Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

sorry, but i dont agree with any of that. i find it silly. no offense to anybody. i find theism just as silly. but theist find my beliefs silly, so its ok.
Click to expand...

You don't agree with any of what, that there are many other threads here that explain the differences between weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism? O...k then. :bugeye:
 
elsyarango said:
whatever. i can say i think there are no gods. i believe their are not gods. i totally deny any gods existing. i think gods are fairytale. under the debate of diety existence i stand on the position that gods dont exist. bravo.
Click to expand...

So if your opinion is so 'solid', why do you say believe ?
 
spidergoat said:
Wouldn't you say that means based on consciousness cannot be extended to include anything in the physical universe?
Click to expand...
In one sense, yes - as a further point I would also say that consciousness itself ("what we are investigating the physical universe with") cannot be reduced to these same elements of the "physical world"

Science makes use of inspiration and introspection as well, but they don't stop there, these ideas are then brought to the physical world for confirmation. What sort of confirmation could there possibly be if the idea only exists in your mind?
Click to expand...
mental confirmation is the arena of rationalism - generally the confirmation of ideas are done through defining qualities of concepts and/or logic (aka philosophy)
mind and senses are a subset of consciousness

elsyarango said:
atheism is a belief that there are no deities
Click to expand...

Enmos said:
Wrong !
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.
Click to expand...

elsyarango said:
i am an atheist. i believe that there is no such thing as any gods. that is what atheism is about. i deny the existence of any god.
Click to expand...


whatever - but the thread issue is under what terms such atheism becomes a "fundamentalism" ....
 
Personally, I believe in a higher power. What it is... I have no idea. Im not a Christian or anything, but rather would be concidered a Deist if my beliefs were labeled.
 
Snakelord
“
opens with a scientific claim based on atheism
”
Firstly, not really. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, the statement made was that proper science education could dissuade people from a belief in heaven. They're different things - unless you want to change the meaning of atheism.

Secondly the claim is made by an atheist but is not a claim based on atheism.
Click to expand...
then why would one hold that scientific education promotes a non-belief in heaven
(walks like a chicken, sound likes a chicken etc etc)
“
poses a question whether atheism is beyond the purview of science
”
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods - that's it. The question is ultimately pointless.
Click to expand...
not really
if a person asserts that science promotes an atheistic world view, it seems straight forward ....
“
and that's science?
”
No, that's an opinion based upon certain factors.

I lack a belief in gods and werewolves etc partly because I have learnt, understand and agree with the scientific method and as such am less likely to "have a belief in heaven", (or other such things outside the scope of the scientific method).
Click to expand...
brilliant
now maybe you start to explain why you would hold that science could begin to come to the position of validating/invalidating theistic claims

(grabs popcorn);)
 
then why would one hold that scientific education promotes a non-belief in heaven
Click to expand...

Let's be accurate.. The claim was that "effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven".

It's not promoting non belief, its dissuading belief - there's a vast difference and I explained the reason. My grounding in science and the scientific method means I do not have a "belief in heaven", I have a lack of belief in heaven because there is no evidence. My scientific grounding dissuades me from having belief in many things because they do not fall within the scope of the scientific method.

brilliant
now maybe you start to explain why you would hold that science could begin to come to the position of validating/invalidating theistic claims
Click to expand...

Eh? I already told you, quite clearly, that these things are outside the scope of the scientific method. I didn't say heaven exists or doesn't exist, I merely explained that those properly educated in science might possibly be dissuaded from having a belief in heaven and other things outside the scope of the scientific method because they are outside the scope of the scientific method.
 
lightgigantic said:
would determining god as a "non-entity" be an atheistic claim?
Does being a non-entity mean it doesn't exist or it is something that is merely attributed to being beyond the purview of one's means of investigation?
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of FSM.
 
snakelord
”
Eh? I already told you, quite clearly, that these things are outside the scope of the scientific method. I didn't say heaven exists or doesn't exist, I merely explained that those properly educated in science might possibly be dissuaded from having a belief in heaven and other things outside the scope of the scientific method because they are outside the scope of the scientific method.
Click to expand...
and this doesn't strike you as fundamentalism?
 
Michael said:
I was thinking along the lines of FSM.
Click to expand...
interestingly enough, issues of against the FSM seem to be more capable of being coherently presented through the medium of rationalism rather than empiricism ..... but that's a separate issue - you still haven't clarified your usage of the term "non-entity" from an empirical vantage point
 
Enmos said:
So if your opinion is so 'solid', why do you say believe ?
Click to expand...
there is no god. there. furthermore i believe im sitting in front of my computer writing all this. your belief is your belief. a theist will say there is a god because he believes there is a god. i am simply expresing my position in opposition to other positions. when discussing theism and atheism, the word belief is proper. theism is the belief in the existence god. atheism is the belief that reality is without god. that is why theres an 'a' which signifies without. any opinion or position you hold on anything is your belief.

if i say atheists 'believe' that the universe is without any god, the word 'believe' is in proper context.


