For Atheists

[Moxie]

I continue to get the impression that many atheists are religiously materialist, meaning they believe the physical, non-sentient universe is all there is, and ever will be. What concerns me is that, at least in my experience, when an atheist says "there is no evidence", there is a dogmatic force behind the words, no different than when a Christian declares that "Jesus lives!"

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

 

Before the invention of the microscope, thinkers who were not scientists asserted that there were invisible things that get into your body and infect it (now known as viruses). Scientists at the time had no evidence for that though.

Almost everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth until the invention of the telescope.

 

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

[Guest Net Eng]

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

 

Ok. How much technology or evidence is enough ??

 

The preponderance of the evidence shows that every religion is nothing more than make believe. I think people here are open to new evidence, but it has to conform to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Since religions don't want to provide that and science cannot find evidence that supports these beliefs systems...

 

Sounds to me like you are arguing semantics.

[Legion]

What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet?

I have a growing mistrust of materialism, a clockwork universe, and the idea that organisms are machines Sentinel. But I still don't believe that particles are conscious. Just as I don't believe rocks are conscious. I believe consciousness is reserved for some types of organisms.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

It's called atoms, parallel universes (the modern one), singularities, etc.... we know they exist based on what we know to be true. However, supernatural stuff goes against what we know to be true, and therefore we end up not believing it.

 

Before the invention of the microscope, thinkers who were not scientists asserted that there were invisible things that get into your body and infect it (now known as viruses).

Before the invention of glass windows, and well before the knowledge that molecules or cells exist, or even what blood was, people started to realize that the world was made up of atoms. A few centuries later came the invention of the steam engine, but tragically the middle ages came.

 

Almost everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth until the invention of the telescope.

Until the middle ages actually. They even thought the earth was a sphere until the middle ages. The thing is, the middle ages put us back about 1,500 years. Actually, in iron age Babylon, they'd already come to the conclusion that the world wasn't created, that lead to the Enuma Elish and other myths being written, as myths were no longer taken as fact, but as allegory and fun. They even began to pick on their gods, give women more and more freedom and start moving by babysteps out of the dark ages.

 

Babylon influenced Canaanites. The Phoenicians, or northern canaanites moreless, brought western civilization to Greece and Rome. And so Western Civilization entered pretty much a renaissance we call the classical era. By the time the empire of Rome split in half, we were walking into the age of reason. The only reason we didnt get into the industrial era, is that when alexandria discovered steam power, they had no use for it, slavery killed the need before it got there.

 

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

Many of us just don't claim to absolutely know, only a few of us, the rest such as myself, mostly believe that it doesnt exist so strongly because it seems to go against all the facts we see. It may exist, we're open to being wrong.

[par4dcourse]

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

 

 

But what if there isn't? Wasted a lot of time worrying about nothing then, eh?

[Shyone]

I continue to get the impression that many atheists are religiously materialist, meaning they believe the physical, non-sentient universe is all there is, and ever will be. What concerns me is that, at least in my experience, when an atheist says "there is no evidence", there is a dogmatic force behind the words, no different than when a Christian declares that "Jesus lives!"

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

I'm sure there is "more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect."

 

There are probably some new "laws of physics" out there yet to be discovered. One thing should be clear, however. The new laws may modify our current understanding, but the laws will be consistent with what we know.

 

IOW, the laws that we can observe, test and replicate will not suddenly disappear or become invalid. We will just gain new understanding. Particles will still act like particles - mechanical, embued with certain properties, and behaving in predictable ways. Gravity will still suck. Chemicals will still react the same ways and form the same molecules.

 

On the grand scale, there are indeed things we can't ever really know; in part because of physical limitations of the universe. On our scale, it is quite apparent that there is nothing "personal" about the universe. Galaxies don't develop thoughts about human sexuality. Perhaps they think, but I doubt they think about us.

 

Whatever the universe is, and whatever it is doing, we remain the byproduct of billions of years of existence of life. Every animal in our ancestral past that survived and reproduced has helped to shape us, but our backwater existence in the universe is not the cause of the massive number of galaxies or whatever lies beyond our ability to detect.

 

So I am quite certain that there is much that we do not have the technology to detect. But, as Legion said, a rock is not intelligent, [or if it is, it sure gives a good impression of the lack of intelligence. Sure fooled me!]

