Weak Atheism. What a joke.

[TimeTraveler]

You're kidding, right? How about "why does climate change?" And millions of other questions, many of which are observations that come up during research. Indeed, the very nature of research is to ask a research question, often beginning in "why" as well as "how" or "what."




Poppycock. The very nature of belief in the supernatural, particularly "god," is superstitious. Deny it all you want, but religion amounts to superstition, the belief that there is some invisible, yet all-powerful supernatural agent that needs to be appeased or whose approval is sought. Superstition. Nothing more.

Science is also superstition. Some people actually believe that the material universe is real.

 

[Cris]

TimeT,

Science is also superstition. Some people actually believe that the material universe is real.

So what's your point, both science and religions claim their objects are real. Are you asserting that the universe is unreal then?

This is quite different to natural versus supernatural. The natural has been observed but the supernatural has not. Superstitions are any beliefs that claim the supernatural exists. Science cannot be a superstition since it only operates on objects that exist.

 

[TimeTraveler]

TimeT,

So what's your point, both science and religions claim their objects are real. Are you asserting that the universe is unreal then?

This is quite different to natural versus supernatural. The natural has been observed but the supernatural has not. Superstitions are any beliefs that claim the supernatural exists. Science cannot be a superstition since it only operates on objects that exist.

The quantum world was proven real, and religion has supported quantum theory longer than most scientists. Materialism and material world view are supported mainly by superstitious scientists who cannot see the connection between all things. So in some ways religion is more accurate than superstitious science as religion allows for evolution to make sense, and allows for prediction, and for experiments on the level of the unseen and unheard.

The real world is the quantum world, the world of atoms. Most scientists believe that matter and energy are seperate, it took Einstien to prove otherwise. It took Newton to prove that all movement is predictable with math. Calculus allowed for the measurement of movement and change. Magical religion invented numbers, geometry, calculus, and the theory of relativity, and from this same type of thinking we have string theory, quantum theory, unified field theory, all on the cutting edge.

Science is just method, and you cannot create questions using scientific method. It's also difficult to figure out purpose with scientific method. So science and religion are one and the same, and when combined it's called magic.

Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I see what you mean. But that implies that "atheist" means "someone who identifies with atheism", and recognizes that there are different specific beliefs for those people.

But how do you tell whether someone who does not explicitly identify with atheism is an atheist or not? Is a newborn baby an atheist?

While my phrasing might produce that interpretation, it might be more correct to consider atheism a common state of conceptual geometry. For example, I don't accept the assertion 'God exists' as true because of lack of evidence. A baby doesn't accept the assertion 'God exists' as true because that concept doesn't exist for the baby. The commonality between myself and the baby is we don't accept the assertion 'God exists' as true.

 

[spidergoat]

Science is not superstition. The scientific method does not create questions, but so what? Questions are not answers you can be reasonably sure about. Religions state that they are sure about something for which there is no evidence.

 

[Pete]

While my phrasing might produce that interpretation, it might be more correct to consider atheism a common state of conceptual geometry. For example, I don't accept the assertion 'God exists' as true because of lack of evidence. A baby doesn't accept the assertion 'God exists' as true because that concept doesn't exist for the baby. The commonality between myself and the baby is we don't accept the assertion 'God exists' as true.

Right, but that does not imply that the baby is an atheist.

This true premise:
"All atheists do not accept the assertion 'God exists' as true."
Does not imply that:
"All who do not accept the assertion 'God exists' as true are atheists."

 

[Pete]

Does that mean you have different ideologies too

Atheism doesn't define ideology.
An atheist could be capitalist, anarchist, socialist, or whatever. So could anyone else.

Seems like even atheists can't stay in one group but make divisions based on fine distinctions!

Atheism doesn't mean being in a group. It means holding a particular belief.

There are some cliques that pop up on discussion boards, of course, but that's the nature of humanity, rather than atheism.

Of course, we are very independently minded.

BRIAN: You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I'm not.
*Shhh!*

 

[Pete]

Hi Raithere. Great post!

I have to disagree with not needing a label. There is clearly defined set here that according to our current definition has no identification. Further, according to definition, atheism is a subset of non-belief while theism is excluded.

