OFFICIAL Ask An Atheist Thread!

Why are you still posting here if you lost interest? Contradictions...contradictions.

 

Your brain cells dipped.

 

I :smt049 you.
Clover of Awesomeness with 21 leaves!!

 

When Atheists go to court, do they have to swear on the bible?

 

I never been to court to testify, but you do have the option to not have the Bible. If you don't want to swear on the Bible then you'd simply need to raise your right hand and they'll omit the "so help me God" comment.

 

I have to give you props for starting this thread, BBW. I'll be honest with you, even though we are both on the same boat and have similar beliefs and disbeliefs, you have alot more knowledge on science and theology than I do. This is one of those times I wish I was more intelligent and I wish my brain was able to comprehend certain subjects better. I plan on going into the science/medical field for myself soon, so I hope to learn and gain more knowledge about science and the like overtime.

With that said I want to get your opinion about something. This isn't really about the topic. This is more of a philosophical question. It's probably one of the most common philosophical questions. If a tree falls down in a forest, but no one was around to hear it, does make a sound? I guess you can apply science to that as well. I just want to get your perspective. lol

 

There's several ways to answer that but I'll go with good old fashion deductive reasoning. Have you ever experienced anything the size of a tree hitting the ground and not making a sound?

 

I dutifully hope for the best and I wish you luck in your endeavors in the medical field. Once I'm done with civil engineering, I'm debating as to whether I should go into evolutionary biology or genetic engineering. The mechanics of DNA and genetics have taken root in me. If not those, then perhaps a liberal or performance arts field to balance out much of my life.

As for your question, it can be examined from a scientific perspective. It all depends on how you define sound. After all, sound is a wave of energy conducted within the earth. If no one's around, certainly our ears may not hear it, but the waves from the impact of the of the tree hitting of the ground will be "felt" through tectonic motion.

 

I don't really think that makes sense. That we could be here for no reason. That'd be weird. I think there's always a reason for everything. How could there not be?

Like reincarnation?


And somewhere someone said something (I can't find it, but I think it was BBW) about none of us will know what happens after death until we die. What about people who can communicate with people after they've died and tell us about what happens after or someone who experienced a near death experience or someone who was clinically dead then revived, or psychic mediums. Shouldn't that be the way we'd know?

 

Actually, if you read his words carefully, it makes plenty of sense. He didn't include "objectivity" into the matter since objective means of reason would mean there's a predestined means of your existence guided by an outside force. But the way how we experience life is that we create our own meaning of life through our own personal means.

Consider this: The basic foundation of the means to the end is that you are born, you live, and then you die. But between the cycle of birth and death is the means to create your own existence as you see fit. You pretty much have full control of your own determined existence. Whatever it is you yearn for, you can strive for it. But, there was no guided influence in which you're predetermined to do something. Nothing is set in stone.

So, the meaning of life is merely how you shape it.

Truth be told, even people who claimed to have had outer body experiences or "experienced" death tend to exaggerate or lack the means of knowing death in certainty. We'll experience death, but when it happens, it'll be a "violent" outcome.

As for physic mediums...there's no evidence whatsoever of people possessing a sixth sense of a clairvoyant awareness. There's a trick with all that, as are astrology and other new age or mystical practices.

 

Okie dokie, thank you for clarifying.

How do you know they tend to exaggerate? And how much time have you spent studying, researching, and experimenting with things like possessing a sixth sense of a clairvoyant awareness, astrology, and other occult philosophies?

 

I've researched enough of these things and I'll make the following clarifications:

1. Someone who claims they have a sixth sense are often deluded because of a minor psychological increase. Anyone can generate educated guesses if they've experienced such things before. You can say that the Jungian school of psychology utilizing the collective unconscious is the prime explanation for it.

2. Astrology is simply generalizations. We all possess all these traits and outcomes and not one incident is truly unique to that one person. That there is the secret to astrology.

 

It sounds like you just read what a bunch of skeptics have said about scam artists and took it as truth. What books or websites have you read on the subject?

 

When you're a skeptic on new age jargon, it's only natural that you question the absurdities of things like astrology and everything else. I don't merely read what others think. I actually give it a lot of thought and even put some of this to the test.

Example: Astrology
- Basically astrology is a new age mystical practice. The idea that your zodiac is a 100% accurate reflection of who you are and what you'll become is based on generalizations. The truth is it's an exaggeration.

What I did was took a horoscope (Pisces) and basically gave it to everyone, but with a different label according to their own zodiac. They all basically said that they could relate to that since it occurred in their life either by a week or by the minute. Basically, this is called confirmation bias.

 

Astrology doesn't claim to be 100% accurate. There's also a lot to it. Pisces isn't a horoscope, Pisces is a Sun Sign. A horoscope contains a Sun Sign, a Moon Sign, a Descendant, an Ascendant/Rising Sign, Houses, Degrees, Aspects, Qualities, Longitude, Latitude, the time you took your first breath calculated into Star Time compared to GMT etc, Degrees, Planets, Stars, Asteroids, Comets, etc etc etc etc etc. And it's not going to be 100% accurate because who a person is and what they're characteristics are also depends on many other factors like environment, genes, heredity, etc etc etc. If the people you showed the description of Pisces to all claimed to relate to it then that's they're inadequacy, not astrology's. THIS is a HOROSCOPE:

http://astro.cafeastrology.com/cgi-...tylist=Angola,+IN+(18),+United+States&lang=en

An example of one anyway and most of what all goes into it. I don't think you'll find many people who will relate to that.
Also, it depends on the astrologer and how well of an astrologer they are, just like with anything. There are also many different kinds of astrology too. Western Astrology, Eastern Astrology, Vedic Astrology, there's also astrology that describes a person, there's also astrology that divines. I've studied/researched astrology since I was like 13 on and off and I still don't know half of what all there is to know about it, so I am sure you don't either enough to talk negatively about it.
Some people take it too seriously and because it doesn't describe them to a T and their lack of knowledge about it and lack of common sense is what I believe makes them claim it's all BS.

 

Astrology can NEVER substitute, nor work in conjunction with Astronomy, which actually requires a lot of scientific measures and understandings. Plus it lacks the mystical and new age nonsense which follows with astrology. It's a classic example of pseudoscience. None of which you've mentioned really factored into anything other than simple generalizations. That's all astrology is.

I don't need to read into it in-depth to know how silly the concept is altogether. People may take it seriously or say it's factual. But that's like saying there's tangible proof that Jesus rose from the dead and yet, logic would speak otherwise.

 

Astrology isn't supposed to substitute or work in conjunction with Astronomy. But Astrology did give birth to Astronomy. Astrology is more like a belief system and more spiritual, and it's fine if you don't want to believe in it. And of course they use generalizations when describing someone's personality. You can't describe personality traits someone has without using generalizations.

 

Not true at all. Just because Astro is the root word, referring to space and the cosmos, doesn't mean they derived from that point. Astronomy existed far before the conception of Astrology took root.

 

agreed people were looking at the stars long before they knew what they meant astrologically

 

Yes, Astrology preceded Astronomy just as "superstition" preceded science. The reason people first studied the stars/moon/planets was because they wanted to know their significance to their daily lives. This practice continued on into the age of "elightenment", when folks like Galileo, Brahe, etc. started studying the skies with the intention of discovering how exactly they worked.