Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Atheism is a certitude formed by the lack of evidence. There is simply no reason to believe in things that are unsupported by evidence.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I am secure in the observation that the universe doesn't need gods, deities or creators to operate.

Surely this is only a personal belief that there is a lack of evidence ?
I am unaware of any empirical evidence one way or the other.
You believe that the universe doesn't need Gods, deities or creators, but what makes you so sure ? As far as I can see you're only basing this on your own personal interpretation.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Atheists are largely more ethical people than theists, and none I've ever met adopted atheism as an excuse for deviant behavior.

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this one.
I fail to see how atheists could have any position on ethics, when most of them don't believe there is such a thing as wrong or right.

What definition of ''ethical'' are you using, considering that the entire notions of ethics and morals get thrown out under a rational atheistic worldview, as such concepts are just arbitrary man-made constructs that have no relevance without an absolute authority to define them.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No, the agnostic makes the conscious choice to never come to any decisions about believing or not believing.

I don't believe that's true. That is not in any definition of agnosticism.
I may see compelling evidence one way or the other that may change my objective stance, so I may well change to Theism or atheism in the future, but as I haven't seen any tangible evidence one way or the other, then I think I'll stick to getting splinters in my bum from sitting on this fence.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
How exactly does an agnostic have the exact definition of god? And I suspect that if you hold that description, then anything goes: any suggestion becomes possible including cyclones and dragons. I'm detecting some flaws in the logic of agnosticism

I don't know whether anyone has the exact definition of God, that is why I also favour ignosticism as well as agnosticism.
Indeed, anything goes. I can't see the flaws you are alluding to.

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

NDEs are evidence of “knowledge” from the 4th dimension.

To totally discount Near Death Experiences you have to explain how some people can later tell live witnesses all the events that transpired while they were dead.

My own father died on the operating table during a hernia operation. He said his spirit floated up to the ceiling and he watched the doctors and nurses frantically try to revive him. I don’t remember how long he was dead before they brought him back to life.

After my father recovered he told the doctor what he had experienced. My father described how the nurse pulled his chin down and held his tongue in place to keep him from swallowing it. He described what the anesthetist did. He described what the doctor did. He described the operating room and the location of each piece of medical equipment in the room (which he couldn’t have known since he was prepped and put under in a separate room).

My father later told the doctor all the details during his NDE. The doctor confirmed the story was correct and then told his intern “Well, we have another one”.

Think about this now… If it’s only a hallucination in the internal mind, how are NDEs able to accurately describe the external environment during unconsciousness and then later tell live witnesses the exact details?

From scimednet.org
“It cannot be sufficiently stressed how strongly interpretations of the NDE are coloured by prior understanding of the mind-brain issue. For physicalists the NDE must by definition lend itself to a physical interpretation - and this is the majority view among neuroscientists, philosophers and cognitive psychologists, so much so that few of them are aware of the extent of NDE literature. One of the key areas of controversy is the veridical out-of-body experience (OBE) where experiencers ostensibly witness a scene from above and can accurately recount a sequence of events that can be independently checked with a third party present at the same event. A good example was the Dutchman who was unconscious during the whole period of his resuscitation but who subsequently recognized one of the nurses (whom he had never met in person) and correctly challenged her about where she had put his false teeth!”

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I'm not asking you to prove that there is no god, i am asking you to substantiate your claims that there is no evidence. Evidence is a very broad word my friend. Show me Scientific experiments that can definitively rule out a god or suggest that there is no god. Remember i am not making a claim either way, For all i know you may be correct.


Sheesh does it really scare you that much to question your beliefs?

Originally posted by Masterjaden

I acknowledge that my "beliefs" (which you have no idea what they are btw) cannot be proven, you OTH seem to think that your "beliefs" ARE proven. I don't view science as anything but a search for observational truth. I view scientific paradigms and establishments as fallacious and ridiculous in scope.

I don't have any beliefs that need proving.

Having an argument with you isn't even arguing because you can't even realize when you're being hypocritical... and wouldn't know logic or logical argument if it jumped up and bit you (which it has BTW)...lol

You do realize that absolutely none of your retorts have been anything but ad hominum attacks against me don't you???? probably not. Try postulating an argument and see if that gets you somewhere.

Jaden

I've presented several counters to your arguments that you refuse to engage. I suspect the false accusations above are a distraction scheme to avoid engaging them. Stating that I'm hypocritical is based on more faulty assumptions that you listed above, and claiming that all my responses were ad homs is dishonest. I expect more of the same lunacy from you.

Science doesn't believe and science doesn't not believe. It doesn't go to church and it doesn't actively avoid church. It isn't self-righteous and condemning nor is it smug and argumentative. Atheists and Christians could both learn alot from science but they're far too busy pretending we couldn't take everything they don't know about this universe and fill, oh, I don't know, about a zillion grand frickin' canyons. Good luck with your pointless debates.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


I don't have any beliefs that need proving.

