Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes creationism is science.

No it isn't. It is a ridiculous theory based on the interpretation of scripture by your cult leaders (whose quest is not for truth but rather the proliferation of their existing belief system which they blindly promote as truth). That is not comparable.

Originally posted by okinrus

Whether is true or not does not effect it's acceptance into the realm of science.

Correct but irrelavent. It was accepted into the realm of science and generally rejected based on lack of evidence.

Originally posted by okinrus

However when I said creation, I was specifically talking about the big bang, which is usually taught somewhat in highschool.

You said "creationism". That is generally not at all the same thing as "creation". Regardless the "big bang" is unrelated to your deity except in that the leaders of your cult have adapted their interpretation of scripture in an attempt to highjack science's credibility. That is afterall, their purpose.

 

[okinrus]

You said "creationism". That is generally not at all the same thing as "creation". Regardless the "big bang" is unrelated to your deity except in that the leaders of your cult have adapted their interpretation of scripture in an attempt to highjack science's credibility. That is afterall, their purpose.

No I did not. From the other post, "The teacher will usually make it clear that evolution and creation are scientific theories based on observation and not universal truths." Considering that the official catholic possition allows belief in evolution with some reservations, I'm confused by what exactly you mean by "leaders of my cult". http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm

 

[Cris]

okinrus,

Creationism is not science. It is based on the assumption that there is a creator and that is religious belief.

 

[atheroy]

I agree fully that faith is a subset of belief. That's why I say it is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to 'be'. Many display faith in scientists and their methods because many atheists are not scientists themselves... have never done the many experiments... have never gone through the data... and yet they believe... why? Everything you hold true is directly related to what you believe to be true [two ways of saying the same thing]. The question is if noone in the world believed gravity exists, would it exist? Atheroy seems to think so... I simply don't know.

i don't know what atheists you have been talking to but i have no such thing as blind faith. everything i believe in i have either read voluminous amounts on, or i have been taught to a degree that exceeds general knowledge by a fair way. you can have faith in scientists because they follow a general practice of excellence otherwise they will not be employed if their research is found to be crap (research is exposed to great scrutiny- their is no room to push agendas unless money is to be gained from making incorrect statements). and please be serious. humans aren't so fucking important that if we weren't here gravity wouldn't exist. we have observed it its existance only because we exist along with it. take humans out of the equation and you'll still have gravity. its arguements like this that rile me, we aren't important, look up at the night sky and its infinite quality and if you feel anything but insignificant you are an arogant bastard.

Atheists choose to put their faith in man

no, i put my faith in the fact that all around us there is shite to be explained, to assume as answer on faith is a human failure to be avoided. humans throughout history have proved to be pathetic places to put faith, wars are an example.

All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum

the logic astounds my theoretical five year old brother.

Yes creationism is science

use your terms correctly. and the big bang thoery was briefly mentioned when i was in school (last year), not taught.

Considering that the official catholic possition allows belief in evolution with some reservations

told you it was going to happen- "the world is most definately flat"(religious zealot many years ago).......... "evolution is blasphemy"(religious zealot a couple of years ago)

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum.

And surely if health were not an illness it would not be discussed in medical journals ...

 

[okinrus]

And surely if health were not an illness it would not be discussed in medical journals

Yes but there is a link between illness and health. I want to know what is the link between atheism and religion. If atheism is not a religion, then what does it have to do with religion? It cannot just be God because Buddhism is considered a religion.

Creationism is not science. It is based on the assumption that there is a creator and that is religious belief.

Many scientific theories today are based on assumptions. We still consider Newton a scientist despite many of theories being proved to be invalid. If the creationist have evidence and present a factual case, then it is science.

use your terms correctly. and the big bang thoery was briefly mentioned when i was in school (last year), not taught.

I took astronomy and two years of physics in highschool. Been a while since I've done any physics though.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by MarcAC
I agree fully that faith is a subset of belief. That's why I say it is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to 'be'. Many display faith in scientists and their methods because many atheists are not scientists themselves... have never done the many experiments... have never gone through the data... and yet they believe... why? Everything you hold true is directly related to what you believe to be true [two ways of saying the same thing]. The question is if noone in the world believed gravity exists, would it exist? Atheroy seems to think so... I simply don't know.

Faith in scientific research is not required because anyone may personally review the research and judge for oneself.

I take that definition as; The condition of a human existence is built upon faith.

Science does have to take a few things for granted, the main one being that life is real. But this does not require faith as it is defined. All of our experiences have led us to believe that our existence is real (at the very least, it is real as far as we are concerned). This is not belief without evidence; hence it is not faith. Faith is, rather, belief within our existence (which we presume is real) in something for which there is no proof.

Faith is a subset of belief. As okinirus said, faith comes from God to help us believe in Him. It is an inherrent human quality. When you put your faith in God, within yourself you will know that you have placed your faith in the right place. You all use faith but you just fail to see it. If you read the bible carefully, it stresses on faith... the central verse in the bible... states; "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." PSALM 118:8 - N.I.V. In other words put your faith in God, not in man. Atheists choose to put their faith in man. I put my faith in God.

