-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread
- Thread starter Adamant Zoroark
- Start date
The nucleus is really small (femtometres) compared to the atom itself (nanometres), but is considerable denser at about 99.98% of the mass of the atom. Though that's getting off topic.
I think that there's some merit to having an idea of everything being connected. The fact that stars are sufficient to produce all the elements, thus we're all basically born out of stars, provides a deep connection between us and the "unreachable" depths of the universe. It's just that it's so easy to take it the wrong way because people always want "more" and only supernatural non-explanations can pretend to give them that.
I thought the nucleus is "smaller" as it has a smaller de Broglie wavelength because it has a larger mass. Actually, to illustrate a counterexample to the intuitive notion that more massive objects are larger on the astronomical level, more massive white dwarfs have a smaller radius because of the force of gravity condensing all that matter (and the only force to resist gravity is its electron degeneracy pressure). Also, neutron stars are more massive and smaller than white dwarfs because neutrons have a smaller de Broglie wavelength and less "uncertainty"
----
My original post was hidden because it did not have sources, but I thought what I said above was "elementary" and could be easily checked with wikipedia, which is generally reliable for basic information.
(1). A nucleus has a smaller de Broglie simply because it has a large mass, so the mass term in the denominator is larger: wavelength = h/mv
(2). "the radius of a white dwarf is inversely proportional to the cube root of its mass" r = m^(-.333) -- from the wikipedia entry for white dwarf
(3). "Neutrons in a degenerate neutron gas are spaced much more closely than electrons in an electron-degenerate gas, because the more massive neutron has a much shorter wavelength at a given energy. In the case of neutron stars and white dwarf stars, this is compounded by the fact that the pressures within neutron stars are much higher than those in white dwarfs. The pressure increase is caused by the fact that the compactness of a neutron star causes gravitational forces to be much higher than in a less compact body with similar mass. This results in a star with a diameter on the order of a thousandth that of a white dwarf." - from the entry on degenerate matter
I'm coming at this from the perspective of a being who woke up one day in a universe. This is an inside-out perspective; in other words, I see clearly that some things are a certain way and not another way, but I don't always see how it got to be that way. This doesn't mean we can't know things we don't directly observe, but it does mean there is a burden of proof for things that aren't plainly observable. It takes rigorous logic and careful investigation. God is simply not observable, if you want to tell me the universe I experience is there because a God created it, you need to prove it.
This is why I find the distinction between Atheist/Agnostic kind of offensive. The uncertainty about the non-existence of God is no different than the uncertainty about the laws of physics remaining the same from one moment to the next. It's a technicality. Not only that, but it's tied to the scientific idea that you can never predict what new evidence you might find and you must always be open to changing your mind in light of new evidence. Being lectured on this technicality by someone who is not holding their own beliefs to remotely the same standard of knowledge doesn't leave me feeling particularly receptive to their desire that I call myself Agnostic instead of Atheist because I "don't really know for sure". Of course there is no such thing as 100% certainty when it comes to knowing about the universe (as opposed to math and logic that can be certain but don't tell us about the universe), but the possibility that something for which there is no evidence exists only deserves token uncertainty out of philosophical principle. We don't choose separate terms for any other belief systems based on whether they give lip service to this technicality, so I don't see why we should do for non-belief in a God or Gods.
If anything, let the labels Atheist and Agnostic be not mutually exclusive. Agnostic means "the truth value of some claims is unknowable" and Atheist means "I don't believe in God". This would render the vast majority of non-believers "Agnostic Atheists".
This is why I find the distinction between Atheist/Agnostic kind of offensive. The uncertainty about the non-existence of God is no different than the uncertainty about the laws of physics remaining the same from one moment to the next. It's a technicality. Not only that, but it's tied to the scientific idea that you can never predict what new evidence you might find and you must always be open to changing your mind in light of new evidence. Being lectured on this technicality by someone who is not holding their own beliefs to remotely the same standard of knowledge doesn't leave me feeling particularly receptive to their desire that I call myself Agnostic instead of Atheist because I "don't really know for sure". Of course there is no such thing as 100% certainty when it comes to knowing about the universe (as opposed to math and logic that can be certain but don't tell us about the universe), but the possibility that something for which there is no evidence exists only deserves token uncertainty out of philosophical principle. We don't choose separate terms for any other belief systems based on whether they give lip service to this technicality, so I don't see why we should do for non-belief in a God or Gods.
