They're scrambling for data showing that God doesn't exist.
should I preach atheism?
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
what? whats going on here, people are speaking in sentence fragments! =]
existabrent, what are you talking about? did you read my first post? do you know the topic of the thread, or just read the title?
IceAgeCivilizations, what are you talking about, who is looking for data?
I get the feeling people are trying to use sarcasm, but forgot that they don't have the ability when using text.
existabrent, what are you talking about? did you read my first post? do you know the topic of the thread, or just read the title?
IceAgeCivilizations, what are you talking about, who is looking for data?
I get the feeling people are trying to use sarcasm, but forgot that they don't have the ability when using text.
I was just alluding that the Atheists don't seem to be jumping to your aid with bright ideas.
cato, I think it's commendable to speak out in favor of your beliefs. I hope you won't pay too dear a price however. The teacher may persecute you, for example.
Here's an idea. Instead of talking about atheism, talk about rationalist, platonistic theories of existence. Do you know what I mean? I don't have enough posts yet to post a link but I know of a good article by Max Tegmark that explains the idea of mathematical existence and how physical existence is plausibly merely a special case of ME.
The point is, while religious philosphy has nothing more to offer than a magical sky fairy speaking the universe into existence with magic words (i.e., an utter non-explanation), the idea that PE=ME is substantive and consistent with observation and compelling. Tegmark argues it's experimentally testable (to some extent). Actually, seems to me, it even allows for the existence of deity, although it would require any said deity to be mathematically consistent.
Here's an idea. Instead of talking about atheism, talk about rationalist, platonistic theories of existence. Do you know what I mean? I don't have enough posts yet to post a link but I know of a good article by Max Tegmark that explains the idea of mathematical existence and how physical existence is plausibly merely a special case of ME.
The point is, while religious philosphy has nothing more to offer than a magical sky fairy speaking the universe into existence with magic words (i.e., an utter non-explanation), the idea that PE=ME is substantive and consistent with observation and compelling. Tegmark argues it's experimentally testable (to some extent). Actually, seems to me, it even allows for the existence of deity, although it would require any said deity to be mathematically consistent.
Unless wwe have a mathematical proof that no deity-containing universe can be without contradiction, we cannot claim the impossibility of deity under the PE=ME hypothesis. However, under this hypothesis we have eliminated the need for deity as an explanatory mechanism for existence. Also, it seems unlikely that, of all possible mathematically-consistent universes, many of them would incorporate a deity, since this is an unnecessary complication.
Last edited:
Now that I can post links, here is to the platonistic theory of which I spoke:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
also
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.pdf
While it's true that one is under no obligation to present an alternative explanation when rejecting another on its merits, I continue to feel that it would be beneficial to provide a compelling alternative, for the benefit of those sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate it. Or for the unsophisticated but uncontaminated by superstitious nonsense. That is, I think a child could understand this, would probably take it to heart, and so be immunized against non-explanations masquerading as "revealed" truth.
Admittedly a child would need to have it explained in a less formal way. But I think the idea that numbers and other mathematical entities are more than mere arbitrary constructs, could be grasped by a young mind. Basically, they used to teach sophisticated mathematical ideas to young kids, and called it the "new math". It was awesome.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
also
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.pdf
While it's true that one is under no obligation to present an alternative explanation when rejecting another on its merits, I continue to feel that it would be beneficial to provide a compelling alternative, for the benefit of those sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate it. Or for the unsophisticated but uncontaminated by superstitious nonsense. That is, I think a child could understand this, would probably take it to heart, and so be immunized against non-explanations masquerading as "revealed" truth.
Admittedly a child would need to have it explained in a less formal way. But I think the idea that numbers and other mathematical entities are more than mere arbitrary constructs, could be grasped by a young mind. Basically, they used to teach sophisticated mathematical ideas to young kids, and called it the "new math". It was awesome.
read some of these, and then reduce it so its shorter and simpler so the religious morrons can easily digest it
www.atheists.org/Atheism/
And make sure you allow for a question and answer period, it adds to your credibility.
I don't like that site at all. "Atheism is a doctrine..." lost me right there. or "An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god." are you kidding me? these sentences seem to be (and in the latter case, most likely) formulated to make people hate atheists. "instead of god" no, god is simply not a factor. its not like I said "hmm should I worship god or man... man!"
agreed. I don't think I would even talk about scientific views of how the universe began because of the risk of sounding like I traded in the dogma of christianity for the dogma of science. I really want to simply explain why I feel that things need more justification than is offered by any current religion.
if I do speak, it would mostly be about:
--how we measure truth
--the different types of atheism
--where Atheists get their morals
are there any other main points I could touch on? or are there any points within those categories that you think I should not forget, if I do decide to speak to a class?
edit:
I would like to hear more from MW, she is a very level headed individual.
What do you mean by "level headed?"
Excellent. Make sure to point out that "truth" is always provosional and an approximation most of the time.
Also, talk about the central fact of much of the political side of atheism is that atheists just want any kind of non-objective bias eliminated from public affairs in order to achieve the most equitable society possible.
What else...?
Hahaha, that site's real funny, it makes atheism appear as if its some type of philosophy or religion, when it really isn't....also all teachings there freakishly reminds me of things Jesus says....
Since when wasn't I a rationalist? Since I claim that its possible that God exists and you say its not?
thank you.
heh, thats a good one, I need to use that one some time =]
anyway, the only way in which atheism is a "faith" is we (most atheists I know) have faith that it is better to use stringent tests (evidence, rationality, ect) to determine the validity claims.
we (again, most atheists I know) don't have "faith" that there is no god, we simply see no reason to think there is a god.
IMHO, talking about "truth" and "morals" will be too vague unless you can adequately define them such that everyone can understand exactly what you are talking about.
Can you define "morals"? Can you define what "truth" is?
Why are these things important to atheism?
Personally, unless you are in a philosophy class, I would stick to more fundamental elements:
- Atheism - varous types (weak / strong etc) - and your particular flavour / position;
- Atheism - what it is NOT (i.e. religion);
- Atheism and Agnosticism - the difference (one is about belief, the other about knowledge);
Depending on your own flavour and thinking - you can then talk about the lack of verifiable evidence for theism.
This will lead on to the Scientific Method - and onus of proof / providing evidence.
To add more "support" to your stance, you should then rattle off some "stories" that appear made-up (see THIS LINK for some ideas) but actually form the origins of various beliefs - and then ask for feedback on them from the rest of the class.
And then Q&A - which will probably revolve around the supposedly "available" evidence for God. So be prepared to counter those.
Be comfortable in yourself of what constitutes evidence (verifiable and repeatable) and be prepared to counter any claims of evidence with similar examples they give that accentuate their ridiculousness.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Atheism a religion, they fellowship together, base their eternal destiny on it, must have faith that there is no God (or else they would be agnostics), produce literature trying to support their position, and point out the supposed flaws in the other religions.