Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 18
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vash87
 


The observer effect can be as simple as two atoms interacting with one another. It's up on wikipedia if your interested. It literally has *nothing* to do with the human mind observing anything, which it physically can't do anyways. That is, if you subscribe to biology, if you don't then idk wtf to tell you.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

From what I've seen, most people's moral behaviour is not based on intuition, but on their own moral philosophy that they've chosen. That is why I call it a burden or hindrance, because their behaviour from an objective level is irrational.


Why would making a personal decision to follow a certain set of ethics be considered a burden, hinderance or irrational, if that individual believes that doing so will benefit their existence in some way?


For example, if you found a wallet with plenty of money in it, then I'd like to think that most people would hand it in so as the rightful owner may be reunited with it. I would personally consider that the moral thing to do; yet, it would also be the illogical thing to do.
If you pocketed the money yourself, nobody would find out; the person who owned the wallet wouldn't know you'd taken the money, so you wouldn't need to worry about any negative repercussions that he may cause; pocketing the money would also have no relevance on the outcome of a similar future situation, where the same thing may happen to you.


I disagree that there's no relevance between 2 events. In general, if most people would just take the money, then we would live in an even more paranoid and distrusting society, so while not directly related, again, doing the "right" thing has a pay-it-forward type of affect on society as a whole, although not certainly to the degree that we might hope.



I'm not so sure I personally agree with that. When you see things such as the holocaust, Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. you see just how many people are capable of slaughtering another human being when they know they can get away with it.
There are other societies in the past that had a very laissez-faire attitude to killing, with things such as human sacrifices.

I mean, I would think that the way that I and most people feel repulsed when we think of cannabalism, is the reult of a hard-wired, instinctual human response. Yet, the fact that cannabalism was acceptable amongst some societies, indicates that our reaction towards it comes from societal indoctrination, rather than an instinctive response.


You are talking past-tense in all of these examples. Maybe that's an indication that those societies didn't quite nail the whole ethics thing very well. At some point, we realized that eating each other wasn't necessary nor safe, lest we be eaten ourselves. Also, I never said all societies were created (dare I use that term - hehe) equal, and some today are practically eating each other. A lack of education, technology, natural resources and the oppression by rich countries like the US make sure their enlightenment progress is slow to nill. (what's that say about US/UK (etc.) ethics as a whole?)


And that's what makes me question why people bother with morality. It's clear that the world is full of immoral and amoral people that succeed in life, and advanced partially to their total disregard for any kind of ethical behaviour.


True, and while those individuals may well "succeed" in their own life, how many others might they bring down in the process, and what kind of a ripple effect might that have in terms of the overall success of that society? It's like several people seeing someone steal a pack of gum, and then just all saying screw it, let's alll do it because that guy did. That animal pack mentality eventually backfires because the store owner will eventually fight back, or the store will close, and then those people lose the convenience of utilizing that resource. At some level, most people inherently make the "right" decision out of a cause and effect rationalization, without a god telling them why.


If you take some of the more ''robust'' messages out of religious text, then you'll see that most religious doctrines followed well are actually a good philosphy to live your life by


Agreed!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
It's not contradictory. Societal morality is different to individual morality, otherwise we wouldn't have so many problems in society.
It's not logical to follow your society's arbitrary moral code in modern day society. All that's needed is moral expediency; amorality is by far the most logical position to take.


This seems like a flawed argument... it's the aggregate of all of a societies individuals' personal morals that indicate what that societies overall morality stance is. Sure, laws play a part in enforcing some morals (most of the important ones), but those are also based on a legal (if we're lucky) consensus of the body politic, so in essence, an average of the range of personal morality for the individuals in that society.


Put it this way; if someone is driving 35mph within a 30mph speed limit, are they more likely to reduce their speed because they have less control over their braking distance or because they see a police car ? I'd say the latter.
Their motivation for staying inside the speed limit is done due to the fact that they are worried about the consequences of getting punished, rather than for any position on the rights or wrongs of speeding.
And that's what I mean by moral expediency; you don't have to adopt a moral philosophy to survive in a society.


Well, maybe this is true for the majority, and yes, this is likely what will do us in. However, there are many, especially those who understand at least a little bit about physics/inertia/blunt trauma, who will go the speed limit (or maybe a tad slower), because they know it may someday help save injury/life. Do you always go full-tilt at or above the speed limit without considering road/visibility/safety conditions? I guess most do, but that's sad = many people are just plain stupid and don't consider the consequences of their actions. The bible doesn't tell us how fast to drive - maybe it should.



Following an ethical code is different to adopting that code to live your life by.
If they don't have an arbitor, they have no logical need to adopt a moral philosophy for themselves.


