Atheism

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 04 Sep 2006 12:49 pm

this thread is about atheism, while i think a fair few of us here are agnostics
someone sensible explain the distinction to those who don't understand

Seraph · Post by **Seraph** » 04 Sep 2006 12:50 pm

Pat wrote:
Seraph wrote:Firstly, religion does have evidence
Please provide an example. Preferably one that has not since been contradicted with a scientific explanation.

I think there's a line in the bible that says "god created the earth in seven days" or something. There's your proof.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 12:58 pm

Seraph wrote:
Pat wrote:
Seraph wrote:Firstly, religion does have evidence
Please provide an example. Preferably one that has not since been contradicted with a scientific explanation.

I think there's a line in the bible that says "god created the earth in seven days" or something. There's your proof.

DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON YOUNG-EARTHERS.

Megaman · Post by **Megaman** » 04 Sep 2006 01:17 pm

Pat wrote:True, but that doesnt negate the fact that claiming there is a higher being is still completely made-up.

It's no more "completely made up" than your claim that there is no higher being. If there is a God then it's pretty clear that he has gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure we never see him or his handiwork. It's not possible to prove whether a non-interventionist higher being does or doesn't exist. It's a matter of faith either way.

kwijibo · Post by **kwijibo** » 04 Sep 2006 01:26 pm

Megaman wrote:
Pat wrote:True, but that doesnt negate the fact that claiming there is a higher being is still completely made-up.
It's no more "completely made up" than your claim that there is no higher being. If there is a God then it's pretty clear that he has gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure we never see him or his handiwork. It's not possible to prove whether a non-interventionist higher being does or doesn't exist. It's a matter of faith either way.

I think there is far more chance of there NOT being a god than there being a god. Particularly when you consider all the things that were supposedly created by god proven wrong by science.

And the whole adam and eve thing is just ridiculous. All their kids kids would be retards

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 01:32 pm

Megaman wrote:
Pat wrote:True, but that doesnt negate the fact that claiming there is a higher being is still completely made-up.
It's no more "completely made up" than your claim that there is no higher being.

I'm certain I'm not quoting you out of context here, hence the slight trimming. Anyway, the big bang theory is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe, and it does not require the involvement, creation, interaction or otherwise of a god to trigger it. According to the theory, there is simply no time, place or requirement for a god.

mech · Post by **mech** » 04 Sep 2006 01:43 pm

Seraph wrote:Firstly, religion does have evidence, just as science does. It's just evidence based on the religious standards of evidence, rather than scientific standards of evidence.

Secondly, the ultimate goal of science is to have all the answers - so it's not that different from religion. Religion just has its answers now, whereas science is still working on it.

You've got this totally backwards. Evidence is evidence; religion uses STORIES as evidence, i.e. nothing proveable, whereas science relies on reproduceable evidence.

I agree with you about keeping an open mind, Grey. I just seem to feel that keeping an open mind is a concept that is mutually exclusive with any one faith that already spells out "how things are".

Exactly, absolutely nothing wrong with being open to spiritualism, but believing in an organised religion does strike me as quite daft given the information available.

selfish wrote:this thread is about atheism, while i think a fair few of us here are agnostics
someone sensible explain the distinction to those who don't understand

Read the wikipedia link I put up earlier for a good explanation of different types of atheisms, some certainly don't deny the possibility of a presence of a god. And there's strong and weak atheism:

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one deity.

The theistic position of "I do believe that god does exist" can be negated in two ways:

* "I do not believe that god does exist"
* "I do believe that god does not exist"

The former represents a statement of weak atheism; the latter, strong atheism.

I kind of like this one:

Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of gods is meaningless and should be ignored because it has no verifiable or testable consequences (see scientific method). The term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Ignosticism is often considered synonymous with theological noncognitivism. It is a popular view among many logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who hold that talk of gods is literally nonsense. According to ignostics, 'Does God exist?' has the same logical status as 'What colour is Saturday?' because neither has any meaningful answer.

