Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

but what happens when its explained to people in general where atheists may be present or not but it does not matter, the exact location of God and what God looks like and what God sounds like and what was meant by God when the some guy wrote about God?

atheism in theory may be the disbelief in any gods, but in practice its obviously the sincere desire that their is no God, without regard to whether or not God exists or not or whether they understood what some unknown author meant when he wrote about God.

its interesting that atheists seem to be convinced that there beliefs are different from every other line of thought ever created by man, they seem to believe they are singularly unique and don't possess the same weaknesses as every other human being to ever walk the earth.

atheism is faith or belief without proof just like any other religion and no matter how often it is explained it will never be anything but that.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
Then I ask the question, is there any more evidence that there isn't a god than evidence that there is a god? Neither claim has any proof to back it up. You say it is illogical to believe in things that aren't supported by evidence, yet there is no evidence that god doesn't exist. Therefore it is equally illogical to refuse to believe in god as it is to actually believe in god. Both viewpoints are completely illogical by your own statement.

I may have misused or misunderstood the literal definition of atheist. What I meant was, god not existing is a theory, just as god existing is also a theory. Neither can be completely proven true or false at this time. Man simply does not have the knowledge or understanding yet to figure it out.

As far as atheists relying on faith, they have faith in the theory that god doesn't exist when they can't prove it for themselves. You can say that have faith in their lack of faith. It is illogical to believe in anything that can't be proven, even if that anything is a lack of something.

Interesting! Generally speaking, no one can prove that there isn't a god, but if we examine events one at a time we can conclude that a god is not working behind the scenes.

Ancient people believed an angry god caused earthquakes; as though he put his hands in the ground and shook it. Then someone came along and pointed out how the crust of the earth shifts and slides. No angry god.

With each and every event (lightning, hurricanes, disease...) god and magic was replaced with nature and logic.

If we get to the point where we figure out how life and the universe was created, only then will we be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god. But so far, with all of the small steps of understanding, it's been: scientific explanation 100%, magical god 0%.

reply to post by OwenGP185


I personally think that people think too much. they say things that make no sense and they don't exhibit the ability to see past their most base emotional desires.

if given the opportunity, i'm certain that people would destroy themselves or even the entire creation for little other reason than they didn't actually think through their actions.

reply to post by Annee

When religious theists are informed that atheism is not "belief that God does not exist," as they previously assumed, but rather that atheism is really defined as the "lack of belief in the existence of any gods" or simply "disbelief in gods," many get defensive.

Forgive me for being oblique, but I truly don't understand the difference that this line tries to convey. Both wordings seem to mean almost the exact same thing. I guess I don't understand how a lack of belief in gods is not the same thing as a belief that there are no gods. It all just sounds like pointless semantics. That article didn't really clarify anything eathier. All it said was that it's pointless to argue this point while not even trying to explain their position.

I really want to understand where this is all coming from. Can you clarify?

reply to post by jiggerj


to prove or disprove something you must clearly define what you think that something is at the very least.

no one ever attempts this...because they have blindly and recklessly decided what the final answer should be before the inquiry.

and then they write a book about it and go on a speaking tour.

they know everything but can't even save their own lives.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by QuietInsanity

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is the only truth. Because eyes are open.

Religious believers use that same line and believe equally that they are right.

"Atheism is the truth" - - specific to the concept of the discussion I used it.

Followers are lead. Eyes Wide Shut.

Atheists are not lead. Eyes Open. Truth is in Eyes being open.

Is there a name for those that don't believe in the Easter bunny? I don't think so. So, wouldn't it mean that Atheism doesn't mean a belief in something, but rather a nonbelief in a god?

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by OwenGP185

 

I personally think that people think too much. they say things that make no sense and they don't exhibit the ability to see past their most base emotional desires.

if given the opportunity, i'm certain that people would destroy themselves or even the entire creation for little other reason than they didn't actually think through their actions.