Again, we are talking about the Biblical definition of faith, one which you cannot honestly expect atheists to accept.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by atheroy
and please be serious. humans aren't so fucking important that if we weren't here gravity wouldn't exist. we have observed it its existance only because we exist along with it. take humans out of the equation and you'll still have gravity. its arguements like this that rile me, we aren't important, look up at the night sky and its infinite quality and if you feel anything but insignificant you are an arogant bastard.

Bravo!

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
And surely if health were not an illness it would not be discussed in medical journals ...

And bravo to you too!

 

[AKA Heathen]

Quote from okinrus;


“Also atheism is a religion. It is a very strong belief in not having a belief.”


And…


“All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum. Now it is impossible to have just non-belief.”


False. Not agree to disagree. You are wrong. Apparently it has to be repeated ad tedium. Non-belief is not a belief, non-faith is not a matter of faith and the non-religious are in no way religious.


You are misrepresenting inclusion, exclusion and overlap. An Euler-Venn diagram can clear things up. Start with a blank leaf of paper; make a large circle with a “B” (belief) in the middle of the circle. Within the large circle of “belief” you can make two smaller circles; “BG” (believe there is a god) and “BNG” (believe there is no god). This is an accurate representation of inclusion. Both “BG” and “BNG” fall under the larger category of “B” (belief). Now make a separate circle beside the “B” (belief) circle titled “NB” (non-belief). Now the diagram accurately portrays both inclusion and exclusion. You’re attempting to claim that the category of non-belief should be within category of belief, as if it were merely a subset of belief. It would be bad enough were you only claiming overlap, but you’re actually claiming inclusion. Your explanation is convoluted and all but incoherent. Let’s look at your explanation;


“Now it is impossible to have just non-belief. Either you belief that God does not exists, maybe does exists or exists. You cannot just not have a belief. If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.”


You’ve stated your conclusion twice (circular argumentation) without clarifying anything other than your refusal to accept the very real option of no belief at all. Your forced choice deliberately omits non-belief in spite of the fact that there are a handful of people directly informing you that they have no belief. I join my voice to that chorus. I never had to reject belief for I simply never had belief to begin with. Your last sentence in particular makes no sense.


“If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.”


On a planet dominated by magical thinkers and true believers? Nonsense. I detected my non-belief status very early (7 years old). The inherent arrogance and intolerance of believers made it impossible to not detect my non-belief status.


“If the creationist have evidence and present a factual case, then it is science.”


You just shot yourself in the foot. Creationists have no evidence and have presented no relevant facts. Creationism is neither science nor a theory. This is official academically and legally.


http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/edwa_v_agui.html



As already pointed out by others, creationism begins with a belief in supernatural ideas and is essentially non-falsifiable. It is more accurately described as a religious myth which is spread through indoctrination. It has no foundation in science or reason.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes but there is a link between illness and health. I want to know what is the link between atheism and religion. If atheism is not a religion, then what does it have to do with religion? It cannot just be God because Buddhism is considered a religion.

As much as I liked ConsequentAtheist's allusion, you are technically correct. Atheism isn't the opposite of religion; it is the opposite of belief in God or gods. Some atheists, such as Buddhists or Taoists, are religious. Religion requires faith. Most atheists would assert that faith is not a valid way of attaining knowledge, but not all of them would.

Many scientific theories today are based on assumptions. We still consider Newton a scientist despite many of theories being proved to be invalid. If the creationist have evidence and present a factual case, then it is science.

The strength of a scientific theory has nothing to do with its originator or its advocates. Einstein's theory of general relativity, for example, is not accurate just because Einstein was a really smart guy, but because it corresponds with reality. If the assumptions (or premises) on which a scientific theory are based can be shown to be valid, then the theory can be a good one. If they are not, as is the case with creationism, the theory will not be a good one. Creationism is a theory that does not correspond with reality and is based on religious faith, which is belief without proof. It is therefore not science.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
No you aren't. Christianity says it already has the truth and that it is God.

Your only mission as a Christian is to mindlessly do what you are told.

Cris, why do you always brazenly attempt to elaborate on things you obviosuly know nothing about? Have some self-respect will you?

 

[okinrus]

As much as I liked ConsequentAtheist's allusion, you are technically correct. Atheism isn't the opposite of religion; it is the opposite of belief in God or gods. Some atheists, such as Buddhists or Taoists, are religious. Religion requires faith. Most atheists would assert that faith is not a valid way of attaining knowledge, but not all of them would.

I don't you can have the opposite of belief. For any statement, we can that it is either true, false or maybe true/false. Disbelief would be believing that the statement is false. This is what confuses me about some atheist. They claim that they have no belief. How can can they see nothingness? Could they dectect nothingness? No, unless we postulate the existance of the soul, something atheist disbelieve. Also when I say impossible, I mean impossible to detect. If the atheist say they have no belief, then they could not know that they have no belief. An example of someone with no belief would be a one year old.