I disagree, and it's not about personally "needing" to follow the code, it's a choice, and there are many atheists that drive the speed limit, like myself. It's not illogical, it's about survival, courtesy, gas mileage, and yes, perhaps some fear of the po-po.
Apply this same concept to actual morality, not just following laws.


In your above example you would not beat them because it would personally disadvantage you; that has nothing to do with it being wrong or right, and you have no need to impose a code of ethics not do so.

I'm also assuming that the main reason you wouldn't beat them is just because you know that it's wrong. You have no real reason to rationalise why you wouldn't attack them.


Wow, okay, I think you've just proven my point. Yes, it would personally disadvantage me to beat my family. I therefore have personally determined that it's wrong to beat them - I don't need a god/bible to tell me so. Again, it's not about "need," but a conscious choice to adopt such morals.

Actually, it's because of the very determination that beating them would disadvantage me that I specifically rationalize imposing this code of ethics on myself, which is basically common sense in that I don't have to have a giant debate about it in my head. It's actually completely logical to do so from a personal perspective. And I could make this choice if I was atheist, agnostic, christian, or believed in a magic caterpillar that ruled the universe.

Your argument that it's illogical for an atheist to also have self-imposed (or follow "normal" societal) morals is baseless, IMHO. The definition of Atheism doesn't say anything about logic, BTW.

-Greyling

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Greyling2012] remove outer quotes

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Greyling2012]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Utopian
 


Starred & flagged, cause if there were no soul there'd be no conciousness or sentience, then if you must admit there is a soul as shown by our conciousness and sentience, then you must aknowledge a source, which is really the God head, the source of all things IS DIVINE...without it we would be bugs still crawling around on the ground.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by vash87
can you explain why everything in the universe is so finely tuned as to allow our existence? if any one thing from the force of gravity to the mass of an electron was different by even the smallest fraction, the universe as we know it would not exist. it certainly seems like although science can explain everything in the universe, it doesnt explain why it was born with such a precise set of perfect rules to follow.


Everything in the universe works as well together as it does (actually, there's a lot that doesn't work well together also) because it had billions of years to come about as it did. I don't see any "rules" that would have to have been designed by a deity. The formulation of everything in the universe is a product of the conditions in which each thing coalesced or evolved into at the time that it came to be.

Not everything that ever existed has survived and was so "finely tuned." I believe I'm correct in saying that there are far more species of plants, insects and animals (including humans) that existed in the past, but were apparently not "finely tuned" enough so as to exist, or in the case of a "Creator," they were placed in an environment where they couldn't possibly survive - sounds cruel to me, not intelligent, not perfect at all, but decidedly imperfect (a cruel joke perhaps?).

You are correct when you say that if gravity or mass or any other major constants were different, then the universe as we know it would not exist. That's pretty obvious and doesn't seem like a solid argument for a Creator or any kind of intelligent designer. If it were different, we (and everything else) would have coalesced and evolved differently, but we might well be having this conversation telepathically while swimming around at the bottom of a sea of hydrocarbons. We are what we are, but that does not in itself prove that something created this mess.

-Greyling



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Utopian
 


Starred & flagged, cause if there were no soul there'd be no conciousness or sentience, then if you must admit there is a soul as shown by our conciousness and sentience, then you must aknowledge a source, which is really the God head, the source of all things IS DIVINE...without it we would be bugs still crawling around on the ground.


What makes you think that if we have souls, then bugs don't also?

Also, are you saying that we were originally crawling bugs and then the "God head" used divine powers to upgrade us to humans?


Anyway, what's so wrong with bugs and crawling? ... if we were, we wouldn't perhaps know what we were missing anyway - life might perhaps be better in many ways.

-Greyling



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Greyling2012
 


That's a good question I don't know if bugs don't have a soul, they could but certainly not any conciousness in that. They don't think or act on anything but surival instinct, and if they do have a soul it also means a source for their souls as well, it'd still apply. What I was mor or less pointing out is the fact that we know we exist, we're self aware, which is a miracle in itself. We are the only beings self-aware, and why are we? Because we have conciousness, now what would be the reason for the development of conciousness, this is something science has not answered, in reality if there were no source for that conciousness, then we'd have none, there'd be no reason to be self aware if there weren't a creator out there questioning It's existance to begin with. IMO. You can disagree, but to me it just makes sense, water isn't just here, it is made with hydrogen and oxygen molecules and below that atoms of those molecules with protons electrons and neutrons. There is a source for everything, for this science has proven that to be true, except they still have no reason for us to have thought and self awareness, it just doesn't compute that it just sprang from nowhere.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
the reality is that some kind of GOD exists, but there are 99,9999...% of chances of not being anything like any religion book tries to describe

