Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

I think you got it wrong sir. Those who follow religion are those who ignore science.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
In answer to your question, I don't know what your desires are. I don't know if you had a bad experience with someone that you consider religious and don't want them to be right. I don't know if you are an ego maniac or are a pedophile or some other sexual deviant. I don't know if you're a covetor of your neighbor for his wife or his car. There are any number of reasons that someone would have to convince themselves that nothing higher than them exists, or that there is nothing after this body dies.

I do know that logic dictates that it is much scarier to believe in a creator that we are accountable to than it is to deny it.

That's not logic, that's emotion based on an anthrocentric viewpoint. Atheists are largely more ethical people than theists, and none I've ever met adopted atheism as an excuse for deviant behavior. Often the case is precisely the opposite: deviants turn to religions as a mechanism to escape their immoral behaviors.

Name one scientific theory that is not based on circular logic or fallacious logic????

If you do, I'll point you to the fallacy or circular nature of the belief and yes it is belief.

It seems you have a pathological desire to be a science denier.

The question then arises as to which belief is the most accurate. That's where common agreement comes into play.

Wrong. Beliefs have the same accuracy because they are unbacked by tangible evidence. Consensus on the belief does not establish accuracy.

The problem with common agreement is that history shows us that the only scientific truth is that science is never currently accurate.

Then you can try to convince yourself that we get closer and closer to the truth, but that isn't the case either.

You see the problem with that concept is that if you build a house of cards and one of the foundations of that house proves wrong, the whole thing comes crashing down.

Terrible anaolgy. Scientific theories are self-correcting and although certain aspects of the theory may be discovered incorrect, it does not invalidate the entire theory. The theory is repaired and does not "come crashing down".

We have shown several of the foundation cards of science to be wrong, but instead of letting the house fall, we have thrown wedges in place of the cards and like indiana jones placing a sand bag in place of the gold statue in raiders of the lost ark, because we have done this, we have a bolder chasing us to the inevitable conclusion that we are and were wrong and one day that boulder is going to land on us and crush us or force us to dive into an abyss and hope that we can grab a vine instead of falling or being crushed
Jaden

Some theories have been abandoned, but you have personally claimed that any scientific theory is mutable because it is a belief, and therefore you can present a philosophical paradox to invalidate it. This is simply not true and it reveals the method you use to provide yourself the wiggle room to make your unprovable, untestable theism operate. You are now the next in line of theists on this thread who operate on wholly false assumptions and fallacious thinking.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You see that's the problem, it would be impossible to detect a change in time. Even atomic clocks would be effected in the same way so relative to everything but our individual perception of time it would stay the same and guess what???

Our perception of time is that it speeds up.

Oh, we write it off as just having experienced the world longer so it seems that things happen quicker, but why be soo quick to write it off???

We know (correction, we believe) that as space compresses time slows, so why not make the conclusion that if space/time expands and stretches time speeds up???

This would answer a LOT of questions that still boggle us. Hell it would explain the mechanism for the universe to accelerate.

As of now, there's no mechanism to have the universe accelerate in it's expansion, what if it's expanding at a constant rate and as space stretches, time speeds up??? it would appear that it is accelerating when it is traveling at the same rate, but it is occurring faster because time is moving faster or slower as the case may be.

It is things like this that have led me to conclude that I am better equipped to make my decisions of belief than the current scientific paradigm is.

I haven't seen the scientific paradigm come up with that explanation, yet I did while contemplating relativity in my free time, and it better explains the mechanism for acceleration of the universe than any other theory I have seen to date.

There are other things that I have seen, not just in astronomy or cosmology that lead me to believe that the paradigms are incompetent and incapable of giving a rational analysis of observed phenomenon.

This is one reason why I choose to NOT accept a paradigm and choose to evaluate the evidence itself and draw my own conclusions.

Yes it's impossible to do this for everything, no one person can, but it's better than accepting things from methods that have proven inaccurate and incomplete time and time again.

Also, science has become more and more about "proving" theories to obtain grant money than discovering new things.

As the makers of the paradigms and the indoctrinators of the educational and paradigmical establishments get closer to the "truth" they stifle true out of the box thinking ever more and get us "FARTHER" from the truth rather than closer.

Just the thoughts of a crazy Theist.

BTW I am not religious in the least and cant stand most organizes religion.

Jaden

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

There are two forms of disbelief that one can take.

