What Should Atheists Be Like?

[harvey1]

Let's assume that someone genuinely has a problem conceiving of God to exist, and they in all honesty cannot accept such a view without feeling that they are sacrificing a rational depiction of the world. (That is, they aren't in any kind of deep psychological battle with God.)

Then, in that case, what would the proper reaction be for how they deal with religious issues and religious people? For example, let me take an improper reaction. It is well-documented that a few scientists spent years trying to promote an oscillating universe despite the physical problems with this. In effect, certain atheists (and agnostics) were endorsing a bad model for no apparent reason other than to give the impression that this was a very viable model to theism without mentioning the problems with this model. I would take this as a bad reaction toward religion by atheists. It hints at pettiness on the part of the non-believer to sway people away from a belief they do not share even though the approach they propose is conceptually problematic at best.

Supposing that theists are not always pleased with how some atheists approach religion in public, outside of asking them to convert, what should an atheist be like--i.e., speaking in terms of an ideal atheist?

(Btw, atheists can and should respond, but you might phrase your answer in terms of what you think the ideal atheist should be like with respect to how they promote their views without embarrassment to other atheists. For example, astrophysicist Lawrence Krause recently wrote an article where he criticized non-theists for acting too aggressively against religion because of its potential negative impact on science--referring to Dawkins. That would be an example of Krause voicing his opinion of the ideal atheist in terms of their approach to religious issues.)

[achilles12604]

As for your many universe theory, it is entirely theoretical and not very widely accepted. So believe it if you must. It simply shows that non-theists will accept ANYTHING before accepting God.

You only need a first cause and it may not be God. It maybe timeless, and spaceless but it may not be God. It only goes to show you theist will call anything God to prove their point.

He said, she said. You can't prove timeless and spaceless as anything more than a concept just as you can't prove god as anything more than a concept. However, an atheist doesn't blindly accept anything before accepting a god. To me, an atheist applies all knowns before making a semi-intelligent deduction. The presence or lack of presence of evidence doesn't support a claim of anything. Just because earth is here, doesn't imply there is a god. Just because certain cosmic phenomenon can be applied to a scientific equation doesn't imply that a big bang theory is an explanation of the earths beginning. They are all theories. Concepts to be explored. To say an atheist will accept any wild theory to avoid admitting to gods existence is ignorant at best to which I will take a major exception to. You may consider me ignorant because I can't accept your existence of a god yet, but I consider your judgement of me to go against what you god claims. We are all searching for some semblance of logic in this debate. To sum it up in some simple attacks against each other doesn't yield knowledge, just resentment.

Lets not confuse science with philosophy. Obviously no science can prove the existence of something outside of science. This is impossible. My explaination was a philosophical and logical one. So far I have heard a resounding "NA-uh" but not much in the way of a rebuttal. Using logic, what is wrong with my analysis that some first cause which fit those requirements caused the universe to begin?

My problem with your logic lies at the claim that you make that only god fits the criteria for that first cause. Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but thats a very narrow supposition ot make.

I said that based on these factors, God fits the description, which is true. However, it is possible that there might be an otherwise unknown cause for the beginnings of the universe. But if something walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is probably a lure for a hunter.

Seriously, we theists describe God as timeless, spaceless, and vastly intelligent and powerful. These are exactly the attributes that would be required in order to cause the formation of something before time and space existed. It walks and talks like a duck.

How about this, suggest something else which is timeless, spaceless, and has the ability (either conciously or unconciously) to order the Universe so exactly upon the instant of its conception. I'll buy anything that fits these factors as a possibility.

[Confused]

It isn't possible to piss me off.

Really? Cool! How do you manage that? I definitely get pissed of - and for me, consider it healthy. Although, there are a limited number of ways to express anger that render it healthy.

Breathe in for 7, out for 7: Karmic breathing helps negate anger. For someone to anger me, they must be close to me. Otherwise I am allowing my emotions to guide my thinking. Read my signature.

But please don't avoid an opinion on my account.

I won't, but I enjoy straying all over the place. For me it is like having a conversation while hiking - every now then you stop and say "look at that black bear. I wonder what he thinks about our conversation. And I wonder why I am so anthropomorphic." And I think this pisses you, uh, I mean, I think this has an undetermined detrimental effect on you.