Ignosticism is distinct from apatheism. While ignostics hold questions and discussions of whether deities exist to be meaningless, apatheists hold that even a hypothetical answer to such questions would be completely irrelevant to human existence.

But I think a lot of people I know would subscribe to this one:

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural or the divine is inherently unknowable. Therefore, the existence of such powers as deities in our universe is irrelevant to the human condition. The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and is also used to describe those who are unconvinced of or uncommited to the existence of deities or the truth of religion in general.

The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not related to agnosticism.

I cannot rule out the existance of a god, but I strongly doubt it exists, so I guess I am a weak atheist/agnostic.

David Carney · Post by **David Carney** » 04 Sep 2006 02:18 pm

Pat wrote:
David Carney wrote:Here's a question for anyone reading this post...

Do you believe in...

(a) Something eternal

or

(b) Someone eternal

I would love to know what came before the big bang, and how the elements needed for it came into existance.
By definition, there was no 'before' - the big bang was the start.

Time is infinite in both directions.

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 04 Sep 2006 02:40 pm

i guess i'd be apatheistic then
bokonon would almost approve

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 02:44 pm

David Carney wrote:
Time is infinite in both directions.

Not necessarily. There are theories that say so, but these theories also invoke 11 dimensions and strings. It may well be the case, but it is not yet possible to test.

mech · Post by **mech** » 04 Sep 2006 03:02 pm

A lot of people don't realise time is relativistic, they still think of it as "absolute".

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 03:08 pm

Indeed. It's also well known that mass-energy distorts the passage of time too. So trying to imagine how time would have behaved when the universe was only a tad bigger than an atom is a mindbender.

BOOMY · Post by **BOOMY** » 04 Sep 2006 05:16 pm

posted by vision:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and other bullshit

So please answer me and backup your claims rather than just provide new ones. You're the one going around calling me ignorant and stupid for having a different belief than you. I mean if I am ignorant then rectify this. As far as I can see I agree with about every scientific idea and priciple you bring up, you just seem to be making the conclusion those ideas and principles = no god. So please, enlighten me.

Perhaps you should return to what my original point was prior to you being a prat. A distinction between morals and religion should be made if someone is going to say "I act civil and I didnt even need a god to scare me into it". My point all along has been that in general people dont make religious and philosophical decisions based on morals, and if they do it is almost definately subordiante to their beliefs, philosophy and ideas.

But go on, keep changing the argument so it's one you can win. I'll be over here seperate from your hissy fit with my own spritual beliefs that dont contradict science.

Megaman · Post by **Megaman** » 04 Sep 2006 05:38 pm

Pat wrote:I'm certain I'm not quoting you out of context here, hence the slight trimming. Anyway, the big bang theory is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe, and it does not require the involvement, creation, interaction or otherwise of a god to trigger it. According to the theory, there is simply no time, place or requirement for a god.

But big bang theory is completely consistent with the concept of a non-interventionist God, who would have created the universe in such a fashion so that mankind, no matter how sophisticated, would never be certain that he was involved. It's not proof that he exists but it's not proof that he doesn't.

Megaman · Post by **Megaman** » 04 Sep 2006 05:41 pm

mech wrote:A lot of people don't realise time is relativistic, they still think of it as "absolute".

Only Vzzzbx

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 06:54 pm

Megaman wrote:
Pat wrote:I'm certain I'm not quoting you out of context here, hence the slight trimming. Anyway, the big bang theory is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe, and it does not require the involvement, creation, interaction or otherwise of a god to trigger it. According to the theory, there is simply no time, place or requirement for a god.
But big bang theory is completely consistent with the concept of a non-interventionist God, who would have created the universe in such a fashion so that mankind, no matter how sophisticated, would never be certain that he was involved. It's not proof that he exists but it's not proof that he doesn't.

"But big bang theory is completely consistent with the concept of a non-interventionist God" - so? That's tantamount to saying the detection of the cosmic microwave background was a deliberate ploy to disprove the existence of god.