LOL Didn't you just descibe humanity?

reply to post by jiggerj


i'm looking at humanity do it right now. they are trying hard at least.

the strangest part of it is that they become angry when what they are doing is exposed, but under no circumstances will they alter or change their behavior.

reply to post by jiggerj


You make a good point, and as it is, christians and others these days are actually redefining their beliefs on how god interacts with us and the world so that it makes sense with scientific theory. Some of these theories actually seem to be well thought out, potentially have merit, and could even possibly be tested given more knowledge and understanding of the natural world. They are just theories like everything else, but they have more basis in logic than the old theories.

This also brings to the point that science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Science could potentially be used to prove religion in the future if it delves into the right areas. What happens then if the two validate each other? That's why I think this whole debate about which is more dangerous is pointless. If anything, they should be working together to find out the truth instead of both groups jumping to conclusions and basing their results on those biases.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by QuietInsanity

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is the only truth. Because eyes are open.

Religious believers use that same line and believe equally that they are right.

"Atheism is the truth" - - specific to the concept of the discussion I used it.

Followers are lead. Eyes Wide Shut.

Atheists are not lead. Eyes Open. Truth is in Eyes being open.

Is there a name for those that don't believe in the Easter bunny? I don't think so. So, wouldn't it mean that Atheism doesn't mean a belief in something, but rather a nonbelief in a god?

Does someone believe in the Easter Bunny?

I'm not going to debate Atheism in this thread. The title is: Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

Debating Atheism would be off topic. Besides - - I'm tired of debating it. I'll provide you with some links. You can read for yourself.

Atheism: Lack of Belief in a God/Deity - - - it does not mean anything else.

An Atheist is an individual. Any belief each individual Atheist has would be his/her own: an individual Atheist Philosophy

Any honest true Atheist is also Agnostic: God can not be proven or dis-proven.

Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism

By David Eller

Agnosticism is a recent concept, introduced by Thomas Huxley, the famous friend and advocate of Darwin, to describe his own concerns about knowledge and belief. It is derived from the Greek roots a- for 'no' or 'without' and gnosis for 'knowledge.' Dictionary definitions, which are often worse than useless, tend to depict it as the position that certain things, like god(s), are unknown or ultimately unknowable; in common usage it is a third religious position between Atheism or Theism. The Oxford World Encyclopedia goes so far as to declare that it is a \reasoned basis for the rejection of both Christianity and Atheism\. [3]

However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

In this characterization, which we can take as authoritative, there is no mention of belief in general or of religion in particular. Rather, it addresses what we should and can claim to know. It is akin to skepticism in the less extreme sense: not that it is impossible to have knowledge or that we have none but that we should not claim to have knowledge that we do not have.

Agnosticism, then, is not a branch of religion but of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge: what is it possible to say that we know with some acceptable degree of certainty, and how do we know that we know it? More accurately, it is a method in regard to knowledge, a method for separating out what we can justifiably say we know from what we cannot justifiably say we know. atheists.org...

reply to post by Annee


To be fair, the title does use the word atheist as though it is a credential, therefore it is not off topic to be discussing those credentials. If I'm unclear as to what an atheist is, how can I fully understand how it relates to this topic?

I read that full article you linked to. It didn't clarify what I was asking exactly, but I think, or at least I hope, I'm starting to get the general gist of your point anyway. Is what you were trying to say along the lines of: It's possible to be an atheist (aka not believe in god) and still be open to the fact that there might be a god? If that's not the case, I'm sorry, but if that is the case, I can kind of see where our definitions got skewed.

As far as I can see it, and as the article kind of implies, there are three places on this spectrum to be.
1. Having complete faith that there is a god.
2. Having complete faith that there is no god.
3. Being completely neutral and waiting for an answer, not assuming there is or isn't a god.

Now it seems as though technically 2 and 3 both fall under the definition of atheist, but most people, myself included, think of 2 as an atheist and 3 as something else entirely, usually agnostic. It seems like I was using definition 2 while you were using definition 3 and that's where we got our signals crossed.

