The Atheist Experience answers The Question

[kindredsoul79]

Where there is nothing( no space), there is no time. Where there is no time, there is no reality. This is the gist of his statement. There is no talk of alternate cosmogony theories. It is a reiteration of the current one, as understood today.

[atheismisreligion]

@kindredsoul79 "The current cosmogony" That is precisely why atheism is a (bad) religion. It only examines its own cosmogony. A philosophical Christian or an agnostic is likely to have studied what it means to just use a label like "time" without providing references or proposing an experiment. The movie "Source Code" is suggestive of experiments (computer) in the meaning of the label "time" and the book "Introducing Time" is a good reference. There, I completely undid their episode&religion

[kindredsoul79]

@atheismisreligion Atheism is not a religion sir, it is the lack there of. Understanding the perceivable reality is the only thing we can do. If you try to attach things that are not observable, you are making things up. Space/Time is observable. If there is a part where there is no space, there is no time. Your reference to a horrible movie and a book that attempts to teach complex time theories to children, betrays the small amount of understanding you truly have.

[atheismisreligion]

@kindredsoul79 "Atheism is a lack of religion". Atheism is the opposite, it is an intolerant religion. From a practical perspective it is largely based on the Abrahamic religions. Christianity is a very tolerant religion, by and large. As for betraying anything, I dunno, I thought I'd start simple since I don't know you.

[boochainletters12]

@atheismisreligion Athiesm has no dogma, it has no deity, it has no holy scripture, it is not a religion. By and large Christianity is a tolerant religion? Well, I don't see any atheists preaching the 'word of god' every time I go to the city. I don't see any atheists threatening people with hell. What is it about the lack of a theistic belief that makes you think atheism is a religion anyway?

[atheismisreligion]

@boochainletters I don't preach the word of god. I stick to rational analogs, especially with my children. For example "You may not encounter evidence of a 'personal god', but that does not mean my security cameras will not capture your image spray painting LIEBERAL on my garage door" (example). In that regard, take yesterday, my children have never seen a graffiti artist the whole time they've gone to school, but for only the 2nd time in their highschool career, I went there.. and I saw one.

[atheismisreligion]

@boochainletters12 "lack of theistic belief" It is the logical fallacy of it. You need to define deity. The 4 horsemen, as they are called, are the dogmatic leaders of atheism, and they pick "Abrahamic God of the Bible" as the definition of deity they expend effort to prove the non-existence of. It won't work if, for hypothetical purposes, you choose the meaning of "deity" to be "The Matrix" in the movie of the same title (a less than all-powerful deity).

[kindredsoul79]

Wow, the maker of this video is ignorant. Matt was talking about "who/what" in relation to a god...not gunpowder. You are using idiotic logic in your attempt at calling him an idiot.

[atheismisreligion]

@kindredsoul79 "ignorant" Its funny how ignorant non-intellectual people are the first to claim intellectuals are ignorant. By using "what" for God, he removes the need for a "personal" god in his argument, plain and simple.

[kindredsoul79]

@atheismisreligion Well, by your name, one would assume you are one of the sheep who follows other peoples backwater dribble. But, I will not do so. I would like to assume you are a smart, intelligent person. Calling a person ignorant is not the same as calling them non-intellectual. But, I will not stoop to the level of insulting your intelligence.

[kindredsoul79]

@atheismisreligion However...your argument that God is not a "what" is invalid. There is no existing without being a "what". You must first be a "what", before the argument can be made for "who". Also, the argument for a "personal" God is not a very good one as well. God can not be of everyone, and everything, as well as being every believers "personal God". By being a personal God, it would make the definition of who, AND what God is, different for every person who believes.

[atheismisreligion]

@kindredsoul79 "what/who" You've misunderstood me either in the video or in what I've written. I'm talking about cosmogony, i.e. the basis of the reality that is perceived. In particular their "There's no time" comment, that is the equivalent of going outside of perceived reality [and starting to discuss alternative theories of cosmogony].

[thethirdchimp]

incoherent and pointless, well played sir!

[4ta2r]

who and what could be the same thing, we really know next to fuck when we try and prove stuff like this without seeing the whole picture, which is really improbable in one lifetime.

[atheismisreligion]

@4ta2r Not really.  If you can create a naturalistic model that works, which is what much of philosophy is about, you may gain insights not just in your life, but as has already happened in mine.

[4ta2r]

@atheismisreligion it all comes down to whatever satisfies you, but there is no way of being sure of it.  but that is kind of the point of it

[atheismisreligion]

@4ta2r Still, if it is scientific and makes predictions its more than a mere emotion, it has utility. Like take for example stocks. Usually there's a lot of emotion, but if "shorting" turns your emotions about the news around *and* you make money on days like today, then connecting "bad" to "down market" is no longer a "problem".

[eoinroe]

rubbish

[dukeigthorn20]

This video made no sense to me

[atheismisreligion]

The point was it does not matter if you class god as a who or a what, it makes no a bit of difference if the end result is the same thing.