The fact is, the big bang theory isnt a theory that was formulated with a purpose of explaining away god. That isnt what science is about. Science is about coming up with theories of what IS, not what might be when you can never test for it.

I agree though - you can't prove god does or does not exist. But you can most certainly prove that humans are prone to stupid and irrational behaviour. If you want to find out where god came from, look towards primitive human civilisation and the concept of god which has become ever increasingly complex over time, so far as to seem almost logical to many people today. As scientific knowledge has pushed back the barriers of ignorance, the response of the deeply religious has become ever so subtle enough (and not necessarily dishonest in intention, I might add) as to seem capable of brushing off new scientific discoveries. This is evident in the "it takes faith" line of riposte.

A concept of god is, in my view, the most elaborate ghost/witch/alien abduction story in history.

Megaman · Post by **Megaman** » 04 Sep 2006 07:52 pm

Pat wrote:I agree though - you can't prove god does or does not exist.

So why get so worked up about it? Threads like these are as useful and fun as a visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're not converting anyone either.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 08:07 pm

selfish wrote:exactly pat: the truth of all this is that any evidence for it is going to be unobservable from our current position, and so anyone passing a firm judgement either way is being a cockhead.

Exactly. And who's passing judgement? (hint: it's your dopey best mate) Please show me where I said a 'higher being' does or does not exist.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 08:10 pm

Seraph wrote:That's a redundant statement, though, Pat, because of course higher beings are made up. At this point, all higher beings systems are theories (I use the term loosely and as its general language definition, not its scientific meaning, as most higher being systems are not of the scientific world and are not bound by scientific standards of proof).

I think what's being neglected here is that religion and science both created themselves. Both were designed by peoples/cultures wanting answers for things they didn't understand. Most notably, both religion and science made their own rules and standards. Just as science proves its claims via scientific methods, using science-defined standards of proof and evidence, religion proves its validity through its own standards of proof and evidence.

The thing that science did to protect itself and win the hearts and minds of so many, was to promise that it would eventually have the answers. This was a great move, because whenever religion gives us an answer we don't like, or doesn't give us an answer, we write off religion as being a crock - but when science can't explain something, or gets something wrong, it's ok because surely we'll get there eventually, right?

The point I'm trying to make with all of this, is that whether you are a religious person or not, whether you believe in the idea that humans and science will give us all the answers or not - neither religion nor science has the answers now. The difference is that religion has already laid its cards on the table. Science is content to wait until it has something concrete before it places its bet.

What a load of horseshit. Where religion and science differ is that religion is based on faith while science is based on evidence. Science changes, yet few religions do.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 08:13 pm

Megaman wrote:
Pat wrote:True, but that doesnt negate the fact that claiming there is a higher being is still completely made-up.
It's no more "completely made up" than your claim that there is no higher being. If there is a God then it's pretty clear that he has gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure we never see him or his handiwork. It's not possible to prove whether a non-interventionist higher being does or doesn't exist. It's a matter of faith either way.

Most sensible thing said yet (from someone arguing the 'other' side). I guess the point is though if there's no evidence, then why believe? But it's definitely an argument I can see the merits of.

BOOMY · Post by **BOOMY** » 04 Sep 2006 08:14 pm

Pat, when I used to goto synagog as a real young un the rabbi wouldn't use such copout lines when challenged. an e.g. could be "god made man in his image through evolution or else he wouldnt be a loving god that provided freewill" or "the recording of time in its current state happened only through man and so the early days of creation prior to man could have lasted millions of years". A copout in some way, but as I said earlier on in not as many words, an intelligent religious person wouldnt be so fickle as to say "it takes faith".

As I also said earlier i dont find my spirituality in jeudaism and dont 'believe' the stories, but I do find it interesting in the relavence of world history and who/how/why recorded it in different ways. I am glad this thread has taken this current swing and realised intelligent people can still have faith in higher power.

EDIT: apparently not.