I dont believe that atheism exists, they just dont understand the definition

the reality is that we could be very well be living in our own minds and matter doesnt really exists, or we could be part of a bigger system

people that say that they dont believe in GOD, means that they dont believe in a man that did that like described in books, but I am sure they believe something created this universe, and that should be our GOD or whatever u wanna call it

plus
to debunk the bible or other theories, you just need to understand this logic:

if all bibles histories are true, then they described something that they didnt understand at that time, it doesnt mean they talked to GOD; they saw something so weird that in their minds, it could only mean GOD ... nowadays, if we see the things they saw, we would write a totality different book -- example --- when colombo talked to natives in America, they thought they were GOD, even with them saying they werent, thats because their brains just couldnt conceive a ship like that or land after all that sea;



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Couldn't organized religion be considered the complete disregard of religious facts?

Not that we were privy to knowing what the original commandments may have been (first thing moses did was break the ten commandments)

Who said the ten commandments anyways?
Say Ten pronounced: Satan


Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact


An Atheist is not only defined as one who does not believe in god, but also one who does not subscribe to the belief in any superior being.

Therefore, Whomever Dictated the first commandment, Fits the definition of an Atheist

God of the Bible who Say Ten, aka Satan was a self proclaimed Atheist.


Who can argue with the simple logic behind that reasoning?

Caution, though:
Don't judge a book by it's cover, or you might cover up your rational inside judge.

Truth is a journey that doesn't end.
waiting for god's judgment day?
maybe god is so good god doesn't have to judge.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Since when was science ever fact? 'Not sayin', just sayin''.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassey222
Since when was science ever fact? 'Not sayin', just sayin''.


Interesting thought.

I think i have a fair answer:
Right after it was done being science fiction.

I think any science fact (from our "accepted" views) was first preceded by science fiction. Someone thought, what if? Or noticed something and asked why.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
There is NO such thing as a "scientific fact" nothing is a fact unless truly proven. a "scientific fact" is in their opinion what THEY think is the truth.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Oh dear...still....

In no particular order.

Point 2. I do not need to list all of the incorrect statements and inconsistencies in the bible to show it can not be the word of an infallible deity. I only need to show one. As this post is not "Does god exist, answers on a postcard please" i wont be listing any but my personal "belief on the matter can be summed up with a simple question. "What type of Christian are you? Anglican? Baptist? Catholic? Methodist? Orthodox? Pentecostal? Protestant? Quaker?
(rhetorical, please do not supply an answer as that too is off topic, and no assumption is being made to your personal religious belief. The you is generic and the entire statement made to demonstrate the point that they cant all be right)

Point 4. I'm glad you agree. there are however a very large group of young earth creationists (about 40 percent of Americans and about 20 percent British. - Gallup 2008) who believe exactly that.

I look forward to your looming thread with regards to both the above points and we can discuss the matters more completely then.
When elligable I might start an "evolution" based topic howevr point 1 does at least, almost bring us back on topic.

Point 1. The evidence for evolution is absolutely over whelming. The weakest evidence. the fossil record, proves species appear and disappear throughout history. Mitochondrial DNA links every animal on the planet to every other animal genetically. Thomas Hunt Morgan in 1906 proved that fruit flies were easy to manipulate and force evolutionary changes to the species.
There are many theories as to the driving force behind evolution but the fact that animals change in response to external pressures is fully understood, has been tested, replicated in the lab, and the results have been independently reproduced by the others in the scientific community. As more is understood about genetics, the previous experiments (sticking with fruit flies) are revisited and if need be the information is added.

In a nutshell, the last paragraph is the scientific method, which brings me tou your final point.

Point 3. In my original post i did no picking or choosing of "which scientific facts you base your method". You do not base your method on the fact you are trying to prove / disprove. If that were the case, using nothing but a tape measure, i could prove the age of the earth to be exactly 3 foot 7 inches. Throughout my post i was referring to THE scientific method ( see response to point 3), not A scientific method.

And this brings us nicely back on topic which is "Atheism - A complete disregard of scientific fact"

Each of the examples above are scientific fact, not opinions. ( I take it that by scientific fact the author means facts accepted by the scientific community as fact, and not fact that anybody can postulate and claim to be true because "i believe it to be so") As an all out card carrying atheist I take exception to the accusation of denying science based on my atheism when the absolute reverse is true. A point that has been made over and over on this very thread where people have been quoting their personal belief systems in order to support some statement or other. While a personal belief system can also be a fact, Belief does not equal fact.

