It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheism - The Final Frontier

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
 


Why can't you get that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is simply a term for those who do not believe. It is simply a disbelief in god. I see no reason to believe in god so I don't. It requires no belief whatsoever. These things have been repeatedly explained on these forums yet the religious can't grasp the fact that there are people who actually do not believe in a god.

If atheism is a religion than health is a disease.


Religion and belief system are different things. While religion is a belief system, the opposite is not necessarily true. Your last sentence is a false analogy because of this. You desire to equate two things that not necessarily is equal. I would be glad to refrain from calling atheism "a belief system" if atheists restrained themselves to "disbelief". When you move from "lack of belief" to "belief in inexistence", you lose the validity of your argument.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
My claim might be incorrect when discussing those other items you'd listed. However, in making the case that belief in deities is a delusion, explorations into theology and philosophy are unnecessary.

It seems to me that those who criticize Dawkins for not entertaining philosophical arguments often seem to do so because that's the arena in which theists/deists are accustomed to arguing. It's much more difficult to establish the existence of deities when facing someone well-versed in scientific scrutiny.

I didn't find Dawkins' arguments to be flawed or not compelling in his book, just that they are much different arguments than that of say Hitchens or Dennett (who do entertain theology and philosophy). Just my two cents.


I am yet to see a single atheist provide the necessary medical evidence proving that belief in deities is a delusion. I am sure you know that "delusion" is a medical condition, with clearly defined symptoms allowing its diagnose. Since atheists seem to defend this statement with such passion, I'd like to see the necessary medical evidence backing it up. I have medical evidence supporting the opposing position, that not only belief in deities is not a delusion, but also atheist behavior is more likely to lead to delusions. But I'd like to see your evidence first. No need to disprove what hasn't been demonstrated already.

As per such endeavours being unnecessary, so is everything else besides the most basic instincts of eating and procreating. With the same line of reasoning you use to dismiss theology, I dismiss civilization and science. Moreso, since this premise follows from your other unproven premise that belief in deities is a delusion, allow me to dismiss it as a naked assertion that has no basis whatsoever.

Scientific scrutinity is absolutely no obstacle to God, specially when most prominent scientists in the past were religious people, science is basically a religious pursuit and there is no conflict between science and God.

Your complain that people criticize Dawkins for not entertaining "philosophical arguments" is pretty silly, if you excuse me. Dawkins book is a philosophical one. There is no shred of science on it. It is a purely philosophical one, therefore one should be mindful of philosophy.

That you did not find his arguments for be flawed, or for that matter, Hitchens and Dennett's ones, which are also flawed, is merely due to your own ignorance of the subject, as well, which prevents you from correctly evaluating them.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
When you move from "lack of belief" to "belief in inexistence", you lose the validity of your argument.


Simple lack of belief is referred to as "weak atheism". The claim that there are no gods is referred to as "strong atheism". To me, this obscures proper definitions. Atheism is simply disbelief, and though it deals with beliefs, is not a belief system.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




People talk about things for which they have no evidence whatsoever all the time. Case in point: atoms. Another case in point: bacteria. Another case in point: earth-like planets. Another case in point: extraterrestrial life.


Those are proven.



Another case in point: Higgs Boson. Another case in point: String Theory.


Those are hypotheses, but they are falsifiable, and they are proposed to explain some observed and completely unexplined phenomenon (namely mass, and unification of GR with QM). Unlike God hypothesis, which is not science, it is not falsifiable and it is not required to explain some observed and unexplined phenomenon
edit on 27/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Atheism is simply disbelief, and though it deals with beliefs, is not a belief system.


Right! I lack belief in a god - any god. (meaning an intelligence that created what we know today).

I have beliefs - - - but those beliefs do not recognize any god.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
I am yet to see a single atheist provide the necessary medical evidence proving that belief in deities is a delusion. I am sure you know that "delusion" is a medical condition, with clearly defined symptoms allowing its diagnose. Since atheists seem to defend this statement with such passion, I'd like to see the necessary medical evidence backing it up. I have medical evidence supporting the opposing position, that not only belief in deities is not a delusion, but also atheist behavior is more likely to lead to delusions. But I'd like to see your evidence first. No need to disprove what hasn't been demonstrated already.