Where religion and science differ is that religion is based on faith while science is based on evidence. Science changes, yet few religions do.

then why lump individuals like myself and grey in with those that have a static unchanging idea of god. All we've said is we believe in something in addition to prooven science.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 08:21 pm

BOOMY wrote:
posted by vision:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and other bullshit
So please answer me and backup your claims rather than just provide new ones. You're the one going around calling me ignorant and stupid for having a different belief than you. I mean if I am ignorant then rectify this. As far as I can see I agree with about every scientific idea and priciple you bring up, you just seem to be making the conclusion those ideas and principles = no god. So please, enlighten me.

Perhaps you should return to what my original point was prior to you being a prat. A distinction between morals and religion should be made if someone is going to say "I act civil and I didnt even need a god to scare me into it". My point all along has been that in general people dont make religious and philosophical decisions based on morals, and if they do it is almost definately subordiante to their beliefs, philosophy and ideas.

But go on, keep changing the argument so it's one you can win. I'll be over here seperate from your hissy fit with my own spritual beliefs that dont contradict science.

Are you still enjoying putting words in my mouth? You *did* show you ignorance by stating that:

To me science makes just as much sense as spirituality

Which means you obviously don't understand what science is. You think it something akin to its own religion when instead science is a description of evidence, not something people 'believe in'. It's something people practice. I couldn't care less if you believe something different to me. In fact, you believe something *more* than me, not different, as I lack belief.

edit: Science is something people 'trust' as well I should point out. If someone has followed the scientific method and shown evidence, the other people can trust in the results, so it goes beyond practice. In essence, you are trusting that people have suitably gathered and interpreted evidence, but the point is if you find they haven't it's open to dispute.

You are the one who keeps changing the argument, but if you're going to bring up morals again, the whole point of that before was that conservative Christians constantly harp on about how religion is required because without a God to hold you responsible for your actions, it'd be anarchy. That is patently incorrect as morality is ingrained to human instinct, as witnessed by the huge number of atheists doing an amazing amount of good in the world compared to the dumbfuck religions who keep fighting wars over whether Jesus was the son of god or just a prophet, etc.

Oh and you have it backwards. Regardless of your tiny view of the world, the majority of people who are religious make 'moral' decisions based on their religion, and not the other way round. If you're going to argue something at least know what you're on about.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 08:24 pm

BOOMY wrote:EDIT: apparently not.
Where religion and science differ is that religion is based on faith while science is based on evidence. Science changes, yet few religions do.
then why lump individuals like myself and grey in with those that have a static unchanging idea of god. All we've said is we believe in something in addition to prooven science.

You truly are a dopey fuck. Once again, stop ascribing these to me which I haven't done. I am talking about the religious majority and teachings, I don't care what you think or believe. If I was having a go at you about that stuff, you'd know about it, trust me.

I haven't even referred to Grey Wizzard in this thread either, so I have no idea what the fuck you're on about.

BOOMY · Post by **BOOMY** » 04 Sep 2006 08:32 pm

Ok, i'm chanigng the arguement. riiight

All i did was clarify something. people dont need a religion to tell them to act civil. they would act civil anyway(as mech says he does) and you shouldnt think of them as so stupid to need to be told so. Religion is not primarily some 'inside the top of the box' on morals to religious people, it has more to do with their views on life and philosophy.

But to indulge you as you harp on about nothing, "science makes just as much sense as spirituality" shows no ignorance on either issue. You can keep trying to say "You think..." and tell me what I believe or take my comments for what they were originally worth. I am a spiritual person who wouldnt be so stupid as to deny facts and evidence.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 08:37 pm

I'm not sure why you're arguing this shit about 'being civil' with me as I couldn't care less. I've already explained the issues atheists have with religious people about that and I don't need to go any further there.

Also, if you're trying to tell me that religion does not rely on faith then you really don't have a clue. I think any sensible religious person would tell you that's the first thing religion relies upon. My point is if you think that makes as much sense as science, you're ignorant. Given you can't understand what I'm trying to tell you, you're both stupid and ignorant.