atheist perspective

[Lstinthwrld]

I am not an atheist but neither am I LDS. There are many individuals on this forum that I respect wholeheartedly that are very intelligent.

I would like to know what you all think of this video.

Once again these are not my beliefs I just thought this video was...interesting.

Look foreword to reading what you all have to say.

[Jamie123]

Very interesting video.

The first part of it reminds me very much of Russell's "flying teapot" analogy: The fact that we can't disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting half way between Earth and Mars is no reason to suppose that such a teapot is likely to exist. The major problem with this (for me) is that flying teapots don't really explain very much about our existence, whereas God does.

Also I don't think "the wind" is the best example of a non-physical entity. (Although it can't be seen, it can be quantified and measured using physical apparatus.) There are plenty of non-tangible things which we all accept the existence of, like beauty, humor, fear, anger...even ideas themselves. Of all the things this guy could have mentioned, he picks an obvious strawman.

On the other hand, he does make some very good points about religious bullying, pushing God X over God Y etc.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Jamie123

[Lstinthwrld]

Very interesting video.

The first part of it reminds me very much of Russell's "flying teapot" analogy: The fact that we can't disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting half way between Earth and Mars is no reason to suppose that such a teapot is likely to exist. The major problem with this (for me) is that flying teapots don't really explain very much about our existence, whereas God does.

Also I don't think "the wind" is the best example of a non-physical entity. (Although it can't be seen, it can be quantified and measured using physical apparatus.) There are plenty of non-tangible things which we all accept the existence of, like beauty, humor, fear, anger...even ideas themselves. Of all the things this guy could have mentioned, he picks an obvious strawman.

On the other hand, he does make some very good points about religious bullying, pushing God X over God Y etc.

Yeah i found some holes in his logic too. Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and comment. :)

[hordak]

Very interesting video.

The first part of it reminds me very much of Russell's "flying teapot" analogy: The fact that we can't disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting half way between Earth and Mars is no reason to suppose that such a teapot is likely to exist. The major problem with this (for me) is that flying teapots don't really explain very much about our existence, whereas God does.

Also I don't think "the wind" is the best example of a non-physical entity. (Although it can't be seen, it can be quantified and measured using physical apparatus.) There are plenty of non-tangible things which we all accept the existence of, like beauty, humor, fear, anger...even ideas themselves. Of all the things this guy could have mentioned, he picks an obvious strawman.

On the other hand, he does make some very good points about religious bullying, pushing God X over God Y etc.

Problem is they are emotional responses that can be tested and measured through external external stimuli/ physical response which put them in the wind category. (Fear and anger especially.) Not sure about beauty and humor response being measured but they can be caused by external stimuli.MRI perhaps?

[Guest Godless]

Very interesting video, and it raises some excellent points. The assertion that a defined God is much more difficult to argue in favor of than an undefined one is spot-on. And of course, most people like to define the gods they worship, so they're just leaving themselves with an even greater burden of proof that can never be met.

[Lstinthwrld]

Problem is they are emotional responses that can be tested and measured through external external stimuli/ physical response which put them in the wind category. (Fear and anger especially.) Not sure about beauty and humor response being measured but they can be caused by external stimuli.MRI perhaps?

How do you come by this? A schizophrenic has measurable reactions to hallucinations that to every one else are not there but to the patient they are very real. You can also medicate some one with a hallucinogenic substance and get the same reaction so not sure your conclusions are quite valid. Neat perspective though thank you for taking the time.

[Jamie123]

Problem is they are emotional responses that can be tested and measured through external external stimuli/ physical response which put them in the wind category. (Fear and anger especially.) Not sure about beauty and humor response being measured but they can be caused by external stimuli.MRI perhaps?

That's a good point, but I wonder if the physical responses you refer to can really be considered "fear", "anger" and "humor" themselves, or merely their by-products.

Of course, you could just as easily say that the rotation of an anenometer is also merely a by-product of the wind. However, we do have a good physical understanding of wind actually is in terms of the flow of air molecules.

Could things like humor and beauty have similar physical explanations which we have not yet discovered, or are they truly non-physical phenomena?

[thews]

I am not an atheist but neither am I LDS. There are many individuals on this forum that I respect wholeheartedly that are very intelligent.

I would like to know what you all think of this video.

Once again these are not my beliefs I just thought this video was...interesting.

Look foreword to reading what you all have to say.

The video is quite biased IMO and states things that support an atheist’s perspective as sound logic vs. flawed logic. The paradox of the burden of proof is not held to the scientific method as some atheists assert. The scientific method's boundary conditions are defined within “the existing universe.” Using this platform to argue flawed vs. sound logic, then everything existing can be tested, which forces the atheist’s argument out of an empirical paradox and removes the source of the evidence being tested as a variable.

Again with my argument to speed this up: If I concede the universe started with a big bang from one atom and all life and matter happened/ sprouted from that single atom, the atheist’s foundation is based on the properties of that atom, but does not answer where it came from. If time is infinite, then the question that cannot be answered is what existed 100 billion years before that atom, and at what point did the atom begin to exist?

The “I think therefore I am” argument holds true to me attempting to paint the existence of God as logical. I exist, so I had to come from somewhere/something. If I accept I am finite in my thought process, and time is infinite, as is the origin of matter (something cannot come from nothing), then the burden of proof and either side (theist vs. atheist) has reached a stalemate and neither can be conclusively argued. In that vein, claiming “flawed logic” in this video is assumes an atheist’s logic is not flawed because everything an atheist believes is based on what can be proven, or finite, which limits the boundary conditions to exclude infinite concepts in an attempt to force a theists perspective as flawed.

Edited September 18, 2009 by thews

[bmy-]

Again with my argument to speed this up: If I concede the universe started with a big bang from one atom and all life and matter happened/ sprouted from that single atom, the atheist’s foundation is based on the properties of that atom, but does not answer where it came from. If time is infinite, then the question that cannot be answered is what existed 100 billion years before that atom, and at what point did the atom begin to exist?

The “I think therefore I am” argument holds true to me attempting to paint the existence of God as logical. I exist, so I had to come from somewhere/something. If I accept I am finite in my thought process, and time is infinite, as is the origin of matter (something cannot come from nothing), then the burden of proof and either side (theist vs. atheist) has reached a stalemate and neither can be conclusively argued. In that vein, claiming “flawed logic” in this video is assumes an atheist’s logic is not flawed because everything an atheist believes is based on what can be proven, or finite, which limits the boundary conditions to exclude infinite concepts in an attempt to force a theists perspective as flawed.

Whence cometh God?

[hordak]

That's a good point, but I wonder if the physical responses you refer to can really be considered "fear", "anger" and "humor" themselves, or merely their by-products.

Of course, you could just as easily say that the rotation of an anenometer is also merely a by-product of the wind. However, we do have a good physical understanding of wind actually is in terms of the flow of air molecules.

Could things like humor and beauty have similar physical explanations which we have not yet discovered, or are they truly non-physical phenomena?

That is precisely my point. They are measurable. not the fear itself but the responses. Like the wind, or gravity we measure the effect of it. I can't think of any non physical entity science hasn't found a way to measure.

[Maxel]

Not being a logician, I'll not attempt to dissect the video. However, I will point out one related fact: what we are affects what we see and how we see it.

If a greater being (a god) revealed itself to man, then that is proof positive that the being exists. That one person cannot 'prove' it to another in the matter mandated by the scientific method doesn't affect the validity of said proof: both the mortal and the god that revealed itself know that the proof was given.