Atheism...the new Christianity

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Well, i am glad to see that there are some good thinking people on here.

Im glad you don't care what i believe - thats the way it should be

reply to post by Snarf


I haven't forced any faith towards you primarily because I have none, and secondly because people can believe whatever they wish. For an athiest to disagree with your beliefs is their right to, and you've attacked all athiests on this thread on false grounds that a disbelief in god requires a belief.

Disbelief in god is no more a faith than choosing not to believe in the cookie monster. That is a fact, and because you choose to ignore that you blame othes for failing to recognise that.

So.... you cannot expect any sympathy from me, and rightfully I had responded in the manner I did because you simply asked for it.

You're confused between the causes and effect.... athiests here are responding in a condescening manner towards you because you are saying really stupid things.

You will see athiests debunk various statements from the bible etc, because they are silly, like the earth being created in 6 days and yada yada.... but you won't see many athiests spending time debunking a general belief in god, because disproving that would be impossible and pointless.

A belief is a belief.

Everyone in any belief does the same, it's just that people can't take the fact that someone thought something.

I'm not sticking up for any one belief but you mention christianity as if it was victim.

The actual truth is that is hypocritical because tell me. Do mainstream religions bash scientology? Yes they do. What's wrong with that? The same thing wrong with an atheist telling a christian what not to believe.
Religion is just a circle of hypocrites.

I think people need to keep their opinions on someones belief to themselves, unless of course that belief is being arrogantly displayed as law, which is why we have so many religious conflicts, I suppose humanity won't change.

reply to post by sirnex

Religious folks erroneously think science is inherently against all thing's supernatural.

It is. Science is a methodology used to investigate phenomena in the natural world to increase our knowledge of it. By definition, the supernatural lies beyond the scope and examination of the natural world. Fundamentally, the supernatural has no evidence science can examine or test for which to even begin to suggest that it even exists.

When most people mention the supernatural, they refer to instances where they believe the supernatural intersect with the natural world. This may be proposed in the form of divine miracles, strings of coincidences set in motion by an unseen will (fate), or the mechanism by which consciousness supposedly interacts with neurons to establish an observer capable of controlling the body and exerting it's free will.

In all instances, any intersection between the supernatural and natural realms would necessarily have to leave evidence. In the natural world, an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force. For a ghost to deflect a bullet - or a god to preform a miracle - their supernatural abilities would need a mechanism by which it can interface with the laws of nature. (though, this would violate the law of conservation of energy by adding or removing energy to provide that interface) Those interactions with the laws of nature, even if imperceptible to us, would constitute the evidence required for science to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.

The irony is, once a phenomena considered to be supernatural is discovered and demonstrated by evidence - either of it's existence in or interactions with -physical reality, then it becomes a natural phenomena within the investigatory scope of science. Hence, no longer supernatural.

reply to post by Snarf

You have faith that God does not exist./Atheism is a religion requiring faith.

To once again touch on this topic. What you're actually suggesting appears to me to be a paradox of position under scrutiny. As Richard Dawkins once stated - we are all Atheists in regards to the vast majority of gods which man has created. Christians are atheistic in regards to Allah. Muslims are atheists in regards to Thor. Shintoists are atheistic in regards to "The Great Spirit." Hindus are atheists in regards to Xenu and body Thetans.

Atheists, who believe in no god, merely extend this non-belief one god further.

Yet, mankind has created tens of thousands of various and unique gods, spirits, and deities which they worshiped at one time or another, in one culture or another. The vast majority of which are lost to pre-history, while the vast majority of the ones we do know of - are rarely well known outside of a few relevant gods worshiped by cultures we interact with. We are all atheistic to these gods who fell from favor.

Yet, if atheism is a positive statement of no belief in a certain god, or all of them. Then how do you honestly rationalize the concept of actively denying the existence of a specific god as a matter of faith, when you haven't the slightest inkling of that god having ever existing in human mythology. How can I claim a positive assertion of faith in the non-existence of a being I would never suspect even existed.

Try this. I'm thinking of a god that humans have worshiped at one time or another in the grand spectrum of culture and history. Can you honestly affirm as a statement of faith that you do not believe that god exists. What if it turns out that the god I'm thinking of is the same god you worship?


Such a suggestion as "Atheism requiring faith" doesn't hold up, because the implication of stating as a non-evidence based position that any number of gods - either individually or in a spectrum - known or speculated - is fundamentally flawed to rational thought, as it presupposes an already established conclusion before the investigation and regardless of evidence, rendering both meaningless wasted steps.

On the other hand, requiring evidence before affirming a statement of believe either in favor of or against a proposition (such as the existence of a god) bypasses the pitfalls and fallacies of engaging established presuppositions, enables the open mind and allows for critical thinking, and - moreover - because it requires evidence before affirming a position either for or against - it cannot be correlated with the definition of faith.

reply to post by Lasheic

It is. Science is a methodology used to investigate phenomena in the natural world to increase our knowledge of it. By definition, the supernatural lies beyond the scope and examination of the natural world. Fundamentally, the supernatural has no evidence science can examine or test for which to even begin to suggest that it even exists.

The supernatural can also be lumped with ESP or Ghosts or NDEs or OOBEs. Science does examine some of these claims.

