The truth about Atheism?
- Thread starter Fluidity
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What does this mean?
science doesn't have to prove that god doesn't exist because it is one of the assumptions in science that god doesn't exist.
science studies the natural world after all, not the supernatural world.
that said, there haven't been any 'scientific' signs that there is a supernatural layer to this universe. So far everything can be explained naturally.
science studies the natural world after all, not the supernatural world.
that said, there haven't been any 'scientific' signs that there is a supernatural layer to this universe. So far everything can be explained naturally.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Put somewhat differently, science declares God(s) and the supernatural out of scope.
My assumption
I had always assumed a distinct difference between agnostics and atheists. The agnostic admits a degree of ambiguity in belief, while the atheist denies the possibility that God(s) exists.
But, it would appear there are devout atheists that believe they will prove God(s) does not exist through science, as in the case of Carl Sagan, in his reliance upon the Big Bang theory to disprove creationism.
I was an Atheist for about 7 years in my youth. In retrospect, I see religion as the root of my disbelief. I had to overcome this huge obstacle of my distaste for religion to discern God from mankind. My faith in God did not survive. Afterall, there are many religions older than christianity, none of which seem to do any better or worse than teaching fundamental principles of proper behavior. In some cases, the behaviors we see from 'twisted' sects of any religion would be misanthropic--evil. From an entirely clinical perspective, Buddhism seems the most successful of all religions in terms of human interaction, i.e., not having a negative impact, but positive.
The transfer from one belief system to the next, from Atheism to belief in God or vice versa, is a completely personal journey of reasoning, or the complete lack thereof. I have always seen reliance upon my emotions for judgement as a poor attempt at autonomy. In my case, belief in God was a process of reasoning. I had to 'unlearn' religion, accept agnosticism, define my Atheism, and look deeply into what I consider the range of possibilities before making the final decision that there is a God.
In short, I see no ground for science being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, short-sighted religions that teach improper science leave their victims helplessly inept in a world of increasing knowledge. And, Atheists that 'attack' religion with science are as repulsive to me as any religious zealot.
I see no point in any of it. To be an Atheist is a personal choice that I deeply respect for the personal reasons stated above. To follow <B>Atheism</B> is as much a religion as Puritanistic Catholicism, and thereby just as useless--in my opinion. I see two mirrored religious sects standing across a tiny divide, pointing fingers and jeering at one another. Silly.
I had always assumed a distinct difference between agnostics and atheists. The agnostic admits a degree of ambiguity in belief, while the atheist denies the possibility that God(s) exists.
But, it would appear there are devout atheists that believe they will prove God(s) does not exist through science, as in the case of Carl Sagan, in his reliance upon the Big Bang theory to disprove creationism.
I was an Atheist for about 7 years in my youth. In retrospect, I see religion as the root of my disbelief. I had to overcome this huge obstacle of my distaste for religion to discern God from mankind. My faith in God did not survive. Afterall, there are many religions older than christianity, none of which seem to do any better or worse than teaching fundamental principles of proper behavior. In some cases, the behaviors we see from 'twisted' sects of any religion would be misanthropic--evil. From an entirely clinical perspective, Buddhism seems the most successful of all religions in terms of human interaction, i.e., not having a negative impact, but positive.
The transfer from one belief system to the next, from Atheism to belief in God or vice versa, is a completely personal journey of reasoning, or the complete lack thereof. I have always seen reliance upon my emotions for judgement as a poor attempt at autonomy. In my case, belief in God was a process of reasoning. I had to 'unlearn' religion, accept agnosticism, define my Atheism, and look deeply into what I consider the range of possibilities before making the final decision that there is a God.
In short, I see no ground for science being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, short-sighted religions that teach improper science leave their victims helplessly inept in a world of increasing knowledge. And, Atheists that 'attack' religion with science are as repulsive to me as any religious zealot.
I see no point in any of it. To be an Atheist is a personal choice that I deeply respect for the personal reasons stated above. To follow <B>Atheism</B> is as much a religion as Puritanistic Catholicism, and thereby just as useless--in my opinion. I see two mirrored religious sects standing across a tiny divide, pointing fingers and jeering at one another. Silly.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: My assumption
Who here is "following atheism"?
I made no accusations
I made no accusations about the people here, and find no fault in any path you or anyone else chooses to follow. These perceptions belong to me. I am not the least bit misanthropic--in my approach. I am investigating the feedback for personal reasons, mostly curiosity. I'm interested in seeing a cross-section of people.
What do you think?
Oh..
Originally posted by Fluidity
Or, is it just a belief that God does not exist, suggesting equal domain for those who believe God does exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The distinct difference between attempting to <b>prove</b> God(s) does not exist, and simply taking a position on the belief in the non-existence of God(s); simply belief or disbelief in God(s) being equal in scope and domain.
I made no accusations about the people here, and find no fault in any path you or anyone else chooses to follow. These perceptions belong to me. I am not the least bit misanthropic--in my approach. I am investigating the feedback for personal reasons, mostly curiosity. I'm interested in seeing a cross-section of people.
What do you think?
Oh..
Originally posted by Fluidity
Or, is it just a belief that God does not exist, suggesting equal domain for those who believe God does exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The distinct difference between attempting to <b>prove</b> God(s) does not exist, and simply taking a position on the belief in the non-existence of God(s); simply belief or disbelief in God(s) being equal in scope and domain.
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: I made no accusations
Parenthetically ...
I think you have an insufficiently nuanced understanding of what in meant by atheism and agnosticism, and that this simplistic view leads you to tilt at windmills.
Parenthetically ...