Simply demanding "show me you evidence" does not make you scientific in method. The evidence for all my statements exists, and is real, and is accepted as fact by the scientific community (Thats what makes it a scientific fact folks!). I am not here to teach and will not be holding anybodies hand as we stroll through the aforementioned evidence. If you truly are open minded go take a look. If your mind is closed, simply demand that I personally recreate every experiment and produce all of the material evidence to you personally. And then you can continue to pretend.

Ti late, ciao f now.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Would any of you be interested in reading the thread (in my signature) regarding ways in which skepticism and belief may not need to be mutually exclusive? I thought it might have some bearing on this discussion.

I would just like to add that agnosticism (I consider myself an agnostic skeptic) does not adhere to a firm belief in an intelligent or aware creator, as someone suggested it did on the first page of this thread. That would be a form of theism. Agnosticism adheres only to the possibility that either perspective (or indeed, possibly both perspectives) might be true, but that we do not and cannot yet know one way or the other with absolute, irrefutable certainty.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Greyling2012
 


That's a good question I don't know if bugs don't have a soul, they could but certainly not any conciousness in that. They don't think or act on anything but surival instinct, and if they do have a soul it also means a source for their souls as well, it'd still apply. What I was mor or less pointing out is the fact that we know we exist, we're self aware, which is a miracle in itself. We are the only beings self-aware, and why are we? Because we have conciousness, now what would be the reason for the development of conciousness, this is something science has not answered, in reality if there were no source for that conciousness, then we'd have none, there'd be no reason to be self aware if there weren't a creator out there questioning It's existance to begin with. IMO. You can disagree, but to me it just makes sense, water isn't just here, it is made with hydrogen and oxygen molecules and below that atoms of those molecules with protons electrons and neutrons. There is a source for everything, for this science has proven that to be true, except they still have no reason for us to have thought and self awareness, it just doesn't compute that it just sprang from nowhere.


What proof do you have that our self-awareness is in fact a miracle? As well, we are not the only animals that are self-aware - do the research - there are many studies and some great books and papers on the subject that say otherwise. So then, if our self-awareness is a miracle, and some other animals are self-aware as well (dolphins, chimps, elephants to name a few), is the bible wrong or is the science wrong, and if you say it's the science, what proof do you have that these other species are in fact not self-aware?

Science is largely based on the observable universe, and while we are continuously making breakthroughs about how the mind works, just because science hasn't explained everything yet, does not prove that a deity created our consciousness. For eons, primitive cultures thought the gods made the rain come down to water their crops, but only after sacrificing animals (and I believe in some cases humans). Cooler scientific minds prevailed and now we know why the rain comes down. Just because we don't know how something works yet, doesn't mean that it's automatically a product of the supernatural.

If I snuck into your house every day while you were at work and drank all of your milk, 100% undetected, and no matter what you did to try and catch me you couldn't explain why the milk was disappearing, would you automatically say that it must be divine intervention? After several years of just accepting that this was god's handy-work, along with all of your religious friends, say I made a mistake and you finally caught me on video, would you still insist that it was a divine process for all those years because that's what you had come to believe for so long, even though you had the undeniable video truth before your very eyes? Or would you perhaps feel silly that you had been so gullible in believing that god loved drinking your milk, just because you couldn't explain it otherwise before then?

The world is full of examples where seemingly magical or divine processes have later been answered through scientific research. Therefore, I posit that atheists, in the true definition of the term, are actually the most open-minded of the bunch, as we are not so quick to close the book and attribute everything which we do not yet understand to some unseen, unknown, unproved entity.

BTW, atheism doesn't hold the position that everything "just sprang from nowhere."

-Greyling



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
the reality is that some kind of GOD exists, but there are 99,9999...% of chances of not being anything like any religion book tries to describe


What proof do you have of said known reality?


I dont believe that atheism exists, they just dont understand the definition


Umm.. Atheism does indeed exist - I'm living proof of that.



the reality is that we could be very well be living in our own minds and matter doesnt really exists, or we could be part of a bigger system


I'll agree with that one, if no other reason than perhaps too much pot and acid in the early 80's.
But seriously, this possibility still wouldn't necessarily prove that a deity made our mind or that bigger system.


people that say that they dont believe in GOD, means that they dont believe in a man that did that like described in books, but I am sure they believe something created this universe, and that should be our GOD or whatever u wanna call it


Why are you so sure? I don't necessarily believe that something created this universe, and as an Atheist, until I see incontrovertible proof otherwise, I certainly don't "believe" that it was a deity.