If anything, let the labels Atheist and Agnostic be not mutually exclusive. Agnostic means "the truth value of some claims is unknowable" and Atheist means "I don't believe in God". This would render the vast majority of non-believers "Agnostic Atheists".
Last edited:
Its actually rather interesting for me personally, because I am not an agnostic atheist. Don't get me wrong, I do not claim to know definitively that no god exists (gnostic atheism) but neither am I swayed by the claim that "no knowledge is completely certain," or "God's existence is unknowable."
I do think that there are things which one can know with certainty, most notably a priori facts. I don't think you can convince me that: "all bachelors are unmarried" can ever be false for example; and I think the truths we have discovered in mathematics are absolutely true, at least within their own respective systems. Also I think that claims of god's existence is certainly verifiable, all I would take is me looking out my window to see Thor casting lightning to verify Thor's existence to me.
I am not sure what that makes me, although I am keen to the "weak atheist" label, although even then I don't exactly fit, because that label is sometimes only given to people who never had any religion to begin with. I think only the umbrella term of atheism is the only one which actually describes me.
f'n lables
I do think that there are things which one can know with certainty, most notably a priori facts. I don't think you can convince me that: "all bachelors are unmarried" can ever be false for example; and I think the truths we have discovered in mathematics are absolutely true, at least within their own respective systems. Also I think that claims of god's existence is certainly verifiable, all I would take is me looking out my window to see Thor casting lightning to verify Thor's existence to me.
I am not sure what that makes me, although I am keen to the "weak atheist" label, although even then I don't exactly fit, because that label is sometimes only given to people who never had any religion to begin with. I think only the umbrella term of atheism is the only one which actually describes me.
f'n lables
Those are some interesting thoughts. What exactly would you label yourself as? Irreligious, perhaps? Regardless, I have some thoughts. Religion, including Atheism, is all founded on faith in something. Weather it be faith in Allah, Jesus, or the lack of any form of deity/afterlife, there is faith involved. You claim to not have faith in any religion, but also do not denounce religion. You obviously have faith in science as shown by your comment on the truths of math. I'm sticking to my guns and saying you are "irreligious". Instead of subscribing to a faith of uncertainty, you subscribe to pure face. Since religion is defined as "beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life", and you have stated that you do not necessarily have a firm stance on any particular religion (or lack thereof), and that you believe God's existence can be proven or disprove, then the only option left is to have no religion. Otherwise known as being irreligious.
Well atheism isn't religion so... atheism is just the non-belief in a god.
If you are trying to pin down what my philosophy is per-chance, that would be Rationalism. In particular I am a fan of Leibniz, I think he is dead wrong with some of his conclusions, but I respect him very much. I often times find myself thumbing through the Monadology on how one assesses truths.
I was actually talking with some Christians a few weeks ago and we came to the agreement that it is both a disservice to religious faith and the use of logical axioms to conflate them both as "faith." Christians usually think they have some reason or evidence for their belief, and faith is sort of a "willingness to accept God", so its not fair to conflate it with logical axioms.
If you are trying to pin down what my philosophy is per-chance, that would be Rationalism. In particular I am a fan of Leibniz, I think he is dead wrong with some of his conclusions, but I respect him very much. I often times find myself thumbing through the Monadology on how one assesses truths.
I was actually talking with some Christians a few weeks ago and we came to the agreement that it is both a disservice to religious faith and the use of logical axioms to conflate them both as "faith." Christians usually think they have some reason or evidence for their belief, and faith is sort of a "willingness to accept God", so its not fair to conflate it with logical axioms.
I'd argue that Rationalism and all other forms of hardcore empiricism that only invest in a priori truth are forms of intellectual laziness. Sure, a priori truths like "all bachelors are single" might be impossible to disprove but they're also tautological. By corollary, gnostic atheism might - logically speaking - be the "safest" belief to hold but it's also incredibly complacent in the degree to which it stifles inquiry (vis-a-vis "empirically impossible" induction). I think that's quite ironic, for a belief system that champions the scientific method as its greatest tool.
I'm not sure what xenu's getting at. Aren't rationalism and empiricism diametrically opposed approaches to epistemology, at least in their original sense? Also, who exactly is "stifling inquiry", and what sort of "inquiry" is being "stifled"?
Eh not exactly, Locke was a bit of a rationalist himself as far as a priori truths go;The split comes from that Locke didn't believe we had we had innate knowledge about outside world, as opposed to the rationalists at the time, and so devised a system as how we gain knowledge of it.
