Why I am an Atheist

Originally posted by Palynka
What do you mean? It's false that something is true because it hasn't been proven false. So your argument has to be more than that.

why does it?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Occam's Razor is why scientific results tend to suggest the lack of gods.

I'm not advocating one idea or the other
But are you telling me that going through the observations to write down equations that represent natural phenomena is a lot simpler than pinning it on some deity?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually its not that it is not measurable in the sense that there is a happometer, but in relation to what the individual and adherent was previously. Thus it becomes a matter of states, unhappy, unfulfilled to happy and fulfilled.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable measurement system to me. Clearly it should be possible to scientifically determine whether your equation:

adherent + application of divine principles = more loving, tolerant, happy and purposeful individual.

does actually hold.
Though of course we need to know what 'divine principles' are.

Originally posted by ua41
I'm not advocating one idea or the other
But are you telling me that going through the observations to write down equations that represent natural phenomena is a lot simpler than pinning it on some deity?

Not quite. The observations and equations provide reliable explanations that give predictable results. Throwing a deity into the mix adds nothing. Replacing the observations and equations with a deity takes away from our ability to understand and predict the natural world. The deity is just added fluff to what is actually useful and effective in science which can distract us from the scientific process.

Originally posted by duecer
why? its no skin off my nose if you don't believe. non-theists generally make claim that faith and faith based groups live under mass delusion yadda yadda. Prove God does not exist, and you'll be able to prove that we're deluded. Until then....

Strawman

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
occam's razor is like murphy's law. bull

That's right. That's how I know there are leprechauns helping the electrons change the display on my clock, and that every President was once a supermodel but was reincarnated.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's right. That's how I know there are leprechauns helping the electrons change the display on my clock, and that every President was once a supermodel but was reincarnated.

>.>

Those aren't leprechauns, they're elves. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by Badwater
>.>

Those aren't leprechauns, they're elves. Just sayin'.

Thats a damn nice picture.

No people. Divine principles cant be measured. Observed from time to time,perhaps, but not really measured.
I think Einstein died trying to find the theory of everything.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Art is the refinement of perception. Artists are more aware of their environments than say mathematicians.

The conscience and morality are part of our social mentality. We're like wolves or cattle; we're social animals with social instincts.

Spirituality is like art; those who are always looking for friends, enemies, and explanations will tend ...[text shortened]... e of the reality around them.

I'm not sure what a strictly materialistic point of view is.

First, please tell me than when you all say "art" or "artist" you all refer to swirly colours and 'pretty pictures' as opposed to the endeavours of precisely rendering on paper (or canvas, or clay, or...) the world around us (or imagined) which is the sort of 'art'(?) I admire and (try to) do. Secondly, would I be correct in saying that we maths people are supposed to be less less able to spot the 'beautiful' facets of our environments? (My challenge to that is subjectivity)

Originally posted by Agerg
First, please tell me than when you all say "art" or "artist" you all refer to swirly colours and 'pretty pictures' as opposed to the endeavours of precisely rendering on paper (or canvas, or clay, or...) the world around us (or imagined) which is the sort of 'art'(?) I admire and (try to) do. Secondly, would I be correct in saying that we maths people are sup ...[text shortened]... 'beautiful' facets of our environments? (My challenge to that is subjectivity)

art cannot really function i think without mathematics. there are of course varying degrees. Art that is produced purely by mathematics, like fractals, or art that distorts mathematics by utilising creative perspective. Others like Cubism which seems to try to render three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Again there are artists like Escher who use mathematics in a very creative and imaginative way. Even Dali himself was more of a draughtsman than an dreamer. Yes i think the two are inseparable, although i would like to see someone attempt 'art', without recourse to mathematics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
art cannot really function i think without mathematics. there are of course varying degrees. Art that is produced purely by mathematics, like fractals, or art that distorts mathematics by utilising creative perspective. Others like Cubism which seems to try to render three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Again there are artists like Escher ...[text shortened]... eparable, although i would like to see someone attempt 'art', without recourse to mathematics.

Escher!!!...I frickin love his work! more so than any other artist! 🙂

As far as defining 'art' goes I suppose it's link with mathematics hinges upon the definition you choose. The 'artistic'(???) works of Tracy Emin and others of that ilk seem (in my opinion) to be quite divorced from anything that even in the dizziest heights of ambiguity could be linked with some branch maths (in any way that wasn't trivial that is).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
art cannot really function i think without mathematics. there are of course varying degrees. Art that is produced purely by mathematics, like fractals, or art that distorts mathematics by utilising creative perspective. Others like Cubism which seems to try to render three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Again there are artists like Escher ...[text shortened]... eparable, although i would like to see someone attempt 'art', without recourse to mathematics.

Yes surrealism was spawned from dadaism. I would say dada has virtually no mathematics in it. Whether you call it 'art' is an endless debate in itself. I do.

Originally posted by 667joe
That is exactly my point! You are the one with weak critical thinking skills!

So perhaps you could tell me how life came about via abiogenesis, using your critical thinking skills of course.

Originally posted by Agerg
Escher!!!...I frickin love his work! more so than any other artist! 🙂

As far as defining 'art' goes I suppose it's link with mathematics hinges upon the definition you choose. The 'artistic'(???) works of Tracy Emin and others of that ilk seem (in my opinion) to be quite divorced from anything that even in the dizziest heights of ambiguity could be linked with some branch maths (in any way that wasn't trivial that is).

i defy anyone , you could pick ten random persons off the street and you could produce art, as equally valid as Tracy Emin. In fact in some of the degree shows that i have attended, its hard to tell if the 'artists', have actually studied art for four years or not. Conceptual art is produced by people that cannot draw, paint or sculpture 😉!

Originally posted by ua41
So you're an atheist because science categorizes terms and phenomena in a system of categorization? Sure, we can explain things my natural laws and stuff, but it will never answer why those natural laws are in place or why certain things should happen et cetera.

Why are we stuck to the ground?
Because of gravity
What is gravity?
The attractive force we a ...[text shortened]... where it calls for the absence of a god
Same with rainbows, and thunder and the sun et cetera.

==================================
The attractive force we associate between two masses
Why does it work?
===================================

Its better than that. Current science informs me that gravity is the effect caused by the bending of spacetime around mass.

What? Yes, gravity is an effect caused by the curvature of spacetime around mass.

Now, I don't doubt this is on to something. I certainly don't mock it. But I've been told that the concept cannot be visualized except in mathematical formulas.

All the diagrams of the curvature of the fabric of space, I have been told, do not do justice to Einstien's explanation. They are only crude approximations to aid the mind.

The next time you drop something and it falls to the floor with a thud, just remember you have just witnessed the effect of the curvature of spacetime around mass.


Okay, way out stuff. But it doesn't to me argue for the non-existence of an Intellegent Maker of Laws by which creation runs. In my opinion technology is evidence of man reading out of nature intellegent forces and laws which were put into nature.

I see the results of a big Mind.