A Video Explaination on how Many Atheists Here on ATS View Religion

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Woodcarver

The big question is, why do you still hold a position which cannot be verified? We may never know the whole truth but we can abstain from accepting claims which cannot be verified.

We accept claims we can't verify for ourselves all the time. In fact, most of what we consider "indisputable fact", is actually just claims made by other people that are then repeated over and over before being "canonized" in textbooks. We are trusting the authorities on the matter to tell us the truth, because we have no way of knowing for ourselves.

Take geology, for instance. The only honest science instructor I had in college prefaced the introduction to his class by stating that all theories regarding the inner workings of our planet (if it really is a "planet"--again, something we've been told but have no way of independently verifying) were just that--theories. No one has ever been to the core of the earth, observed it, measured it, etc.

I was shocked to hear a science professor open his class by offering up the possibility that his field of study could quite possibly be total bulls#. It's never happened since, of course, but it was refreshing at the time.

You defer "truth" to the specialists every day of your life. You just think that your specialists are better than other peoples'.

Which, at that point, starts to sound like... religion.

These scientific claims are based on centuries of observation though. There are many fields of investigation coming together to confirm these claims, not to mention, that if you dispute any scientific claim, we have the ability to investigate and observe these events for ourselves. How can you compare any discovery which is based on observation and the confirmation across various fields of study, to the unverifiable claim of the existance of gods.

You don't have to trust the scientists, you can observe and test every claim that the field of geology makes by yourself.

I cannot verify believers claims and niether can they.

Why do you say that you cannot verify scientific claims on your own. In my science courses, thats all we did was verify simple experiments.

originally posted by: NthOther
We accept claims we can't verify for ourselves all the time. In fact, most of what we consider "indisputable fact", is actually just claims made by other people that are then repeated over and over before being "canonized" in textbooks. We are trusting the authorities on the matter to tell us the truth, because we have no way of knowing for ourselves.

Take geology, for instance. The only honest science instructor I had in college prefaced the introduction to his class by stating that all theories regarding the inner workings of our planet (if it really is a "planet"--again, something we've been told but have no way of independently verifying) were just that--theories. No one has ever been to the core of the earth, observed it, measured it, etc.

No, the two are not the same thing. We don't simply 'trust the authorities', and 'the authorities' get their information from actual evidence. We believe the sun will appear to rise tomorrow because we have evidence that it had appeared to have risen all our lives.

We accept the scientific theories because we understand that the word "theory" and the term "Scientific theory" are two totally different concepts. "Theory" in the term you're using it as, merely describes speculation. A Scientific Theory is not only backed by a substantial amount of evidence, but it became a theory after a rigorous screening of tens, to hundreds, to thousands of tests, consisting of different researchers all around the world, whom all had their own type of experiments (which you can also replicate yourself), and all of them have confirmed the original Hypothesis, thus transforming that Hypothesis into a Scientific Theory.

originally posted by: NthOther
I was shocked to hear a science professor open his class by offering up the possibility that his field of study could quite possibly be total bulls#. It's never happened since, of course, but it was refreshing at the time.

You were shocked because you incorrectly assume that Science always states things as a matter of fact, unable to change. When in fact science always and will always state that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty. Which means you continue to misunderstand what he meant when he said "all theories regarding the inner workings of our planet were just that--theories" because when a scientific theory is proven false, that doesn't mean that the totality of all the evidence that supported it is now wrong, it means that a part of what made that theory or hypothesis what it is isn't entirely accurate, so the new evidence is used as a tool to produce a more accurate version of the same theory.

originally posted by: NthOther
You defer "truth" to the specialists every day of your life. You just think that your specialists are better than other peoples'.

No, It has nothing to do with that at all. The only reason we find science more appealing than religion is because there is actual evidence to back up it's claims, versus absolutely none at all. It's more appealing because Science can admit when it's wrong, and it alters it's original position to make it more accurate, where as Religion simply rejects reality in order to preserve it's preconceived notions.

originally posted by: NthOther
Which, at that point, starts to sound like... religion.

No, it in absolutely no way represents any part of what defines a religion. Nice try though

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You don't have to trust the scientists, you can observe and test every claim that the field of geology makes by yourself.

How do I test that Earth has a core of molten iron from my backyard? Divining rods?

I digress. The same could be said of faith, if you just flip the words around: You don't have to trust the priests and the pastors (ETA: and imams, sorry), you can observe and know God yourself. If you don't believe that's possible, I don't know what to tell you. Just as you're probably rolling your eyes and shaking your head at my geology example.

Running in circles at this point.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Woodcarver

The big question is, why do you still hold a position which cannot be verified? We may never know the whole truth but we can abstain from accepting claims which cannot be verified.

We accept claims we can't verify for ourselves all the time. In fact, most of what we consider "indisputable fact", is actually just claims made by other people that are then repeated over and over before being "canonized" in textbooks. We are trusting the authorities on the matter to tell us the truth, because we have no way of knowing for ourselves.