Why is this a problem?
"Things that are not cats" is a clearly defined set, but it has no common label. "Not cats" or "noncats" would do at a pinch, but really "things that are not cats" is sufficient.
In the same way, "People that are not theists" doesn't have to have a label. "Not theists" or "nontheists" would do, but why bother?

Why is it necessary for "theism" and "atheism" to be complementary sets?

Of course, we can categorize things in differing ways.
...

Good summary.
However, I'd also argue about what "agnostic" means... I don't think that "agnostic" means "no assertion", but rather means the assertion that it is not known (or even can't be known) if God exists. I don't think that babies are agnostic either, for example.


Mentioning cats suggests another line of thought:
Are cats atheist? agnostic? theist? None of the above?
What about rocks?

 

[Jeff 152]

Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And thats why im an agnostic atheist or whataver you want to call me (I do not believe there is a god, though i certainly can not prove that for it is impossible to prove a universal negative--god may exist, he may not exist, but i dont believe it as of now)

When i look back, I cant help but notice how in teh beginning before tehre was science, religion explained everything. The sun was a flaming chariot in teh sky and rose every day becasue a god drove it, rainbows were made as a promise from god, etc etc religious stories have been teh explanation for all natural phenomena since teh beginning of human existence.

But now, as science has progressed and been able to answer WHY the sun rises and WHY a rainbow is made, religion has had to release its hold from these topics. Religion abandoned natural phenomena which science can explain so easily and became more focused on things that science as of now does not have a definite factual explanation for, such as souls, consciousness and creation and afterlife, etc things of tat nature.

It is absurd to me how theists will claim that god must exist because science can not explain how life came from nothing or how teh big bang happened or whatever. Does it not occur to them that theists years ago would say that the gods must drive a flaming chariot across teh sky becasue there is no other expalnation taht can be proved correct. People were just as convinced that there was a god of rocks and trees and air and water and fire as people are convinced today that there is a god.

I believe it is only a matter of time, as science has progreesed, kicking ass and taking names (expalining phenomena and disproving gods and/or religions) that science has come to teh final, most difficult, most profound question of them all, where religion cowers in its final corner of darkness when the rest of their belief has had teh light of science cast upon it, and that soon science will find the answer to that question. There will of corse still be many who will deny it and cling to their belief but tey will become a minority. This is at least my fantasy of teh future when people arent controlled by fear of mythological beasts and all powerful sky gods

 

[Jeff 152]

and on the whole debate of what atheism is, i think this sums it up nicely

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

 

[Cris]

Newer versions of dictionaries are changing to reflect the more accurate definitions.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Science is not superstition. The scientific method does not create questions, but so what? Questions are not answers you can be reasonably sure about. Religions state that they are sure about something for which there is no evidence.

I never said questions are answers, but all good answers require even better questions, and science cannot generate good questions and therefore it's mechanical nature is a limitation.

You said that religious people are sure about stuff they have no evidence for , but so are scientists. Then you have religious people who do have evidence, and you have religious scientists, therefore you have religious science.

Superstition is not the result of the medium it's expressed under, as it's expressed in science, religion, and anything else. Darwins theory of evolution was based on superstition just like Einstiens theory of relativity. Unified field theory is based on superstition just like how calculus was based on Alchemy.

What I'm saying is, there are no absolutes, and while you say science has the answers, so does religion. You can apply the scientific method to religion as many people have done, to prove with science the accuracy of the religion (or disprove it).

So you are free to test in a lab, the theory of everything, unified field theory, quantum theory, chaos theory, evolution, and all the other theories based on speculation. You can believe in intelligent design and still believe in evolution. You can believe in God and still believe in science. You can be athiest and still believe in luck, and in random, and in other superstitious beliefs which don't really exist but which athiests like to claim exists.

Luck, Random, Accident, none of these things exist in science, as everything is cause and effect. Athiests have to believe in these superstitions in order to explain a universe without a founder, the universe somehow randomly and spontaneously created itself from nothing, this is what Athiests believe.

The point is, we would not have cosmology at all if the athiests were asking all the questions, we would never have a big bang theory, we would never have discovered numbers or math, because how can you solve the universe with symbols and human thought that cannot be physically seen, measured or heard?

