Time to accept that atheism, not god, is odd

Time to accept that atheism, not god, is odd

www.newscientist.com

IF YOU'RE one of those committed atheists in the Richard Dawkins mould who dreams of ridding the world of religious mumbo-jumbo, prepare yourself for a disappointment: there is no good evidence that education leads to secularisation.

In fact, the more we learn about the "god instinct" and the refusal of religion to fade away under the onslaught of progress, the more the non-religious mindset looks like the odd man out. That is why anthropologists, psychologists and social scientists are now putting irreligion under the microscope in the same way they once did with religious belief (see "Where do atheists come from?").

The aim is not to discredit atheism but to understand how so many people can override a way of thinking that seems to come so naturally. For that reason, atheists should welcome the new scrutiny.

Atheism still has a great deal to commend it, not least that it doesn't need supernatural beings to make sense of the world. Let's hope the study of atheism leads to new insights into how to challenge such irrationality.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.newscientist.com

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

I love it.

Lets face it...atheism is as much predicated on faith and belief as religion is. You believe that either there is a God or there is none and you have faith that your belief is true.

When you get right down to it...the whole notion of a big bang from which the universe expanded and that all of creation including life randomly appeared is just as much a miracle (and a myth) as the notion of a God creating the world in seven days is.

AND since both are at their most fundamental levels are miracles and myths then neither confirms or denies the existence of a creating God.

What I find interesting is that we seem to be hardwired for the spiritual.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I find the notion of rabid funnymentalist atheists like Richard Dawkins outrageously funny.

Way to get some traffic from the critical thinking view of atheists and the straw clutching panic of intelligent fundamentalist theists Ed.

What a weak ass piece of commentary - New Scientist has gone right down in my estimation from this one article alone.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention - I'm sure God wanted you to help spread my truth by doing so

-m0r

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
When you get right down to it...the whole notion of a big bang from which the universe expanded and that all of creation including life randomly appeared is just as much a miracle (and a myth) as the notion of a God creating the world in seven days is.

The universe is expanding. Therefore, it must have started it's expansion at some point and for some reason. That point and reason appears to be an explosion.

At the very least, atheism can actually see it's theory in action. Can other religions say the same?

I am not claiming the big bang theory is absolute and concrete, but it and a God creating the world in any amount of days - much less seven - are not on an even keel as far as realism goes.

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
I find the notion of rabid funnymentalist atheists like Richard Dawkins outrageously funny.

err... ok than. thanks for your thoughts...

Atheism in the vein of Dawkins is not so much speculation about whether or not some sort of God exists "out there" far removed the testable reality that science addresses. It is more about refuting the claims based on faith about that testable scientific reality. The strong claims that Dawkins and people like him make are things like "God did not create man, and life has not been intelligently designed." They make these claims based on real alternative scientific explanations for the same phenomenon which religious beliefs claim to explain.

It's either that evolution is a completely natural process and life on earth including humans can be completely explained by natural process, or not. It doesn't make sense that evolution and other seemingly natural processes should also be explained in religious or faith based terms. It's one or the other and Dawkins makes a strong case for the former.

His message is that God did not do the things people claim he did and that we can test for this with science. This is a far better characterization of his message than to say that he just goes around claiming God doesn't exist. Because you are right, this would be a faith based claim, and he is not in the business of making faith based claims.

Lovin this article. I dont see how the notion of something from nothing can be considered a good answer to anything.

One of my professors was talking about how intelligent people are more likely to have these "alternative" perspectives that show a trend of human evolution away from religion. Its nice to see an article disputing that idea, because it seems to be a regression away from a fundamental truth.

Though there are an infinite number of plausible equations that might explain the emergence of a physical universe from (supposedly) a singularity, the order from which these equations came could only have been caused by something that is not contingent with the rest of the universe. So, even if god isnt some powerful man in the sky, it is probably some initial state ("that which than none greater can be conceived" - Anselm) whose existence shaped the relativistic conditions of the universe which has allowed life to form.

But then theres countless arguments to dispute that like "is gods existence sufficient for the creation of the universe, or would "he" need to make the decision to create the universe and act upon it." and if that were the case, would the universe not be as infinite as god because, if his existence does cater to mankind (theism), wouldnt that decision be acted upon as soon as god came into existence (the beggining of time (ad infinitum))

too much for humanity to wory about

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

I believe that science can explain many things. I believe we haven't figured out how to explain even more.

But...I asked a "hard core" atheist where the universe came from...

He said " The big bang, dumbass".

I said "Awesome, but what exploded?"

He said: "The universe is perpetually expanding and contracting"

I said: "Fair enough, but again, where did the universe come from? It had to come from something. It didn't just form from nothing. This is one of those things that science can't explain yet. So your faith is in your science yet it leaves as many unknowns as religion, doesn't it?"

His response included profanity, and mockery of an invisible man in the sky...etc.

I remain indifferent. But he "preaches" his beliefs as much as some religious groups preach their faith. So yeah. Faith is faith or something. haha.

Originally posted by iMacFanatic


I love it.

What I find interesting is that you apparently missed the last paragraph of the article you in your OP.

Here let me help you.

Let's hope the study of atheism leads to new insights into how to challenge such irrationality.

You do know what the article is calling irrational dont you?

Your assertion that atheism is a faith is absurd. Perhaps you should break out a dictionary and stop readingmagazines that go way over your head?

