Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

reply to post by filosophia


I would like to think that atheism is the search for a noble truth , but not buying into all the BS of everyone else.

I think it's funny how someone proclaims to be agnostic then mutters a bunch of theistic philosophy.

As though because they don't subscribe to a religion and aren't atheist that that somehow makes them agnostic.

I also find it funny how people claim to be agnostic about one particular deity but nothing else. Are they agnostic about invisible gnomes or flying pigs?

Usually I find people claiming to be agnostic are non religious, just peddling their own brand of theism. At another time they would be called cultists.

This doesn't mean they are dangerous or stupid, really this is just a semantic peeve I have.

It's a funny thing, this agnosticism meme.

I have to say I really don't agree with the end part of that video. I'm an atheist , or evolutionist if that's what you want to class it as. The entire argument of the last 15 minutes of that video comes down to the exact same argument we have with regards to a 'god'.

He said someone was arguing the point that life must have been created by aliens, but then who made those aliens, and who made them etc etc. He found this laughable, yet the same argument for an intelligent presence (ie. god) is completely rational to him. How does that work? A lot of religious people argue that god has always existed, which to me can be argued the other way that energy and hence the potential for the universe and life has therefore always existed (whatever model of astrological ideals you may believe in).

So this entire argument seems to be completely hypocritical to me. I do not ignore scientific fact, in-fact quite the opposite. My belief system (yes I do agree that my view point is a BELIEF and not fact, however ti based of real facts rather than story books).

My beliefs are based from astrophysics, astronomy, biology etc etc. The figures mentioned again in that video are just irrational. With the potential of an infinite universe or possibly even universes, there is no way to put a figure on the amount of particles that exist, especially as we barely understand 20% of what actually makes up our universe! Bearing in mind the ridiculously small probability of our galaxy forming in such a way that our solar system formed from precisely the correct materials, planet sizes, distances between the planets, chemical make ups etc etc to have a planet at a suitable temperature and distance from the sun to have water, you can see the probability is one in much more than I could attempt to put into numbers. Basic life in terms of a single celled organism that can reproduce is completely comprehendible to me. given the fact that we have found no other life in the universe, the exact point that is being made about the ridiculously small odds sums it up, those small odds are us!

but to say the entire universe must have been made purely so that only us can exist on our one planet, out of the billions or trillions (or infinite) planets that can exist seems a little bit ott. Why not just make one solar system and be done with it. If an intelligent 'god' made us, then why go to all the bother of creating the rest of the universe if there is no other life?



When you see things from a quantum point of view suddenly it opens up whole new unimaginable possibilities, I don't admit to have anywhere near enough knowledge on this subject as I would like, yet when you look at situations such as matter quite literally spontaneously appearing out of nowhere from nothing, you start to look at things in a very different way. All it would need is a particular mix of particles to have appear and interact and then the seeds of the universe would stem from that. And given the time the universe has existed it certainly seems possible to me.

To strongly religious people from any faith, I would genuinely like to hear your opinions on how/why you think god can have existed for ever, yet matter and energy can't?

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by grahag
Explain to me how God exists when I see so much to say he doesn't.

Children being raped and killed by their parents.

Cancer.

Wars in the name of religion.

None of those things have any relevance to whether God exists or not. You are creating your own concept of God and then disbelieving in your self-created concept using personal opinion.

If the God of the bible exists as I was taught in the Catholic religion, he loves each and every one of us.

If there's some being up there that's taken on the mantle of God, it's not worthy of being called God.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus

edit to add the quote from Epicurus.


[edit on 24-5-2010 by grahag]

reply to post by grahag


they knew much more then us the truth

like musset also somethings he said i kept in mind and never understood his means but recently, he said that he know the truth and is feels only disgust about it

Originally posted by grahag
If the God of the bible exists as I was taught in the Catholic religion, he loves each and every one of us.

That is, unless you do one of The Ten Things You're Not Supposed To Do, then he tortures you forever.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
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. .

