RootsBooster Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Lockjaw/RB- Just trying to fit in time to stay on course.. What I meant when stating Atheism goes against Science- is it does when one only holds the view that only Matter exists- that is it, nothing else. A reminder from Oxford Dictionery on the definition of Science is : So what it cannot see or observe it cannot comment on- and many atheists then still rely on (by faith) science to find the answers they want. Science cannot study the premises upon which science is based-you cannot give Science as the answer to everything just because you so much want it to be. It won't tell me why 2+2= 4 will it? Not now, not ever. It also cannot account for the existence of Conscience- which is entirely separate from Matter. Why does Matter follow Physical Laws? Science doesn't know- Atheists will use their prefered 'it just does' which is not an answer is it? You seem to be very confused about what the word 'atheism' means Atheism may define itself as a lack of belief but it holds a lot of beliefs about many things- which it uses to try and discredit or rule out the possibility of any Intelligent force or Purpose behind the Universe.I'm afraid you're way off the mark, I don't know where you've got that from but athiesm holds no beliefs and tries to discredit nothing. It's simply absence of belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Neither of us should be so certain of whether people believe in God or don't. Did you even read what I wrote? Here it is again... "I could suggest that 100% of all people may not believe, and I would be 100% correct." How could that give you the impression that I was certain of anything? If I was certain, I would not have used the word "may". That statement was a reductio ad absurdum argument to counter your meaningless claim that "... more people may believe...". Many people fluctuate between belief and non-belief at different stages in life, not everybody is as strong an atheist and as dogmatic as you are. Show me overwhelming evidence of the existence of god and I'll cease to be an atheist on the spot. That's how dogmatic I am. In my 60+ years, I have never seen any evidence of any supernatural occurrences, let alone god. Some time ago I read an article written by a descendent of Charles Darwin (a convert from atheism to Roman Catholicism) she stated that in his later years, he wasn't as certain in his doubt that God existed, as he earlier had been. From memory... The young Darwin contemplated joining the clergy. Later, he was devoted to his deeply religious wife and attended church to please her. The death of one of his children, a daughter, in infancy affected him deeply. A bogus attempt to claim a deathbed conversion was totally debunked. But... So what? Darwin is famous for his work in evolution. Whether or not he believed has no effect on the validity of his work. ---------- Post added 08-09-2014 at 10:04 ---------- What I meant when stating Atheism goes against Science- is it does when one only holds the view that only Matter exists- that is it, nothing else. Once again you exhibit a gross misunderstanding of what atheism (...no capital A necessary; it's not a 'proper noun'..) is. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. Anything else is over and above 'basic' atheism. Atheism has no view whatsoever as to whether or not only matter exists. Individual atheists may, but it is not as a consequence of, nor is it a requirement of, being an atheist. A reminder from Oxford Dictionery on the definition of Science is : Completely irrelevant because... Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. ...no science necessary. So what it cannot see or observe it cannot comment on- and many atheists then still rely on (by faith) science to find the answers they want. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. No faith whatsoever required. Science cannot study the premises upon which science is based-you cannot give Science as the answer to everything just because you so much want it to be. Completely irrelevant. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. It's a position on the existence/non-existence of god. It is not concerned with the 'answer to everything'. It won't tell me why 2+2= 4 will it? Not now, not ever. Mathematics tells us that. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. Nothing to do with maths. It also cannot account for the existence of Conscience- which is entirely separate from Matter. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. It does not seek determine whether conscience is entirely separate from matter, nor seek to account for the existence of conscience. Why does Matter follow Physical Laws? Science doesn't know- Atheists will use their prefered 'it just does' which is not an answer is it? Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. Matter does not 'follow' physical laws. Physical laws have been formulated as a result of testable and repeatable observations of how matter behaves. ( Do you really believe that, before the theory of gravity was defined, everything just floated around in space? :hihi: ) Matter leads physical laws. You got it the wrong way round again. Quelle surprise! Atheism may define itself as a lack of belief but it holds a lot of beliefs about many things-... Atheism does not define anything;- It is defined as a lack of belief in god/God/gods. Nor does it hold any beliefs whatsoever. (It's a LACK of belief, for christ's sake! ) ...- which it uses to try and discredit or rule out the possibility of any Intelligent force or Purpose behind the Universe. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/God/gods. That is it and that is all. It holds no position regards any other intelligent forces, nor any purpose behind the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 "The man of science is a poor philosopher." - Albert Einstein Mr Fisk, I find your signature very interesting for a couple of reasons, and it is relevant to this discussion. Firstly, you have (I can only assume deliberately) taken the quote completely out of context in order to give the impression that Einstein felt that way, he did not. The full quote is "It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher." So Einstein wasn't postulating that himself, he was paraphrasing other people. He goes on to say "At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches." Secondly, even if the quote was an accurate reflection of Einstein's view, it would be self contradictory. Einstein was a man of science, and you have used him as your philosophical authority in trying to make an argument that men of science make bad philosophers, it's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Well, an anti-theist IS an atheist, the same cannot be said vice-versa though. I agree. If you can conceive such a thing then you have already approached it cognitively I think so too. One way to look at it, is if you think of the mind as being a pond, the more movement (thoughts) the mind makes, the more disturbed the surface of the pond becomes; it is only when the pond is still that you can clearly see the moon reflected in it. It's all awareness though. Either awareness in the form of thought, or awareness in that which is aware of thought. The word god is a bit of a kicker; it's (IMHO) mans attempt to point to something that is beyond mind; but at he same time, it is also something that refers us back in to our minds - and can create more attachment to thought. I've often thought, believe in god, is quite unspiritual; because it creates more attachment to religious concepts held in the mind; and does not allow us to be (mentally) still and experiencing non-conceptual awareness. False trichotomy anyone? Are you saying that rationality only applies to a thought process? I was thinking of rationality