Dawkins made that claim and it's his burden to support it. I have no interest in disproving the existence of deities, nor evidence to do so. I simply don't find reason nor evidence to believe such a thing, but I'm willing to change if any should come along.


As per such endeavours being unnecessary, so is everything else besides the most basic instincts of eating and procreating. With the same line of reasoning you use to dismiss theology, I dismiss civilization and science. Moreso, since this premise follows from your other unproven premise that belief in deities is a delusion, allow me to dismiss it as a naked assertion that has no basis whatsoever.


Again, this is Dawkins' claim, not mine. I personally would label belief in deities as irrational, though not delusional.


Scientific scrutinity is absolutely no obstacle to God, specially when most prominent scientists in the past were religious people, science is basically a religious pursuit and there is no conflict between science and God.


Agreed. Truth is impervious to scrutiny. But to date, the alleged deities seem to evade all detection.


Your complain that people criticize Dawkins for not entertaining "philosophical arguments" is pretty silly, if you excuse me. Dawkins book is a philosophical one. There is no shred of science on it. It is a purely philosophical one, therefore one should be mindful of philosophy.


Dawkins' book is full of science. Are you certain you actually read this or are you regurgitating the common negative reviews of his book?


That you did not find his arguments for be flawed, or for that matter, Hitchens and Dennett's ones, which are also flawed, is merely due to your own ignorance of the subject, as well, which prevents you from correctly evaluating them.


Hilarious.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
the "god helmet" is a good step towards understanding the delusional nature behind the belief in your imaginary friend(god).

and i could just decide to believe a giant invisible bear sits in a dimension outside of our own and controls the universe and i bet you wouldnt find any medical evidence that i was delusional. but it still doesnt make it true.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
 


Why can't you get that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is simply a term for those who do not believe. It is simply a disbelief in god. I see no reason to believe in god so I don't. It requires no belief whatsoever. These things have been repeatedly explained on these forums yet the religious can't grasp the fact that there are people who actually do not believe in a god.

If atheism is a religion than health is a disease.


Religion and belief system are different things. While religion is a belief system, the opposite is not necessarily true. Your last sentence is a false analogy because of this. You desire to equate two things that not necessarily is equal. I would be glad to refrain from calling atheism "a belief system" if atheists restrained themselves to "disbelief". When you move from "lack of belief" to "belief in inexistence", you lose the validity of your argument.


I realize that religion and belief systems are different things and I knew this reply was coming. The religious constantly say that atheism is a religion and it is what they are doing when they attempt to categorize it as a belief system. It is simply a lack of belief, nothing more. Would it be a belief system if I went through my entire life and never heard of the concept of god?

Atheism is no more a belief system than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is that easier for you?

It was in no way a false analogy. If you do call atheism (which is a lack of belief) a religion than it is the same as calling health a disease. Health is a lack of disease and atheism is a lack of belief.

I forgot to attribute that quote to Clark Adams.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz
If you do call atheism (which is a lack of belief) a religion than it is the same as calling health a disease. Health is a lack of disease and atheism is a lack of belief.


Isn't it mind-boggling how much time atheists spend trying to address misconceptions about atheism? I don't think I've ever encountered anyone criticizing atheism who started from an accurate premise.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I thought science at the present time believed that the universe was created. so how does creation not fit into science?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist, because it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

But with the burden of proof shifted to them, the religious cannot positive prove that God exists, either, since they are unable to adequately define the concept enough to subject it to reasonable proof.

So the entire exercise is pointless. If you believe, go believe. No one cares. If you're worried that somehow science is a threat to your belief, then the problem is with your weak faith, not science.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 


Once again Atheist trying to take Science hostage, when science is nothing but elaboration of the creation. If you say science disproves GOD, then prove the disprove. If I say science proves GOD, I'll tell you something about the nature of the Universe which science has revealed, for example the lack of randomness. Obviously random doesn't need conscious intelligence, but determinism does, just like the computer you are using right now to make your posts.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I fear those who build their lives upon a false premise. Like a sand castle standing against the unstoppable tide.

There will come a day when the all of the gaps are filled and all the corners flooded with light. I listen to people every day hope and wish for death in some socialy acceptable way.... but not one that wants life. Death is the foundation of religion.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


the same can be said of the arguments of a creator...i have yet to see one argue from a valid premise. the argument is false since they start with the presupposition that there is a creator then, develop the theory around it, its called researchers bias in scientific circles, faith in theological circles.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Simple lack of belief is referred to as "weak atheism". The claim that there are no gods is referred to as "strong atheism". To me, this obscures proper definitions. Atheism is simply disbelief, and though it deals with beliefs, is not a belief system.