Do you see, our best math geniuses, our best scientists, our best thinkers were motivated by God, religion, it's just how it is, and if you claim that some religions are more superstitious than others or require more faith than others, thats a true statement, but religion itself has no definition anymore than science does, so there is no way to claim superstition as a trait belongs to religion anymore than you can claim that because we use science to destroy ourselves, that science is a weapon. Science is a tool, and so is religion, and it depends on who is in control of the tool which decides how superstitious it is.

Superstition is applied equally in religion and science, just look carefully and you'll see how biased science is towards materialism, and towards trying to define everything as seperate, trying to put everything into boxes, and trying to focus on heirarchy and other artifical structures which don't actually exist in the universe but which exist only in peoples minds.

So when you think of Darwins theory of evolution, and natural selection, natural selection was an idea based entirely on intuition, based entirely on guesstimates and superstition. If we discover that in reality there is no seperate, and that you share on the quantum level, molecules and atoms with every living thing on the planet, and that these things are the core of the life engine, it sorta changes how you view evolution. It also changes the rules, as how fit you are no longer decides your fate when you are the one who defines what fit is for everything else.

It's also not a matter of fitness once you realize that there are quantum lifeforms that can make a fit species unfit overnight, a virus could do it, a parasite could do it, a bacteria could do it, or just a new funky quantum particle could destablize matter and do it. There are so many variables that evolution as a theory is about as simple as saying

"Might makes right, do all what you want!"

So in order to interpret reality, because no human has a brain big enough to actually interpret reality without negative or positive bias, we require a religion as the interpreter. If a new alien lifeform came to earth in the form of a virus or parasite, it could take only a matter of days, or weeks before all of us were infected. If we had no concept of "alien", we would not know what the hell was infecting us, and we'd not know how to deal with it at all.

Another example, had religion not been invented, we would never have developed money, because money is not real, it's a symbol, a representation of something else, just like a number, it's based on superstition, but it works because everyone believes in the superstition. Scientists, in specific scientific minds that have no concept of of the fact that perception is reality, and that there is no reality besides the reality we all agree on, they'd spend their entire lives solving pointless puzzles for the sake of solving puzzles.

You know the type, the type who study science for the sake of and enjoyment of studying science, they get all A's in school, they study their lives away, and in the end they don't accomplish anything because they don't have a reason to study. Once again

If you are athiest, what is your reason for studying? There is no God? Ok, so what do you believe in? Athiests do believe in something and do have faith in things, sometimes it's faith in money, sometimes it's faith in science, sometimes it's faith in math, sometimes it's faith in people, but they have faith too and are no better than people who have faith in God. If you have no faith at all, then you study science for fun, not to find real solutions.

 

[TimeTraveler]

When i look back, I cant help but notice how in teh beginning before tehre was science, religion explained everything. The sun was a flaming chariot in teh sky and rose every day becasue a god drove it, rainbows were made as a promise from god, etc etc religious stories have been teh explanation for all natural phenomena since teh beginning of human existence.

Exactly, it's the same with science. Science explains everything because religious science, the mixture of religious questions answered via scientific inquiry.

But now, as science has progressed and been able to answer WHY the sun rises and WHY a rainbow is made, religion has had to release its hold from these topics. Religion abandoned natural phenomena which science can explain so easily and became more focused on things that science as of now does not have a definite factual explanation for, such as souls, consciousness and creation and afterlife, etc things of tat nature.

Science does have answers for the soul, consciousness and the afterlife, the problem is it's not testable because ultimately people believe only in perception, not science or religion. Religon therefore blends with science because religion can code science in the way which people can understand it, while science is coded in a way for only science lovers to understand. So now we have religious people who actually cite science, and science people who cite religion, when explaining the new technology or ideas to the general public. It's neccessary to do this because the general public will not understand quantum entanglement when you use thousands of lines of math and science code to explain it, but if you just say that everything is connected, and that there is no such thing as seperate, sure it sounds like magic or religion, but it's scientifically accurate to say.

