Holiday Atheism

[@gangofgreenhorns2672]

On 2, I majored in physics in the last 15 years, and there is nothing that's pointing to intentionality, or a god-figure in quantum physics. Just as atheist posters shouldn't argue with a strawman of their sunday school teacher, we probably don't need to spend time on them. I would suggest Victor Stenger's Quantum Gods, to either just read or deconstruct. He was a physicist (co-discoverer that the neutrino had weight iirc) and a philosopher. He vehemently argued against the idea that quantum mechanics implied the existence of god in many articles as well. Something else you might be interested in is the newest Left Reckoning episode where they talk about how new atheism isn't even about atheism, just rightwing politics.

[@SpookyDivergent]

Not a god-figure. Please don't infer/anticipate the argument NOT presented ;-) Intentionality exists as a causal force in all observable phenomena in so far as there are no separate phenomenological domains by which intentionality might be segregated from the space in which it is observed. That's it. Finito. Nothing else. From that position one would have to define an upper bound of phenomenologically possible domains (dimensions) and demonstrate its absence (top-level causality) and that intentionality does not exist there in order to positively assert the absence of a god-head. Agnosticism, ignosticism, et al are phenomenologically justifiable positions. Positive atheism is not. I do not have a positive belief in such a god-head, but do recognize it as a reasonable inference from culturally colored interpretation of current emergent cosmology. Also notable that the domain in question is more pertinent to astrophysics than quantum mechanics. And yes, New Atheism has very, very little to do with atheism in general and nothing at all to do with secular humanism in particular.

[@NatashaCarruth-v9p]

There is nothing better than playing a Ben video while you're also less than three feet away from me, talking on another subject. In. HEAVEN. haha pun was intentionality lolol

[@SpookyDivergent]

You, my love, are very generous in enduring my often less-than-cogent rambles. I'm glad I manage an entertainingly coherent one from time to time. One of your laughs is ample acclaim :-)

[@Ahibasabala]

For me, whether Jesus existed or not is not that important, it's the message that matters.

[@user_user1337]

lol. I wish you all the best for the turning the year.

[@mallreverb]

I want to talk more about this whenever tommy and I can come hang out with you bro, I try arguing about this shit with him but he's being difficult, lmao

[@reflectionist]

The calendar argument is silly. Either God makes mistakes, or God doesn't make mistakes.

[@bradanderson7556]

Or god doesn’t exist.

[@SpookyDivergent]

Nobody, absolutely nobody, puts theological stock in the specificity of December 25th. Even the "infallible text" crowd would be quick to point out there is no date in the text.

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

No, either God exists or it doesn't. Science follows the evidence, not the resignate to faith simply because some evidence gap can't be closed.

[@adownbeatexegete1549]

Jesus was born on December 27th, silly 25th plebs.

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

PROVE. IT.

[@adownbeatexegete1549]

@@PhoenixProdLLC NO U

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

What do you even MEAN by "intention"? This goes right back to "free will" and "consciousness". What *is* consciousness? You're still making a leap of faith, and that's fine, but you don't have any argument good enough, still, for rarionally justifying that faith. And when it comes to things like faith, many have zero interest in adopting it merely because they can't close some evidence gap.