The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[Optimus_Prime_]

This is why I asked you to define the scientific method. You have *no clue* what it entails, do you? Yet you insist upon making these baseless, vague assertions.

You didn't answer the question. Why chose science? I mean I can tell you why I am atheist, why I read about Evolution, and all that stuff, so I'm asking you...why aren't you teaching Sunday School? Why chose science?

 

[Doctor Evo]

You didn't answer the question.

Neither did you. You're the one making the claim that a measure of faith is required in the scientific process. I asked you to explain that statement, and you completely dodged the question.

Why chose science? I mean I can tell you why I am atheist, why I read about Evolution, and all that stuff, so I'm asking you...why aren't you teaching Sunday School? Why chose science?

Science and religion aren't equivalent. You're treating them as though they are. Until you can explain how they are equivalent, your question makes no sense. It's not as though the two are inherently mutually exclusive, either.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

This seemed like the proper place to say this, so...a year ago on this date the world lost one of it's foremost intellectuals and arguably it's most entertaining orator, one Christopher Hitchens.
The world is a much duller place with Hitch no longer a part of the party...

[YT]?v=iR0GyYaeI-k[/YT]

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Aw, man, it's been a year Funny, I thought fondly of him yesterday. Great SoB, would've loved to party with him

 

[Johnny Blaze]

Yes, it would've been fun to have some drinks with him, and argue all night long. Though, if the stories are accurate, he'd drink me under the table.
And that's a tough thing for an Irishman to admit...

 

[Piper Maru]

This seemed like the proper place to say this, so...a year ago on this date the world lost one of it's foremost intellectuals and arguably it's most entertaining orator, one Christopher Hitchens.
The world is a much duller place with Hitch no longer a part of the party...

[YT]?v=iR0GyYaeI-k[/YT]

Truly a great mind!

 

[chaseter]

Yeah.

No.

You kinda need faith in some form of higher power or powers, first.

Although I do think the idea is kinda stupid. We need to stop focusing on converting theists, and focus solely on reaching out to those atheists who may, for whatever reason, feel alone and are afraid.

And they are more numerous than you think... even in the US.

There are religions without gods. Anyone can literally make their own religion. Also, atheism is the belief in the absence of god(s). It is illogical just to say atheism is the rejection of all religions. You or I can't know anything for sure so you have to believe that there is no god or cosmic force or whatever. Neither side has any evidence to support their belief systems...which is why agnosticism is the most logical choice for anybody who doubts religion. God may or may not exist, no one can prove otherwise in either direction. You do not know for certain that Xenu or God or Zeus do not exist...you believe that they do not exist. Saying it's up to the theist to prove the existence of a god is a debate tactic. You know that they aren't going to be able to yet you feel for certain without actually knowing for certain that their god does not exist. You believe their god doesn't exist. You won't know until you die I guess so at that point you will either be surprised or you will become nothingness and it won't matter anyways. So what is the point in saying for certain that there is no god? What is the point? What is the point for some atheists to look down their nose at the crazy theists who 'know for certain' that their god exists?

Also, atheism is becoming its own religion. Not every atheist is a fundi atheist like not every theist is a fundi theist. But, we have atheists putting up billboards around Christmas saying there is no God, we have as my link showed, atheists making comic books to 'spread the word', there are atheists who actively campaign about the 'truth', etc. etc. As atheism becomes more prevalent in our society, it will play a bigger factor into the belief system that atheism is becoming just like any other religion. You won't ever see an agnostic out on the street handing out pamphlets letting you know that there may or may not be a God.

 

[nogster]

There are religions without gods. Anyone can literally make their own religion. Also, atheism is the belief in the absence of god(s). It is illogical just to say atheism is the rejection of all religions. You or I can't know anything for sure so you have to believe that there is no god or cosmic force or whatever. Neither side has any evidence to support their belief systems...which is why agnosticism is the most logical choice for anybody who doubts religion. God may or may not exist, no one can prove otherwise in either direction. You do not know for certain that Xenu or God or Zeus do not exist...you believe that they do not exist. Saying it's up to the theist to prove the existence of a god is a debate tactic.

You misunderstand the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

Agnosticism is about the lack of "Knowledge".
Atheism is the lack of "belief" in god

If we are to get technical. most atheists are actually "agnostic atheists".
As most would admit to not knowing whether one exists, but doubt its existence non the less.


So my question to you is:
Do you "believe" in god?

If you say yes. You are a theist.
If you say no. You are an atheist.

Its that simple. Its the position one has in regards to a belief. You either believe or not.

Atheism isnt the belief in no god.
It is the lack of belief in god.
there is a significant difference.

