What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[WestRedMaple]

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

You guys keep claiming this.

I only state it because it is reality.

[Mavorpen]

Which begs the question, of course, why you're applying rules of this universe outside of the universe? Why forego consistency?

I'm not. Not sure how you got that idea.

Yes, you are. You compared the universe to a skyscraper. You're applying the concept that things that complex are logically made by a conscious entity. What is your basis for this? Because you sure as hell haven't provided any scientific one. Your argument is entirely faith based.

[Galloism]

You guys keep claiming this.

I'm sure they would keep claiming 2+2=4 if people kept insisting it wasn't. That's kind of how responding to people works.

Except there is mathematical proof that 2+2=4, as follows:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

[The Alma Mater]

Except our rules upon which everything we're discussing relies, in that scenario (not one I personally subscribe to, just was apropo to the post I responded to), only exist within the simulation.

The rules of the "actual universe", if you will, may be massively different.

Which begs the question, of course, why you're applying rules of this universe outside of the universe? Why forego consistency?

He isn't ? He is explaining that IF we e.g. are living in a simulation, the physics of the universe of the people running the simulation could be vastly different from our own. Like how the physics and the limits of the universe of the poular computer game "The Sims" are not the same as ours.

So while he calls it unlikely that the structure and order of our own universe was not designed in some way he does not believe the same has to be true for the structure of all other universes.

[Galloism]

You guys keep claiming this.

I only state it because it is reality.

So you say.

[Des-Bal]

Atheism is the logical result of the absolute absence of evidence for the existence of any kind of god. Even Agnosticism gives too much credence to a totally unsubstantiated idea.

[Dyakovo]

I'm sure they would keep claiming 2+2=4 if people kept insisting it wasn't. That's kind of how responding to people works.

Except there is mathematical proof that 2+2=4, as follows:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

And lack of belief requires zero faith, ergo atheism requires zero faith.

[Mavorpen]

I'm sure they would keep claiming 2+2=4 if people kept insisting it wasn't. That's kind of how responding to people works.

Except there is mathematical proof that 2+2=4, as follows:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

Yes. And?

[Galloism]

Which begs the question, of course, why you're applying rules of this universe outside of the universe? Why forego consistency?

He isn't ? He is explaining that IF we e.g. are living in a simulation, the physics of the universe of the people running the simulation could be vastly different from our own. Like how the physics and the limits of the universe of the poular computer game "The Sims" are not the same as ours.

So while he calls it unlikely that the structure and order of our own universe was not designed in some way he does not believe the same has to be true for the structure of all other universes.

Quite so. Thank you.

Just because something is the way it is here does not mean it has to be the same everywhere.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm sure they would keep claiming 2+2=4 if people kept insisting it wasn't. That's kind of how responding to people works.

Except there is mathematical proof that 2+2=4, as follows:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

Now I can print this and give it to everyone who says "2+2 sometimes equals 5" when talking about medicine or something else

[Mavorpen]

He isn't ? He is explaining that IF we e.g. are living in a simulation, the physics of the universe of the people running the simulation could be vastly different from our own. Like how the physics and the limits of the universe of the poular computer game "The Sims" are not the same as ours.

So while he calls it unlikely that the structure and order of our own universe was not designed in some way he does not believe the same has to be true for the structure of all other universes.

Quite so. Thank you.

Just because something is the way it is here does not mean it has to be the same everywhere.

That's nice. Now respond to my post.

I'm not. Not sure how you got that idea.

Yes, you are. You compared the universe to a skyscraper. You're applying the concept that things that complex are logically made by a conscious entity. What is your basis for this? Because you sure as hell haven't provided any scientific one. Your argument is entirely faith based.

[Mavorpen]

Which begs the question, of course, why you're applying rules of this universe outside of the universe? Why forego consistency?

He isn't ? He is explaining that IF we e.g. are living in a simulation, the physics of the universe of the people running the simulation could be vastly different from our own. Like how the physics and the limits of the universe of the poular computer game "The Sims" are not the same as ours.

So while he calls it unlikely that the structure and order of our own universe was not designed in some way he does not believe the same has to be true for the structure of all other universes.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about "other universes."

[Galloism]

Except there is mathematical proof that 2+2=4, as follows:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

Yes. And?

That goes beyond restating the same thing over and over again like you're beating a drum. It has proof behind it.

No one has proven that atheism requires zero faith. They've just restated it over and over.

[Mavorpen]

Yes. And?

That goes beyond restating the same thing over and over again like you're beating a drum. It has proof behind it.

No one has proven that atheism requires zero faith. They've just restated it over and over.

Again, and? You're tilting at windmills. Not once did I comment on the level of proof.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

He isn't ? He is explaining that IF we e.g. are living in a simulation, the physics of the universe of the people running the simulation could be vastly different from our own. Like how the physics and the limits of the universe of the poular computer game "The Sims" are not the same as ours.

So while he calls it unlikely that the structure and order of our own universe was not designed in some way he does not believe the same has to be true for the structure of all other universes.

Quite so. Thank you.

Just because something is the way it is here does not mean it has to be the same everywhere.