I could probably be described as an Rationalist-Empiricist if I wanted to go nuts, as I am sympathetic as to how he thinks we get knowledge, although the titles wouldn't make sense as I do think we can get non-trivial truths through thought alone.
Sorry, probably should have worded that better. capefeather looking at rationalism and empiricism as opposites is a pretty good rule of thumb, but most modern approaches put the two on a sliding scale of investment in a priori truth, with "soft empiricism" on one end and rationalism on the other. In principle rationalism can be seen as a more ideologically advanced empiricism that precludes a posteriori statements entirely (hence discarding all sensory experience!). As a result of that, like Princess Bubblegum said, the two schools of thought aren't mutually exclusive (you can be both a rationalist and an empiricist, though a significant ideological overlap makes the label Rationalist-Empiricist pretty redundant).
Again, I think "stifles" was poor wording - what I meant was the degree to which rationalism limits "that which we can definitely know". You can argue that all non-a priori knowledge is fundamentally "unknowable" and relative and while I agree with that to some extent, I also think that's an unhealthy mindset to have. Empiricism at least defines a system to get to know "external knowledge" or verify statements that aren't self-evident, but Rationalism dismisses them entirely. That's why I think it's intellectually lazy, because instead of trying to grasp non-a-priori truth through modes of empirical inquiry it dismisses any knowledge that requires any intellectual effort to obtain. Hell, even 2 + 2 = 4 requires some inductive leaps on the most abstract level, and therefore cannot be considered Rationally true. Only the statement 4 = 4, a self-defining, tautological statement requiring no inquiry whatsoever, would be considered "knowable" according to the Rationalist school.
And while we're on the subject, I also think a similar judgment befalls empiricism. Sensory experience alone isn't a sufficient criterion for verifying truth. Consider for instance the fact that we know that ultraviolet waves exist, even though we can't see or directly sense them. Sure, we can observe them using other methods like by using absorption/emission spectra but the result we get from those methods is abstract, not sensory. Linking that abstraction, that positive value on the piece of paper with the unobservable UV wave requires an inductive leap that empiricism (and therefore Rationalism) does not account for. And this is going off an a tangent a little, but in actual scientific practice certain truths are "intuited" before being empirically verified. The examples I can give you here are the classic ones, Kekulé getting his idea for the structure of benzene from a dream, Watson & Crick w/ the structure of DNA, etc, so I won't bore you with them. What I will say, though, is that there are multiple non-empirical & non-deductive modes of inquiry that gnostic atheism dismisses entirely, which is a fundamental flaw in its most basal argument.
Again, I think "stifles" was poor wording - what I meant was the degree to which rationalism limits "that which we can definitely know". You can argue that all non-a priori knowledge is fundamentally "unknowable" and relative and while I agree with that to some extent, I also think that's an unhealthy mindset to have. Empiricism at least defines a system to get to know "external knowledge" or verify statements that aren't self-evident, but Rationalism dismisses them entirely. That's why I think it's intellectually lazy, because instead of trying to grasp non-a-priori truth through modes of empirical inquiry it dismisses any knowledge that requires any intellectual effort to obtain. Hell, even 2 + 2 = 4 requires some inductive leaps on the most abstract level, and therefore cannot be considered Rationally true. Only the statement 4 = 4, a self-defining, tautological statement requiring no inquiry whatsoever, would be considered "knowable" according to the Rationalist school.
And while we're on the subject, I also think a similar judgment befalls empiricism. Sensory experience alone isn't a sufficient criterion for verifying truth. Consider for instance the fact that we know that ultraviolet waves exist, even though we can't see or directly sense them. Sure, we can observe them using other methods like by using absorption/emission spectra but the result we get from those methods is abstract, not sensory. Linking that abstraction, that positive value on the piece of paper with the unobservable UV wave requires an inductive leap that empiricism (and therefore Rationalism) does not account for. And this is going off an a tangent a little, but in actual scientific practice certain truths are "intuited" before being empirically verified. The examples I can give you here are the classic ones, Kekulé getting his idea for the structure of benzene from a dream, Watson & Crick w/ the structure of DNA, etc, so I won't bore you with them. What I will say, though, is that there are multiple non-empirical & non-deductive modes of inquiry that gnostic atheism dismisses entirely, which is a fundamental flaw in its most basal argument.
relevant:
the Western world likes binaries ( a lot ), and one of our favorite binaries is the (nonexistent) truth binary that is often used as shitty evidence for or against religion. I'm sure all of you have heard personal statements of faith that amount to little more than "Science can't explain X, so therefore god exists", or conversely, "X in the Bible has been disproved by science, so god doesn't exist". This type of thinking falls under the assumption that truth is binary, but mathematics ( as well as a good deal of Eastern thought, like Buddhist thought ) states otherwise.