Take geology, for instance. The only honest science instructor I had in college prefaced the introduction to his class by stating that all theories regarding the inner workings of our planet (if it really is a "planet"--again, something we've been told but have no way of independently verifying) were just that--theories. No one has ever been to the core of the earth, observed it, measured it, etc.

I was shocked to hear a science professor open his class by offering up the possibility that his field of study could quite possibly be total bulls#. It's never happened since, of course, but it was refreshing at the time.

You defer "truth" to the specialists every day of your life. You just think that your specialists are better than other peoples'.

Which, at that point, starts to sound like... religion.

To be fair i would like to ask you which scientific theories cannot be confirmed.

a reply to: Ghost147
If a god exists and it wanted you to KNOW this, how can you avoid that knowledge?

If a god exists and it doesn't want you to know, how could you?

It is mere hubris that makes us think about OUR involvement with a proposed god and HIS reactions to us is of any importance.

It is my desire to be rational and this has lead me to being an agnostic. Due to strange events that I have experienced (and measured) I know that this is not all there is but I'll be danged if I have a clue how that stuff beyond the veil works.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You don't have to trust the scientists, you can observe and test every claim that the field of geology makes by yourself.

How do I test that Earth has a core of molten iron from my backyard? Divining rods?

I digress. The same could be said of faith, if you just flip the words around: You don't have to trust the priests and the pastors (ETA: and imams, sorry), you can observe and know God yourself. If you don't believe that's possible, I don't know what to tell you. Just as you're probably rolling your eyes and shaking your head at my geology example.

Running in circles at this point.

if you can observe and know god, then why can't everyone see it? Out of all of the christian scientists in the world, why do we have such varying accounts of the properties of these gods? Is there only one god? Why do we have many dif versions?

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You don't have to trust the scientists, you can observe and test every claim that the field of geology makes by yourself.

How do I test that Earth has a core of molten iron from my backyard? Divining rods?

I digress. The same could be said of faith, if you just flip the words around: You don't have to trust the priests and the pastors (ETA: and imams, sorry), you can observe and know God yourself. If you don't believe that's possible, I don't know what to tell you. Just as you're probably rolling your eyes and shaking your head at my geology example.

Running in circles at this point.

Uh... No you can't flip that around and be correct.

For one, no one said that testing scientific ideas on your own could ALWAYS be done in your backyard. It may take expensive tools, specific locations, and all sorts of other things to do so. That's because certain procedures need to be followed. The point is that the experiments CAN be reproduced.

However, even if you aren't able to specifically reproduce the experiment due to lack of resources, you can always go read the peer reviewed papers that get released on the subject. They give you their experiments, their data, their calculations, and their procedure. You can always double check that.

Meanwhile with religion there is this vague claim from priests about "knowing god", but at no point is that experience an objective event. Therefore it cannot be reproducible and thus the same thing as what we are talking about here. What you are trying to do is loosely stretch some definitions of words so you can apply them to religion. But you are neglecting other key details to do so.

originally posted by: NthOther
How do I test that Earth has a core of molten iron from my backyard? Divining rods?

You seem to be stuck on the concept that we must visually see something in order to prove it. We don't need to drill to the center of the earth to know there is a molten core, we can calculate it through other means. For instance the average density of Earth is 5,515 kg/m3. Because the average density of surface material is only around 3,000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within Earth's core. We can verify what it's made up of through seismic measurements which show us that Earth has a "solid" inner core with a radius of ~1,220 km and a liquid outer core extending beyond it to a radius of ~3,400 km.

So yes, you cold very well confirm this discovery from your backyard.

originally posted by: NthOther
I digress. The same could be said of faith, if you just flip the words around: You don't have to trust the priests and the pastors, you can observe and know God yourself.

Excellent! Well, if that's the case, can you please show me how I can observe and know god?

originally posted by: NthOther
If you don't believe that's possible, I don't know what to tell you.

Why would I believe it's possible when there has been no solid confirmation that a god exists? This is your chance to prove your point; have at it.

originally posted by: Ghost147

The only reason we find science more appealing than religion is because there is actual evidence to back up it's claims, versus absolutely none at all.

You take what other people have told you as greater truth than what you experience for yourself?

No wonder people are so easily manipulated.

a reply to: largo

Atheism belief is derived from a liberal application of agnosticism and Occam's razor. Agnosticism says that we cannot know one way or the other that a god exists, we default to the position of "I don't know", then we take Occam's Razor, "the idea with the least amount is likely the correct one," and see how that applies. So of the two answers that exist, God exists or God doesn't exist, non-existence requires less assumptions. It's likely the correct answer. That's really all it means.

I bet you that most atheists would 100% be willing to say they were wrong if proven so on the matter of god.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You don't have to trust the scientists, you can observe and test every claim that the field of geology makes by yourself.

How do I test that Earth has a core of molten iron from my backyard? Divining rods?

I digress. The same could be said of faith, if you just flip the words around: You don't have to trust the priests and the pastors (ETA: and imams, sorry), you can observe and know God yourself. If you don't believe that's possible, I don't know what to tell you. Just as you're probably rolling your eyes and shaking your head at my geology example.