Yes, it does. Everything has to be the same everywhere. What we perceive as reality may be a simulation within a universe, but the properties of the actual universe still apply without exception.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quite so. Thank you.

Just because something is the way it is here does not mean it has to be the same everywhere.

Yes, it does. Everything has to be the same everywhere. What we perceive as reality may be a simulation within a universe, but the properties of the actual universe still apply without exception.

So the universe in which, say, Mario Brothers exist is the same as our universe?

Does that mean I can go eat red mushrooms and become a giant, then? Because that is exactly what you're arguing.

[WestRedMaple]

I only state it because it is reality.

So you say.

I, and everyone else grasping the concept of atheism.

This should not be too terribly surprising, given that nobody has been able to find any required faith for it.

[Galloism]

I'm not. Not sure how you got that idea.

Yes, you are. You compared the universe to a skyscraper. You're applying the concept that things that complex are logically made by a conscious entity. What is your basis for this? Because you sure as hell haven't provided any scientific one. Your argument is entirely faith based.

Well, it wasn't a perfect analogy. Aside from restating a "universe within a universe" as an example again, there's no real way to draw an absolute and direct comparison. No analogy within our universal context is perfect.

It was not intended to imply that the laws are necessarily the same. It was intended that understanding something does not automatically imply lack of intelligence. Sometimes, it confirms intelligence instead.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, you are. You compared the universe to a skyscraper. You're applying the concept that things that complex are logically made by a conscious entity. What is your basis for this? Because you sure as hell haven't provided any scientific one. Your argument is entirely faith based.

Well, it wasn't a perfect analogy. Aside from restating a "universe within a universe" as an example again, there's no real way to draw an absolute and direct comparison. No analogy within our universal context is perfect.

It was not intended to imply that the laws are necessarily the same. It was intended that understanding something does not automatically imply lack of intelligence. Sometimes, it confirms intelligence instead.

Except no it doesn't. Not once does it confirm intelligence. The actual demonstration of the existence of intelligence confirms intelligence. You're completely skipping that step and taking a leap of faith. You're not being scientific. You're adding faith based assumptions to a theory. I have no idea what experience you've had with science, but you don't do that.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Yes, it does. Everything has to be the same everywhere. What we perceive as reality may be a simulation within a universe, but the properties of the actual universe still apply without exception.

So the universe in which, say, Mario Brothers exist is the same as our universe?

Does that mean I can go eat red mushrooms and become a giant, then? Because that is exactly what you're arguing.

the properties of the universe apply to the physical media of mario brothers videogames, as well as the electrical interactions that allow such games to function and be played. The games are fiction, though. Fiction is something we made up in the universe, but fictions are not part of the universe.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you say.

I, and everyone else grasping the concept of atheism.

This should not be too terribly surprising, given that nobody has been able to find any required faith for it.

Only for gnostic atheism which is, presumably, the knowledge that God doesn't exist.

However, I have a hard time believing anyone who says is a lack of faith would actually ascribe to the worldview they know and are absolutely positive that there is no deities whatsoever, as that requires formal proof.

[Galloism]

That goes beyond restating the same thing over and over again like you're beating a drum. It has proof behind it.

No one has proven that atheism requires zero faith. They've just restated it over and over.

Again, and? You're tilting at windmills. Not once did I comment on the level of proof.

Typically, when a person takes issue with a claim, one is to provide proof of that claim.

The claim was made that atheism requires zero proof. If someone claimed that 2+2=4, and I was doubtful of that, that person would post proof of it (which I've just done). However, repeating the same claim without proof does nothing.

[Ashmoria]

didn't the pope recently suggest that righteous atheists can go to heaven?

Both atheists and homosexuals are welcome in heaven, according to the pope. Also according to (a different) pope, purgatory no longer exists. Not never did exist, but the pope actually abolished purgatory.

noooo It wasn't purgatory it was limbo.

there were 2 kinds of limbo--the one that held the righteous patriarch and prophets from before the death of jesus, and the one that held the souls of unbaptized babies (and maybe other unbaptized innocents).

so the first kind was already empty--those guys went to heaven with jesus--and the pope declared that dead babies go to heaven, no limbo necessary.

[WestRedMaple]

I, and everyone else grasping the concept of atheism.

This should not be too terribly surprising, given that nobody has been able to find any required faith for it.

Only for gnostic atheism which is, presumably, the knowledge that God doesn't exist.

However, I have a hard time believing anyone who says is a lack of faith would actually ascribe to the worldview they know and are absolutely positive that there is no deities whatsoever, as that requires formal proof.

Which, of course isn't atheism itself, but a modified subset of it. Mere atheism makes no claim about existence of any god or gods

[Mavorpen]

Again, and? You're tilting at windmills. Not once did I comment on the level of proof.

Typically, when a person takes issue with a claim, one is to provide proof of that claim.

The claim was made that atheism requires zero proof. If someone claimed that 2+2=4, and I was doubtful of that, that person would post proof of it (which I've just done). However, repeating the same claim without proof does nothing.

Again, this has utterly nothing to do with my point. You're making this much more complicated than it ever was.