Active disbelief is not the same as a passive disbelief. If you actively claim to be atheist then you do have beliefs about gods, IE you believe that there is no evidence to support gods (which is a statement of faith btw as one can not prove the existence or non-existence of a god) If you truly lacked belief you would be passively atheist. But at some point in your life you actively chose to describe yourself as atheist, therefore rendering active disbelief, which itself is belief because it requires knowledge. Knowledge is defined as acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation. All beliefs are based off of knowledge. So in order to make the claim "atheists are without beliefs" one must demonstrate that they are without knowledge in regards to a belief. Clearly you possess knowledge in regards to gods, religions and by default beliefs since you mentioned the very word itself. Clearly since you identify yourself as atheist or agnostic-atheist then one can logically conclude that you do indeed posess belief.

So Please, if you will, explain how you are without belief without having actively chose to be without belief. Remember that belief can not take place without knowledge, and knowledge can not be arrived at without facts or truths.


So please share with us, what knowledge do you posess that validates not only your stance as an atheist or rather an agnostic-atheist as i believe you have described yourself. So far all you have been doing is shifting the burden of proof (and rather well i might add) and quite frankly it is



Also please demonstrate why anything else counter to the claim you just made is a false assumption. I would prefer you to cite either empirical or metaphysical observations that substantiate this claim.

And don't play the shifting of the burden of proof claim. It's an elaborate form of the NO U! game.

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I think you got it wrong sir. Those who follow religion are those who ignore science.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Are we talking about people who follow religion? or people who believe in God??? because I thought we were comparing those who deny God's existence and those who believe in it????

because I agree that most adherents to religion ignore scientific claims. I, however, am a theist and I do anything but ignore scientific claims.

I do, however, analyze the evidence behind a claim while ignoring belief induced or compiled truths.

What I mean by compiled truths is that as science expands, most science relies on past conclusions and conclusions from other branches of science. I like to trace current claims back through their reliant structures and analyze the conclusions that the modern claims rely on to be accurate for the veracity of the current claim to be true.

If I have decided through analysis that early geological conclusions are erroneous or unfounded, then how can I give credence to modern dating of archeological finds in say Egypt????

Or dating of fossils in sandstone?

Jaden

reply to post by The_Zomar


Forgive me for intruding in your debate...but... That is by far one of the most ignorant statements i hear in these debates. That is exactly like claiming atheists disbelieve because they hate god or that atheism is wrong because it leads to immorality. Do you also believe that all jews are wealthy and that all black-people love fried chicken?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

You certainly are full of scientific paradigms, phrases such as

"I can't know with certainty that you exist and you can't know with certainty that I exist apart from being a construct of your consciousness. "

It's like saying "how do you know the colour i'm looking at is blue, in my conciouss it could be red?" These are non-progressive infinite philosophical notions that bare no significance to your debate or any rational coherent argument. Thanks for the discussion.

No of course they bare significance. The only proveable fact is that you exist. Not your body, only your consciousness.

"I think therefore I am" Descartes.

Rene knew that he existed because he was thinking or contemplating his existence and that act alone proved that he existed. He realized that he coudn't "KNOW" anything else as fact because everything else that he knows he accepts as being legitimate based on his contemplating the experience of it.

The experience of it is only interpreted through his contemplating it, so it could be a construct of his thinking about it.

It could be made up by him. Because of this he has to believe that he is experiencing objective reality and that others are as well.

You are right, that you could be seeing blue where I am seeing red. we do NOT interpret objective reality, we experience objective reality and interpret it subjectively and agree on what we experience.

Once we believe that we are experiencing objective reality subjectively, then we can agree that we exist with each other within that same reality. It doesn't make it any less a belief.

Just like people experiencing hallucinations (which may be ann alternate objective reality experienced through an alternate means of experience) BELIEVE what they are experiencing is real.

So of course it has bearing, because until you accept that what you experience is belief, you have NO hope of correctly interpreting it.

Jaden

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Masterjaden]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Masterjaden]

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
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.

Re-read my post....I said "what you have been taught THAT God is". Remember...that was said to someone else, so I am not referring to you when I quote that.

For you to assume that I did not further my knowledge on religion and where it originated from doesn't make sense to me.

I am beyond trying to debunk the fact that "God" exist, it is silly and an never ending battle. The Bible at one time, yes, was a beautiful piece of literature, that DID tell the story of the universe and how man begun. It comes from ancient writings by the Sumerians and many more. But like many things through out history, it has been tarnished by the hands of man. It has been rewritten and interpreted and used in a way that abolishes it originality.

It all depends on what else you learn. If you are willing to open your mind and take what you learn and apply it, you will interpret things very differently.

My problem with Atheists and their evangelical Christian counterparts, is they think they are not only right, but their way is the only way.

I'm sorry, but thousands of years of human development has proven there is always a better way.

Even as a Christian myself those who insist on evangelizing the whole world irritate the hell out of me.