What is your undeniable proof that the universe wasn't created by a 15 foot tall pink elephant wearing roller skates?

It is impossible to prove a negative. The difference between your beliefs and science is that Science doesn't begin with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it while disregarding anything that doesn't.

In science, a hypothesis is formed based on observations. The next step is to actively try to disprove that hypothesis by subjecting it to experimentation.

Science could not operate the way your brain does because nothing would ever be accomplished because scholars would sit around all day attempting to disprove every possibility without a shred of evidence to suggest it may be likely. Rather than working on effective cancer drugs, someone could sit around actively trying to prove unicorns don't exist.

Atheists do not accept ideas without evidence. If you lock an atheist and a die-hard Christian in a dark room, the atheist won't bother arguing would could possibly be hiding silently in the dark because they have no evidence to suggest what may be out there. Christians, in contrast, assume God's in that room because it makes them feel more important. You can ask the Christian if he sees, hears, smells, or touches anything in the room and they will deny all of them, but they will still not cease to tell people what's in the dark, as if they actually saw something, because it lets them assert dominance and control over their residents.

So, why don't you prove to me that there's isn't a planet in the universe in which people sit around all day eating JELLO. Can't can you? That's because you know nothing of any practical value. You rely on poorly-conceived fallacies in exchange for rational argument.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan ! I'm wondering why they claim rationality for their absence of belief in God, yet actively embrace something as illogical as morality.

Morality is not illogical. We are a social species and we spend most of ours lives relying on one another for the things we need to survive. Without a common sense of morality, there could be no trust and reliance.

Our ancestors who did not steal from their peers were more socially desirable and thus more likely to be chosen as mates. If you act to the detriment of your peers and allies, then they will likely going to push you away. If that happens, who is going to be more likely to survive: the ones who worked together and shared resources or the hoarder, thief who steals the fruits of others' labor and who cannot feed and fend for himself should he become ill?

In this sense, morality kept you alive

reply to post by Utopian


A true Atheist would never debate the existence or non-existence of a deity. Any Atheist that hints at the possibility of the existence of deities can no longer be called an Atheist. I find it amusing to debate religions with religious adherents. However, I always deny the existence of deities.

A true Atheist would never mention science in regards to Atheism. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Atheism is simply the denial of the existence of deities. Atheism does not seek to prove that deities do not exist. While it is true that many Atheists believe in scientific facts, the two do not go hand in hand.

Being an Atheist does not necessarily mean being non-religious. There are religions on this planet that have no belief in deities and no concern for an afterlife. For example, Taoism and Confucianism, in their original forms, were philosophical and legalistic doctrines, respectively. No deities, no afterlife. Only the current physical existence. One could argue that an Atheist could practice Shinto. The greatest Shinto "priests" cannot, to this day, describe what a Kami is. A Theist could see a Kami as a deity. However, an Atheist could see a Kami in exquisite works of art, such as the Mona Lisa or the Terracotta Army. I could go on about Kami, but I think I have gotten my point across.

I truly do not understand why SO many, many people make Atheism more than it simply is. This is a general statement, targeted at no one.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by My_Reality]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by darkbake]

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.

Actually, I believe it would be prudent to take the agnostic stance. I have a feeling that your belief in atheism is so strong that even if evidence did show up, you would disregard it and stomp on it. Because, if you were open to evidence for a Creator, wouldn't you be an agnostic?

Way to use that sound byte, by the way, without thinking for yourself.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by darkbake]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by darkbake]

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan ! I'm wondering why they claim rationality for their absence of belief in God, yet actively embrace something as illogical as morality.

Morality is not illogical. We are a social species and we spend most of ours lives relying on one another for the things we need to survive. Without a common sense of morality, there could be no trust and reliance.

Our ancestors who did not steal from their peers were more socially desirable and thus more likely to be chosen as mates. If you act to the detriment of your peers and allies, then they will likely going to push you away. If that happens, who is going to be more likely to survive: the ones who worked together and shared resources or the hoarder, thief who steals the fruits of others' labor and who cannot feed and fend for himself should he become ill?

