Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by damwel

No I am afraid he is correct. Under the rules of logic a negative cannot be proven and does not have to be. If you believe in a creator it is up to you to prove it. He doesn't have to prove there isn't one. Have you ever taken a course in logic. This is like the first thing you learn. Look it up before you makes claims that he is wrong.


hehehe... I just hate a play of words.... but to explain why it was apropriate to say he was wrong: the statement was that I asked him to prove god does not exist.. for one the point was to show that there is no such evidence to claim god does not exist. 2nd have you ever heard of the phrase "guilty until proven innocent"? nowadays its quite a normal thing and a courtesy to explain why you came to a certain conclusion (this is a discussion forum) you support your statement. also to say "god doesn't exist" is a claim. claim's need to be supported and most members are quite capable of that.
So instead of coming at me because of a poor choice of words you should try and add something usefull to this discussion (maybe even try to give reasoning to my unlegit question)




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I don't think so. The belief of a human-like creator came about when ancient man developed enough brain function to start wondering about it.


Wow. That is a mighty big assumption. I hope you have scientific proof for that statement. I would say that the writings of our ancestors, who were closer to your said event, would probably be closer to what they thought since they were actually there. Unless you are saying that you know more about what it was like back then than the one's who were actually there.

lol. I am sorry but that did get a chuckle out of me.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


If this were true, then every scientist would be an atheist and outright state that god does not exist.

But a lot of those alleged brilliant minds would tell you they have unsettled thoughts. Even if it is "supposedly" logical and perfectly within reason to assert there is no god and not give any explanation as to why.

Let me ask you something. Do you say, "the cave has no treasure in it." (When you have only explored 20% of it.) Or do you say, "the cave has no treasure in it." (When you have explored 100% of it.)

By comparison, what percentage of the universe are we pretty close to absolutely sure of? Last I recall, only about 4% of the universe around us is composed of elements we recognize and can examine. The rest is composed of things we can't really examine.

----

For this reason, I feel that SCIENTIFICALLY speaking. Saying "God doesn't exist" is about as logical as "God exists," and in case we've forgotten, "God exists," isn't very logical in the eyes of science.

Which is what this topic is about.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I've already illustrated how Science, not Atheism, establishes a portrait of random occurrence.


You didn't illustrate it, you assumed it was implied. It's not. Although randomness and chaos are factors throughout many sciences, science as a whole does not assume random chance as primary causation.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Organic97
 


That would be a great thing.


2nd line



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Utopian
 


Probably already stated....but you can be an Atheist Buddhist.

Also, if you're an agnostic...how can you tell someone that there's no way everything happens by chance, unless you KNOW that is doesn't?

Agnostic means just what it sounds like. it means YOU don't KNOW. If you don't know, why trouble others by telling them what they believe is false?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
So listen to the video. Then argue against the validity of the speakers thoughts,


I can't watch the video. Someone mentioned DNA and how it couldn't have been an accident. Of course it wasn't an accident or randomness. That's a misconception about atheism. DNA is from nature. Nature is the "intelligence" behind DNA.

If the speaker is using DNA to state a claim that there MUST be a creator, then he's just making an assumption because he doesn't KNOW how DNA came to be. It's not necessary to make up a story for everything we don't know.

And providing evidence? I have not made a claim. The burden is on those who ARE making a claim.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





By natural means. The sciences are working towards the details.



Lol. So they don't know? Working out the details? lol

Natural means? Could you explain that so as it is not so vague?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

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.



You can explain the bible without the presence of God, or what you have been taught God is. God is just one of many "Gods" that have the same birthday, same number of disciples, the same in a lot things.

Don't know if you have seen these but i recommend watching Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum. They are very eye opening movies, they actually got very high regards at the film festivals but they will never be released commercially. It talks about monetary system, the truth about 9/11. It gives you an insight on the history of religion and where it stems from. Many, many topics that you don't think about in your every day life. I can't say enough about these movies. After watching them, I looked and continue to look, at the world around me in a totally different mind set.

I do hope you watch them if you haven't already! Let me know what you think!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Interesting. What is an atheist's view on how life began then?