Also all these people who insist the Christian monuments, and the like are unconstitutional, and offensive. The majority of the VOTING public are Christians. If you don't like the law, get off your ass and get the like minded community out and actually vote you lazy bastards.

Originally posted by Utopian
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.

I happen to have an older dictionary at home from the early 50's.

In it the definition of athiesm includes:
One who does not acknowledge any supreme being or God above them.

Then I Read the first commandment:
No Gods But ME!

And i laugh my ass off at any and all bible thumpers.

WHO EVER AUTHORED THE FIRST COMMANDMENT DEMONSTRATES AN ATHEISTIC IDEOLOGY.

WHOEVER WROTE THE FIRST COMMANDMENT FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF AN ATHEIST

WHO IS: " SAY TEN" ?
WHO IS SA TEN?
WHO IS SATAN?


the following two prases utilize the same ingredients. (same letters)
THERE IS A BOX!
TORAH'S IBEX
IBEXES’ TORAH


[edit on 18-5-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Masterjaden
In answer to your question, I don't know what your desires are. I don't know if you had a bad experience with someone that you consider religious and don't want them to be right. I don't know if you are an ego maniac or are a pedophile or some other sexual deviant. I don't know if you're a covetor of your neighbor for his wife or his car. There are any number of reasons that someone would have to convince themselves that nothing higher than them exists, or that there is nothing after this body dies.

I do know that logic dictates that it is much scarier to believe in a creator that we are accountable to than it is to deny it.

That's not logic, that's emotion based on an anthrocentric viewpoint. Atheists are largely more ethical people than theists, and none I've ever met adopted atheism as an excuse for deviant behavior. Often the case is precisely the opposite: deviants turn to religions as a mechanism to escape their immoral behaviors.

Name one scientific theory that is not based on circular logic or fallacious logic????

If you do, I'll point you to the fallacy or circular nature of the belief and yes it is belief.

It seems you have a pathological desire to be a science denier.

The question then arises as to which belief is the most accurate. That's where common agreement comes into play.

Wrong. Beliefs have the same accuracy because they are unbacked by tangible evidence. Consensus on the belief does not establish accuracy.

The problem with common agreement is that history shows us that the only scientific truth is that science is never currently accurate.

Then you can try to convince yourself that we get closer and closer to the truth, but that isn't the case either.

You see the problem with that concept is that if you build a house of cards and one of the foundations of that house proves wrong, the whole thing comes crashing down.

Terrible anaolgy. Scientific theories are self-correcting and although certain aspects of the theory may be discovered incorrect, it does not invalidate the entire theory. The theory is repaired and does not "come crashing down".

We have shown several of the foundation cards of science to be wrong, but instead of letting the house fall, we have thrown wedges in place of the cards and like indiana jones placing a sand bag in place of the gold statue in raiders of the lost ark, because we have done this, we have a bolder chasing us to the inevitable conclusion that we are and were wrong and one day that boulder is going to land on us and crush us or force us to dive into an abyss and hope that we can grab a vine instead of falling or being crushed
Jaden

Some theories have been abandoned, but you have personally claimed that any scientific theory is mutable because it is a belief, and therefore you can present a philosophical paradox to invalidate it. This is simply not true and it reveals the method you use to provide yourself the wiggle room to make your unprovable, untestable theism operate. You are now the next in line of theists on this thread who operate on wholly false assumptions and fallacious thinking.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Who said anything about providing a philosophical paradox to invalidate it. I'll invalidate it on logical evaluation of available evidence. I see that you haven't been able to state one modern scientific theory that is proveable through deductive reasoning on available evidence.

The truth is there is no ONE conclusion that can explain the evidence. There are any number of potential explanations for a given body of evidence.

There are so many variables in modern scientific paradigms that you can just plug in new data into the variables and adjust the equations when new evidence counters the formulae and theories in place.

Hell they did it with gravitational theory and cosmology.

I dare you to go back fifty or seventy years and look at the density composition and formulae for predicting planetary body movement in our own solar system and look at all of the adjustments and changes when predictions didn't mete out and tell me you believe their horsecrap???

Show me one TRULY accurate prediction that was atleast twice as far out as previously measured data without tweaks to the formula for the predictions????

Can You??? and you accept these things as fact???

Come on people. wake up. you are being lied to. about practically EVERYTHING. you are being manipulated and indopctrinated. I'm not saying to go give half of your money to a church. hell, organized religion is just as bad if not worse, but don't believe man when he is so fallible as to be laughable.

search out ACTUAL evidence, do your own evaluations and come to your own conclusions. If you can't understand something that's being told to you, don't believe it.

If you can think of other possible explanations for something, don't accept their explanation to you just because they have a higher degree than you or are more accepted or make more money, that just means they're further indoctrinated.