Running in circles at this point.

Because you have invented properties about your god which make it impossible to detect. It makes more sense that there is simply nothing there to detect.

originally posted by: NthOther
You take what other people have told you as greater truth than what you experience for yourself?

No wonder people are so easily manipulated.

Did you even read my post? I just said that we accept the theories because there is evidence. Yes, I have actually tested and confirmed Scientific Theories for myself. Do you assume everyone here on ATS is a layman?

PS: Here's a helpful paper by the Scientist who confirmed the core is molten, you can use the graphs there and relatively inexpensive tools to confirm her results, right in your backyard

Educate yourself

originally posted by: NthOther
You take what other people have told you as greater truth than what you experience for yourself?

No wonder people are so easily manipulated.

We are surrounded by and use the products of scientific achievement every day. Our computers work because of science not faith. Planes fly because of science not faith. Diseases are cured and lives are saved every day from science not faith. Religious faith has provided us with nothing but theological debate. So ya. One of those proves itself to be true beyond any doubt by simply observing our reality we live in. The other has proven nothing that it claims. We experience the validity of scientific achievement everywhere every single second of every single day.

Religion is a complicated topic, but one thing is clear. There are many different religions, all claiming to be correct. Maybe there is something spiritual in this existence, however, that does not mean that all religious dogma has a heavenly origin. Believe it or not, a lot of it is probably man-made. Look at the Mormons, who believe in a historically and archaeologically unfounded history of the U.S. There is no reason why the other religions couldn't be based on a similarly shaky ground.

originally posted by: darkbake
Maybe there is something spiritual in this existence, however, that does not mean that all religious dogma has a heavenly origin.

This concept is a common misconception. I know plenty of Atheists who are very spiritual (my wife being one of them). Both of us believe Ghosts exist as well. Neither of those traits make us non-atheists. The only thing that makes us Atheists is that we don't attribute Ghosts or spirituality with any gods, and entirely lack a believe in any gods at all; until evidence shows up, of course.

a reply to: Ghost147

Say what you like, but you cannot tell me I have not experienced directly what I have.

Are you saying I should deny a very real experience?

That would be like me telling you that your own testing of your scientific hypotheses were all wrong.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ghost147

Say what you like, but you cannot tell me I have not experienced directly what I have.

Are you saying I should deny a very real experience?

The issue with personal experience is that subjective observation is one of the least valuable forms of valid confirmation. There are simply too many external factors that can be intrinsic to the viewer, or occur at the time the viewer experienced the event that it can almost never be used as a valid form for determining what occurred.

There is nothing external from your own perspective that we can verify that what you personally experienced wasn't something completely different form the conclusion that you formed.

That's the main issue.

I have personally experienced what people would call "Ghosts", however, I never blindly believe that their are really ghosts in the sense that what I experienced was a soul of a dead person (or other things) floating around the place and interacting within the natural realm. Why? Because I have nothing other than my eyes, ears, spell, taste, and touch to confirm anything, all of which are part of an extremely fragile, extremely influenced, and easily tricked system.

I believe there are ghosts because of what I experience, but I don't blindly believe it. I don't reject information that discounts my experiences because the way they performed their tests is in an closed setting, and is repeatable, unlike my experience.

Subjective observation isn't valid.

originally posted by: ketsuko
That would be like me telling you that your own testing of your scientific hypotheses were all wrong.

Except I can prove that they are accurate by repeating tests and conjuring new experiments to cross confirm my original hypothesis. That is the difference between Subjective Observation and Objective Observation.

a reply to: Ghost147

Except I can prove that they are accurate by repeating tests and conjuring new experiments to cross confirm my original hypothesis. That is the difference between Subjective Observation and Objective Observation.

YES, but, why are you searching for religion outside of yourself??
Search within and be your OWN scientist and make your personal "PURE religion".

You can conjure new experiments from experiences during meditation and learn the truth about who YOU are!
With full respect to all the Gods, but don't mind them and focus on yourself and meditate.

If you would inspect yourself to the utmost abstract point imaginable. You would have a bit of a feel of who you really are. And next step is to try to experiance "it" -> your true SELF.

Meditation can be very useful with that, until you find some realization. And use that to further your search for the truth within. There are many experiences and many levels of realizations, until final realization dawns. The only question in reality is, if you start doing that.

When will you give up?

Don't focus on the trees but focus on the forest.
who am I?
by knowing that you will know the forest and understand the trees!

imho.

: )

originally posted by: NthOther
Predictably, the video fails to address the role of direct spiritual experience in the confirmation of one's faith, portraying believers as simpletons believing what they do as mere products of their cultural environment.

As if what actually happens in life doesn't matter--it's all about what people have told you.

That is a ridiculous claim.

the part i always have a hard time understanding isnt how someone can believe in a god, but how someone can believe in only one. if one is real, then they all become possible.

a reply to: NthOther

I agree. Those who are interested in different tools can test those tools and see if they work or not and what is effective to yourself/themselves.