[Inmylifealive]

@atheismisreligion yes it does

[M1ST3RHYDE]

FAIL for Miss understanding what a question is and can be.

NOT All questions can be turned around in the attempts to disprove the other side.

If Matt was Dead & The police asked you if you Shot him, Your argument can not be based on asking Me -Did you shot Matt & When I say NO you state your defence as It proving you didnt do it because an answer to the Question Did you shoot Matt was NO.

Questions Can & Do work when they point1 way. Chemistry explains It doesnt Alow

[haltensie]

This is stupid and you are stupid...

[atheismisreligion]

That's right my friend, atheism is based on a logical fallacy. Too bad you have not learned that yet.

[haltensie]

I strongly disagree mi amigo. Atheism is at the moment and probably through out the future indefinitely the only logical conclusion. With no evidence for a god the default for a rational mind must be atheism.

Now I don't know if something tragic happened in your life or if you were just heavily indoctrinated as a child, but regardless you are gambling your life away.

And your vid here doesn't even make much sense btw...

[atheismisreligion]

I didn't even mention god. It's a simple logical fallacy. Atheist Experience commits it and so do you. You bring up assumption after assumption. It is part of the rot of basing thought on logical fallacies. Even Ayn Rand was smarter than that.

[haltensie]

Well, I can certainly tell that you are not an atheist right off the bat because of your user name and this video which points out a supposed logical fallacy of atheism even though there is none and what was said in your vid just seems to be complete giberish, all strongly suggest to me that you are a theist. So no direct mention of god is needed from you to know what you are talking about.

[atheismisreligion]

The character on the right appears to conclude that "a what" wrote the laws of physics, and then immediately following the assertion that physics exists outside the experience of man is refuted by Martin Wagner of "The Atheist Experience". Its a laughable point of view only atheists could come up with.

[nick260682]

I would submit that the use of the word "what" on Matt's behalf was simply a mistake, and not at all what he actually meant.

What he meant was (in my opinion, I could be wrong) it isn't neccessarily anything that "wrote" the laws of physics. They are only "laws" because we call them that. But they aren't laws like criminal law that man arbitrarily comes up with.

And not many atheists claim to be able to prove there is no god. The burden of proof is on the theists making the claim.

[atheismisreligion]

It is atheist behavior not so much basic beliefs that is at issue. Their behavior in discussions about macro-evolution, logic and such. There seems to be very low intellectual integrity in those areas among atheists. The source of the laws of physics is not known. This is an area of philosophy called metaphysics, however there is evidence that many are related to field interactions.

[drandersw]

@atheismisreligion

Physics does exist even with no people around. Martin was talking about matter. Time is a part of the description of the natural laws that govern the universe.

No person or strange person 'wrote'(?) the laws of physics. That is an outrageous claim. It is completely insane to believe that because of what reality in fact is.

When you talk about create wrt to your god then you really mean abracadabra. When humans create it is manufacture. It is a different kind of create.

[atheismisreligion]

@drandersw All of these things are just words, meaning they are interpretations of reality. You are refering to "objectivism", or objective reality.  Time only exists because of people, or more precisely, consciousness of its presence and a record of its existence. You need a different concept or word for the record of physical interactions prior to the subjective experience of the flow of time, which is a human thing. Long books have been written about the philosophical aspect of time.

[drandersw]

The philosophy you are referring to is confused thoughts by confused minds.

I know quite a bit about how a brain works. The stuff going on inside of us, these thought patterns, with lots of very abstract concepts, is giving us this experience.

Anyway, you seem very confused.

There is nothing strange about time. It took just as long for the Earth to spin around the sun before any modern human appeared on the planet.

Do you want a special word for how you experience time?

[drandersw]

I will give you some examples of things that did not exist before life appeared:

hunger, fear, anger, sadness, love, hate...

However, time did exist. "Boring" did not exist but it can make you feel that time goes slower.

Before life appeared we already had quarks in elementary particles that interact according to natural laws and make up all that we see today. More insights about what the universe is may come.

[atheismisreligion]

@drandersw Do you just like typing up random opinions or something? "Introducing Time" is a good book to start with.

[atheismisreligion]

@drandersw About "That is an outrageous claim". Philosophers have been considering the nature of reality for a very long time, I think you misused the word "claim". As for creation of the laws of physics, again, they are derived from more basic things, like the same thing "inertia" originates from, whatever that is. I'm not sure the "word" god has been introduced into this debate just yet. We are currently considering evidence.

[drandersw]

Your accusations don't make any sense. You are the one making outrageous claims. I am a scientist and as such observe reality, propose and test models that describe it. Nothing else.

1. What did I say that was a random opinion?

2. Are you assuming that the laws of nature were created?

2.1 If so, explain what that creation process was and how it took place although there weren't any laws of nature.

2.2 Present real evidence for your claims.

You can't prove things that are false so you will fail.

[atheismisreligion]

1. random opinion: "confused thoughts by confused minds". The book "Introducing Time" rebuts this.

