It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defenders of the Faith:Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


Ah, so claiming something doesn't exist is not a claim? Imagine that. Any more semantic acrobatics you wish to treat us to?




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
addition to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Or do you perhaps, confuse agnosticism with atheism?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
We cannot do anything without some form of spirituality. Materialists can call it personally accepted programming if they like. We are creatures of motivation, and as a whole, we are heading toward our collective, underlying motivations. Sure, there are viewpoints that are polarized, thesis and antithesis, these opposites are always heading towards synthesis, or reconciliation. In a system of hierarchical power such as is a prevailing force in this world, the people who move higher in the pecking order condense thoroughly into what the motives of the system at large might be. You judge a tree be its fruits. If the fruit be rotten, the tree is also.

To sum it all up, I am indifferent as to whether you believe in an astronomical heft of gas controlling all matter. It is important, however, that where there there is cynicism there is a belief, albeit possibly subconscious, ready to fill the void. If one is to try and tear down an existing mental framework, one had better be able and willing to construct a viable structural replacement. Not anything to rigid perhaps. But faith, IN GENERAL, is important. We all have a meaning behind our actions. If we do not supply it, something else will. And if there is nothing but darkness in our minds, that is where we shall eventually arrive, and vice versa.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
addition to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Or do you perhaps, confuse agnosticism with atheism?


Dawkins: We are all agnostic, some of us just go one god further.

See the teapot agnostic story.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Particularly in the case of Dawkins it is an extremist pretending to be a moderate. He has his answer, the concept of a deity, any possible conception, is false. That is NOT agnosticism as an agnostic simply says they do not know. Atheism stands at no way no how. And theism is it's mirror opposite. Though they do tend to act annoying alike in the end.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Should I start quoting extremists, to keep up and not pretend that i'm a moderate. Christopher Hitchins, Get over here!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


no. im not confusing anything with anything. you may be, but im not.
you dont seem to know what an atheist is. let me repeat:

atheism is a lack of belief in a god.

STRONG atheism is stating there is no god. dont assume someone is a strong atheist unless they state it. its a straw man argument if you do that, and that is what you seem to be doing. youre painting al atheists with a very broad brush

most atheists are agnostic atheists(whether they know it or not). thats pretty much the only intelligent stance on the subject you can have.

that stance is basically "i dont claim knowledge either way, but since i am not convinced there is a god, i am also an atheist"
(not being convinced that there is a god automatically makes you an atheist)

most scientists who bash religions and such, dont do so claiming they know there isnt a god. They do it bashing the people who claim to know there is a god with the evidence out there. and face it, many of those who get bashed deserve it. (see: Ray comfort, etc...)

They rarely state it (they dont necessarily see the need to and they take for granted that its understood), but if there was sufficient evidence they would become believers, otherwise they are terrible scientists and dont follow the evidence.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


After that I would say you are most definantly are confused. Sad when people believe their own rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
So, morbid curiousity, who actually read the article?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 

atheism is a lack of belief in a god.



a⋅the⋅ism
  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm] –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



ag⋅nos⋅tic
  /ægˈnɒstɪk/ [ag-nos-tik] –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.


Source

It's quite simple really. You can call yourself whatever you like, but the words mean what the words mean. For someone like Dawkins - who seems to put limit on neither scientific, nor his own understanding - to call himself agnostic is laughable.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I read it, and I liked it. Besides, good scientists are by definition not going to be the fundie type. Also, it shows how predictable humanity is with its angles and such. People like to engage in mammalian politics, vyiing for position, in an us versus them, I throw poo at you before you throw poo at me, mentality. The stronger the thesis gets, the stronger the antithesis must be to counterbalance. I am going on the record saying that Dawkins and Pat Robertson are mirror images of each other (although I doubt Robertson is that sincere; he has a conniving underbelly, so it seems. Dawkins was likely treated poorly, or so he assumes, by some people of so-called faith at some point. By so-called faith, I mean that one must doubt first in order to have faith in something. Seeking security and acceptance by fitting in a mold is not faith, but it is something prevalent both in religious and secular society, the norm really, but I digress.) I am also going on the record that they are both missing the mark, in orbit, so to speak....



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by '___'eviant
 


You completely missed the point I was getting at. Why exactly does the existance of what we would call "god" be a situation with a creator and the created?

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Well you see, the person I was replying to in my first post said, "It's kind of comical to watch them running around trying to debunk the universe's creation though."

