.

Logically, it makes sense to put down all people who are crippled to the point they've lost quality of life. Quality of life can be quantified scientifically and is used to measure QOL in different nations. Obviously such a suggestion would be considered immoral by many societies. Morality, of course, being about "feelings", not logic. The atheists on the thread would agree.

Example: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life

 

[Dutch Uncle]

@Cypress QOL for different nations:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life

Quality of Life​

Beyond the essential ideas of broad access to food, housing, quality education, health care and employment, quality of life also may include intangibles such as job security, political stability, individual freedom and environmental quality. Through all phases of life, these countries are seen as treating their citizens well.

 

[IBDaMann]

This has nothing to do with my post.

It has everything to do with the science on which you are commenting.

What do you think atoms and molecules are made of?

You don't know that atoms and molecules exist. You have never seen any. Nobody has. You simply use chemistry models that have not yet been falsified.

Subatomic particles.

Maybe, and maybe not, and if so, maybe they are totally different from what some people theorize.

They are made of quarks and electrons

... or they are simply probability fields that we don't fully understand, and must be raised to a level of abstraction that we can understand.

and their interactions are mediated by bosons.

Maybe. It's also possible that there are no such things as bosons. Why do you believe that there are?

At the physical level, everything is ultimately composed of the fundamental subatomic particles.

... or they aren't. In all this time, you haven't offered a single example of any technology developed from this model you are pushing. On the other hand, I can provide you with many examples of technology developed with chemistry, which does not have any subatomic particles.

Science does not involve subatomic particles.

If matter and energy is all that exists, all you need is science to acquire ontological knowledge.

I thought you were sufficiently mocked for making this embarrassing violation of logic, but apparently you wish to be mocked further.

OK, prove it. Even though I already falsified your assertion with my example of cave men learning, albeit without any science, you wish to chant that science is the only source of knowledge, so prove it.

I know that you want to ultimately conclude that God exists and is real, by showing that matter and energy are not all that exists, so make sure you prove that God exists.

I'll stand by.

now I've cornered an atheist into denying that matter and energy is all there is, lol

There you stand, deep in the hole which you dug for yourself, in the corner which you backed yourself, and you assert that you have me cornered. Excellent. I await your proof of the existence of God and of subatomic particles. I have high expectations.

I knew once you held an atheists feet to the fire ...

No, you never "knew" this because you don't even know what an atheist is. You don't even know what science is.

and made them live out the consequences of their belief system,

Aaaaah, you are another DEI hire who doesn't even know that individual people are not plurals. I bet your pronouns are "fucked" and "up".

they would run away to the hills.

Are you about to flee to the hills?

If you are willing to deny matter and energy is all there is,

What if I have never denied this? What if the problem here is nothing more than your lack of reading comprehension and your overall lack of education? What if the problem is that you just should not be pretending to comment on science? What if all of your frantic internet searches are providing you only the common/popular misconceptions amplified by wannabees who are desperate for attention?

please tell me what this higher organized transcendent reality beyond matter and energy is.

I'll let @gfm7175 and @Into the Night explain the Christian God to you. They're pretty good at that.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why would highly organized immaterial mathematical rules just pop into existence?

Maybe they oozed into existence over a longer period of time.

Oozed? Sounds like a legitimate scientific term, lol

Question for all of JPP: How can one tell immediately that Cypress is a standard, undereducated leftist with no sense of humor?

The mathematical laws of physics were there from the first fraction of a nanosecond.

Nope. The models built by humans didn't come into existence until after the advent of humanity, well after the first fraction of a nanosecond.

It would help you greatly to learn what science is before making really stupid comments.

 

[anonymoose]

So agitated now he is frantically googling

Sure, to verify that Dawkins published more peer reviewed articles than just his doctoral thesis as you claimed.
When someone authors over 900 articles have to assume they at least publish more than one research paper. That’s basic common sense, which you obviously lack.