I swear to god (who may or may not exist) Atheists must be getting paid for that line, i hear it all the damn time.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Atheists are largely more ethical people than theists, and none I've ever met adopted atheism as an excuse for deviant behavior.

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this one.

I fail to see how atheists could have any position on ethics, when most of them don't believe there is such a thing as wrong or right.

What definition of ''ethical'' are you using, considering that the entire notions of ethics and morals get thrown out under a rational atheistic worldview, as such concepts are just arbitrary man-made constructs that have no relevance without an absolute authority to define them.

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this one.

What you're describing there is moral nihilism, not atheism. While nihilism will no doubt lead to atheism, it is absolutly not true that atheism leads to nihilism.

There are secular moral and ethical philosopies that pre-date christianity.

That said, I do strongly doubt traditionaldrummer's claim that atheists are largely more ethical people than theists. That sounds completly made up.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Surely this is only a personal belief that there is a lack of evidence ?
I am unaware of any empirical evidence one way or the other.
You believe that the universe doesn't need Gods, deities or creators, but what makes you so sure ? As far as I can see you're only basing this on your own personal interpretation.

No theist has ever presented any tangible evidence, scientific discovery has never turned up any. The laws of physics operate solidly without prompt from supernatural forces.

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this one.

I fail to see how atheists could have any position on ethics, when most of them don't believe there is such a thing as wrong or right.

Faulty and baseless assumption. Once again, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. Nothing more. Non-belief in right or wrong is more accurately attributed to nihilism. Morality and ethics are not derived from belief in deities, rather they're derived from social contract. Indeed, under that arrangement they are arbitrary.

Originally posted by DeathShield

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


I don't have any beliefs that need proving.

I swear to god (who may or may not exist) Atheists must be getting paid for that line, i hear it all the damn time.

What, do atheists have to prove to you they don't require deities in their lives? Is that not something that can be accepted?

I agree that atheists are just as misguided as religious people. We just CAN'T know if there's a God or not...anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring science and bases his statements on fairy tales.

Having said that, to assume there is no God isn't that irrational given the absolute absence of any proof for his/her/it's existence. Claiming there is a God is far more outrageous because there simply isn't any proof.

Originally posted by BlankSlate
That said, I do strongly doubt traditionaldrummer's claim that atheists are largely more ethical people than theists. That sounds completely made up.

Fair enough, I only cited this from my personal experience. To be fair, the claim came as a response to someone claiming atheists only become atheists to avoid accountability for their deviant behavior: a patently false assumption.

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I'm not asking you to prove that there is no god, i am asking you to substantiate your claims that there is no evidence.

That's called proving a negative. The best I can tell you is that no theist/deist has presented irrefutable evidence of deities, science has discovered no undeniable proof of deities. The fact that atheists exist should be sufficient substantiation.

Originally posted by Utopian
Firstly may i state that it is not my intention to offend anyone with this thread

...people who use the phrase "its not my intention to offend" fall into two categories - either they KNOW that they fully intend to be offensive and believe everyone is so stupid that they will ignore the BIG RED FLAG that clearly states DISINGENUOUS - or - they are merely parrots repeating phrases they are incapable of comprehending...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


What, do atheists have to prove to you they don't require deities in their lives? Is that not something that can be accepted?

I could care less if people believe or disbelieve. From my experience there are many atheists out there who do just fine without religious beliefs or gods. Don't walk into a thread or church, openly demand that people prove their god real, get offered evidence, refute it and then refuse to back up your position when they do the same for you.
Don't expect intelligent or logical people to honestly think you are without belief in regards to deities. Disbelief is a form of belief in itself. Unless they are passively atheist (such as say a baby supposedly is) and have no education whatsoever on the subject then that line is just a cop out to not stand for what you believe.


Go ahead and openly decree there is no god, in all reality i don't care. As long as you aren't using it to justify things that "universally" detestable then speak your mind. It's your right (at least i feel that it is ) as a sentient being to express yourself. Just don't whine like some militant christian and perform lingual and logical acrobatics in order to make your dogma seem less crazy than another persons dogma.

Hell dude i openly admit my beliefs have no empirical basis, I'm not insulting people and making rash generalizations because a few people on the internet agreed with me. Hell if you and i probably met in real life you would most likely have no clue that i am an agnostic-theist. You would probably think i was atheist given how patently anti-organized religion i am. And you may even be the drummer in my death metal or Dave Brubeck cover band. If you were bleeding in the gutter i would bust my ass to get you some help, We're all gods children, and even if you don't believe in god i think we could both agree that human life is fairly valuable regardless of how arbitrary the origin of the value is right? So lets work together, put our egos aside and work for a common goal. I make no claims of gnosis, for all i know you could be 100% correct in your assessment of available resources on the whole god question.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I'm not asking you to prove that there is no god, i am asking you to substantiate your claims that there is no evidence.

That's called proving a negative. The best I can tell you is that no theist/deist has presented irrefutable evidence of deities, science has discovered no undeniable proof of deities. The fact that atheists exist should be sufficient substantiation.