Atheists don't hold any common views but ONE. Disbelief in a deity. That's it. We don't hold ANY other common beliefs. So each atheist has his own beliefs about our beginnings or they don't. It's possible NOT to hold a belief about it.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Organic97
 


If you remove God from the Bible, you are no longer talking about the Bible ...

People like to say things like, "How could a possibly come back from the dead, it doesn't make sense!!"

Um ... Did you forget? ... There is a flippin' deity in there, that happens to also have created the universe ... How would that NOT make sense in a world where such things are possible?

Instead, they go into the bible with the mindset of "god doesn't exist", and so every assertion made by the bible sounds preposterous because god isn't there to support the claim that angels descended from heaven and all that hullabaloo.

---------
Not to say that I subscribe to the bible.

But going into another belief system with a predetermined mind-set is kinda pointless. You can't examine god, as portrayed, through the eyes of scientific method.
---------

I personally believe the bible could be thought of as a very simplified science book. With sufficiently advanced technology, I believe most, if not all things in the bible are possible.





Basically, what I'm trying to illustrate is that scientists and people of faith think differently.

It is kinda like languages and the grammar.

The grammar in languages illustrate how we piece things together in sequence.

You apply Japanese sentence structure to English and you get some kinda weird-ass Yoda speak, if anything that makes sense at all.

It is just a different manner of thinking altogether.

So, why would you try to write Japanese with English sentence structure and grammar rules? ... You wouldn't make any sense. It wouldn't add up to you, at all.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 





Ok, as for the honesty of people in reporting changes and conflicting facts about existing theories... sure - that is up in the air. And sure, scientific theories are based upon belief, but a belief in a tangeable, empircally testable idea. If the experiments lead the tester to the conclusion that belief A is invalid or wrong then they say yes, it's wrong. In a perfect world.. As for the previous notion of cars and air - when you say creator, are you speaking just in the basic idea of "something that creates" or are you referring to God as the creator? Because in the former instance I will say of course, cars were created by people. And the componets of the car, like air, was created by various chemical and physical interactions between atoms and molecules, resulting in the materials used. The earth spins due to left of forces of when the planets and solar system were formed, etc. I won't dispute that at all. But if you meant "creator" with a capital C - then I'd disagree.


Then how do you think life began? It had to have been created. For anything to be created there has to be a creator. Much like for something to exist it has to first be observed.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Then how do you think life began? It had to have been created. For anything to be created there has to be a creator.


That's an assumption. And it cannot be proven out.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Atheists don't hold any common views but ONE. Disbelief in a deity. That's it. We don't hold ANY other common beliefs. So each atheist has his own beliefs about our beginnings or they don't. It's possible NOT to hold a belief about it.


Hmmm. I can see that. The belief that there is no creator?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Lol. So they don't know? Working out the details? lol

Natural means? Could you explain that so as it is not so vague?


Correct: we don't know all the details. This is likely why people still resort to gods and deities for explanations of those questions.

Yes, natural means. You know, all the forces of nature operating within the laws of physics to form this beautiful thing we call the universe. So far, no discovery throughout the universe has required the need for a creator; it's only the unanswered questions that seem to give a creator some employment.

Maybe there was a creator, but there's no evidence for it and science can't seem to find one. The universe doesn't seem to need one, nor does the existence of life require one.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I've already illustrated how Science, not Atheism, establishes a portrait of random occurrence.


You didn't illustrate it, you assumed it was implied. It's not. Although randomness and chaos are factors throughout many sciences, science as a whole does not assume random chance as primary causation.


What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Conclusion
Then how do you think life began? It had to have been created. For anything to be created there has to be a creator.


That's an assumption. And it cannot be proven out.


No not an assumption. By everything that we see created. That is the proof. In order for something to exist it has to be created. Show me anything that is not created.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


How about god?

My understanding is that in most belief systems god was not created.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





So far, no discovery throughout the universe has required the need for a creator;


What? It is there. It has been created. Unless you believe in Eternity. Then you could say that it has always been there. But if you do not believe that, then there is no way of getting around the fact that it WAS created. So I disagree with your no need for a creator hypothesis.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlankSlate
reply to post by Conclusion
 


How about god?

My understanding is that in most belief systems god was not created.


You are correct.





new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join