addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [atheists-27] Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

From: Mathew G.
Sent on: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:51 PM
The book of John self-claims that it is a vouchsafed, eyewitness, factual, historical, account of one of the disciples.  The empirical evidence indicates this is false.  In fact, the overall empirical evidences unavoidably lead to the conclusion that no religion originated from a proper grounding in empirical evidences, and on that grounds alone we must conclude that all religions are fictional.  The likelihood of anyone guessing what is true about how our universe works on a cosmic scale from their personal intuition alone is indistinguishable from zero percent.

There are clearly better and worse ways to evaluate what is valid evidence and what is not.  To declare that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's is nonsense.  Personal righteousness in general, for example, has nothing directly to do with ability to evaluate evidence, although commitment to truth, as one element of righteousness, is obviously needed.  In fact, favoring ideology or fixed outcomes over truth is arguably one of the most common mistakes people make.  Almost everyone has the ability to evaluate the overall empirical evidences impartially and competently, and almost everyone does this to some extent.  People are just inconsistent, and in contexts were being correct is less important to them than being psychologically satisfied, they go with the later over the former.  It's also more difficult and time consuming to study and understand the evidences.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Glen <[address removed]> wrote:


Keep in mind that evidence requires an interpreter. The book of Romans makes it clear that although men know God, they would not acknowledge Him nor give thanks to Him as evidence of His wrath is clearly seen and understood. The problem, according to The Scriptures is not a lack of evidence but rather men suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

In a court of law (based on judeo-christian models) a judge has to make a decision whether evidence is admissable. Typically, a defense attorney seeks a motion to "supress", evidence whereas the prosecutor seeks to have the evidence admitted. Ultimately, the judge as the decisionmaker renders a decision whether to admit or suppress this evidence. The question we have to ask is whether the evidence we choose to suppress is disposed of justly. 

Often in an exchange of ideas, the party who seeks to suppress the evidence is the same party who judges the evidence inadmissable. Moreover, even if all evidence is deemed admissable, the judge would have to have capacity to interpret the evidence correctly. It may be presumptuous to assume that the judge himself is able to discern and interpret the evidence correctly.


On Sunday, March 24, 2013, Chad wrote:
Atheists and religious people alike have beliefs that cannot be proven by evidence, logic, or reason.  An atheist does not know there is no god, they believe it to be true.  Atheists accept this belief because it works out better intellectually than the religious alternative.  However, they can never know for certain.  Which brings me to agnostics.  An agnostic carries the same beliefs but portends to be more clever or smarter than the atheist.  Boiled down both have the same beliefs.  Recently, I watched Dr. John Shook in one of his God debates.  He rather smartly pointed out that scientists and philosophers all around the world believe in the principle of uniformity: what we observe now of the laws of nature happens everywhere in the natural universe, always has and always will.  However,  there is no evidence to support this whatsoever.  They assume it from the outset in order to explain coherently scientific evidence  about the Universe.  Makes things make sense.  Religious people make this same assumption with the Koran and the Bible to explain things about the Universe.  My overall point is that there are many things  people BELIEVE to be true but could never KNOW to be true. For example: I don't believe the Dali Llama is living his seventh life cycle but i cannot know-know.
 What makes an atheist/agnostic better, I believe, is their logical assessment of evidence.  Religious people tend to lack real intellectual curiosity (outside of church/temple/mosque propaganda) and are from birth bullied into their  beliefs. It should be a capital crime to damage a the soft brain of a child with tales of the Arch, sharia law, or whatever it is the jews do their kids. 


From: Zhibo Lai <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, March 24,[masked]:57 AM
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Matthew, good points and good question "why are we atheists." I've always been curious about this answer from other people as well.

My answer is I consider myself an "atheist" more so on the grounds of semantics, after long discussions with a good atheist friend. Though, what I really consider myself is an agnostic--one who does not know whether there is a god or not. Again, it's purely a semantic difference here. If to be an atheist is to say "I do not believe in god," then I'm an atheist. However, a belief is not the same as "I know there is no god." For to "know" in this case is to say I'm absolutely certain there is no god. And I can be absolutely certain of nothing, not even "I think, therefore I am." <- this is another topic, i won't get into here> Thus, I still consider myself an agonistic.

The word God is an overloaded term which means many different things to different people. If you define god as an all good, all powerful, all knowing creator of everything that sent Jesus down to absolve our sins, then I can safely say I'm 99.99% certain this god does not exist. But, if you say god is simply the creator of our universe, and that's all we know (it could be limited in power, intelligence, or even dead by now), then I would be fully agnostic in this definition, for I have no evidence or experience to suggest that this god does or does not exist.

I'm also a fan of quantum physics, though it's way above my IQ grade, I read the dumbed down laymen's books of it. In this relatively new field of physics, it opens up a lot more possibility for there to exist this creator/god. For example, in recent science news, physicist are now searching for proof that we live in a simulation. Here's one such article

If it turns out to be true that we live in a matrix like simulated world, then there is a God(s)--with respect to the definition that it is our Creator(s). What then do we make of such a group called the atheists?

From: Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]>

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Chad ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Chad , visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Glen ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Glen, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy