|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:29 pm
that people pair Atheism and science together?
Like "Oh, Atheists believe in the big bang and evolution..."
It bothers me a bit, wbu?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:00 pm
I think it's only disturbing when you look at the reverse; many religious people do not accept science at all just because they think it's an antitheist concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:52 am
Lethkhar I think it's only disturbing when you look at the reverse; many religious people do not accept science at all just because they think it's an antitheist concept. It is thoroughly materialist though... It is dealing with the real world, not souls, or gods, or fairies...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:13 am
Let's review: Atheism is the belief there is no god, science is explained as "understanding the world around us".
While I'm sure there's some atheists who are nihilist's (belief in nothing and such), science helps make sense out of godlessness to our pitiful human brains.
I'm actually happy most atheists are intrigued in science, it makes most of us look like hyper intelligent scholars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:03 pm
I would only be offended if you reverse the formula. The only Atheist that most religious people know is the humanist Realist Atheist or just the realist Atheist. This is most-likely the idea that everything can be solved by science or that you just at things from a non-supernatural viewpoint.
* A.K.A. Point of view without no proof or evidence or law of existence *
Infact, I get giddy that people think that Atheist just believe in science. Mostly because it makes it sound like they DON'T. I mean, what would it be called then? Fables?
Going onward, religious gents and women add science and no belief in the same category mostly because most Atheist think this way considering it is the most sensible way through their eyes.
I always thought that Atheism is just a definition of someone not believing in any creators, but now I'm starting to think that it is the idea of someone who either doesn't want or doesn't need to look what is beyond death to be happy. It is about living to be happy, not being happy when your not alive. o.e I find it funny how people believe that you will live after dieing. It's like total paradox. Why have death, then?
Point is, this comparing is a slight mistake, yes, but does kinda make some sense.
HOWEVER, it hurts mean when religious people start talking on how science is an Atheistic belief.
You can't have evolution AND a Divine bearded fascist in the sky?
Course not, because that just sounds ******** crazy.
You can't have an all divine God create evolution. It wouldn't make sense.
Sure, he created a sex-mate for Adam from his rib, when he could've just used nothing just as he did for the planet, and then a tree full of knowledge fruit.
* P.S. Apparently the moral in the Adam and Eve story is that ignorance is bliss since knowledge is evil, or atleast how God and Satan says it. neutral *
* P.S.S. Yes, my last words were mostly sarcastic. God can create evolution if he can break every-other law of physics or the Law of Conservation. *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:04 pm
Captain_Shinzo I would only be offended if you reverse the formula. The only Atheist that most religious people know is the humanist Realist Atheist or just the realist Atheist. This is most-likely the idea that everything can be solved by science or that you just at things from a non-supernatural viewpoint.
* A.K.A. Point of view without no proof or evidence or law of existence * This idea pisses me off. The idea that rejecting the supernatural out of hand requires a "Point of view without no proof or evidence or law of existence." I am a thorough, and uncompromising materialist because I no longer need to be convinced. I cold say "if gods existed, then my attitude to them would be..." but that is just stupid. Gods don't exist, that much is axiomatic for materialism. Petty appealing to the 'moderate' religious people is just foolish. You end up degrading your own world view in order to get a partner who isn't really on your side. Captain_Shinzo Infact, I get giddy that people think that Atheist just believe in science. Mostly because it makes it sound like they DON'T. I mean, what would it be called then? Fables?
Going onward, religious gents and women add science and no belief in the same category mostly because most Atheist think this way considering it is the most sensible way through their eyes. No, the put science and atheism together because they know science threatens their very beliefs, and strengthens materialism. They appear to be more shrewd than you... Captain_Shinzo I always thought that Atheism is just a definition of someone not believing in any creators, but now I'm starting to think that it is the idea of someone who either doesn't want or doesn't need to look what is beyond death to be happy. It is about living to be happy, not being happy when your not alive. o.e I find it funny how people believe that you will live after dieing. It's like total paradox. Why have death, then? Huh... I'm an atheist who does not want to die, and the thought of oblivion scares the s**t out of me. I wish I could believe, but I don't, and I doubt I ever will be able to. Such belief is unreconcilable with a completely sane world-view. Captain_Shinzo Point is, this comparing is a slight mistake, yes, but does kinda make some sense.
HOWEVER, it hurts mean when religious people start talking on how science is an Atheistic belief.
You can't have evolution AND a Divine bearded fascist in the sky?
Course not, because that just sounds ******** crazy.
You can't have an all divine God create evolution. It wouldn't make sense.
Sure, he created a sex-mate for Adam from his rib, when he could've just used nothing just as he did for the planet, and then a tree full of knowledge fruit.
* P.S. Apparently the moral in the Adam and Eve story is that ignorance is bliss since knowledge is evil, or atleast how God and Satan says it. neutral *
* P.S.S. Yes, my last words were mostly sarcastic. God can create evolution if he can break every-other law of physics or the Law of Conservation. * blah blah blah. Again, science is thoroughly materialist. You can try to cozy up to the idealists all you want, but in the end, you will just compromise your own beliefs, while not impacting theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:41 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre Captain_Shinzo I would only be offended if you reverse the formula. The only Atheist that most religious people know is the humanist Realist Atheist or just the realist Atheist. This is most-likely the idea that everything can be solved by science or that you just at things from a non-supernatural viewpoint.
* A.K.A. Point of view without no proof or evidence or law of existence * This idea pisses me off. The idea that rejecting the supernatural out of hand requires a "Point of view without no proof or evidence or law of existence." I am a thorough, and uncompromising materialist because I no longer need to be convinced. I cold say "if gods existed, then my attitude to them would be..." but that is just stupid. Gods don't exist, that much is axiomatic for materialism. Petty appealing to the 'moderate' religious people is just foolish. You end up degrading your own world view in order to get a partner who isn't really on your side. Captain_Shinzo Infact, I get giddy that people think that Atheist just believe in science. Mostly because it makes it sound like they DON'T. I mean, what would it be called then? Fables?
Going onward, religious gents and women add science and no belief in the same category mostly because most Atheist think this way considering it is the most sensible way through their eyes. No, the put science and atheism together because they know science threatens their very beliefs, and strengthens materialism. They appear to be more shrewd than you... Captain_Shinzo I always thought that Atheism is just a definition of someone not believing in any creators, but now I'm starting to think that it is the idea of someone who either doesn't want or doesn't need to look what is beyond death to be happy. It is about living to be happy, not being happy when your not alive. o.e I find it funny how people believe that you will live after dieing. It's like total paradox. Why have death, then? Huh... I'm an atheist who does not want to die, and the thought of oblivion scares the s**t out of me. I wish I could believe, but I don't, and I doubt I ever will be able to. Such belief is unreconcilable with a completely sane world-view. Captain_Shinzo Point is, this comparing is a slight mistake, yes, but does kinda make some sense.
HOWEVER, it hurts mean when religious people start talking on how science is an Atheistic belief.
You can't have evolution AND a Divine bearded fascist in the sky?
Course not, because that just sounds ******** crazy.
You can't have an all divine God create evolution. It wouldn't make sense.
Sure, he created a sex-mate for Adam from his rib, when he could've just used nothing just as he did for the planet, and then a tree full of knowledge fruit.
* P.S. Apparently the moral in the Adam and Eve story is that ignorance is bliss since knowledge is evil, or atleast how God and Satan says it. neutral *
* P.S.S. Yes, my last words were mostly sarcastic. God can create evolution if he can break every-other law of physics or the Law of Conservation. * blah blah blah. Again, science is thoroughly materialist. You can try to cozy up to the idealists all you want, but in the end, you will just compromise your own beliefs, while not impacting theirs.
I will admit that science isn't always materialist. However, exact fact can only be obtainable by either disproving or approving.
Your first quote kinda confused me in a manner, really. I was speaking of Realist Atheism, meaning lack of proof is hard to believe. In other words, if someone told me a dog s**t under my bed, I wont believe nor can I say it is false until I actually look. However, evidence shows from my history, background, and variables that a dog shitting under my bed doesn't seem plausible or an everyday thing.
Your second quote DOES make sense. However, I have to admit that both sides, yours and mine, are a personal opinion of a large group and can not be proven to be true nor false on the occasion. I find this quiet logical yet I don't for the matter that it means that Christians would have some doubt in their belief and we all know that most are too self-centered and open-minded to even get to this point.
Your other qoute about my death idea does make sense, but I'm talking about death ITSELF, not fear of death. I'm speaking that if we have an after death, then why not just have immortality?
Dieing to only live again seems weird. However, dieing itself is some scary s**t I might add.
As for your last quote, I'm getting to the point on what most Christians say in an argument. I have never admitted that God exists or have said this yet I have said that the character God himself seems powerful enough to create a chain reaction called evolution. Their idea saying that evolution can't exist because God shows this is just bullocks.
If I ever believed in Christianity, I wont believe some Divine person made everything from nothing and them made stuff out of that crap he made from nothing. Then again, I contradicted myself because the belief in God is the belief that matter CAN be made or destroyed which is wrong, or atleast for now.
My point I'm getting at is that your quotes look at my quotes from a strange point of view. Even if your ideas are perfected and sensible to the touch doesn't mean it was on topic nor did it prove anything right or wrong, or atleast not the matter at hand.
* P.S. I did state that there are many different kinds of Atheism, did I not? This goes back to telling on how I was talking about Humanist Realist Atheism which is the belief that science can prove everything. I did not say anything of the rejection of the super-natural because if the super-natural is plausible then it can't be rejected. *
* P.S.S. How is it " cozying " up to idealists if I just proved that God CAN'T exist without breaking every form of natural law? or do I actually need to say this for people to know? *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:30 pm
If only science could answer all questions... Sadly it can only explain just a small part of human activity. It can only say "how", but it will never tell me "why".
I don't think atheism must be so connected with science. I know many scientists that are believing in some stuff. I know many believing people that accept science fully. Even priests.
Actually I find nothing in science that would support atheism. Making some religious dogma absurd - sure. But atheism itself? Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:41 pm
Raticiel If only science could answer all questions... Sadly it can only explain just a small part of human activity. It can only say "how", but it will never tell me "why". I don't think atheism must be so connected with science. I know many scientists that are believing in some stuff. I know many believing people that accept science fully. Even priests. Actually I find nothing in science that would support atheism. Making some religious dogma absurd - sure. But atheism itself? Sorry.
Science may be able to explain everything but we haven't discovered it.
Then again, it may can't and the only reason something does something because it is what it is.
Likes why bees fly. There is an explanation but we aren't sure yet.
Again, science tells how and why but the lines between the two are blurry at times or just one of the same.
I also think Atheism shouldn't be connected with science. However, saying Atheism IS connected to science doesn't over-rule that other religions believe in science. I actually thought the argument was about Atheism being connected to science and how but if other beliefs are being used then I find a question to be un-answered.
Science may not prove Atheism, but it does kinda side with it and show it is sensible and has the more sensible theories of existence while it kinda disproves religion.
It can disprove religion but does not approve Atheism.
Doesn't mean it shows that Atheism is more sensible then Deities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:39 am
Captain_Shinzo Why is explained by why, really. Although it is not as simple as how, it is still there.
Science may be able to explain everything but we haven't discovered it.
Then again, it may can't and the only reason something does something because it is what it is.
Likes why bees fly. There is an explanation but we aren't sure yet. I meant some more fundamental questions, like meaning of life, what are the reasons for us to exist, why was universe created... Science can't tell that. Perhaps it can explain why animals are doing certain things, but what's the value, of for example, surviving and keeping the species alive? What is the reason? What is the aim? Why is it like that? Why not another? Captain_Shinzo Again, science tells how and why but the lines between the two are blurry at times or just one of the same. I also think Atheism shouldn't be connected with science. However, saying Atheism IS connected to science doesn't over-rule that other religions believe in science. I actually thought the argument was about Atheism being connected to science and how but if other beliefs are being used then I find a question to be un-answered. Science may not prove Atheism, but it does kinda side with it and show it is sensible and has the more sensible theories of existence while it kinda disproves religion. It can disprove religion but does not approve Atheism. Doesn't mean it shows that Atheism is more sensible then Deities. Are you sure atheism sides with science? I'd say it's totally opposite. Theism came from trying to explain the world. All nature's harmony, the way it seems to be planned - those are common theistic arguments. The famous evolution - such precise and somewhat planned process could've been organised by an ultimate reason of god. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to say that theism is better than atheism. I just find both missing something and unsatisfying paths. There are no solid proofs for any of those, there's no winning side, even when it comes to common experience. And don't forget that theism/deism doesn't have to imply religious beliefs. Those are simply often destroyed by scientific knowledge. But nothing vanishes in nature. Science is growing to become another form of religion. Just the way you said that at the beginning of your post: it's used to provide us with answers for questions biting us. It fails in answering them and shares the fate of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:19 pm
Raticiel Captain_Shinzo Why is explained by why, really. Although it is not as simple as how, it is still there.
Science may be able to explain everything but we haven't discovered it.
Then again, it may can't and the only reason something does something because it is what it is.
Likes why bees fly. There is an explanation but we aren't sure yet. I meant some more fundamental questions, like meaning of life, what are the reasons for us to exist, why was universe created... Science can't tell that. Perhaps it can explain why animals are doing certain things, but what's the value, of for example, surviving and keeping the species alive? What is the reason? What is the aim? Why is it like that? Why not another? Captain_Shinzo Again, science tells how and why but the lines between the two are blurry at times or just one of the same. I also think Atheism shouldn't be connected with science. However, saying Atheism IS connected to science doesn't over-rule that other religions believe in science. I actually thought the argument was about Atheism being connected to science and how but if other beliefs are being used then I find a question to be un-answered. Science may not prove Atheism, but it does kinda side with it and show it is sensible and has the more sensible theories of existence while it kinda disproves religion. It can disprove religion but does not approve Atheism. Doesn't mean it shows that Atheism is more sensible then Deities. Are you sure atheism sides with science? I'd say it's totally opposite. Theism came from trying to explain the world. All nature's harmony, the way it seems to be planned - those are common theistic arguments. The famous evolution - such precise and somewhat planned process could've been organised by an ultimate reason of god. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to say that theism is better than atheism. I just find both missing something and unsatisfying paths. There are no solid proofs for any of those, there's no winning side, even when it comes to common experience. And don't forget that theism/deism doesn't have to imply religious beliefs. Those are simply often destroyed by scientific knowledge. But nothing vanishes in nature. Science is growing to become another form of religion. Just the way you said that at the beginning of your post: it's used to provide us with answers for questions biting us. It fails in answering them and shares the fate of religion. True, but Theism and Atheism are different on these pasts because
atleast Atheism doesn't say they are sure where everything came from while religions state they are sure, without doubt, where they came from.
Continuing, science can't prove the the reason for the creation of the universe and the reason we exist because those are more of opinions.
We weren't really made for a purpose if we were made naturally.
However, if someone had to make a reason then it would be total opinionized words and that is not science.
Now maybe common sense can answer it from person to person.
Like me, people believe we exist and want to exist because we are alive and like being alive. Therefor, it is important to keep us living.
Asking why, however, can't really be answered unless we were created by another force besides the natural world.
As for continuing, I didn't say religion COMPLETELY sides with Atheism.
It resides in sensibility, the act of making sense of life.
With this, if you look at it, Religion shows LESS sense of life then Atheism.
Wasn't all this suppose to be about Atheism and its connection to science?
Other religions involved in this can't prove this and I have stated this before somewhere.
Point is that some forms of Atheism can involve science.
However, saying science is an Atheist belief is bullocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:24 am
Captain_Shinzo Most of the quotes I added were the idea of REALIST ATHEISM. Not everyone is the same Atheist nor does everyone think exactly the same way on a topic. When it comes to personal belief, it sometimes comes down to only opinion considering there is no actual idea what " death " is like afterward.
I will admit that science isn't always materialist. However, exact fact can only be obtainable by either disproving or approving.
Your first quote kinda confused me in a manner, really. I was speaking of Realist Atheism, meaning lack of proof is hard to believe. In other words, if someone told me a dog s**t under my bed, I wont believe nor can I say it is false until I actually look. However, evidence shows from my history, background, and variables that a dog shitting under my bed doesn't seem plausible or an everyday thing.
Your second quote DOES make sense. However, I have to admit that both sides, yours and mine, are a personal opinion of a large group and can not be proven to be true nor false on the occasion. I find this quiet logical yet I don't for the matter that it means that Christians would have some doubt in their belief and we all know that most are too self-centered and open-minded to even get to this point.
Your other qoute about my death idea does make sense, but I'm talking about death ITSELF, not fear of death. I'm speaking that if we have an after death, then why not just have immortality?
Dieing to only live again seems weird. However, dieing itself is some scary s**t I might add.
As for your last quote, I'm getting to the point on what most Christians say in an argument. I have never admitted that God exists or have said this yet I have said that the character God himself seems powerful enough to create a chain reaction called evolution. Their idea saying that evolution can't exist because God shows this is just bullocks.
If I ever believed in Christianity, I wont believe some Divine person made everything from nothing and them made stuff out of that crap he made from nothing. Then again, I contradicted myself because the belief in God is the belief that matter CAN be made or destroyed which is wrong, or atleast for now.
My point I'm getting at is that your quotes look at my quotes from a strange point of view. Even if your ideas are perfected and sensible to the touch doesn't mean it was on topic nor did it prove anything right or wrong, or atleast not the matter at hand.