Detrimental effect? no, but does make me think and I am always thankful for that. At the very least, you are contributing to decreasing the odds of me getting demential or alzheimers 30 years or so from now. Thanks.

You have yielded many great contributions to my quest for which I am thankful.

Now I KNOW you are full of it!
Thank you anyway.

I never say what I don't mean. Had I though your contributions were total BS, I would have put you on my ignore list. I speak true.

[Confused]

As for your many universe theory, it is entirely theoretical and not very widely accepted. So believe it if you must. It simply shows that non-theists will accept ANYTHING before accepting God.

You only need a first cause and it may not be God. It maybe timeless, and spaceless but it may not be God. It only goes to show you theist will call anything God to prove their point.

He said, she said. You can't prove timeless and spaceless as anything more than a concept just as you can't prove god as anything more than a concept. However, an atheist doesn't blindly accept anything before accepting a god. To me, an atheist applies all knowns before making a semi-intelligent deduction. The presence or lack of presence of evidence doesn't support a claim of anything. Just because earth is here, doesn't imply there is a god. Just because certain cosmic phenomenon can be applied to a scientific equation doesn't imply that a big bang theory is an explanation of the earths beginning. They are all theories. Concepts to be explored. To say an atheist will accept any wild theory to avoid admitting to gods existence is ignorant at best to which I will take a major exception to. You may consider me ignorant because I can't accept your existence of a god yet, but I consider your judgement of me to go against what you god claims. We are all searching for some semblance of logic in this debate. To sum it up in some simple attacks against each other doesn't yield knowledge, just resentment.

Lets not confuse science with philosophy. Obviously no science can prove the existence of something outside of science. This is impossible. My explaination was a philosophical and logical one. So far I have heard a resounding "NA-uh" but not much in the way of a rebuttal. Using logic, what is wrong with my analysis that some first cause which fit those requirements caused the universe to begin?

My problem with your logic lies at the claim that you make that only god fits the criteria for that first cause. Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but thats a very narrow supposition ot make.

I said that based on these factors, God fits the description, which is true. However, it is possible that there might be an otherwise unknown cause for the beginnings of the universe. But if something walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is probably a lure for a hunter.

Seriously, we theists describe God as timeless, spaceless, and vastly intelligent and powerful. These are exactly the attributes that would be required in order to cause the formation of something before time and space existed. It walks and talks like a duck.

How about this, suggest something else which is timeless, spaceless, and has the ability (either conciously or unconciously) to order the Universe so exactly upon the instant of its conception. I'll buy anything that fits these factors as a possibility.

Since your suggestion is based on a concept that defies logic, I can't give another suggestion. It has been a long time since I have worked with physics but I am sure somewhere within the latest deveolpments, someone could give an equation for another dimension in which a mathematical equation could fit your criteria. But once again, it is theoretical such as yours is theological and atheists are generally philisophical/theoretical/and logical. Not sure these paths can ever co-habitate.

[QED]

How about this, suggest something else which is timeless, spaceless, and has the ability (either conciously or unconciously) to order the Universe so exactly upon the instant of its conception. I'll buy anything that fits these factors as a possibility.

There are no end of cosmological proposals that do exactly this. That's what I've been trying to get across. The problem seems to be that you have a particular concept of the universe that we inhabit as being, in itself, evidence that it represents the only time and space that can exist. That's rather like being a bacteria trapped inside a bubble of foam riding on the ocean, and concluding that the entirety of space and time exists within your purview.



One of the many exact descriptions of your requirements is met by Chaotic Inflation which I believe I already mentioned:

The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end.

Maybe, deep down, the sheer extent of our universe makes it hard for people to accept that it could be dwarfed by some larger structure:

When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter. That's enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that's how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field.

I think your preconception that atheists will believe in anything rather than believe in God might be holding you back from appreciating the enormous ambiguities that can be seen by some people. Sure, if we are contained in but one bubble with our fantastically finely-tuned physics simply the result of self-selection, we might ask who created all the foam in the first place -- but I think it removes the creator further and further into the background and transforms any preconceived notions about our relationship beyond all theological recognition.

[Bugmaster]

If you wish there was a God, then act like it. Make people realize that you continually look for solutions such as this, and talk about what kinds of scenarios that you have considered. If you haven't done so, then you're not an ideal atheist in my view because you're not allowing hope to have any possibility in your thinking.