The only reason I had to Google is because you wouldn't take my word for it that zoology is to a very large extent focused on animal behavior.

Yet I got a 4 year undergraduate degree in it and not one class had to do with animal behavior.
From your googling - While not all zoologists study animal behavior, it is a significant and common focus.
It’s one of many branches. Significant - sure. Cellular biology is too. So is genetics.
Biology is the study of life - bio. That is broken up into two categories- botany and zoology.

So I had to Google to bring independent corroborating sources in.

I didn’t. I got a B.S. in it.

If you had just accepted my claim, there would be zero need for me to Google sources that corroborate me.

As usual google is your main source of knowledge which you consider superior to a B.S. in the subject. You are… the google king.
Which makes you… The Most Interesting Man on the Internet.

 

[IBDaMann]

Knowledge doesn't have to be true.

It's not knowledge if it isn't true. Not being true makes it belief.

Now, for the logically impaired on the left, belief can be true, but knowledge cannot be false.

It only has to be justified.

That makes "it" belief if it is ultimately false. So no, your belief in God is not knowledge, it is belief. It might be true, but it is belief.

Show me some idea that is not true and I will show you a belief that is not knowledge.

Justified by logic or by observation.

It cannot be false if it is observed. Conclusions drawn from observations may be false, but those are beliefs, not knowledge. The observations themselves (not the interpretations of the observations), which are true, are knowledge.

There are very few things outside pure mathematics we can say is absolutely true and secure knowledge.

Here's one: You are reading this.

You're right. There is no proof of God, higher dimensions, or multi verses.

Is there any proof of lower dimensions?

 

[gfm7175]

@Cypress As IBDaMann said, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have about the Christian God (to the best of my knowledge).

 

[Cypress]

Yet I got a 4 year undergraduate degree in it and not one class had to do with animal behavior.

You don't have a degree in zoology. Animal population dynamics, their ecological adaptations, their distribution are all part and parcel of animal behavior. Anatomy and classification barely qualifies as real science. Those are human constructs.

From your googling - While not all zoologists study animal behavior, it is a significant and common focus.

Animal population dynamics, their ecological adaptations, their distribution are all part and parcel of animal behavior. Anatomy and classification barely qualifies as real science. Those are human constructs.

It’s one of many branches. Significant - sure. Cellular biology is too. So is genetics.
Biology is the study of life - bio. That is broken up into two categories- botany and zoology.

No, biological is not two categories: botany and zoology. Biology is the study of living organisms, which includes far more important and well-funded core disciplines like microbiology, genetics, biochemistry.

Zoology is a lower tier science. Sorry. It's not a core hard science.

Richard Dawkins knows very little about the core physical and biological sciences, and by his own admission isn't very good at math. Outside of grad school during his career he never did his own analytical lab experiments or modeling.

Every zoologist I know of who is famous in the public eye focused on some aspect animal behavior.

You are… the google king.

It's entirely your fault that I had to google. If you had just accepted what I wrote as generally correct, I wouldn't have to point you to independent corroborating sources.

 

[Cypress]

Logically, it makes sense to put down all people who are crippled to the point they've lost quality of life.

Yes, from a purely scientific worldview, eugenics makes a lot of sense.
It's our conscience and spiritual sensibilities that made us conclude that all human life has innate value. That is a religious worldview.

I have never made the case that all human actions have to be based on science and unsentimental reason.

Quality of life can be quantified scientifically and is used to measure QOL in different nations. Obviously such a suggestion would be considered immoral by many societies. Morality, of course, being about "feelings", not logic. The atheists on the thread would agree.

Example: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life

QOL can measure broad statistical patterns perhaps, but I doubt you could get individuals to broadly agree on what makes a flourishing life

That's the thing about statistics, they tell us nothing about individuals.

Agree with you that morality is not based on science or pure unsentimental logic.

 

[Hume]

The average philosopher in America is an atheist. No one cares about Dawkins.