Its illogical to say that one believes in the non existence of something.
Thats an absurd statement.

Do you believe that zeus doesnt exist?
Do you believe unicorns dont exist?
Do you believe that a god doesnt make earthquakes to punish people?
Do you believe that a tooth fairy doesnt leave money under kids pillows?

Its not a debate tactic.
Its logic, plain and simple.

If I told you that I see ghosts and I do things for them to put them at peace.
Would you believe it?
And if not.
Is it up to you to prove I can't see ghosts?
Or me to prove I can?

 

[Hawkingbird]

I think I agree with Optimus...
Science is based on theory. It's more logical, and certainly has more evidence than religion. But both are somewhat speculation.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Science is not really speculation, speculation ends at the hypothesis stage in general. There's a method behind science, and it generally goes:

Observation of phenomena
Hypothesis on observation
Prediction of Hypothesis
Experiment of Hypothesis and predictions
Theory to explain outcome of experiment
Continuing tests on theory in the hope of disproving (and therefore improving) it

If something is a theory, it means it has been based on fact, not speculation.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

That's true but you can't defend logic without appealing to logic.

I'd like to think I've reached some pinnacle of thought but we all know that's not the case.

So while logic and reason have a solid track record you could imagine aliens elsewhere finding our "method" silly.

 

[Danalys]

natural philosophy's got a good track record. predicted some real bizarre stuff than turned out to be true, as far as we could ever know truth. what other method could there be other than investigation and testing for determining truth that will actually work.

 

[NateHevens]

There are religions without gods. Anyone can literally make their own religion. Also, atheism is the belief in the absence of god(s). It is illogical just to say atheism is the rejection of all religions. You or I can't know anything for sure so you have to believe that there is no god or cosmic force or whatever. Neither side has any evidence to support their belief systems...which is why agnosticism is the most logical choice for anybody who doubts religion. God may or may not exist, no one can prove otherwise in either direction. You do not know for certain that Xenu or God or Zeus do not exist...you believe that they do not exist. Saying it's up to the theist to prove the existence of a god is a debate tactic. You know that they aren't going to be able to yet you feel for certain without actually knowing for certain that their god does not exist. You believe their god doesn't exist. You won't know until you die I guess so at that point you will either be surprised or you will become nothingness and it won't matter anyways. So what is the point in saying for certain that there is no god? What is the point? What is the point for some atheists to look down their nose at the crazy theists who 'know for certain' that their god exists?

Also, atheism is becoming its own religion. Not every atheist is a fundi atheist like not every theist is a fundi theist. But, we have atheists putting up billboards around Christmas saying there is no God, we have as my link showed, atheists making comic books to 'spread the word', there are atheists who actively campaign about the 'truth', etc. etc. As atheism becomes more prevalent in our society, it will play a bigger factor into the belief system that atheism is becoming just like any other religion. You won't ever see an agnostic out on the street handing out pamphlets letting you know that there may or may not be a God.

Wow.

I'm not getting deja vu at all.

Nope.

This is a totes original argument that I've never heard before...

Not at all.

http://natehevens.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/knowledge-vs-belief-agnostic-atheism/

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I mean the agnostic-atheist thing is just semantics. I prefer secular humanist. Atheism is such an awful term since it isn't an ism, by definition. Like I said, you could be an atheist but still believe the Bible was the wisest source of knowledge on the Earth. You could be an atheist and a Scientologist; since they believe in space aliens (or whatever). So I've personally called myself one, but I hate the term. I'm an a-alchemist and an a-ghostsandfairies person, but I don't consider myself part of some network of people who don't believe in bad attempts at chemistry, fairies and ghosts.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Just to get back to the historical Jesus; very few historians dispute his general existence. Sure, he's said to do miracles, but lots of people supposedly did miracles who we don't attribute Godhood too. The writings of Josephus don't even enter in. The Gospels alone probably wouldn't have been written about a non person. Hannibal has no archeological evidence either, as his face was wiped off the Earth by Rome.

I imagine he was probably just a really nice, peaceful, and radical guy. He probably did preach love and responsibility and get cruxified because that never happens (John Lennon, Kennedy, King Jr., etc). So that much seems consistent with reality at least.

The Horus stuff is as fictitious as the Da Vinci Codes.

Also most religions we know of more currently have actual human patriarchs.

We also can be sure his Godhood wasn't ascribed to him until these gospels were redacted much later and Councils had agreed on. However I guess this is all moot because it all goes back to him not being divine.

Jefferson's Bible is probably a pretty good historical account.