Truth can really be classified into four mathematical subsets, not two. Something can either be [T], [F] [T union F], or []. Something that is [T], or absolutely true, is perhaps the statement "I am wearing pants". Something that is [F], or absolutely false, can be found in statements like "I am wearing three alpacas". The concept of a statement being [T union F], or true and false, isn't actually all too weird. It merely signifies a paradox, the most simple of which is "This statement is false". Statements like these can be neither completely true nor completely false, but there are elements of truth and falsehood within them, so they must be both. Finally, [], the empty set. This essentially states the existence of something that is neither true nor false - in context, something that can be neither proven empirically true nor empirically false.
I believe that the existence of God, an afterlife, and other improvable elements of religion falls pretty neatly in this subset. From this belief, my views on both gnostic atheism and religion are formed - I think it's in many ways as "close-minded" to reject the existence of a possibility of afterlife or a deity as it is to blindly accept it.
The reason I mention truth values in the context of religion is because I think it's indicative of the relative futility of converting people to one extreme or the other. Not only do we not currently have empirical proof that proves the existence or lack thereof of a god, we also probably never will have. I can't think of any realistic, scientifically verifiable scenario in which there will be created immutable proof on this matter, and as such, I don't really see all too much value in bashing religion/non-religion in general.
the Western world likes binaries ( a lot ), and one of our favorite binaries is the (nonexistent) truth binary that is often used as shitty evidence for or against religion. I'm sure all of you have heard personal statements of faith that amount to little more than "Science can't explain X, so therefore god exists", or conversely, "X in the Bible has been disproved by science, so god doesn't exist". This type of thinking falls under the assumption that truth is binary, but mathematics ( as well as a good deal of Eastern thought, like Buddhist thought ) states otherwise.
Truth can really be classified into four mathematical subsets, not two. Something can either be [T], [F] [T union F], or []. Something that is [T], or absolutely true, is perhaps the statement "I am wearing pants". Something that is [F], or absolutely false, can be found in statements like "I am wearing three alpacas". The concept of a statement being [T union F], or true and false, isn't actually all too weird. It merely signifies a paradox, the most simple of which is "This statement is false". Statements like these can be neither completely true nor completely false, but there are elements of truth and falsehood within them, so they must be both. Finally, [], the empty set. This essentially states the existence of something that is neither true nor false - in context, something that can be neither proven empirically true nor empirically false.
I believe that the existence of God, an afterlife, and other improvable elements of religion falls pretty neatly in this subset. From this belief, my views on both gnostic atheism and religion are formed - I think it's in many ways as "close-minded" to reject the existence of a possibility of afterlife or a deity as it is to blindly accept it.
The reason I mention truth values in the context of religion is because I think it's indicative of the relative futility of converting people to one extreme or the other. Not only do we not currently have empirical proof that proves the existence or lack thereof of a god, we also probably never will have. I can't think of any realistic, scientifically verifiable scenario in which there will be created immutable proof on this matter, and as such, I don't really see all too much value in bashing religion/non-religion in general.
Last edited:
More like everybody likes binaries. It's a natural consequence of how our brains are composed. If we were to compare a human brain to a computer, the ~100 Hz speed of the human brain is highly indicative of why we organize information differently from how a computer organizes information (in particular, trying to put concepts into neat little boxes). That said, I think that flaws in a holy text tend to hurt a typical theist's position more than imperfections in scientific knowledge hurts a typical atheist's position. The falsehood of specific claims, like mental illness being caused by demons (or character flaws, as some religious people seem to identify "demons"), or the earth being flat, has had major consequences throughout history, and still has major consequences now. It's more pressing a matter than the fact that we don't know everything, anyway. That's the usual reason for people (even theists) criticizing and even "bashing" religion. This does beg the question of what exactly religion is and what God is, which I think is what you alluded to with your [] truth value. So I suppose we just have to evaluate each person's arguments individually...
While I'm at it...
While I'm at it...
But what is truth? More specifically, what does it mean to "sense" a UV wave, and how is that different from "intuiting" one? Can we really even claim to sense anything directly? As far as I can tell, we're all just giving names to groupings of sensory data, and that applies just as much to the existence of Africa as it does to the existence of my foot.