Buddhists are interesting because they take a more scientific approach based on meditation.

Any theory that uses the scientific method can be considered a science. The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable. The creationist then has to use the scientific method to prove that hypothesis. Most of us agree that they have failed or not produced conclusive proof. However this is not to say that it is not a science.

 

[atheroy]

Any theory that uses the scientific method can be considered a science. The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable. The creationist then has to use the scientific method to prove that hypothesis. Most of us agree that they have failed or not produced conclusive proof. However this is not to say that it is not a science.

creationism is a theory, not a scientific one. scientific theories are based on physically observable data, not, "i believe this to be the case despite any evidence being present to prove it".

and the definition of science is (collins); systematic study and knowlewdge of natural or physical phenomena. creationism does not fall into this category, it is not a science.

 

[okinrus]

There is a big IF here, but IF they follow the scientific method, which is based upon observation, then it is a science. http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

 

[atheroy]

There is a big IF here, but IF they follow the scientific method, which is based upon observation, then it is a science

no. it's just not. what is there to observe anyway? the universe is definately not 6000 or 10000 years old. what at all is observable? i would call it a theory but NOT a scientific one. it can't have followed any of those steps because there is basically no evidence around that supports creationsim.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
This is what confuses me about some atheist. They claim that they have no belief. How can can they see nothingness?

Good grief. It is truly hard to believe that such scatter-brained ignorance can be sustained without constant practice.

Originally posted by okinrus
Any theory that uses the scientific method can be considered a science.

The sentence is utter nonsense. Theories don't use scientific method but, rather, scientific method puts strictures on theory. For science, theory is a testable explanation of directly or indirectly observed phenomena.

Originally posted by okinrus
The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable.

It is a totally invalid example of scientific theory, not because it is wholly unprovable but because it is unfalsifiable. "God did it" is not a theory, but a pathetic excuse for the absence of one.

Originally posted by okinrus
Most of us agree that they have failed or not produced conclusive proof. However this is not to say that it is not a science.

You haven't a clue.

 

[Repo Man]

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

From 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=7&catID=2

 

[okinrus]

Good grief. It is truly hard to believe that such scatter-brained ignorance can be sustained without constant practice

Show me how to scientifically detect nothingness and your nonbelief. Otherwise all your doing is name calling.

The sentence is utter nonsense. Theories don't use scientific method but, rather, scientific method puts strictures on theory. For science, theory is a testable explanation of directly or indirectly observed phenomena.

I was specifically responding to Cris's view that God is not a valid hypothesis. You can use any testable hypothesis and have it be a scientific theory.

It is a totally invalid example of scientific theory, not because it is wholly unprovable but because it is unfalsifiable. "God did it" is not a theory, but a pathetic excuse for the absence of one.

Not really. Hypothesizing that the world suddenly came into existance and then trying to find scientific proof, would be science.

 

[biblthmp]

far fewer myths

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
But far, far fewer myths.

That is a matter of opinion, the big bang, and macro evolution are some pretty big myths in my book.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by okinrus
I don't you can have the opposite of belief. For any statement, we can that it is either true, false or maybe true/false. Disbelief would be believing that the statement is false.

Not believing something is true is not the same as believing it is false. For example, if you don't know something, then you don't believe it is true (you have disbelief that it is true) and you don't believe it is false (you have disbelief that it is false). Do you see what the difference is?

This is what confuses me about some atheist. They claim that they have no belief. How can can they see nothingness? Could they dectect nothingness?

The atheists you are referring to likely have no belief that God exists. They also have no belief that God doesn't exist. This is what is meant by "no belief". Lack of belief is not something that can be seen any more than belief is something that can be seen.

If the atheist say they have no belief, then they could not know that they have no belief. An example of someone with no belief would be a one year old.

You are correct. A one-year old would be considered an atheist. In this case, the infant does not have belief because he or she has never been exposed to the idea. However, never being exposed to the idea is only one way in which one may have attained disbelief. Another example is simple skepticism. "I don't know whether God exists. Therefore I don't believe God exists. But I also don't believe God doesn't exist. I just don't know."

Does this help clarify this matter for you?

The hypothesis of creationist is that God created the world. Totally valid but somewhat unprovable.

It is because of the fact that the hypothesis "God created the world" is unfalsifiable that it is not scientific. From the link you yourself provided:

"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be 'falsifiable'. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable."

Not really. Hypothesizing that the world suddenly came into existance and then trying to find scientific proof, would be science.

Big Bang Theory does not hypothesize that the universe "came into existence". It merely asserts that at one point, all the matter in the observable universe was compressed into a point of very small volume. This assertion is deduced from the fact that the universe is expanding, implying that at one point it was all bunched up in a tiny space. This might be true or it might not be, but it is not arbitrary. It is a theory that is based on observations. It is also falsifiable, meaning that it is possible to prove that it is wrong (or at least incomplete) by finding contradictory evidence.