No one died and made me the Anti-Pope, so I can't speak for all atheists. I have no idea what an "ideal" atheist looks like. The entire notion sounds kinda silly to me. People are ultimately defined by their actions, not their beliefs.

So, speaking for myself only, I'd say that I have this vague notion that it would be nice if an all-loving God really existed. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to start believing in this entity just on the off chance it exists; nor am I going to start working on implementing this entity (the Singularitarians have my amused blessing, though).

I don't really understand your statement that everything I say should have hope in it. For example, I have no hope, ever, of landing on Europa (the planet, not the union), I'm telling you that right now. Would you prefer it if I closed my eyes and sang, "la la la, Europa here I come" ?

I agree that people should endorse models of reality that they think are true, and not the models that they think are nice, or life-affirming, or politically convenient. But that applies to everyone, not just atheists. In fact, Jesus himself came down pretty hard on hypocrites, with whips IIRC.

[achilles12604]

How about this, suggest something else which is timeless, spaceless, and has the ability (either conciously or unconciously) to order the Universe so exactly upon the instant of its conception. I'll buy anything that fits these factors as a possibility.

There are no end of cosmological proposals that do exactly this. That's what I've been trying to get across. The problem seems to be that you have a particular concept of the universe that we inhabit as being, in itself, evidence that it represents the only time and space that can exist. That's rather like being a bacteria trapped inside a bubble of foam riding on the ocean, and concluding that the entirety of space and time exists within your purview.



One of the many exact descriptions of your requirements is met by Chaotic Inflation which I believe I already mentioned:

The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end.

Maybe, deep down, the sheer extent of our universe makes it hard for people to accept that it could be dwarfed by some larger structure:

When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter. That's enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that's how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field.

I think your preconception that atheists will believe in anything rather than believe in God might be holding you back from appreciating the enormous ambiguities that can be seen by some people. Sure, if we are contained in but one bubble with our fantastically finely-tuned physics simply the result of self-selection, we might ask who created all the foam in the first place -- but I think it removes the creator further and further into the background and transforms any preconceived notions about our relationship beyond all theological recognition.

Pardon me for examining the evidence which is accessable to us and basing conclusion on that rather than offering theories about multiple universes or alternate dimensions and other wonderful, yet entirely untestable things.

Your theories are the same thing as our claim to God as far a science goes. Some things support them but nothing can be conclusive because it is impossible for a finite study such as science to examine the infinate. As you said, we are in a bubble.

[bernee51]

Pardon me for examining the evidence which is accessable to us and basing conclusion on that rather than offering theories about multiple universes or alternate dimensions and other wonderful, yet entirely untestable things.

God is an untestable theory. Wonderful to you but totally rejectable by me.

Those who may hold a view alternate to yours have done exactly as you have..examined the evidence that is accessible to us.

[QED]

Pardon me for examining the evidence which is accessable to us and basing conclusion on that rather than offering theories about multiple universes or alternate dimensions and other wonderful, yet entirely untestable things.

You're excused No, seriously! I form my own conclusions in exactly the same way. All the irony and pathos in our bubble world is freely accessible and so leads me to conclude that one of the many theories I've mentioned is more likely to be the explanation for our existence. As it happens, at least one of the "many universe" theories is testable according to cosmologist Lee Smolin. I can supply details if you're interested.

[achilles12604]

Pardon me for examining the evidence which is accessable to us and basing conclusion on that rather than offering theories about multiple universes or alternate dimensions and other wonderful, yet entirely untestable things.

God is an untestable theory. Wonderful to you but totally rejectable by me.

Those who may hold a view alternate to yours have done exactly as you have..examined the evidence that is accessible to us.

Yea that is what I said in my very next sentence but thanks for repeating it anyway.

[Confused]

Pardon me for examining the evidence which is accessable to us and basing conclusion on that rather than offering theories about multiple universes or alternate dimensions and other wonderful, yet entirely untestable things.

You're excused No, seriously! I form my own conclusions in exactly the same way. All the irony and pathos in our bubble world is freely accessible and so leads me to conclude that one of the many theories I've mentioned is more likely to be the explanation for our existence. As it happens, at least one of the "many universe" theories is testable according to cosmologist Lee Smolin. I can supply details if you're interested.

Please, do share.