* P.S. I did state that there are many different kinds of Atheism, did I not? This goes back to telling on how I was talking about Humanist Realist Atheism which is the belief that science can prove everything. I did not say anything of the rejection of the super-natural because if the super-natural is plausible then it can't be rejected. *
* P.S.S. How is it " cozying " up to idealists if I just proved that God CAN'T exist without breaking every form of natural law? or do I actually need to say this for people to know? * You can keep talking about how you are referring to one type of atheism, and I will keep referring to materialism. The fact is, science is thoroughly materialistic, and has no room for the supernatural. I could care less about philosophically agnositic Atheism, or idealist atheism, and am ignoring them. I am dealing with your attacks on materialism, what you call 'realist atheism.' So, your posts consist of "Science does not take a stand on the question of materialism or idealism." What else can " Your second quote DOES make sense. However, I have to admit that both sides, yours and mine, are a personal opinion of a large group and can not be proven to be true nor false on the occasion. I find this quiet logical yet I don't for the matter that it means that Christians would have some doubt in their belief and we all know that most are too self-centered and open-minded to even get to this point" mean other than "Science is not inherently materialist or idealist"? You then go on to defend the idea that a creator could create evolution. Yes, one could. But that distracts from the point. What it amounts to is this: "Don't you see, Christians, that your religion is not incompatible with modern science? Science is not materialist, you have nothing to fear from it!" Your whole post is just an apologetic to idealism, and even rejects the fundamental act of looking at reality as it is as being materialist! In reply to Raticiel, you wrote that 'I also think that atheism shouldn't be connected with science.' Now, I think what you are trying to say there, is that you don't think science should be seen as inherently atheistic. (The other idea, that atheism should not look for answers to science is... even more disturbing) But this is false. It is inherently materialist, and materialism has no room for the supernatural. Thermonuclear weaponry, iPods and Mars Landers are intimately connected with materialism, for no other reason than science looks at how the universe is, and doesn't try to impute some supernatural force to anything. So it isn't just that "Science... does kinda side with [atheism]," but that materialism is the only philosophy compatible with science. And materialism is thoroughly atheist. Later, you put a false difference between theism and atheism. The difference between the two isn't how much they purport to know, but whether they appeal to deities or not. The only thing you got right was that 'why' isn't a scientific question. That is how you are cozying up to idealism, because you are denying that looking at the world, and how it works, is materialist. You are saying that science is neutral, and at best 'offers indictments against idealism, than any proof of materialism', as if the whole development of industry is nothing other than a proof for materialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:30 am
Captain_Shinzo True, but Theism and Atheism are different on these pasts because
atleast Atheism doesn't say they are sure where everything came from while religions state they are sure, without doubt, where they came from. You're mixing up atheism with skepticism/agnosticism which are seriously doubting things. Atheism says: there is no god. With a huge amount of certainity. Captain_Shinzo Continuing, science can't prove the the reason for the creation of the universe and the reason we exist because those are more of opinions. We weren't really made for a purpose if we were made naturally. However, if someone had to make a reason then it would be total opinionized words and that is not science. Now maybe common sense can answer it from person to person. Like me, people believe we exist and want to exist because we are alive and like being alive. Therefor, it is important to keep us living. Asking why, however, can't really be answered unless we were created by another force besides the natural world. On one hand you are quite right: our personal beliefs and opinions surely make us go on, but "common sense" as a way to explaining problematic existential stuff is a failure. It can never, for example, fight the skeptical hypothesis (see descartian demon, Putnam/Nozick's brain-in-the-vat, such theories), and science is on a lost position here too. (it even makes skepticism stronger) Captain_Shinzo As for continuing, I didn't say religion COMPLETELY sides with Atheism. It resides in sensibility, the act of making sense of life. With this, if you look at it, Religion shows LESS sense of life then Atheism. Wasn't all this suppose to be about Atheism and its connection to science? Other religions involved in this can't prove this and I have stated this before somewhere. Point is that some forms of Atheism can involve science. However, saying science is an Atheist belief is bullocks. Well, I think it's no difference: maybe it's science ruling the world right now, maybe it's religion - all fundamental questions remain. Why do you think atheism gives more sense of life? Share it, perhaps you can guide me to ythe light that way, as I don't really find any sense of life in it. Religion is pretty useless too (at least to me, I know many religious people would disagree), but it at least gives an inner coherent value system. Which helps them (religious people) make some choices in life. Too bad they always want to force it on the rest of society: that's what I'll never agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:57 pm
well if you think about it atheists and science do kinda go together.. were obviously going look at the theory with the most proof behind it..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:19 pm
I've NEVER actually met an atheist who didn't believe in the Big Bang Theory so... no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