2. I try not to make assumptions. I am aware of academic and scientific research into the origin of the laws of physics.  orig. of intertia is not known. Orig. of others seems to be conservation laws (field interactions)

2.1 My opinion is that its the same thing that gives rise to inertia.

2.2 "Introducing Time" is a real book, I own it, I read it, I understood it.

[drandersw]

Anyone can write any kind of nonsense in a book. A book does not constitute proof of anything. It is at best an account of a proof. Those books are called science books.

Be careful not to make assumptions in your questions. The easiest way to avoid it is to ask questions about observed phenomena. You have not observed an origin of any law of nature so why assume that there is an origin? It seems more logical to me that the laws always existed.

[atheismisreligion]

"anyone can write any kind of nonsense in a book". ...another ridiculous random opinion. Anyone can give you verifiable information in any form, including books, like for example, "There is a stalagmite with a sign that says 'man in the cave' in Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico". And sorry, I do have some ideas on the origin of physical laws; field interactions, etc., I mentioned before. You've heard of google, right?

[atheismisreligion]

You can't be a scientist and not know that books can present evidence that can be validated. You made that up. I'm arguing with a high schooler.

[drandersw]

Okidok, live in your fantasy if you wish.

Did I tell you that I tell you that I am a scientist? That is my job. If you think that I only have high school when I have a Ph.D. then that statement is just more information about you just like your user name "atheismisreligion" which is about as retarded as retarded gets.

[atheismisreligion]

fuck off moron.

[atheismisreligion]

A quick google of drandersw shows someone who talks about his acne scars and thoughts on "Wii-fit", douchebag.

[drandersw]

@atheismisreligion that was the most hilarious desperation for lack of argument.

The fact still remains. You are still a person who thinks that time only exists if people exist and that some invisible wizard 'invented'? the laws of nature? And you also think atheism is a religion and you think things are true because they appear in books and now you also seem to think that humans can't play with Wii-fit? Would you be embarrassed if you were caught playing with Wii-fit? Is that a sin for you?

[atheismisreligion]

@drandersw You're bad at quoting.

1. I never mentioned god to you

2. I never claimed what you said about books. I have said that they provide verifiable information.

3. Atheism was upheld as a religion by the 5th Circuit Appeals Court in 2005

4. Can we skip the Wii-fit discussion? My kids like it.

5. I don't believe in sin. Actions have consequences in the real world, plain and simple. Including the yet to be discovered consequences.

[atheismisreligion]

There is no lack of argument, you fail to observe a critical feature of writing both here and in books. I presented possible evidence that you considered buying a wiifit. I do not know the truth of this, but you do know the source *and* the truth of it. This is not just any old nonsense. You can *verify* what is written by looking on google to see if the info is there and *also* the final fact of whether or not it was you, as drandersw that wrote it. This is a critical failing of yours.

[drandersw]

@atheismisreligion regarding embarrassment. It blows my mind how you can defend belief in some invisible guy that just magically burped out the whole universe *from nothing* (insane) without even existing (immaterial=not existing).

How can you do this? I don't get it. I would much rather be caught naked in the middle of a city than defend this. Why don't you defend the one about Santa Clause instead? At least that is physically possible except for the Christmas activity.

[atheismisreligion]

@dandersw More misquotes

1. I never mentioned an "invisible guy"

2. I never mentioned "burped out" or

3. "from nothing" (ex nihilo)

4. I'm not too concerned if you are a nudist. it is your right.

Could we get back to the nature of "time"?

[atheismisreligion]

Btw, if you do live in Oakland and are who I think you are, I would be happy to delete anything you feel is insulting, but at this point, I think you are only pretending to be him.

[Philosoraptor77]

@atheismisreligion

Oh looky! atheismisareligion just learned how to use adult words! Instead of giving an intelligent response, why not just insult people? After all, it's so much easier.

[atheismisreligion]

@Philosoraptor77 You appear to have gone away without the use of any stern words from me at all. That's the beauty of philosophical language.

[DogBoots77]

Our assumptions are smaller than yours...

[atheismisreligion]

This thread is a month old, but no, my assumptions are less; I've covered every area of science in discussions with atheists and they never coem to the philosophical conclusion their single assumption of proof-of-non-existence is what is behind this mess of assumptions they use in every area of science.

[DogBoots77]

"Huge assumptions" that seem to be working rather well, you must admit, given the leaps and bounds by which science and technology has progressed over the last few centuries... And no, we're not trying to prove non-existance. It is still your burden of proof. Always has been, always will be. How is saying "I don't know" making any kind of assumption?

[atheismisreligion]

Applied science is doing well.  The rest is hobbled by the general acceptance that absence of evidence is evidence for absence, pretty much everywhere in science. The theology is interfering with the expansion of theory. Gods have nothing to do with this logical problem.

[Molandria]

o_O the laws of physics exist regardless of life or not... but what does that have to do with actually demonstrating that a 'who' 'created' existence?

I think you missed the point. -_-

[atheismisreligion]

It is just a satire on the semantics of who/what, in the sense of only people use these words and without time, there would be no people. The logical extension is not clear in the skit, but that business about "no time" is dumb (i.e. religious), because of the rectilinear propagation of light.