[Ouroboros]

I continue to get the impression that many atheists are religiously materialist, meaning they believe the physical, non-sentient universe is all there is, and ever will be.

I believe there are more to reality than just this universe. I believe there are a fabric of reality that goes beyond this one. I believe there most likely are some kind of multiverse

 

But I find it hard to keep an open mind to all possible ideas. Some are more likely than others.

 

What concerns me is that, at least in my experience, when an atheist says "there is no evidence", there is a dogmatic force behind the words, no different than when a Christian declares that "Jesus lives!"

Well, because it's really hard (or impossible) to prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist, and yet most of us realize that this is the most logical and grownup conclusion. I'm not sure it's a dogma to take a standpoint against the existence of something that lacks evidence.

 

Just think about it. If the Christian God exists, there should be some evidence that would go beyond just hearsay.

 

But of course, that doesn't mean that other kinds of gods could exist. Like a the deistic God, or Brahman, or ...

 

The problem is when you have a belief in a specific God that is defined as provable, but yet not testable. According to Christians, the Christian God makes himself available to you. But does he? If you do try and notice nothing happens, should you pretend it happened only because you want to please the Christians?

 

Should we keep our minds open for Chtulhu?

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

It's not an "if," but a certainty. Science can't detect what is inside a black hole, and they can't really answer all questions about it. The don't know how quarks work. They don't know what dark matter or dark energy is, or if it even exists. (perhaps it's just a big misunderstanding of how gravity works?)

 

Before the invention of the microscope, thinkers who were not scientists asserted that there were invisible things that get into your body and infect it (now known as viruses). Scientists at the time had no evidence for that though.

Almost everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth until the invention of the telescope.

 

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

Take it the other way, should you believe particles are conscious before you can prove it? And will it ever be possible to prove it?

 

Consider the possibility a higher order of intelligence made contact with us. How would we know? Let's say this immensely intelligent being starts to talk to us through cloud patters. If the cloud pattern resembles a rabbit, he's saying "hi." If it resembles a boat, he's asking "how are you?" How would we know?

 

Have you ever tried to communicate with ants? Can you make yourself understood to the ants, within their framework of thoughts, history, and philosophy what kind of creature you are? If you managed to do it, would they believe you are the creator of the universe, or would they understand that concept of humans and the difference of omnipotence or not?

 

With that said, I'm not against the possibility of some extremely intelligent beings out there, but since there are an infinite amount of possibilities, I can't spend time imagine these things and say "perhaps" or "I believe" to each one of them. It's easier to conclude, perhaps they don't exist, until I know better.

 

When I learned the size of the universe, and the size of some of the giant black holes out there, I realized the Universe is sooooooooooooo much bigger than we can imagine. It's enough to think of this to be in awe for nature.

 

You know, there are black holes that are billions of times larger than our sun. One of them (super massive black holes) are located at the center of our galaxy (it's pretty much confirmed), and it's pulling out star around, and all the other stars (200 billions or more). The closest stars are spinning around the black hole with extreme speeds. Just imagine if one gigantic star in our galaxy would collapse to a black hole, the gamma-radiation burst (if we would be in it's path), would fry our tiny world to crisp, in a second (when it hit us). It would be complete lights out for us. Even if that star was far, far away. I mean, if you really start looking into these things, it's mind boggling.

[florduh]

Religionists have had thousands of years to offer up some evidence to indicate that their respective gods actually exist. To date, zip, nada.

 

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

That has always been the case and I imagine it shall continue to be so. To imagine that some day we will have the technology to find god doesn't make sense to me. Any god worthy of the title is beyond natural discovery. God used to live in the volcano until we learned something about geology, and god created the eclipse until we learned more about astronomy. They have to keep moving god farther away every time we learn more about reality. It's set up so we'll never find him.

[Ouroboros]

That has always been the case and I imagine it shall continue to be so. To imagine that some day we will have the technology to find god doesn't make sense to me. Any god worthy of the title is beyond natural discovery. God used to live in the volcano until we learned something about geology, and god created the eclipse until we learned more about astronomy. They have to keep moving god farther away every time we learn more about reality. It's set up so we'll never find him.

Exactly.