When most people mention the supernatural, they refer to instances where they believe the supernatural intersect with the natural world. This may be proposed in the form of divine miracles, strings of coincidences set in motion by an unseen will (fate), or the mechanism by which consciousness supposedly interacts with neurons to establish an observer capable of controlling the body and exerting it's free will.

Ah, that's not what I think when I hear the word or use it.

In all instances, any intersection between the supernatural and natural realms would necessarily have to leave evidence. In the natural world, an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force. For a ghost to deflect a bullet - or a god to preform a miracle - their supernatural abilities would need a mechanism by which it can interface with the laws of nature. (though, this would violate the law of conservation of energy by adding or removing energy to provide that interface) Those interactions with the laws of nature, even if imperceptible to us, would constitute the evidence required for science to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.

This is why science doesn't except it as a real thing, no evidence is ever found.

The irony is, once a phenomena considered to be supernatural is discovered and demonstrated by evidence - either of it's existence in or interactions with -physical reality, then it becomes a natural phenomena within the investigatory scope of science. Hence, no longer supernatural.

Well, if a mechanism is explainable, then it would be natural wouldn't it? I think it's termed supernatural because it doesn't work as far as is known according to what is known about the natural world already.

reply to post by Lasheic

we are all Atheists in regards to the vast majority of gods which man has created. Christians are atheistic in regards to Allah. Muslims are atheists in regards to Thor. Shintoists are atheistic in regards to "The Great Spirit." Hindus are atheists in regards to Xenu and body Thetans.

Atheists, who believe in no god, merely extend this non-belief one god further.

*MAXIMUM APPLAUSE!!!*

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy

I think people need to keep their opinions on someones belief to themselves, unless of course that belief is being arrogantly displayed as law, which is why we have so many religious conflicts, I suppose humanity won't change.

So basically you're saying you think everyone should keep their opinions to themselves unless that person shares an opinion with you

And you have the nerve to call other people hypocrites?


[edit on 8-11-2009 by Snarf]

reply to post by Snarf

So basically you're saying you think everyone should keep their opinions to themselves unless that person shares an opinion with you

And you have the nerve to call other people hypocrites?

:-)

interesting turn of events

Originally posted by Snarf
Belief in something without proof is called faith.

Another one that tried to say belief requires faith.

Let me remind us here:

There is no belief in faith.

There is no faith in belief.

Belief and faith are completely diametrically opposed concepts. Anything in between is called hope.

Keep it simple.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Lasheic

 

This is why science doesn't except it as a real thing, no evidence is ever found.

Don't forget that science does accept the conscience, a well-known anomaly. To say that no evidence is ever found is totally against the (scientific) conscience.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas

Don't forget that science does accept the conscience, a well-known anomaly. To say that no evidence is ever found is totally against the (scientific) conscience.

Science does accept and study consciousness. Where did you get the idea that it doesn't?

reply to post by dzonatas

Belief and faith are completely diametrically opposed concepts. Anything in between is called hope.

except that when you believe something to be true, and you cannot prove it, then you have faith.

Why so offended to know that, by the purest definition of the word, you have faith that God does not exist?

Are you the inventor of words? Are you the decider when it comes to their definitions?

It amazes me how far people will go to separate themselves as far from religion as possible.

Don't have religion, that's fine. This has never been my argument.

But don't bring your pinky-in-the-air aristocratic, better-than-you, attitude up here telling me that *I* can't have religion. Calling me names for having religion.

You stay out of my sand box, and i won't piss in yours.

It's really quite that simple - and the prime directive for creating this thread.

It seems some of you may require this message to be inscribed on a cracker, and fed to you?

reply to post by Snarf


Hypocrite.

Second line to emphasize. Hypocrite.

reply to post by Snarf


Don't want to be annoying , but I have to point out the way in a lot of these arguments are faults resulting from the flawed aristotelian structures upon witch our language is based .
"You don't believe in God, that's believing ins omething" .

Well , if I correctly understand what you are trying to say , i'd have to disagree.
1 belive (not ( "God exists" )) == belive ("God dosne't exist")

is not the same as

2 not ( belive ( "God exists" ))

The first statement implies the second , but you can not use the second to infer the first . As I understand it , Atheists believe solely in science , for lack of a better alternative . The shiny thing I'm using right now to type this message is pretty good evidence that science works well enough .
Plus , a lot of these God arguments would cease if people were first asked to define there idea of God . God means different things to different people.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Belief and faith are completely diametrically opposed concepts. Anything in between is called hope.

except that when you believe something to be true, and you cannot prove it, then you have faith.

If you believe something to be true, then it is true to you. If you cannot prove your truth to someone else, then that doesn't make your belief become faith. Someone else may not be able to prove your truth, yet they can trust your faith that what you believe is true.

Why so offended to know that, by the purest definition of the word, you have faith that God does not exist?

Are you the inventor of words? Are you the decider when it comes to their definitions?

I didn't invent or decide as if you are religious or atheist or (judge you) what-so-ever. I merely point out the distinction in perspective, as to show you where it was easily seen that two perspectives were combined into one and are being confused. It is a common confusion.

But don't bring your pinky-in-the-air aristocratic, better-than-you, attitude up here telling me that *I* can't have religion. Calling me names for having religion.

Those with narcissistic personality disorder (who are those that typically misunderstand science and limit themselves to that misunderstood science) have started to piss off a lot of people

You want to find a lot of these NPD types, go try the Drugs-Forum website!