Technically speaking we're not 100% certain of anyone past a certain point in history.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think very few historians dare to go anywhere near Jesus. Until fairly recently questioning Jesus' historicity was career suicide (it did cost some their heads). Even now historians are reluctant to ruffle any feathers.

If Galileo had as little balls as historians, we'd still be teaching kids that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Is there anything more ridiculous than our calendar system? Even Christian scholars admit we can't be certain of what year Jesus was born.

 

[redhawk23]

I think very few historians dare to go anywhere near Jesus. Until fairly recently questioning Jesus' historicity was career suicide (it did cost some their heads). Even now historians are reluctant to ruffle any feathers.

If Galileo had as little balls as historians, we'd still be teaching kids that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Is there anything more ridiculous than our calendar system? Even Christian scholars admit we can't be certain of what year Jesus was born.

There are entire university departments, classes and conferences devoted to analyzing the historicity of Jesus. I just took my final exam in such a class on Friday. This has been going on since the mid 19th century.

As for our calendar system, basically any starting point would be arbitrary. All that matters is that it is agreed upon. Also while Before Christ and Anno Domini are still in common use, the official notation is Before Commone Era and Common Era.

What is certain is that Jesus wasn't born in year zero or 1 or whatever since pretty much any source or account agrees that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and we know when Herod died. If one accepts that Jesus was born in the time Herod the great then latest he could have been born is about 4 BCE.

 

[redhawk23]

Technically speaking we're not 100% certain of anyone past a certain point in history.

Any historical claim is an argument of probabilities.

 

[Danalys]

i never liked than months weren't all 28 days. you can have 13 months of 28 days and it near enough works out. just have a monthless leap year like day every year to make up the shortfall. but then people have an irrational dislike of the number 13.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There are entire university departments, classes and conferences devoted to analyzing the historicity of Jesus. I just took my final exam in such a class on Friday. This has been going on since the mid 19th century.

As for our calendar system, basically any starting point would be arbitrary. All that matters is that it is agreed upon. Also while Before Christ and Anno Domini are still in common use, the official notation is Before Commone Era and Common Era.

What is certain is that Jesus wasn't born in year zero or 1 or whatever since pretty much any source or account agrees that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and we know when Herod died. If one accepts that Jesus was born in the time Herod the great then latest he could have been born is about 4 BCE.

That's even sillier, calling it BCE and CE.

If you're going to use the Christian calendar (ridiculous as it is), use the proper name.

 

[redhawk23]

But its commonly used among millions of non Christians across cultures and as you pointed out yourself has little to do with Christs actual birth date.

It makes no sense to cit Jesus' birth as 4 Before Christ, which if you're being totally honest is the latest his birth probably was.

It may have started out as the Gregorian calender but now its just an agreed upon date. Like many things in our culture, it may have its roots in religion but is removed from that context.

 

[redhawk23]

Atheism does not imply a lack of philosophy. I, for one, am probably closer to Christians on a lot of things. I don't think you should watch a bunch of porn and have tons of unprotected sex your whole life, but maybe that's just me, yet it's a belief that if I explained it to you, sounds a bit Biblical, but in fact it has a lot to do with STD rates. So just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you lack morals, in fact you can have the same morals as Christians, just for different reasons.

I didn't mean that atheists lack in philosophy just that the term itself is in reference to the lack of a belief in a system of theism.

My point was that atheism describes a status of a lack of belief in a certain thing, rather than being any kind of indicator of what one DOES believe in. The term describes a lack of a certain kind of value, and says very little about the values one does have.

In the context of my post I was simply saying that atheism isn't a motivating factor, where as the system of morals one does have would be.

 

[Thundercrack85]

But its commonly used among millions of non Christians across cultures and as you pointed out yourself has little to do with Christs actual birth date.

It makes no sense to cit Jesus' birth as 4 Before Christ, which if you're being totally honest is the latest his birth probably was.

It may have started out as the Gregorian calender but now its just an agreed upon date. Like many things in our culture, it may have its roots in religion but is removed from that context.

I agree its nonsensical, but that's the nature of it. If you do something wrong, do it right. Plus, what does "Common era" even mean? BC/ BCE has no context without religion, it's a religious dating system. Albeit a flawed one.

We're not saying "BCE" because the system is flawed (if that were the case, we'd adopt a wholly new, well-thought out calendar). Far as I can tell the main reason seems to be political correctness.

When are we going to rename the Roman religious-themed months?

 

[Danalys]

atheism does often correlate with secular humanism, but correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Is it possible the story of Jesus is simply based on the actions of several prophets at the time? I mean, there was no real way of identifying who was who at the time, there was no communication between the people apart from word of mouth. Obviously I do not count the miracles, they'd be symbolism.