It is absurd to me how theists will claim that god must exist because science can not explain how life came from nothing or how teh big bang happened or whatever. Does it not occur to them that theists years ago would say that the gods must drive a flaming chariot across teh sky becasue there is no other expalnation taht can be proved correct.

Athiests believe the universe came from nothing, all by itself, and in natural selection, neither of these are scientifically proven or proveable. You can prove evolution, but only religion explains what evolution is, science just says it's there and explains the mechanics. Look, I'll say now, evolution is real, but that we control our own evolution, not some God of natural selection, but our own decisions, and even our language. Evolution is controlled more by language than by natural selection. The concept of God is what allowed us to evolve this far, it was the language.

People were just as convinced that there was a god of rocks and trees and air and water and fire as people are convinced today that there is a god.

Sure but none of that is false. You cannot prove God is not energy, as fire, trees, water, air, all function on energy in different states. People worshipped the sun, and it's true, without the sun there would be no life, so it's safe to believe the sun is God, at least for our section of the galaxy.

I believe it is only a matter of time, as science has progreesed, kicking ass and taking names (expalining phenomena and disproving gods and/or religions) that science has come to teh final, most difficult, most profound question of them all, where religion cowers in its final corner of darkness when the rest of their belief has had teh light of science cast upon it, and that soon science will find the answer to that question. There will of corse still be many who will deny it and cling to their belief but tey will become a minority. This is at least my fantasy of teh future when people arent controlled by fear of mythological beasts and all powerful sky gods

You don't seem to get it. Science is actually now beginning to prove there is a God. Explain what string theory is, or unified field theory is, as an athiest, without using God or anything religious and you'll have a difficult time. Just the name unified field theory sounds religious. Just the idea that calculus and scientifc laws of the universe exist, I mean what is this? The commandments of the universe? Why can't we break them at will? Why would a universe without a God, follow any laws?

 

[superluminal]

Fuck it. There is no god. I take as substantial proof the fact that, after millenia upon millenia of human existence there is no shred of convincing evidence of any but natural effects in the universe. Also, the fact that everything we study, no matter how deep we go, has either a well established natural explanation or can be explained better in the light of science rather than the useless idea of a "creator".

Ponderig the idea of a god is fun coffee shop chit-chat but we already know there is no god based on overwhelming lack of evidence. And I already know "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This is a nice phrase, but the fact is, we all take the absence of evidence for ideas that have been throught the mill of philosophical, scientific, and practical examination (for thousands of years) as evidence of absence.

There is no god. For all intents and purposes, proven. More than adequately.

I am truly an atheist. Without gods. Certain there are no gods.

 

[superluminal]

You don't seem to get it. Science is actually now beginning to prove there is a God. Explain what string theory is, or unified field theory is, as an athiest, without using God or anything religious and you'll have a difficult time. Just the name unified field theory sounds religious. Just the idea that calculus and scientifc laws of the universe exist, I mean what is this? The commandments of the universe? Why can't we break them at will? Why would a universe without a God, follow any laws?

Why don't you explain these things to us using god? Please give us a nice explanation with observational accuracy and predictive power for any of these subjects.

And why would a mechanical universe, operating with a few basic "laws" need a god at all?

 

[lixluke]

And I already know "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

You mean like the weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Fuck it. There is no god. I take as substantial proof the fact that, after millenia upon millenia of human existence there is no shred of convincing evidence of any but natural effects in the universe. Also, the fact that everything we study, no matter how deep we go, has either a well established natural explanation or can be explained better in the light of science rather than the useless idea of a "creator".

Ponderig the idea of a god is fun coffee shop chit-chat but we already know there is no god based on overwhelming lack of evidence. And I already know "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This is a nice phrase, but the fact is, we all take the absence of evidence for ideas that have been throught the mill of philosophical, scientific, and practical examination (for thousands of years) as evidence of absence.

There is no god. For all intents and purposes, proven. More than adequately.

I am truly an atheist. Without gods. Certain there are no gods.

What is evidence to some is not evidence to all.

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean like the weapons of mass destruction?

lolz!!!

 

[superluminal]

You mean like the weapons of mass destruction?

Think bigger lukeskywalker. Think all of human history with no hint of a god.

 

[superluminal]

lolz!!!

Yeah. Hilarious.