"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are..."

"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"

"Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which pertains to scientific explanations, and rely upon our actual observations of the world, science begins to demonstrate some of its own logical incongruities. I will list some examples of observations that science has explanations for, yet can appear to the observer to be logically incongruent. Please remember that we are discussing observational logic; and not scientific evidence:

1. If one was to board a plane from a position opposite to Australia, how would that plane reach Australia, without nose-diving, twisting in mid-air and flying upside-down?

2. How can 8 planets all rotate around the sun together, and all remain in relatively the same position, without being actually physically attached together in any way?

3. How can the earth rotate at 1040 mph and we don't feel it? Yet if we are moving at even 70 mph we feel ourselves racing?

4. If a passenger plane flies at 500-600 mph why does it feel as though you're doing 30 in the slow lane? Even when you look at a plane in the sky, it appears to be doing 50 mph maximum.

5. If the earth rotates at 1040 mph, when you are in a plane moving at 500-600 mph, in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, why don't you see the earth rotating at that 1040 mph in the other direction?

6. If you're travelling from England to Poland, and your flight departs at 18:00 hrs, the plane travels 500 mph, with the earth rotating at 1040 mph, at what time will you reach your destination? (please include the calculations for scrutiny) I mean, if the earth is rotating at over double the speed you're flying at, how would you reach Poland, without Poland continually over-taking you, and how would you land and stop unless you exceeded the speed of the earth, or the earth stopped-spinning?

All of these observations produce some incongruence for logic and common-sense. So my question here is, can any atheist explain these observations using a logical and common-sense methodology, without referring to science, links to science websites, journals etc., or scientific jargon?

My aim here is not to dismiss science, as I tend to believe much of what science posits as true / correct, but if you take away the pictures, videos, diagrams and text-books, scientific explanations can appear as fantastical to the mind and observation, as those of a religious nature. Furthermore, if we explore some of quantum mechanics theories, it is akin to going deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole, and not expecting to meet the mad hatter (nonsensical conclusions). Thus, I just wanted to put a few ideas out there and also present a challenge for the hyper-intelligent atheists on the forum (theists are welcome to answer too!).

P.S. No flames please, we are all learning here."

"The path to a great life is found by utilising the power of light, love, truth and goodness E.Bedeau. For Queen & Country, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"

"Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which perta ...[text shortened]... try, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285[/b]

1. Opposite relative to what?
2. Gravity
3. Gravity holds the atmosphere down as well as us. It rotates with us.
4. Again, both plane and passengers are moving together.
5. See 3)
6. The earth's rotational speed is not directly relevant (though there is some effect due to tradewinds). See 3)

Why should I want to explain these things without referring to science? If the point is that logic alone is insufficient to comprehend certain things, that's pretty trivial. No one's going to argue that.

Science may seem fantastic to us at first, but there tends to be good, solid explanations of why things happen, and principles that any of us can test for ourselves to verify we get the same results. The same can't be said for religion.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"

"Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which perta ...[text shortened]... try, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285[/b]

6

The atmosphere with the plane in it, rotates with the earth.

Edit: ah, bugger. SG beat me to it. Again.

4

As to the second part of question four: it's because you see the plane from a great distance. In other words, you see a relatively large part of the sky compared to the plane.

Watch a plane at full speed coming right at you and suddenly you'll notice its speed.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
1. Opposite relative to what?
2. Gravity
3. Gravity holds the atmosphere down as well as us. It rotates with us.
4. Again, both plane and passengers are moving together.
5. See 3)
6. The earth's rotational speed is not directly relevant (though there is some effect due to tradewinds). See 3)

Why should I want to explain these things without refer ...[text shortened]... s can test for ourselves to verify we get the same results. The same can't be said for religion.

Science may seem fantastic to us at first, but there tends to be good, solid explanations of why things happen, and principles that any of us can test for ourselves to verify we get the same results. The same can't be said for religion.

Could you relate to us a matter of spirituality that you tested and found you could not get the results you expected from others said you should get ?

Concerning Jesus Christ, for example, what did you test and found the results were not as were expected from what the New Testament told you to expect ?