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
I dont see how the notion of something from nothing can be considered a good answer to anything.

Where was God before the Universe was created? Just hanging out in blank space? That's pretty impossible since, in order to create anything, God would need to be made up of energy. And since religious folk claim that the energy that caused the Big Bang could not have come from nothing, where did God's energy come from if there was nothing prior to his creations?

I expect a non-answer whether you choose to reply or not because you have obviously already made up your mind as to what the truth is and there is no disputing that no matter how bombarded you are with facts and common sense to the contrary.

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


You forgot to close your quotation marks - either that or you closed them twice mid-sentence.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


I was speaking to a theist one day and I asked "Where does the universe come from then?"

They told me this amazing story of bee phlegm and baby raptors and how god message was made real through them.

I said that's not likely due to the fact that something had to make the bees and the raptors and the god.

Needless to say they swore a lot, called me names and pooped in their pants while having a tearful tantrum.

Goes to show - an idiot is an idiot!

-m0r

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


its funny how you didnt read my post. i dont even know who you... so dont even judge me.

I gave many reasons disputing the argument for the existence of god. those were....

"then theres countless arguments to dispute that like "is gods existence sufficient for the creation of the universe, or would "he" need to make the decision to create the universe and act upon it. and if that were the case, would the universe not be as infinite as god because, if his existence does cater to mankind (theism), wouldnt that decision be acted upon as soon as god came into existence (the beggining of time (ad infinitum))

obviously you dont understand. but what that means is that, assuming there can be no real-world infinities, the existence of god would necessitate a starting point. but, then assuming that god is something that has existed forever, shouldnt the universe also have existed forever (which it hasent). because, since god is not a thinking rational being, he could not have been waiting around in empty space for infinity waiting for some random time to start the universe. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

if your going to be a troll, at least read what rational people are saying first.

it seems, if anything, that you are stuck in your thinking. not me. I gave well known arguments for and against the existence of god in hopes of starting "informed" conversation... not that you would understand.

My beliefs dont mean 2 squats. But, i do believe in god. Just not christian god. my own god. who i dont need to pray to. I believe in science as well, but just as the Answer to HOW, not WHY!

its not as black and white as you make it out to be

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
I gave many reasons disputing the argument for the existence of god. those were....

What you gave were contradictions to yourself. Your entire post was talking out of both sides of your mouth. I chose to attack the one side you favor most which is a belief in God. If you have no logical argument to dispute that then leave it at that.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

At the very least, atheism can actually see it's theory in action. Can other religions say the same

Not a problem. God caused the explosin. Next !

Originally posted by randyvs
Not a problem. God caused the explosin. Next !

The Universe is made up of energy. The explosion that created the Universe was made up of energy. In order to create the energy necessary to cause the explosion that created the Universe, God would have to be made up of energy. So where did the energy come from to create God to allow him to create the explosion that created the Universe?

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


lol the fact that you need to attack at all is pretty immature. You frequently attack people whose beliefs contradict yours?

Anyways, if you can prove atheism with any more integrity then i have proven god (without any huge gaps in your assumed "solution") then i will tip my hat. But, if all you can offer is the big bang, evolution, and a bunch of hateful personal rhetoric toward me and about why god could never possibly exist within human reason... then i wont be suprised.

becasue weather you like it or not, this entire topic is doomed to contradictions and paradoxes that the worlds greatest philosophers and scientists are no nearer to explaining then ever. just because we know more about the universe, how it works, and how much it wants to kill us doesnt mean that nothing exploded and became everything because of waves and thats that.

I dont know how you can sit there and stick so religiously by such an incomplete theory. you could at least try "i dont know" on for size. you wont look stupid, cause nobody else knows either.

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
lol the fact that you need to attack at all is pretty immature. You frequently attack people whose beliefs contradict yours?

Yes, I do. It's called debate. That is the purpose of this website. If you frequently get bent out of shape because people wish to debate you then I suggest, for the sake of your sanity, you leave the website.

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
But, if all you can offer is the big bang, evolution, and a bunch of hateful personal rhetoric toward me

Now who is not reading the other's posts? In my first post in this thread I stated that the big bang theory is not absolute and concrete. Go back and read it.

I have not mentioned evolution once, until now. Nice try putting words in my mouth though. Also nice of you to assume what my beliefs are simply because I, in your eyes, fall into your personal category of people you would label "atheist".

And lastly, where was the hateful personal rhetoric? Point out where exactly I said one hateful thing to you.

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
I dont know how you can sit there and stick so religiously by such an incomplete theory.

I am sticking by no theory. I have simply proposed a question that no one has logically answered yet.

reply to post by watcher73

Why the personal attack? Did I say something that you didn't like? Too bad that's not my problem.

I read the article in full thank you very much and I did not miss that sentence or misunderstand it.

I love it and I find it refreshing because instead of defending atheism ad hoc it points out that it is rather odd. Most people believe in something so the belief (and yes it is a matter of belief and faith) in nothing is indeed odd.

What I find interesting is that so many atheists go about it with the zeal of a true believer and miss totally the irony.

The fact is science does not prove or disprove the existence of a God any more than religion proves or disproves science.

Besides all of that metaphysics is not the realm of science and as such has no place commenting on matters of faith and faith itself should not feel threatened by science.

Either way the fact that we are here at all is a miracle and worth our celebration and awe.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

reply to post by randyvs


Not a problem. What caused god?

Next