So I was tackling this from the creator/created perspective, since that's how the person I was addressing views it.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment
 


Agreed once again.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by '___'eviant
 


Ah, but I took it beyond that context and yet you stuck to it, even going as far as to more or less ignore what I had said. As if it was the only possible one. Care to explain why?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Also, considering the question as to the existance of any concept of deity is at it's very nature a unfalsafiable question Replubican. How pray tell can science lean towatds it?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 


Thank you for exquisitely proving my point.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Great article. Hope more read it. The whole argument is counterproductive, silly, and completely human.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Watcher-in-the-shadows, why so many consecutive posts?

The Law of One fits the concept of spirituality and science, In my opinion I think it should be regarded as the universal truth.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 


Old responses made when I had time. And it's well and good you believe in it. I don't.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Please forgive me if any of this comes off as a personal attack or character assassination. I don't want either of us to fall into the "WELL U DO IT TOO LOLOLOLOL" trap that people of our respective schools of thought fall into.



atheism is a lack of belief in a god.

STRONG atheism is stating there is no god. dont assume someone is a strong atheist unless they state it. its a straw man argument if you do that, and that is what you seem to be doing. youre painting al atheists with a very broad brush

most atheists are agnostic atheists(whether they know it or not). thats pretty much the only intelligent stance on the subject you can have.


Ok i really have never understood this line of thinking, i almost always see it balled up with silly statements such as "bald is a hairstyle and not collecting stamps is a hobby." Which in reality go to show how little thought is actually put into ones opinions and viewpoints and is generally used to quickly shut down logical or analytical debate.

How can you state that you "lack belief" in a god when you openly acknowledge that you do not believe in any god? In order to truly lack belief you would have to be totally ignorant of gods and religions in general. The mere fact that atheists both weak and strong are posting and voicing an opinion in things such as this thread, books, Atheist groups (IE the freedom From Religion Project, Richard dawkins "followers" and similar websites and groups where atheists join together to discuss religion, atheism,science and philosophy ) is philosophical proof that you are NOT ignorant to gods, religions and concepts there of. Therefore you do have belief about religions. You BELIEVE IN the concept that there are no gods or a lack of evidence for gods. This in turn creates a form of faith because you are basing your belief on an issue that is neither empirically or philosophically provable.

The mere statement that you "lack belief" is a statement of belief in and of itself. You believe that you have not found any evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a creator yet you are somehow shoe-horning it to mean you are either ignorant or genuinely lack belief. To state otherwise would be a gross display of intellectual dishonesty or an eschewing of rational/logical thought and analysis. You do not believe in god. Period. And you may even maintain this belief regardless of contradictory philosophical,tehological or scientific evidence.

Correct me if i am wrong here but you stated that an agnostic approach to Atheism is the most logical which in turn has lead me to conclude that you are a weak atheist. I concur with this idea, In fact i myself am largely agnostic on the issue as well, and i am a follower of christ. But you need to understand that an agnostic stance is in and of itself a belief as well. You and i maintain the idea that gods or religions are not provable due to a potentially broad list of reasons.


most scientists who bash religions and such, dont do so claiming they know there isnt a god. They do it bashing the people who claim to know there is a god with the evidence out there. and face it, many of those who get bashed deserve it. (see: Ray comfort, etc...)

[edit on 15-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



Scientists who bash religion do it because they do not believe in gods of any sorts. To say otherwise would be like me saying "the klan hates black people because of X issue, not because they are black". The truth is that it is both. If scientists really didn't care that people believe in a certain religion then they would not voice an opinion on the matter. Like any decent scientist they would hold their tounge until they are either proven right or wrong. Seriously, it's like listening to a Young Earth Creationist say that their disbelief in an old earth is because it is Junk science. It's not junk science. They simply do not agree with it and will use any excuse they can muster up to "prove" themselves "right"








At the end of the day the most logical conclusion we can come to is that there may be no logical (and by extension) empirical conclusion. It is my firm belief that so long as atheists both weak and strong maintain this idea that they genuinely lack belief they will risk alienating themselves from potential religious allies who disagree with there.


The biggest danger that science, atheism and religion face today is the rift between believers and non-believers. If we allow it to keep widening and to increase in hostility we may see an age where people of faith are persecuted and oppressed by an atheistic society. In addition we may face a complete reversion another dark age where religious fervor and sentiment will result in a persecution of science.

Many christians and other religious people have chosen to set aside their opinions so that we may better understand and appreciate the world and universe that was given to us.

So i ask of you friend. Unite with me, let us put our petty differences aside and stand together so that we may build bridges and usher in a new era of religious and scientific enlightenment. Please. Atheist or not, you are a child of god, and you should be regarded as such. For people like me it is my duty to assure that you and anyone else of conflicting faiths and ideologies are regarded as such. All i ask of you like you is that god or not you will realize and recognize that I like you am a fellow member of the human race.

Again dear brother. Let us stand united as children of god and as members of the human race and the wonderful world we occupy.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join