There certainly has been evidence, just not empirical evidence. Not scientifically usable evidence. It's something that science can not use because science deals with the physical. The only evidence that exists that is irrefutable is something that is self-evident. And even then, people try to refute it. So there is nothing that is irrefutable unless in your belief it is irrefutable, which would show that you look at things with rose colored lenses.

But it truly boggles my mind the individuals that love to preach about science yet they don't seem to understand science. Again, science deals with the physical. The recordable. What can be observed. If something can not be recorded or observed through objective means, how can science deal with it? What some scientists have done is created their own belief systems, masquerading it as science, called reductionism that chooses to explain any phenomenon in the universe that otherwise can't be truly explained by science.

And another thing, I keep seeing people here who say their belief can be explained as agnostic....uh...no. It can't. Gnostic/Agnostic, while related to the discussion of spirituality, is not a spiritual stance. It is a epistemological stance ON spiritual matters, specifically relating to knowledge regarding God. So people that are saying they are just agnostic...okay? But what do you BELIEVE in SPIRITUALLY? You're using the word agnostic as an explanation of your belief in spiritual matters and with God yet agnostic can't be used in that context. You can be agnostic and be an atheist. You can be gnostic and be an atheist. You can be agnostic and be a Christian. And you can be a gnostic and be a Christian.

Really, it boggles my mind people say things and yet do not understand what they are saying yet masquerade as if they do.

Originally posted by BlankSlate
Sorry, I have to pull you up on this one.

What you're describing there is moral nihilism, not atheism. While nihilism will no doubt lead to atheism, it is absolutly not true that atheism leads to nihilism.

There are secular moral and ethical philosopies that pre-date christianity.

That said, I do strongly doubt traditionaldrummer's claim that atheists are largely more ethical people than theists. That sounds completly made up.

Moral nihilism surely is the default position of an atheist, though ?
No God or Natural Laws = no right or wrong = no such thing as morality and ethics, other than the feverish figments of an idealist's imagination.

Secular moral and ethical philosophies mean nothing, in truth, because they are only one person's opinion, which is no better or worse than another person that may have his own ethical philosphy of killing, raping, stealing and cruelty.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that there is any statistical evidence to support the claim that there's any difference in the ethical behaviour amongst atheists or theists.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No theist has ever presented any tangible evidence, scientific discovery has never turned up any. The laws of physics operate solidly without prompt from supernatural forces.

Hasn't any theist presented tangible evidence ? Or have you just not personally come across any ?
How do you know that science hasn't turned up any discoveries that offer evidence to support the existence of God ?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Faulty and baseless assumption. Once again, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. Nothing more. Non-belief in right or wrong is more accurately attributed to nihilism. Morality and ethics are not derived from belief in deities, rather they're derived from social contract. Indeed, under that arrangement they are arbitrary.

It's not faulty and baseless.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, yes, so therefore without any absolute moral authority, there is no such thing as right or wrong; in fact morality and ethics should be as imaginary a concept to atheists as God is.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Morality and ethics are not derived from belief in deities, rather they're derived from social contract. Indeed, under that arrangement they are arbitrary.

Morality and ethics may or may not derive from belief in deities, but they are only relevant if a deity exists that defines morality.
The argument that social implications are the source of morality is slightly moot, owing to the fact that many things that are generally considered to be immoral can still easily be carried out within the confines of a broad social setting.

Secular moral and ethical philosophies mean nothing, in truth, because they are only one person's opinion, which is no better or worse than another person that may have his own ethical philosphy of killing, raping, stealing and cruelty.

You know I'm sick and tired of people who don't know what the hell they are talking about talking and speaking as if it is fact.

There is no such thing as "moral" philosophies. Ethics IS the philosophy of morality. So there aren't any moral philosophies, just ethical theories, which are also philosophical theories because ethics is a form of philosophy.

And many of these secular beliefs stem from religious stories but evolved in a way that all people can see them. They are based on reasoning.

Furthermore, Natural Law IS based in ethics, not religion. It is influenced by religion, although there are certainly forms of it that are secular in nature, but natural law is not religious. It belongs to ethics. And ethics is the SECULAR study of morality. Ethics in and of itself is secular in nature. Religion and Ethics are two different normative functions that while interlaced are not one and the same.

Religion's basis comes from the word of God or through a prophet preaching the word of God. The authority comes from God.

Law, another normative function, has it's basis from the authority of the governments that create the law.

Etiquette is another normative function, and it's basis is from the authority of society.

Ethics is another normative function, and it's basis is from the authority of our REASONING.

While the basis of Thomas Aquinas' theory of natural law comes from his religious background, the authority behind it comes from REASONING. As does Hobbes, Paine and everyone else that worked on theories of natural law.

All 4 of the normative functions I named are interrelated in one another. Law can mandate etiquette behavior. Religion can mandate moral behavior. But what matters with the concepts is where the authority or credibility comes from.