 

God is defined as that thing/being beyond our comprehension, that thing we can't understand or explain yet.

 

It's like being in a house with infinite number of rooms. You go from one room to the next, and someone told you that somewhere, in one of the rooms, there is a chest with a treasure. You keep on looking, and for every room you find empty, you get a little bit less hopeful. But some people keep on maintaining that faith that one room has this magical treasure. You can never talk to anyone who actually has seen the treasure, but you have a lot of people claiming that they can "feel" that it exists. And considering that there are an infinite number of rooms, there could potentially be a room with this magical treasure.

[mwc]

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

In what sense? A supernatural? A paranormal?

 

Before the invention of the microscope, thinkers who were not scientists asserted that there were invisible things that get into your body and infect it (now known as viruses). Scientists at the time had no evidence for that though.

And they are entirely non-thinking, indifferent, creatures. They are to us what we would be to an infinite "god." Think of the size of the universe, the size of all the galaxies within that, the stars within a single average galaxy and on down until you get to an average planet around an average star and then there are 6 billion people sitting there. If we were a bacterial colony inside the human body I doubt you'd even known we existed if you looked really, really, really hard to find us. And humans on a planet are far from the size of bacteria in relation. Us noticing a "god" or vice-versa is a pipe-dream. A nonsensical one at that. Even worse is that this "god" would care about us atomic size bits on any personal level.

 

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

And tell me what you get for being open to this possibility? What is the payoff or goal or gain or purpose or however you'd like to phrase it? Is it simply to be able to say that you're open minded? That you're open to the possibility? That if this "god" (of whatever sort) happens by it will be able to read your mind and know that you were open to it actually existing, since this does seem to be of the utmost importance to all gods above and beyond all things, and then hand you the keys to the kingdom? What?

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

When it comes to the universe, I find it fascinating that there are at least (probably much more) 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe (most of the larger than our sun), and only 6,000,000,000 humans (perhaps 10,000,000,000 total in history, homo sapiens).

 

That means there are 7,000,000,000,000 times more stars than humans!

 

How about that promise by God to Abraham? You will have more offspring than the number of grain of sands... Huh? Yeah, if you wait a trillion years...

 

And now they believe there might be huge amounts of black holes, perhaps just as many or more...

 

Talk about an overkill.

[Antlerman]

I continue to get the impression that many atheists are religiously materialist, meaning they believe the physical, non-sentient universe is all there is, and ever will be. What concerns me is that, at least in my experience, when an atheist says "there is no evidence", there is a dogmatic force behind the words, no different than when a Christian declares that "Jesus lives!"

As a friend of mine said, "But the difference is now I really DO have the truth".

 

I agree with what you are saying about the way "there is no evidence" is used. People believe in things all the time without hard evidence, and to selective use the evidence card against certain beliefs over others, seems a bit disingenuous. However if it is used in response to someone that makes the assertion that what they believe is a fact, and that they can prove it objectively, then that is an appropriate response.

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

More importantly, or may never have the technology to detect. I would say the odds of that are pretty certain. I would suggest that we may find that our reliance on technology to provide a factual basis of how to live and understand reality, is as much limiting to our understanding of the nature of existence itself, as turning to a Holy Book as the Source of Authority was. I find it hard to imagine that our psychological propensity to look for Answers from some source, suddenly changed once we developed our tools of science.

 

 

What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them.

Or that we may find we will never have them and need to find a way to find truth without them.

 

What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

Yes. What if we will never know?

 

The question is, do we live life, act, and believe only in response to discovered "evidence"? Or do we respond to other stimuli that has nothing to do with an evidence-based reality? My vote is for the latter.

[ColorMixer]

"there is no evidence", there is a dogmatic force behind the words, no different than when a Christian declares that "Jesus lives!"

 

Completely false. There is nothing dogmatic about saying "there is no evidence." The only time I would say someone is being dogmatic about it is when you present them the evidence and they reject it anyway without any kind of reason. Are you saying there is evidence that Jesus lives?

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

 

What if? Atheists are free to examine the evidence. We have no reason to believe in anything we do not have evidence for however. Just because you want to say that subspace exists, doesn't mean it actually does. We should not believe that it exists until we can provide some sort of demonstrable evidence first.

