Atheist = Closet theist
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
- Status
phoenix2634
Registered Senior Member
Yes.
This is a classic argument, given by religious scientists, and even often by non-religious scientists.Ophiolite said:
Over the years, I've come to believe that it isn't true: Science and religion are antithetical. The belief that they are orthogonal (usually coined as "Science is about 'How?', religion is about 'Why?'") is a sort of "Render unto Caesar..." cop-out to avoid the obvious contradictions inherint in reconciling faith with reason.
If 'god' has an influence on the physical world, then that is studiable by science. If 'god' is purely in the realm of the metaphysical, and only studiable by faith (as is the modern approach to the lack of concrete evidence - very different from earlier times), then 'he' has no influence on the physical world. The latter amounts to being not real.
I've come to the point where I don't think that the proffered common ground exists. Why should religious dictums be sacrosanct in the way that we should not apply the rational approach to knowlegde that works everywhere else in nature? Why should we lose our heads merely because of a silly reverence of faith?
Wanting to discuss religious matters does NOT make someone a theist-in-denial or a closet theist.Theoryofrelativity said:The atheists here are NOT true atheists as they spend too much time on religious matters, I don't? I am not religious. Thus atheists here (not else where) closet theists or theists in denial.
Curiosity in why others believe in what you may not is a healthy thing to do - so that people can better understand, and possibly also educate - on both sides!
I don't think so. In fact, I'm fairly certain that most scientists are atheists or agnostics. Here's a reprint of a follow-up to a Nature study, in which only 7% of "leading scientists" show belief in god, and more than 70% show disbelief. Granted, only about 61% of all the surveyed scientists show disbelief or doubt, but that's still a majority.TW Scott said:
And this is in the US, in which religion among scientists seem far higher than in, say, Europe.
You're effectively saying that your religious beliefs should be "sacred" because they're a matter of faith. I don't agree. I think that your beliefs need to be challenged especially because they are a matter of faith. Faith (in the context of religion) isn't noble or good or worthy of reverence. It's just silly.Theoryofrelativity said:
Sarkus said:
valid point except sadly here (not everywhere) the atheists seek to destroy the theists view and merely offend them rather that try to understand them.
funkstar said:
Not sure where you got this from, I have never said any of this things.
I don't have religious beliefs, I have no religion. My beliefs are mine, personal, rarely shared and based on my observation and experience of life, not 'faith'.
Yes, but what ever you hold(be it god or religion) is not based on evidence, therefore it is speculation. Thing is you are holding this speculation as something that is truth to you, therefor your belief is indeed faith.
James R said:
I don't live in the Us, I live in the Uk, and pretty much everyone I know is atheist. It's not a problem though, they are lovely, respectful people. Thiesm does not make someone a better person just as atheism does not make someone any more intelligent. It is that here there are a handful of nasty spiteful 'haters', who I strongly believe are rebelling against their religious upbringing, their anger at God for not fulfilling all the obligations bestowed upon him by the religion creators and his apparrant 'neglect', thus they seek to damage God by damaging those that still believe in him.
In doing all this, like it or not they still believe, or why spend so much time fighting a non existant enemy and his followers. They are like disgruntled teenagers rebelling against their parents authority or an employer who gave them the sack. Basically, sufferring from large dose of sour grapes. So the world wasn't as prertty as their parents painted it, they need to get over it.
The atheists here that are genuine, do not spend the bulk of thier time on religious boards attempting to demean the religious, they do not heed invisible pink unicorns and go about their business.
imaplanck. said:
How do you speculate without evidence?
Speculation is usually some sort of extrapolation; per se it requires a practical basis, i.e. evidence.
It is then, for as far as I can see, just as much of a speculation to insist that God does not exist as it is to insist otherwise.
--- Ron.
imaplanck. said:
oh really? Have you walked in my shoes?
You have a view of what 'evidence' represents, that view was taught to you. you respect and adhere to that view. THUS my friend, you have faith, you have faith that what you have been indoctrinated to believe represents 'evidence' is the only 'evidence' that matters or is acceptable. How very convenient.
I am not so brainwahsed and am not restricted by your definition of 'evidence' Things are evident to me. That is enough.
There are many brainwashed atheists and theists, each brainwashed to have faith in different things. I take my own view based on what I 'see'. I do not deny the reality of my world in favour of someone elses.
Thanks for setting me straight
imaplanck. said:Thanks for setting me straight
you are welcome
Things are evident to you and evident meaning that you only can see these things. That's not brainwashed indeed. That is merely a brain malfunction.
I think if nothing else your thread has shown that atheists are indeed atheists for a reason and there is no real closetdom there. They will not believe something that is not evident. Maybe if it's the last straw to cling to before death some might mutter "god save my soul or something, but it is with convention of dignity(or what ever) not belief that they do this.
imaplanck. said:
ok let's start at the beginning
define evidence
spuriousmonkey said:
ah, Ad Hom again, telling me I have something wrong with my brain, so assuming I have brain scan and 'test's and it reveals there is NO brain malfunction, does this then prove my 'evident' experiences are evident to all?
No it would not because as we know life is a little more complicated that that, thus your insult re the functioning of my brain does not support your point BUT it does support mine. I thank you.
A dataset that supports or disproves a specific theory or theories.
imaplanck. said:
What reason?
Did I miss something?
This perpetualluy bewilders me, why they feel the need not only to profess but also to come here to spend their time to argue as if to expect a result that as best I may tell fails to come about anyway; it makes no difference.
I can't remember the last time that I was compelled to fill in a form to declare my religion and from day to day nobody bothers to ask so for the most part I leave it at that.
--- Ron.
- Status