Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Firstly may i state that it is not my intention to offend anyone with this thread and if you find such philosophical discussions offensive i apologize.

The reason for creating this thread is to debate the seemingly closed mindedness of Atheism in relation to most other belief systems. I would like to make clear that i would class myself as being agnostic as i am open minded to all possibilities regarding creation. I must admit though i will never feel comfortable with the theory that creation is random and that the universe in all its complexity has not been created by some form of intelligence.

We all basically know the fundamentals of the common belief systems - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. I would just like to clarify the more obscure belief systems for those who are not familiar with them.

According to Wikipedia

Atheism



Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.


Agnosticism



Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.



Evolutionism



Evolutionism refers to a theory of evolution, specifically to a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves, and that changes are progressive and arise through inheritance of acquired characters, as in Lamarckism. The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution. The term is sometimes also used to refer to acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis, a scientific theory that describes how biological evolution occurred. In addition, the term is used in a broader sense to cover a world-view on a wide variety of topics, including chemical evolution as an alternative term for abiogenesis or for nucleosynthesis of chemical elements, galaxy formation and evolution, stellar evolution, spiritual evolution, technological evolution and universal evolution, which seeks to explain every aspect of the world in which we live.



The following audio lecture expresses the point that i am trying to make more clearly and eloquently than i ever could. Although it is from a slightly Christian perspective it is not about the belief in any specific deity.

If you can't be bothered to listen to the whole interview, please at least listen to the the final 15 minutes as this describes the mathematical impossibility of our reality being created by chance or evolution alone.









[edit on 18-5-2010 by Utopian]



+9 more 
posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
It's simple. Atheism is an opinion. Not scientific fact.

Some people try to disguise it with science, even though it is scientifically not provable.

It is hypocritical.

Faith does not abide by scientific standards and thus is allowed to sound kooky and crazy.

Atheism is "supposed" to be rational, but really, is merely the same as the believers it tries to put down.


----------

Much like I've said in the past, I see nothing inherently wrong with being a person of faith, or a person of atheistic beliefs as long as no one is imposing their beliefs on anyone.


But much like rowdy religious nuts, there are also obnoxious and just really unpleasant atheists that try to create this "my beliefs are fact" thing. And it really makes them look no better than those they criticize. (From a SCIENTIFIC perspective.)

Agnosticism/Evolution are the most sound and scientific positions. Scientifically speaking, they would accept what is readily observable, while leaving plenty of room for what "could be." Not outright stating things as fact that have yet to be proven.


--------

A mathematical way of expressing the above is basically if you have no reason to embrace + or -, then selecting either + or - would be of your own free will. Not out of due process and fact. It is a direct manipulation of variables.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
That guy is right on the money. Science is the journey of how something works. Why it works like that is another story.

Excellent thread OP. S&F


+19 more 
posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Utopian
The reason for creating this thread is to debate the seemingly closed mindedness of Atheism in relation to most other belief systems.

I must admit though i will never feel comfortable with the theory that creation is random and that the universe in all its complexity has not been created by some form of intelligence.


What is "seemingly closed minded" is your assumptions that the universe is a "creation", that it is random, your preconceived notions of some kind of form of intelligence as the source of it all, and most importantly, the incorrect categorization of atheism as a "belief system".

Because you operate under these expectations and fallacious assumptions you have clear bias against atheism and likely will never see the universe as it really is. You'll spend life trying to shoehorn facts into your beliefs and justify your condescension of viewpoints that differ from your own (as you have in this thread).

Atheism results from regard for scientific fact, not the other way around as you claim. No conveniently invisible intelligent creator turns up wherever we look, and the unwavering insistance from both agnostics and theists/deists that a creator still exists somewhere just outside the frontiers of our knowledge is extremely naive. It would be much better for such people to spend their time proving their case with undenible evidence rather than tring to subjugate viewpoints they disagree with (this means you).



[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I agree. I'm objectively agnostic.
I have no problem with atheism, but what I dislike is the fact that some of them do attempt to use science to back up their view, when I don't believe science has tackled this question.
As far as I see it, science comes up with the mechanisms of and relationship between phenomena, and any broader or holistic interpretation of that depends on the subjective view of the individual that is assessing the data.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?
Your entire post could be used against your train of thought as well. Just swap positions and it works both ways. .



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
uhmmm... here the OP posts his message in such a way that nobody can take offence and then the first-correction second-another correction third-(gotta start paying more attention here
) poster to come along goes ahead and starts spreading "his truth" in the process criticizing the OP. Your post is the best example of the thing the OP is trying to point out...
Totally support the standpoint
S&F for you..


[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]


+1 more 
posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?


One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
But much like rowdy religious nuts, there are also obnoxious and just really unpleasant atheists that try to create this "my beliefs are fact" thing. And it really makes them look no better than those they criticize. (From a SCIENTIFIC perspective.)


I think it's important to differentiate between the atheist that just has an ''absense of belief'' and the atheist that actively disbelieves.
There is no problem with the former, but the latter's worldview is based on faith and they consequently shouldn't dress it up as anything else.