plus
to debunk the bible or other theories, you just need to understand this logic:

if all bibles histories are true, then they described something that they didnt understand at that time, it doesnt mean they talked to GOD; they saw something so weird that in their minds, it could only mean GOD ... nowadays, if we see the things they saw, we would write a totality different book -- example --- when colombo talked to natives in America, they thought they were GOD, even with them saying they werent, thats because their brains just couldnt conceive a ship like that or land after all that sea;


My point exactly - the devout are the natives of today, attributing everything that they don't yet understand to a GOD. With so little knowledge about the universe, we've only just started to scratch the surface (and the insides). But I think we're smarter now, having learned from the past that you've described - that we don't yet know it all and that everything else is god. It's just such a shallow and unenlightened mindset. As well, is the need to call everything god, even if we don't subscribe to an organized religion. God = a deity, a supernatural being, a presumably sentient spirit. Why borrow a religious term for that which you don't yet understand.. why not just call it nature?

Not to digress, but your argument is one of the same that's made to defend having "In God We Trust" on US money, along with what they now cite as tradition. Hogwash! They would love to have everything attributed to god, to grind that manipulative controlling dogma into everyone. Call it what you want personally (i.e. freedom of religion), but I'm personally offended when this failed god logic is legislated and shoved down my throat against my will. It's discriminatory, plain and simple, IMO.

-Greyling



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I'll concede to agnostics, if you can just define God as whatever you like, then yes, it's impossible to disprove god, scientifically or otherwise.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I am an atheist when it comes to the Christian God, namely the Old Testament wrathful God and I also don't believe Jesus is the only god or son of God. However I believe in Brahman, the Absolute Reality so I believe in a metaphysical Supreme Soul which is not what most atheists say they believe in.

Most atheists say that atheism is simply no belief in God, but many also don't believe in a soul (and believe in evolution, sorry "accept" evolution).



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garrett Staples
There is NO such thing as a "scientific fact" nothing is a fact unless truly proven. a "scientific fact" is in their opinion what THEY think is the truth.


Yes there is such a thing as scientific fact. Science is based on experimentation and observation. It can be tested, and tested again to repeat and support the first test. When something proves itself to be continually capable of achieving the same results given the same conditions, then we know that to be a fact. Newtons equations can describe the parabolic arc of a fired projectile before it is even fired.

Religion and belief do not hold themselves to these standards. Religion works backwards because it assumes to already know the answer, and tries to make everything else fit. When it doesn't fit then it attacks the system, as you have done, because it doesn't produce the answers you like.

You read a book written by desert tribesman 2000 years ago and think it is fact. Science actually observes and experiments under the scrutiny of other competing scientists and produces results using the culmination of knowledge gained through our species written history.

If it were not for scientific facts like discovering the Earth orbits the Sun (before any satellites or advanced optical technologies) then the churches would still be sticking by the Bible believing the Earth is the center of all creation. Religion slowly gives way to the advances of science because they have no choice, lest they appear completely ignorant of the world around them.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Its all about the Chocolate Tea Pot in orbit around Mars!

Impossible to prove. You can't see it. You can't measure it. But I TELL YOU ITS THERE!!! And you must believe.

To the non-believer or a believer, no amount of proof will ever come around. Being an atheist myself, I don't believe in Abrahamic Religion or any others. However, I have adopted some Humanistic principles in a way of a belief. i.e. Not Judging people, thinking good positive thoughts about myself and others, helping my fellow human, giving to charity as so on. And I would like to believe in something....but simply there is not evidence either way. Is there a god, is there no god? Who knows? Its does not matter to me.

I do find the idea of blind , un-researched, unreasoned faith a little disgusting though. And I find the bible / Torah / Quran absolutely disgusting books as well. They are all part of the same core system of belief and I can only say for the good of all mankind...I hope that the god of the bible does not exist.

But being atheist myself I find that I am able to reason and rationalise things a little better. I find myself that religion is very hypercritical and teaches a warped version of morality which leans towards pure evil.

And yes I think more people are becoming aggressively Atheist, only because religion HAS caused pretty much all of the worlds problems today.

I myself am starting to fall in that category. Some people ignore most of the bible for instance and just choose to be nice charitable people.

Others seem to think treating women poorly, thinking that starting a nuclear war is predicted in 'Revelation' and are actively seeking war to fulfil some warped prophecy, who think global pollution is OK....because jeeeesus is a comin' down to clear up our mess...praise !!! Who think killing gays and Africans is OK. Who choose to ignore the fact that gods law says its OK to kill your wife for breaking some stupid law....but choose to home in on the gay agenda because its suits their own warped political ideology . So its this last group that I think the world should be very scared of, and who I very much object to.





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join