Where does Sagan say anything approaching this nonsense?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Actually I was trying to get Fluidity to clarify the intent of his comments, since the comments themselves evidence a fair degree of confusion and hostility.
Flawed perception?
Interesting. I find God quite natural in the sense it is a very deep instinct for the human mind to find solutions to the unexplained.
That unexplainable event, for me, is the beginning of the beginning. What science does, for me, is explain the various natural and beautiful way our Universe was created, and still creates.
In so far as scientific signs that support existence of God, I can find nothing in the Universe, through all the cosmos, that possesses the ability to create itself. We are left with the Chicken and the egg, again, except on a much larger scale.
What I suggest is: There is no explanation for the existence of the Universe. We can only find cause and effect. The initial cause of the initial cause is impossible to determine.
What I call God, you may call the Universe. If I choose to believe there is an underlying consciousness and you do not, that is a personal choice. Science has nothing to do with it.
In short, it is one of <b><i>your</b></i> assumptions that scientists assume God doesn't exist.
Interesting. I find God quite natural in the sense it is a very deep instinct for the human mind to find solutions to the unexplained.
That unexplainable event, for me, is the beginning of the beginning. What science does, for me, is explain the various natural and beautiful way our Universe was created, and still creates.
In so far as scientific signs that support existence of God, I can find nothing in the Universe, through all the cosmos, that possesses the ability to create itself. We are left with the Chicken and the egg, again, except on a much larger scale.
What I suggest is: There is no explanation for the existence of the Universe. We can only find cause and effect. The initial cause of the initial cause is impossible to determine.
What I call God, you may call the Universe. If I choose to believe there is an underlying consciousness and you do not, that is a personal choice. Science has nothing to do with it.
In short, it is one of <b><i>your</b></i> assumptions that scientists assume God doesn't exist.
CA
since the comments themselves evidence a fair degree of confusion and hostility.
Where does Sagan say anything approaching this nonsense?
I think you have an insufficiently nuanced understanding
<HR>
<B><I>This</B></I> is evidence of a fair degree of confusion and hostility. Sagan 'approaches' this nonsense in Stehpen Hawking's book "A Brief History Of Time." He doesn't approach it, he says it. And, Hawking refuses to acknowledge when Sagan asks if he believes the Big Bang refutes creationism, but Hawking applauds Sagan's tenacity, which I will do for you.
I think you are too uninformed about my views, and too defensive about your own, to make any judgement at all about how "insufficiently nuanced" my understanding is about anything.
since the comments themselves evidence a fair degree of confusion and hostility.
Where does Sagan say anything approaching this nonsense?
I think you have an insufficiently nuanced understanding
<HR>
<B><I>This</B></I> is evidence of a fair degree of confusion and hostility. Sagan 'approaches' this nonsense in Stehpen Hawking's book "A Brief History Of Time." He doesn't approach it, he says it. And, Hawking refuses to acknowledge when Sagan asks if he believes the Big Bang refutes creationism, but Hawking applauds Sagan's tenacity, which I will do for you.
I think you are too uninformed about my views, and too defensive about your own, to make any judgement at all about how "insufficiently nuanced" my understanding is about anything.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Flawed perception?
Only so long as your verbal slight-of-hand remains benign and your term 'God' superfluous.
I agree. Science does not "assume God doesn't exist"; science declares the existence of God(s) irrelevant.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: CA
Perhaps a quote would help. If not, given that many of us own the book, a page reference should suffice.
I can only assume that your views are reflected in your comments.
CA
Only so long as your verbal slight-of-hand remains benign and your term 'God' superfluous.
<HR>
I don't find it the least bit superfluous, you do. I find the consciousness I describe to be the fundamental cause of particle physics, gravity, etc...
As for verbal slight of hand, I don't own a book by Stephen Hawking. If you deny Carl Sagan had anti-creationistic views, you already have sufficient 'slight-of-hand' to refute the meaning of the words he wrote and said.
Sagan was not the scientist he was touted to be <I><B>because</I></B> he didn't make the existence of God irrelevant to science.
Only so long as your verbal slight-of-hand remains benign and your term 'God' superfluous.
<HR>
I don't find it the least bit superfluous, you do. I find the consciousness I describe to be the fundamental cause of particle physics, gravity, etc...
As for verbal slight of hand, I don't own a book by Stephen Hawking. If you deny Carl Sagan had anti-creationistic views, you already have sufficient 'slight-of-hand' to refute the meaning of the words he wrote and said.
Sagan was not the scientist he was touted to be <I><B>because</I></B> he didn't make the existence of God irrelevant to science.
Re: Flawed perception?
First chicken egg appears, then it becomes the first chicken. Who laid the egg? A kind of bird that very similar to chicken. What happened to the egg? The egg has some small mutation during its creation and becomes a chicken egg. So no need to confuse which one comes first anymore.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: CA
You're becoming incoherent.
And I made such a claim where, exactly?
CA
Where does Sagan say anything approaching this nonsense?
You are becoming incoherent.
<HR>
I do that, become incoherent that is. Train of thought, hard to define, many trains, all fading in and out...
"Oh, the humanity..." that fat bald guy, in that movie about Nam.
Anyway, above is where you <b>appear</b> to deny Sagan has anti-creationistic views. I would now assume you agree. Yes? No?
Where does Sagan say anything approaching this nonsense?
You are becoming incoherent.
<HR>
I do that, become incoherent that is. Train of thought, hard to define, many trains, all fading in and out...
"Oh, the humanity..." that fat bald guy, in that movie about Nam.
Anyway, above is where you <b>appear</b> to deny Sagan has anti-creationistic views. I would now assume you agree. Yes? No?