Jaden

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Agnosticism requires little logic, and is biased against reason, evidence and decision making.

Agnosticism is based on logic, reason and evidence; we have no evidence for or against the existence of God - so logically and reasonably, the conclusion is to neither believe or disbelieve.

On the above evidence ( or lack thereof ) an agnostic makes a decision to not make a knee-jerk response of believing or disbelieving.
Taking the option of staying neutral amidst insufficient supporting evidence is a decision in itself.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Then I Read the first commandment:
No Gods But ME!

And i laugh my ass off at any and all bible thumpers.

WHO EVER AUTHORED THE FIRST COMMANDMENT DEMONSTRATES AN ATHEISTIC IDEOLOGY.

WHOEVER WROTE THE FIRST COMMANDMENT FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF AN ATHEIST

Actually the literal translation is “You shall not have any other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3)

The actual hebrew word used for god is Elohim. Elohim is a plural word, it means Gods. Judaism and by extension Christianity do not deny the existence of other gods, despite what you and countless others have been told.

Originally posted by DeathShield

And don't play the shifting of the burden of proof claim. It's an elaborate form of the NO U! game.

Did you just take the long way around to ask me to prove the negative? Sorry, but I can't and won't do that.

Calling myself atheist is for the benefit of others who obsess about others beliefs. It's not a title I'd choose for myself unless others believed in deities. If others believed in Santa Clause I'd be an a-clausist, if others believed in the easter bunny I'd be an a-bunnyist.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
If you can think of other possible explanations for something, don't accept their explanation to you just because they have a higher degree than you or are more accepted or make more money, that just means they're further indoctrinated.

Anyone can reason any explanation for anything, but to dream up alternate explanations for acquired knowledge simply for the purpose of science denialism is absurd. It's blatantly obvious that you view science as an existential threat to your beliefs, hence the strong need for denial and the references to "indoctrination". False beliefs are dangerous to your mind and true enemies of knowledge but I encourage you to maintain this ignorance of scientific theory and discovery. It lets others know who to avoid. Best of luck in life

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
Agnosticism is based on logic, reason and evidence; we have no evidence for or against the existence of God - so logically and reasonably, the conclusion is to neither believe or disbelieve.

I would just like to reiterate for myself that there will never be good evidence for God, because the concept of God itself is indefinable without paradox, and essentially incomprehensible. So the choice is not only to believe or disbelieve. There is a third option which recognizes that neither belief nor disbelief is possible with something that is not even a something. A null without meaning or definition. I don't think that's exactly the same as agnosticism.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
On the above evidence ( or lack thereof ) an agnostic makes a decision to not make a knee-jerk response of believing or disbelieving.

No, the agnostic makes the conscious choice to never come to any decisions about believing or not believing. In many respects I am technically agnostic. I hold open the possibility a creator/deity/god could exist. But based on the sheer lack of evidence in favor of that slim possibility I'll make the decision that there is none, much as I would make the same decision about the possible existence of fairies and goblins. Agnostics refuse to form a certitude.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The only reason agnostics say that agnosticism is the most logical position is that they are basically looking at two "stories" about creation. One involving something called "God" as a single creator and one NOT involving that.

To some atheists (such as myself) the options of ANY creator, be it a big man in the sky called God OR an orange cyclone working in concert with a purple elephant, are equally likely (or unlikely).

As far as I can tell, agnosticism is the most logical stance; I'm ''agnostic'' on every possibility in regards to the origins and the deeper meaning of the universe and existence - and that includes orange cyclones.

There is a difference, though, in your analogy, as the orange cyclone and purple elephant suggestion is a very finite scenario within a tiny set of parameters. God, on the other hand, is an infinite concept within boundless parameters. The non-existence of a big man in the sky called God, would in no way suggest the non-existence of any God or Gods.

I don't understand how you can assert that any creator is equally likely or unlikely. How can you work out the likelihood or probability of something that you don't believe exists or existed ?
What method are you using to determine that your two scenarios are equally likely or unlikely ?

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
God, on the other hand, is an infinite concept within boundless parameters.

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

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Masterjaden
If you can think of other possible explanations for something, don't accept their explanation to you just because they have a higher degree than you or are more accepted or make more money, that just means they're further indoctrinated.

Anyone can reason any explanation for anything, but to dream up alternate explanations for acquired knowledge simply for the purpose of science denialism is absurd. It's blatantly obvious that you view science as an existential threat to your beliefs, hence the strong need for denial and the references to "indoctrination". False beliefs are dangerous to your mind and true enemies of knowledge but I encourage you to maintain this ignorance of scientific theory and discovery. It lets others know who to avoid. Best of luck in life

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.

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