One of the ways you can usually differentiate between the ''genuine'' atheists, and those that are faith-based is in their general attitude to God.
The more illogical, faith-based atheists have an actual hostility towards the idea of or belief in God, whereas the more genuine atheists tend to not really be bothered.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
uhmmm... here the OP posts his message in such a way that nobody can take offence


I disagree.

Creationist and evolution-denier bigotry is offensive.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?


One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.


WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god.
I keep an open mind to the idea that there is no god but you(and most atheists I talked to) only use sources wich flame the existence of a god and/or simply throw out the idea of a god being real. I am honestly interested as to how you came to deduce why a god cant exist. Beacuse When I ad things up I come to the complete oposite answer... for 2 people to have such different viewpoints there must be something someone has overlooked I guess

[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god


Not believing in deities is not a claim that there is no god. Maybe there is. It's up to those claiming there is one to supply the evidence.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


then are you saying you do not reject the possibility of a god being real? If so... do you believe there is a way for believers to prove to you his existence?

BTW Its pretty easy to find out wether there are invisible entities out there... this site holds tons and tons of intel on them.... so I guess folowing reasonable deduction isn't it very possible for there to be some form of main-invisible entity out there?

[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
then are you saying you do not reject the possibility of a god being real? If so... do you believe there is a way for believers to prove to you his existence?

BTW Its pretty easy to find out wether there are invisible entities out there... this site holds tons and tons of intel on them.... so I guess folowing reasonable deduction isn't it very possible for there to be some form of main-invisible entity out there?


If I am a proper skeptic I won't dismiss the possibility of gods/deities/creators. However, there exists no evidence of such and the universe does not require any for it to work. Reasonable deduction is insufficient as evidence: it is always disputable because it is intangible and untestable.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by faceoff85
WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god


Not believing in deities is not a claim that there is no god. Maybe there is. It's up to those claiming there is one to supply the evidence.



There is a difference between not believing in god, and claiming god doesn't exist. -- Once you assert, as fast, that a creator does not exist, you must prove that a creator does not exist.

As for faith. I've said it before. Faith cannot accurately be perceived by science which tends to ignore certain variables of faith, certain variables that make up what faith is.

-------------
Like, people that try to explain the bible without the presence of God. (I know we clashed on another thread over this, lol.) As far as anything goes, you cannot remove God from the bible and expect it to make sense. Much like you can't remove the Sun from Evolution and expect it to make sense.

Science asserts what is already in place.

Faith deals in, as someone above noted, the why.

I don't believe that championing just one side will yield any fruits.

--------
Faith can't express itself SCIENTIFICALLY.

Science can't make indefinite conclusions on the WHY of the universe.
-------------

I personally believe that a mixture of faith and science is needed. More so spirituality, as in embracing the glorious potential of man and becoming better than we are now with every passing moment.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


If I am a proper skeptic I won't dismiss the possibility of gods/deities/creators. However, there exists no evidence of such and the universe does not require any for it to work. Reasonable deduction is insufficient as evidence: it is always disputable because it is intangible and untestable.


But if you actually take a stand and say there is no such evidence then havent you already made a conclusion on the matter? true the universe doesn't require a deity to keep it running but but that in itself really proves nothing... except maybe the awesome design of the universe... but then you'd stumble on the point of chance... how big are the odds for all we know to just come to be by chance? and if its really chance are we not missing alot of the pieces a puzzle like chance would offer? and if everything the evolutiontheory teaches is closest to truth how can we explain ghosts and people being haunted by them? for sure they cannot be explained by a big bang. eventually we might find out how tey "work" but I have a hard time linkin primordial soup with ghosts...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Scirnce has proven to me that a creator exist. I cannot believe that every chemical, and creature was by happenstancen.

The physcial anatomy and workings of plant and animal life is more than remarkable. It is perfect in every way.

Just the one fine point of nourshimnet of a plant or animal is enough evidence for me.

Animals eat plants then are flushed from the animals body as waste. The waste is then used as nourishment for more vegation and even more types of animals. The circle just gets larger.

No natural material is wasted. It is automaticlly recycled. And thus the cycle begins again.

The unusable waste created on our earth is created with chemicals made by our creator and put together by man.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by dizziedame]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by dizziedame]

Egadds my spell checker isn't working today.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by dizziedame]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
In court, merely denying allegations won't get you far.

You can't just say, "It is your job to prove that I did it."

You have to have some kind of evidence to validate your negation.

And while it IS the job of the prosecution to prove that you are guilty. It is ALSO the job of the defendant to prove the "NOT" they affirm is, in fact, valid.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
[more

hehehe... hello again.

yeah I can respect your point of view and understand where you're coming from. I know for lots of people its farfetched to believe we have a creator... fact is current science neither rejects a creator nor supports one... I dont think its a discussion where people can actually come together on... but nonetheless interesting to share viewpoints. I am honestly interested in any belief someone might have... people tend to support their belief and that makes for good reading material to say the least.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I personally believe that a mixture of faith and science is needed.


Faith is simply believing things without evidence. If faith is accepted somehow as a scientific principle, then essentially any unsupported hypothesis would have to be considered equally as valid as evidence-based theory.

What scientific method reveals to us is that the universe operates just fine without our concepts of creators/deities/gods. This is often seen as an existential threat to the devout believer, and we end up with all manners of foolish science-deniers.





new topics
 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join