In this sense, morality kept you alive

Wow, I really like this. Amazing.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by darkbake]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by Greyling2012
First of all, if one makes a decision to follow any given behavioral construct, and that decision is informed by past personal experience or intuition, it really wouldn't be considered a "burden" to that person.

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.

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.

Okay, I completely agree with this except for the fact that in order to live a balanced life, you have to treat others the way you want to be treated. Stealing the guy's money would, in fact, be forever connected to the event at some point in time where your wallet was lost and someone else had to choose between turning it in and giving it back. Because, either you accept the money back and become a hypocritical ass, or you don't get your money back.

If this wallet example is a typical slice of your everyday life, then it is likely that you will have a hard time keeping friends or meaningful relationships. Even if "no one will ever know" seems to be the case, do you really want to be walking around with thousands of "no one will ever know" situations weighing you down? And, most importantly, don't you want to live in a society where someone else will give you back YOUR lost wallet? How can you expect this from anyone else while not being willing to do it yourself? At the very least, it makes any argument for wanting to get your wallet back completely illigitimate coming from your own mouth.

I believe that the whole point of our existence on this planet (even if it is a completely messed up place) is to learn how to interact with others in a balanced fashion. [All right, I completely believe that holding to a rigid religious or political philosophy handed to you by someone else completely sabatodges this.]

How often do you discover that what annoys you is, in fact, one of your own flaws that needs to be worked out?

[edit on 25-5-2010 by darkbake]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by darkbake]

Originally posted by darkbake

Actually, I believe it would be prudent to take the agnostic stance. I have a feeling that your belief in atheism is so strong that even if evidence did show up, you would disregard it and stomp on it. Because, if you were open to evidence for a Creator, wouldn't you be an agnostic?

Way to use that sound byte, by the way, without thinking for yourself.

I've already addressed why agnosticism is the least logical stance.
Maybe you should read more of the thread before throwing out cheap digs like that.

There is no proof of god or any deities. This is - I am agnostic.

Thanks for video. Don't agree with its point about atheism being belief system. Belief comes in when we do not know something exists. If I know something, I do not need to believe.
Atheists KNOW there is no god.
On the other hand, religious people know there is no god, but believe in it anyways

Atheism is the religion of the Plebs. As they lack sophisticated brain circuitry they are incapable of spiritual sight and unable to appreciate the beauty of Creation. Thus, they should not be condemned or judged as many have the habit of doing. Instead we must view them with the tolerance and love we would view children with and do our best to provide education in the hopes that through millenia of education they too become mature enough to witness greatness.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Atheism is the religion of the Plebs. As they lack sophisticated brain circuitry they are incapable of spiritual sight and unable to appreciate the beauty of Creation. Thus, they should not be condemned or judged as many have the habit of doing. Instead we must view them with the tolerance and love we would view children with and do our best to provide education in the hopes that through millenia of education they too become mature enough to witness greatness.

Spiritual sight & appreciation of the beauty of creation = believing and appreciating fairy tales

In general, adults use logic and rationality when looking at things, and children are the ones who have a lively fantasy. So I think it's pretty safe to say us agnostics should look at the religious folk like children

reply to post by MrXYZ

In general, adults use logic and rationality when looking at things, and children are the ones who have a lively fantasy. So I think it's pretty safe to say us agnostics should look at the religious folk like children

It's pretty safe to say no one cares much about the opinion of an agnostic.
By your own admission you don't know anything.Just as a passer by.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by randyvs]

Labelling the spiritual as "fairy tale" stems from the discomfort felt by the commoner when confronted with greatness. Overwhelmed by the godly, his brain circuitry shuts down. The atheist would require a lifetime of Meditation, positive care, disciplined education to be able to process higher energies.

Either that or the poor bloke will spend his life on Blogs snickering at anything even slightly unfamiliar.

Agonisticism stems from fear of commitment and like, atheism, repressed rage against certain negative outgrowths of Religion.