SnakeLord said:
You don't agree with any of what, that there are many other threads here that explain the differences between weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism? O...k then. :bugeye:
Click to expand...
take your pick. atheism is atheism. i find these categories senseless and inapplicable.
 
and this doesn't strike you as fundamentalism?
Click to expand...

Uhh.. no.. it seems quite standard and normal to lack a belief in something that has no supportive evidence regardless to what it is from drinking a cup of tea to crossing the road.

Unfortunate I know, but if one cannot find an answer to a claim, where is the worth in believing that claim is true? Surely the best we can do is lack a belief in that claim until such time where there is something to support it?

take your pick. atheism is atheism. i find these categories senseless and inapplicable.
Click to expand...

But it isn't, regardless to personal feelings on the matter. Please, take the time to search other threads to save a conversation that need not be had all over again.
 
ON the side:
I was thinking of how much more rational common people were living 2000-5000 years ago. They didn't have time to worry to much about non-entities and they expected their Preists to provide some "material evidence" as proof of the power of their Gods. The common people went to the temples and expected to see something happen. They expected to see miracles and magic. And if they didn't see it they said f*ck this and went else where. Pretty rational really. AND funny enough, when something like a storm hits or the economy tanks lots of religion people take this as "proof" of God's intervening into the material world. People still like to have some sort of "proof".

But we know there is no proof. If something doens't exist it can not be measured and so it's outside of science. Try "proving" "scientifically" that the FSM does not exist. It's impossible.

I wonder how many people would worship their God if they were given NOTHING after death - they just died. Pretty few I'd imagine. So people are willing to suspend their beleif JUST in case they might get to live after they die. I beleive that the ancients did not tie beleif in a God to their afterlife. I think they just assumed they'd live after they were dead and really it was what they did in life that had an effect on their standing in the afterlife. Hence they usually demanded proof of a God's power if they were going to worship it. As people wised up it became nessesary to change the scheme.
God does nothing,
you worship God
you get to live after you die.
you don't worship God you don't.

Seems like a jip to me.
Michael
 
SnakeLord said:
Uhh.. no.. it seems quite standard and normal to lack a belief in something that has no supportive evidence regardless to what it is from drinking a cup of tea to crossing the road.
Click to expand...

how did you just go from "empiricism deals with empircism" to "anything outside empiricism doesn't exist/cannot be verifiable"

Unfortunate I know, but if one cannot find an answer to a claim, where is the worth in believing that claim is true? Surely the best we can do is lack a belief in that claim until such time where there is something to support it?

.
Click to expand...
I'm asking for an explanation why one would hold that something existing outside the empirical method would not exist ..... as opposed to yet another fundie atheist claim
 
Michael said:
ON the side:
I was thinking of how much more rational common people were living 2000-5000 years ago. They didn't have time to worry to much about non-entities and they expected their Preists to provide some "material evidence" as proof of the power of their Gods. The common people went to the temples and expected to see something happen. They expected to see miracles and magic. And if they didn't see it they said f*ck this and went else where. Pretty rational really. AND funny enough, when something like a storm hits or the economy tanks lots of religion people take this as "proof" of God's intervening into the material world. People still like to have some sort of "proof".
Click to expand...
its not clear what body of knowledge you are drawing upon for claims about civilizations 2500-5000 years ago (admittedly where archeology finishes and imagination takes over is a subject of much scholarly discussion)
But we know there is no proof. If something doens't exist it can not be measured and so it's outside of science. Try "proving" "scientifically" that the FSM does not exist. It's impossible.

I wonder how many people would worship their God if they were given NOTHING after death - they just died. Pretty few I'd imagine.
Click to expand...
even more difficult is how one can empirically assert there is no life after death
So people are willing to suspend their beleif JUST in case they might get to live after they die. I beleive that the ancients did not tie beleif in a God to their afterlife. I think they just assumed they'd live after they were dead and really it was what they did in life that had an effect on their standing in the afterlife. Hence they usually demanded proof of a God's power if they were going to worship it. As people wised up it became nessesary to change the scheme.
God does nothing,
you worship God
you get to live after you die.
you don't worship God you don't.

Seems like a jip to me.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you threw this in - its all hearsay deeply dyed by your current cultural conditioning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top