in that way, yes. As, having to do with reason; and reason, being our predominant mental process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I've often thought, believe[belief] in god, is quite unspiritual; because it creates more attachment to religious concepts held in the mind; and does not allow us to be (mentally) still and experiencing non-conceptual awareness. Waldo, partly, I agree with you. I think gods were just abstract place-holders - or anchors - that our ancestors came up with to help them make sense of the world and their place in it. They didn't know where, let's say, a river came from or how it formed, so they created gods and came up with a fable; e.g. two gods had a battle, one got killed, and the tears of the goddess who loved the one who got killed form the river. So the fables helped them understand why the river exists. Those ignorant explanations, and place-holder gods, were errors - but they were harmless errors that helped them build a flawed understanding of reality. To me, God and gods are nothing more than ancestral baggage - they are just nonsenses that have been created because of our ancestors ignorance. Religion is a slightly different kettle of fish. I think religion formed because of our ancestors ignorance, dis-empowerment and insecurities - and in most cases it developed around those place-holders. So religion was an attempt to self-medicate against the dis-empowerment and insecurities that our ancestor held, but it didn't solve those problems because it just caused more dis-empowerment and insecurities(especially when people differed from the religion or god belief.) Now I don't like the term spirituality, but if spirituality is to mean being in touch with your emotions or embracing the feelings you get from observing your surroundings, then that's fair enough. I also think that is something very independent from religion(religion isn't necessary for that) - and there's no need to stick a god in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Waldo, partly, I agree with you. I think gods were just abstract place-holders - or anchors - that our ancestors came up with to help them make sense of the world and their place in it. They didn't know where, let's say, a river came from or how it formed, so they created gods and came up with a fable; e.g. two gods had a battle, one got killed, and the tears of the goddess who loved the one who got killed form the river. So the fables helped them understand why the river exists. Those ignorant explanations, and place-holder gods, were errors - but they were harmless errors that helped them build a flawed understanding of reality. To me, God and gods are nothing more than ancestral baggage - they are just nonsenses that have been created because of our ancestors ignorance. Religion is a slightly different kettle of fish. I think religion formed because of our ancestors ignorance, dis-empowerment and insecurities - and in most cases it developed around those place-holders. So religion was an attempt to self-medicate against the dis-empowerment and insecurities that our ancestor held, but it didn't solve those problems because it just caused more dis-empowerment and insecurities(especially when people differed from the religion or god belief.) Now I don't like the term spirituality, but if spirituality is to mean being in touch with your emotions or embracing the feelings you get from observing your surroundings, then that's fair enough. I also think that is something very independent from religion(religion isn't necessary for that) - and there's no need to stick a god in there. Do you have higher academic qualifications then everyone with a religious belief, or a superior intelligence then them all? because you certainly give the impression you're one of those atheists who think they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Do you have higher academic qualifications then everyone with a religious belief, or a superior intelligence then them all? because you certainly give the impression you're one of those atheists who think they have. I say what I think Janie - just like you or anyone else. If I come across that way then I apologise. Edit: Just to add, I don't think I'm anymore intelligent than you or the next person. I just enjoy these sort of discussions. When I'm wrong about something, I expect others, atheist or theist, to point it out - or at least discuss what I've said so I can learn from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Do you have higher academic qualifications then everyone with a religious belief, or a superior intelligence then them all? because you certainly give the impression you're one of those atheists who think they have. You claim to know a lot about what atheists think. Is there something that you want to tell us? I am an atheist... (Surprise, surprise!) ...and I know quite a few other atheists. Not one (including myself) has ever claimed to have either a superior intelligence nor higher academic qualifications than everyone with a religious belief. Where do you meet these atheists, and could you name any of them? Or could it be that you have chosen to speak from the "wrong" orifice? [I was at school with the recently retired Bishop of Grantham. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ellis_(bishop) "He was educated at City Grammar School, Sheffield; King's College London; St Augustine's College, Canterbury; and York University." I would imagine that his academic qualifications trump my 9 'O' levels and CSE (grade 2) in physics.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 You claim to know a lot about what atheists think. Is there something that you want to tell us? I am an atheist... (Surprise, surprise!) ...and I know quite a few other atheists. Not one (including myself) has ever claimed to have either a superior intelligence nor higher academic qualifications than everyone with a religious belief. Where do you meet these atheists, and could you name any of them? Or could it be that you have chosen to speak from the "wrong" orifice? [I was at school with the recently retired Bishop of Grantham. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ellis_(bishop) "He was educated at City Grammar School, Sheffield; King's College London; St Augustine's College, Canterbury; and York University." I would imagine that his academic qualifications trump my 9 'O' levels and CSE (grade 2) in physics.] Do you have higher academic qualifications then everyone with a religious belief, or a superior intelligence then them all? because you certainly give the impression you're one of those atheists who think they have. Redwhine, I think sometimes you read too much in to what Janie says. She didn't claim to know anything about atheists, you highlighted part of her post and ignored the rest. I'll highlight some more for you... Do you have higher academic qualifications then everyone with a religious belief, or a superior intelligence then them all? because you certainly give the impression you're one of those atheists who think they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Redwhine, I think sometimes you read too much in to what Janie says. She didn't claim to know anything about atheists, you highlighted part of her post and ignored the rest. I'll highlight some more for you... Sorry, but... "because you certainly give the impression you're one of those atheists who think they have." ...sure sounds like she believes that there are atheists who think they have (...higher academic qualifications then everyone with a religious belief, or a superior intelligence then them all...), or else how could she liken someone to them? Do you know of any? (Even if I believed I had a superior intelligence to Tim, his academic qualifications put me out of the running.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.