 

Before the invention of the microscope, thinkers who were not scientists asserted that there were invisible things that get into your body and infect it (now known as viruses). Scientists at the time had no evidence for that though.

 

This is a simplistic assertion, I doubt people would have just believed randomly that "invisible things" infect you somehow. They probably were able to demonstrate how sickness spreads etc. before there were microscopes. Just because a group of people believe something and it happens to turn out to be correct, doesn't mean that the belief was a good thing. People still believe diseases or weird behavior is demon possession, and perform torturous exorcisms for the sake of that belief.

 

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

 

Why believe particles are conscious? If we will never know this, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are. Why do you think atheists are not open to the possibility of god? You share a lot of misconceptions with Christians about the non-believers...

[Franko47]

I continue to get the impression that many atheists are religiously materialist, meaning they believe the physical, non-sentient universe is all there is, and ever will be.

 

Ourorboros

I believe there are more to reality than just this universe. I believe there are a fabric of reality that goes beyond this one. I believe there most likely are some kind of multiverse

 

But I find it hard to keep an open mind to all possible ideas. Some are more likely than others.

 

 

 

I think that it is highly possible that the greater experiences for the human race are yet still to come.

 

Without getting all mystical, there are a few things we can extrapolate as distinct possibilities over the next couple of centuries, barring natural disaster or a WMD holocaust.

 

1. Nano-technology. The door that could lead to the curing of all disease, cancer and prolonging the lifespan of the individual indefinitely.

 

2. Neurological Transfiguration: Converting (not a copy) the human mind into a cyber-space environment. The knowledge and ability of the individual could increase exponentially, likely at an unbelievable rate.

 

3. Discovering methods of communicating with ET cultures either through our own means or finding their discarded tech within our own solar system.

 

We may find that in a another century or so, that human culture could be living in a radically different state than what it has been accustomed to. I hope so. There's an old saying: "Human history is mainly a bad dream from which we are trying to awake from"

 

It is in fact the process of scientific and philosophical materialism that may be our eventual saviour; it is the means however, not the point. The point is to advance the human individual to higher and higher states of being and capability, in the context of individual freedom and not under constraints made by pseudo-political/religious pundits who fear such a FUTURE.

 

(yes, I'm a Transhumanist/Extropian)

[Ouroboros]

(yes, I'm a Transhumanist/Extropian)

You know what... I think I might be an Extropian too.

[Ancey]

(yes, I'm a Transhumanist/Extropian)

You know what... I think I might be an Extropian too.

 

I might well be a Transhumanist, too... Slightly, at least.

 

If Materialism is the belief that this universe is the only thing we can likely experience, and all there is it are the laws of physics and science and it can all be unified by a single theory yet lacks all supernatural and paranormal activity, sign me up.

 

Materialism is given a bad rap, really. I might not be religiously materialist, but when you think about it, I'll accept a reasoning behind a supernatural idea if given a reasonable scientific explanation... But than it is not longer supernatural if it is explained, now is it?

 

Perhaps there is more to the cosmos, but it's not going to completely destroy all of our scientific theories and laws- it will somehow work in tangent with our understanding, and should likely have an explanation- even if we don't know it yet. We cannot yet even fully comprehend the vastness of our universe, and how old it is, and how old it will eventually be, and whether or not it will die or if it will one day collapse upon itself and usher in a new 'big bang'. It would be great to know those answers- but we are currently stuck to our little blue orb floating around a sun in one solar system in one universe in one branch of space. It might well be unknowable because we just are unable to create the means to understand it due to our very short life spans and dependency on Oxygen, Food, and Water, and eventually limited resources and space on our planet. Maybe one day we'd have the technology... But before than, all sorts of things could happen that would set us back or destroy us- nuclear holocaust, meteor strike, worldwide disease, etc. Likely very far ahead in our future, but eventually we may well go extinct. In which case, maybe another species on earth will develop consciousness and have to go through all the same shite we did before getting as close to completely understanding of the universe as we may do. And that's also assuming they evolve fully before our Sun goes out, too.