Is this all correct so far?

This kind of poses a problem with discussing atheism then. Technically both are atheists but the beliefs are actually very different, so when someone calls themselves an atheist, how can we be sure which they are talking about? It would get very confusing fast.

Edit: Star for the link and helping to expand my understanding.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
reply to post by Annee

 

To be fair, the title does use the word atheist as though it is a credential, therefore it is not off topic to be discussing those credentials. If I'm unclear as to what an atheist is, how can I fully understand how it relates to this topic?

I read that full article you linked to. It didn't clarify what I was asking exactly, but I think, or at least I hope, I'm starting to get the general gist of your point anyway. Is what you were trying to say along the lines of: It's possible to be an atheist (aka not believe in god) and still be open to the fact that there might be a god? If that's not the case, I'm sorry, but if that is the case, I can kind of see where our definitions got skewed.

There are many articles and explanations on that website. There is also a search feature. I'm tired right now of discussing it.There's been a slew of Atheist threads lately.

As God can not be proven or dis-proven - - - a genuine honest Atheist would not claim 100% that there is no God. Only that there is no proof. However - - - why is it OK for believers to claim God 100% without doubt.

Originally posted by Annee

There are many articles and explanations on that website. There is also a search feature. I'm tired right now of discussing it.There's been a slew of Atheist threads lately.

As God can not be proven or dis-proven - - - a genuine honest Atheist would not claim 100% that there is no God. Only that there is no proof. However - - - why is it OK for believers to claim God 100% without doubt.

Okay, I'll keep looking around that site because I hate working off of misinformation, but in the meantime, I have a question I hope you can answer. If my number 3 definition, the one many people define as agnostic, is the true definition of atheism, then is there a word for my number two definition, the one most people assume is the definition for atheist, people who adamantly deny the existence of god? It would help to have a clear identifier here as to not get things mixed up again.

Originally posted by eNumbra
Science gives us the tools to destroy each other.

Religion gives us the reason.




Which is more dangerous?

This is like saying which is the key to electrical power, the voltage or the current, when P=ExI. Your observation is brilliant.

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by eNumbra
Science gives us the tools to destroy each other.

Religion gives us the reason.




Which is more dangerous?

This is like saying which is the key to electrical power, the voltage or the current, when P=ExI. Your observation is brilliant.

I am so going to plagiarize this. Thanks.

Originally posted by eNumbra
Science gives us the tools to destroy each other.

Religion gives us the reason.




Which is more dangerous?

This is true.

If there were no religion, there would be less reason for humans to kill each other, apart for greed.

Although greed has been the fuel of many a war in the past, religion has been the torch that has burnt constantly throughout the ages as a reason to kill and destroy.

Not saying there would be no wars without religion, but there would be less. And there would be less reason to find ways for science to kill our enemies by the millions.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
I have a question I hope you can answer. If my number 3 definition, the one many people define as agnostic, is the true definition of atheism

You are confusing me. How can you have "faith" there is no god? That doesn't even sound right.

A basic problem in understanding the meaning of atheism - - is dictionaries and other references haven't caught up yet to the correct definition. Its kind of a society evolving thing - - like the definition of marriage.

atheism is a noun/adjective - - it is not capitalized - - it is simply a descriptive: lack of belief in god (I capitalize Atheism for emphases - - that is incorrect)

I am not saying it is Ok to be atheist and have a belief there could be a god.

Atheist is "lack of belief in a god" - - - however as it can not be proven or dis-proven there can not be a 100% certainty. That's honest and realistic.

reply to post by snowspirit


YES!!! I think your statement is true. Religion in itself isn't dangerous (Thy shall not kill - sounds dangerous I know), it's dangerous humans that practice it that distort the real message into one that suits their needs. Keep it real.

I think you are 100% right. Religion isn't about killing as much as science is. Ying Yang b$tchs. Their is always good in bad and vise versa, I can use nuclear energy to power hospitals and schools or blow them up. If you never seen light how do you know it's dark??