Again, if you remain on the "weak atheism" position, I agree with you that it is not a belief system. The position of "strong atheism" however, is, since it is possible for one to hold a negative belief.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


People talk about things for which they have no evidence whatsoever all the time. Case in point: atoms. Another case in point: bacteria. Another case in point: earth-like planets. Another case in point: extraterrestrial life.

Those are proven.


Today. Yet, their ideas have been in discussion for much longer than we've had evidence for them. Atoms, in example, were first proposed by Indian natural philosophers 3 centuries before Christ. Your reply does not change the fact that your position is woefully contradicted by reality.





Another case in point: Higgs Boson. Another case in point: String Theory.

Those are hypotheses, but they are falsifiable, and they are proposed to explain some observed and completely unexplined phenomenon (namely mass, and unification of GR with QM). Unlike God hypothesis, which is not science, it is not falsifiable and it is not required to explain some observed and unexplained phenomenon.


Irrelevant. That's not the point and you know it. You're moving the goalpost. The point was that the claim that establishing evidence was a necessary step before discussing might start about a subject. This is incorrect, and none of what you said contradicts it. It is just a poor attempt to move the goalpost and change the topic of the discussion.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Leahn
I am yet to see a single atheist provide the necessary medical evidence proving that belief in deities is a delusion.

Dawkins made that claim and it's his burden to support it.


The motto of this website is "Deny ignorance." Yet, with your reply, you purpote to defend it, not deny it. You made a claim. Back it up with evidence or recant. Shifting the burden of proof with the excuse of "it is Dawkins' claim, not mine" is not denying ignorance, it is supporting it.


Again, this is Dawkins' claim, not mine. I personally would label belief in deities as irrational, though not delusional.


Again, stop supporting ignorance. If you want to present some claim as a support for your argument, you need to provide the necessary evidence supporting it. Support or recant.

Moreso, if you would label belief in deities as irrational, I'd like to see the necessary logical reasoning leading to such conclusion. Otherwise, it is merely prejudice.


Agreed. Truth is impervious to scrutiny. But to date, the alleged deities seem to evade all detection.


So does the Higgs boson and the dark energy. The correct atitude is to verify the methods of analysis, and come up with better or new ways of detecting it, not simply dismiss the hypothesis as "lacking evidence". We lack evidence for everything initially, until we find it.


Dawkins' book is full of science. Are you certain you actually read this or are you regurgitating the common negative reviews of his book?


His arguments are philosophical. Yes, I've read it. Again, since you dismiss philosophy so frivolously, it is obvious that you would want his book to be evaluated on scientific grounds, even though it isn't a scientific book.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
The motto of this website is "Deny ignorance." Yet, with your reply, you purpote to defend it, not deny it. You made a claim. Back it up with evidence or recant. Shifting the burden of proof with the excuse of "it is Dawkins' claim, not mine" is not denying ignorance, it is supporting it.


Remind me again what claim I made, please. Though I'm growing increasingly unwilling to continue conversation with you due to your condescending, arrogant discourse.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxxThe "god helmet" is a good step towards understanding the delusional nature behind the belief in your imaginary friend(god).

And I could just decide to believe a giant invisible bear sits in a dimension outside of our own and controls the universe and i bet you wouldnt find any medical evidence that i was delusional. but it still doesnt make it true.


What's "The God Helmet" ? A book?

The medical definition of delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture."

A belief that a giant invisible bear sits in a dimension outside of our own and controls the universe is not ordinarily accepted as true by other members of the culture you live on (I assume you're American) and you're holding it firmly despite what almost everyone else believes. Yes, it is a delusion, sorry.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
Yes, I've read it. Again, since you dismiss philosophy so frivolously, it is obvious that you would want his book to be evaluated on scientific grounds, even though it isn't a scientific book.


You claimed that, regarding Dawkins' book, "There is no shred of science on it." and that you have read it.

I've read it and it's packed with science - one of the reasons I really enjoyed the book.

You either haven't read it as you had said, or you are being intentionally dishonest.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join