 

But for now, I'll be glad learning what I can, enjoying life as much as I can- and realizing the smallness of our world and the strange coincidence that we are here- and think that we're lucky, but not necessarily with destiny aside from the one we want to attain. We're tiny, really. Can't even comprehend how tiny we are in this universe. But we have this little world which we can live on and enjoy. Recognize how unlikely it is that you were the one created out of the millions of sperm and one egg, that your ancestors were the ones who met and procreated, and be in awe of the vastness and how much we can do for being fleshy little bags of meat, capable of emotion and social interaction, art and music and creative thoughts, and smart enough to begin to even understand the universe truly. That's amazing, really. Not supernatural- just amazing.

[agnosticator]

Awesome post Ancey!

[Mriana]

I continue to get the impression that many atheists are religiously materialist, meaning they believe the physical, non-sentient universe is all there is, and ever will be. What concerns me is that, at least in my experience, when an atheist says "there is no evidence", there is a dogmatic force behind the words, no different than when a Christian declares that "Jesus lives!"

 

But what if there is more to the cosmos that we do not yet have the technology to detect?

 

Before the invention of the microscope, thinkers who were not scientists asserted that there were invisible things that get into your body and infect it (now known as viruses). Scientists at the time had no evidence for that though.

Almost everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth until the invention of the telescope.

 

I'm not arguing that the Christian god exists. I don't believe that. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be open to possibilities until we have the technology to either confirm or dismiss them. What if particles are conscious and we just don't know it yet? Or will never know?

 

Sentinel, at the risk of not making any sense, I'm going to attempt to explain how I perceive things. We are all part of the earth, the universe and I think in reality, esp when we get to our basic atoms, we are part of the universe, not apart from it. We are one, yet able to be an entity of ourselves- like an atom, which can exist alone or in combination with others. Of course, we are made up many atoms, but as an entity we can exist alone or in combination with others. However, I really don't want to get too complex with what I'm trying to say, but I'll snatch a few quotes to assist me.

 

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." ~Carl Sagan

 

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man." ~ Albert Einstein

 

"Every seed is awakened and so is all animal life. It is through this mysterious power that we too have our being and we therefore yield to our animal neighbours the same right as ourselves, to inhabit this land." ~ Sitting Bull

 

"Larry King: Do you believe in God?

Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.

Larry King Live, December 25, 1999 "

 

I don't know if you have seen the videos of Symphony of Science or not. When I was child, I thought that overwhelming feeling of oneness with my pets and nature was God, but of course the Xians disagreed. On one hand they were right- it is a neurological reaction to my surroundings. On the other hand, the idea of a deity is purely a human concept and in many cases an attempt to explain what is not yet explainable.

 

I understand how external stimuli triggers a chemical reaction in the brain causing feelings of transcendence, but I do not know what it is. I can say that I think many a scientist has experienced it too, but like me, many of them do not call it God. Whatever it is, it is part of the human condition, it is within us, other animals, the earth, even the universe, and I think one day science will find it and give it a proper label. However, it is not a god, but rather something the connects everything within the universe, making it one, yet autonomous- almost like the human body.

 

Anyway, that is my opinion and I guess in a way, I am agreeing with you, it's just I refuse to label it or call it anymore than what we already know- which is neurological. We know neurology plays a part in it, but I think that is only the beginning of the research on the matter, not the end of it. I also think the human brain is the final frontier that we humans have yet to explore and discover the various mysteries there of, BUT we cannot do it without technology. There are also ethics involved too. We can't just go in and do exploratory surgery. MRI scans are a useful new tool, but I doubt that will be the end to new non-invasive technology. So, yeah. We might one day find more, but I am fairly certain it is not any god of religion we are talking about. I also do not believe it is any concept that human beings have created either.

 

I hope that makes sense to you and others.

[Mriana]

Perhaps there is more to the cosmos, but it's not going to completely destroy all of our scientific theories and laws- it will somehow work in tangent with our understanding, and should likely have an explanation- even if we don't know it yet.

 

I agree that it is not going to destroy all of our scientific theories and laws, but somehow, and this is pure speculation, maybe based in part on a superstition of my own, I think we will find it all within everything and everyone, including the universe, not external to it. So, yes, it would have to work in tandem, much like H and O work together, with a 2 on the H to form water. To the naked eye, these elements are not noticeable and looks like one, but in reality, it is more than one element combined (working together, so to speak) to form what appears to be one thing. Bizarre, I know, but maybe someone if following my thinking.