Give me the Bible promised result.
Give me the nature of the failure of your testing the matter.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
1. Opposite relative to what?
2. Gravity
3. Gravity holds the atmosphere down as well as us. It rotates with us.
4. Again, both plane and passengers are moving together.
5. See 3)
6. The earth's rotational speed is not directly relevant (though there is some effect due to tradewinds). See 3)

Why should I want to explain these things without refer ...[text shortened]... s can test for ourselves to verify we get the same results. The same can't be said for religion.

"Why should I want to explain these things without referring to science? If the point is that logic alone is insufficient to comprehend certain things, that's pretty trivial." ~SG

"Thus, I just wanted to put a few ideas out there and also present a challenge for the hyper-intelligent atheists on the forum (theists are welcome to answer too!)." ~OP

Because ~OP had ~SG in mind.....

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"
[/b]

This post more than any other shows how naïve you are.
There are so many better examples you could have used.
btw: You cannot tell if you are moving at 70mph in a car.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This post more than any other shows how naïve you are.
There are so many better examples you could have used.
btw: You cannot tell if you are moving at 70mph in a car.

"You cannot tell if you are moving at 70mph in a car."... and logically why not? Can you tell if you're stopped at a light?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"You cannot tell if you are moving at 70mph in a car."... and logically why not? Can you tell if you're stopped at a light?

You said Yet if we are moving at even 70 mph we feel ourselves
racing? which is manifestly untrue. With no forces acting upon
us we can "feel" nothing to indicate what our velocity is. (You
might look out of the window and deduce your speed but
you cannot "feel" it.)

If you have a problem with that perhaps you can explain how you feel it?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You said Yet if we are moving at even 70 mph we feel ourselves
racing? which is manifestly untrue. With no forces acting upon
us we can "feel" nothing to indicate what our velocity is. (You
might look out of the window and deduce your speed but
you cannot "feel" it.)

If you have a problem with that perhaps you can explain how [b]you feel it?[/b]

Looking out the side or front or rear windows of a speeding vehicle, doesn't the eye communicates to the frontal lobes to adrenalin glands to produce physical sensations such as leaning back with feet bracing against the floor of even children crouching in a fetal position in fear of crashing? Speculation of Speed would likely occur since limits are being exceeded.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This post more than any other shows how naïve you are.
There are so many better examples you could have used.
btw: You cannot tell if you are moving at 70mph in a car.

"There are so many better examples you could have used."

How about a few?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"

"Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which perta ...[text shortened]... try, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285[/b]

There is no such thing as an "atheistic belief". Atheism has no content at all. It is the absence of theistic beliefs and nothing more.

Scientific explanations are NOT atheistic beliefs. They are scientific explanations, and they are equally accessible to both theists and atheists. The questions you pose have nothing to do with theism, and therefore have nothing to do with atheism.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is no such thing as an "atheistic belief". Atheism has no content at all. It is the absence of theistic beliefs and nothing more.

Scientific explanations are NOT atheistic beliefs. They are scientific explanations, and they are equally accessible to both theists and atheists. The questions you pose have nothing to do with theism, and therefore have nothing to do with atheism.

"There is no such thing as an "atheistic belief". Atheism has no content at all. It is the absence of theistic beliefs and nothing more." -rwingett

"... no content": what fills the unused capacity within an atheist's frontal lobes?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"There is no such thing as an "atheistic belief". Atheism has no content at all. It is the absence of theistic beliefs and nothing more." -rwingett

"... no content": what fills the unused capacity within an atheist's frontal lobes?

Any number of things. Humanism, or materialism, or whatever. But none of them is contained within "atheism".

Originally posted by rwingett
Any number of things. Humanism, or materialism, or whatever. But none of them is contained within "atheism".

Okay. So atheism per se is simply a word appropriated as the equivalent of a label of convenience on an empty bag?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Okay. So atheism per se is simply a word appropriated as the equivalent of a label of convenience on an empty bag?

Atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs. Nothing more. It proposes nothing, nor claims any beliefs as its own. That there is a certain correlation between atheism and certain beliefs in no way demonstrates that one is logically contained within the other.