Not to intrude but seeing this topic interested me. Being as I have no religious preferences does not mean I cant have any interest in the subject. My belief as a Philosopher and a different minded person always believed that each religious memoir has a fraction of a truth. I am not saying all religion is poppy cock, no. I am saying all religion has its place in human minds. Me? Well I just want to learn of them.
Farwell For Now.
_Tonks_
Guest
The other day, someone tried telling me that God Exist, but we haven't found him yet. Then then went on saying that people didn't believe in electricity until god showed them it, and that one day God will show us him and we'll believe him too. I find it really sad that people have to preach their faith with shit like that.
Nowhere in the Bible, Torah or Coran does it mention that God wants people to believe in him or will show his true form to the living. God also condemns those who flaunt their religion to gain status or try to look "intelligent" so don't think your friend or others who act similarly really understand what they're talking about. -A devout Roman Catholic.
Someone tried to quote Einstein today and I felt my subsequent fact-checking was funny enough to mention it.
Fake Einstein quote said:
sourceReal Einstein quote said:
I don't know about the Qu'ran, and I know you're right about the Torah, but have you ever heard of the Great Commission?
I am an unbeliever. I deny the Lord Jesus Christ, I deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I deny the Lord Helix, and I reject Shrek's love. I am not afraid of being wrong for not believing in mainstream religion any more than things that we take for granted are falsehood. I think all Supernatural claims are fiction or misperceptions by the human mind. I have never witnessed anything unexplainable by science or human psychology. Growing up, I held on to a belief in a Creator, assuming the Bible was the Word of God, but I started to doubt God over time because after years of 'taking the Lord's name in vain' and not repenting. I noticed nothing tragic was occurring in my life. I eventually read the Bible on my own and could not believe that the stories of the Old Testament were anything more than myths and folklore. I knew Creationists were clearly wrong on this matter. I tried to approach Genesis as metaphoric and the New Testament as historic, but the New Testament was just as full of adsurdities. The sweet and loving Jesus was actually just as cruel and merciless for dividing humanity into sheep and goats. The teachings were nonsensical. I could not attend my local church because they promoted Bible inerrancy, I knew better. After much mental chaos and dispute over what I believed, in order to retain my mental well being, I finally decided to dismiss Christianity as a massive hoax, a man made religion that comforts some people and traumatizes other believers. I looked into Islam as well. Just another faulty, forceful, fear mongering, and absurd belief system to accept as true over the 100's of other religions that have existed for thousands of years.
How did the Universal begin? I dont't know except by a natural process. God? No, that is a hypothesis. Even if it were a god who set the Big Bang into motion, which god? I'm very doubtful. I respect those who believe in a god(s), believe what you want, but I can't stand the prejudice against those who simply are not convinced that the so called Creator exists. I fear death sometimes, but that does not stop me from being an atheist.
How did the Universal begin? I dont't know except by a natural process. God? No, that is a hypothesis. Even if it were a god who set the Big Bang into motion, which god? I'm very doubtful. I respect those who believe in a god(s), believe what you want, but I can't stand the prejudice against those who simply are not convinced that the so called Creator exists. I fear death sometimes, but that does not stop me from being an atheist.
Deleted a few posts. I don't think we have to establish that religious and sexual discrimination are in fact real.
Ironically, you have bashed religion while trying to do the opposite. Evidence for the existence of anything is a simple matter of observing what effect it has on everything else. If something has no effect on the entirety of space, time, matter, forces, or anything then it does not exist by definition. Because observability is tantamount to existence then if you believe what you say, that there can not be proof of god, then what you are saying is that there is no god.
Except no normative claim was made about the existence of evidence or not. Also, it is conceivable that things can exist but have no effect on the entirety of space / time / matter / force, which is the claim that most religions seem to make anyway. An example of something that exists but has no observable impact would be your post.
If something has no effect on anything then whether it exists or not is meaningless and equal to not existing. I mean this as a matter of physics, everything has some sort of degree of observability. It takes up space, has mass, perhaps produces electric field, or some other esoteric expression of energy. If some particle or entity of any sort does not exert these qualities then whether there are a billion of them in the room you're with or none at all makesno differnece, so there's no reason to think that there is any at all.
This argument is not a disproof of god at all, it's just the only conclusion to the claim that "I can't think of any realistic, scientifically verifiable scenario in which there will be created immutable proof on this matter" where the words realistic, scientifically variable, and immutable are superfluous.