The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[Thundercrack85]

I do accept that science has allot more evidence, and is much more plausible than religion. But I still stand by that it is possible that a God could exist, and you cannot prove science.

Science is by definition all evidence. As for the plausibility of religions, each one makes the other implausible, so you have to pick one.

First I think you need to make a case for there being a god.

 

[redhawk23]

Remember, if you don't believe in God, you can't really "believe" in science. I certainly don't believe in God in the traditional sense, but I do accept that there may be something out there that created all this. Just as I believe that the theories that scientists have come up with may be true. Of course, I'm more convinced on the science. However, no one can prove anything.

Theories aren't about "believing" though, it is about accepting or rejecting a premise based upon evidence.

 

[Danalys]

science literally means knowledge. now it describes a system for obtaining knowledge. for the majority of things (in human history) people would say god did it, science provided a naturalistic answer instead. the knowledge ascertained by science works every time. on earth things always fall at 9.8 meters per second per second (discounting air resistance and lift.) life always evolves to new conditions unless it goes extinct. and water is always hydrogen and two parts oxygen.

a belief in god will tell you none of those things or even give you the capability to discover them.

 

[Dr.]

This guy explained it best...

“There's a well within and that we're always trying to fill with stuff. We fill it with something to give us contentment and until we fill it with the love of God, we won't be able to.”

So unless we feel a (mysterious, undefined) sense of euphoria, we won’t feel euphoric? Okay, then.

 

[Danalys]

and what if the concept of god is a distraction from what you should fill your life with. like a placebo keeping you from an actual cure.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I agree that many people have some kind of emotional "well" in their lives that needs to be filled. I dont mind someone filling that void with religion but I dont think it necessarily must be religion. There are certainly worse things (drugs, alcohol, etc) but religion isnt the only solution either.

 

[Danalys]

i think some of the philosophy in religion is a good place to start if your cup runneth empty. just not the believing in god part.

 

[Hobgoblin]

i think some of the philosophy in religion is a good place to start if your cup runneth empty. just not the believing in god part.

I dont even mind people believing in a god or gods. A person that does good deeds, and is at peace with life due to their religion is a good thing. Its when their religion becomes the entire focus of their lives and is the only prism they can see through and understand that it bothers me.

 

[Danalys]

i'm not saying it's bad or makes people bad. i just think it's a less useful part.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I do accept that science has allot more evidence, and is much more plausible than religion. But I still stand by that it is possible that a God could exist, and you cannot prove science.

Define "science" in this context.

 

[Lighthouse]

I do accept that science has allot more evidence, and is much more plausible than religion. But I still stand by that it is possible that a God could exist, and you cannot prove science.

By the same token, I could say that it's possible there are invisible leprechauns having a picnic in my backyard. This is the kind of stuff people always throw at atheists, the idea of "not being able to disprove". Dr. had a really great post about agnosticism which I think applies here.

If someone has a clear understanding of the knowledge/belief distinction, the “agnosticism” label is semantically valid. But as you say, many use the term to indicate uncertainty - or a diplomatic/non-confrontational middle ground - between atheism and theism. And I think many religious folks tend to respect “agnosticism” more because it connotes open-mindedness (hey, maybe there’s a chance the agnostic will see the light). They’d be far less sanguine if they understood agnosticism to mean “positively unknowable.” Much of the tolerance towards true agnosticism isn't really earned - it has to do with the ambiguity of the term.

For most other categories of non-belief (e.g., unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts) we have no difficulty being definite - even if, technically, we should be agnostic. But saying we’re agnostic would suggest an equivocation that doesn’t properly reflect our extreme skepticism. Yet when it comes to the god hypothesis, plain communication seems to go out the window. Suddenly, people are lawyers.

 

[bullets]

Remember, if you don't believe in God, you can't really "believe" in science. I certainly don't believe in God in the traditional sense, but I do accept that there may be something out there that created all this. Just as I believe that the theories that scientists have come up with may be true. Of course, I'm more convinced on the science. However, no one can prove anything.

I know that jumping off a cliff would cause me to plummet to my death. That's science you can believe in.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Define "science" in this context.

An observation that offers an explanation on how things work.

 

[redhawk23]

An observation that offers an explanation on how things work.

It goes far further than that though. You can't just comeup with the the explaination, you have to continually put it under scrutiny to remove error and provide further context. This is done systematically and in a fashion that can be repeated and reanalyzed.

Its not just making a hunch.

 

[Hawkingbird]

It was once accepted that the earth was flat. I agree that science has allot more evidence, and is certainly more plausable than faith. However, I still stand by that you cannot prove science.

 

[moviedoors]

It was once accepted that the earth was flat.

And that was not an idea arrived at scientifically.

I agree that science has allot more evidence, and is certainly more plausable than faith. However, I still stand by that you cannot prove science.

Science isn't a thing you believe in or not, it's a process. There's nothing to prove or disprove. It's a problem solving method that has worked over and over and over again. It's not a dogma.

 

[Edguy]

I think the concept of atheism is quite silly, in that it's a religion for people without a religion. I think that tells how much of an impact religion have had on the world..

Personally, I don't call myself anything other than realist.

PS; a commentary to you above about science: in modern scientific method, nothing is ever proved. One makes hypotheses, based on the results of experiments, and then tries to disprove hypotheses. When a hypothesis have stood undisputed through a sufficient number of experiments, then it is considered valid until it eventually is disproved.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Research it, even scientists say they can not truly "prove" anything. The only thing we can prove is our own existence. And science is something you believe in. The majority of people just put their faith in what the scientists say.

 

[moviedoors]

Research it, even scientists say they can not truly "prove" anything. The only thing we can prove is our own existence. And science is something you believe in. The majority of people just put their faith in what the scientists say.

I already addressed this. I don't put my faith in the scientific process, I put my trust in it, and yes, there is a huge difference.

 

[moviedoors]

I think the concept of atheism is quite silly, in that it's a religion for people without a religion.

Sorry, but it's not. It's the antithesis of holding religious beliefs. It is the lack of belief.

 

[redhawk23]

It was once accepted that the earth was flat. I agree that science has allot more evidence, and is certainly more plausable than faith. However, I still stand by that you cannot prove science.

Yes in a time before the development of mathematics or the scientific method.

The whole flat earth thing was one of the first to go once the basic building blocks of what we now refer to as "science" were established.

The persisting belief in the whole flat earth thing was a lot longer ago than we act like it was. The greeks had a pretty good estimate of the earths circumference for instance. The whole "people were afraid Columbus was going to sail off the edge" is mainly just another line of bullcrap they spew out in elementary school history classes.

And also, youre allowed to challenge scientific claims and there is a process to doing so. Have scientific claims been wrong? Certainly, but they admit that and move on. No one has ever claimed that scientific knowledge is infallible, quite the opposite.

 

[redhawk23]

I think the concept of atheism is quite silly, in that it's a religion for people without a religion. I think that tells how much of an impact religion have had on the world..

Personally, I don't call myself anything other than realist.

PS; a commentary to you above about science: in modern scientific method, nothing is ever proved. One makes hypotheses, based on the results of experiments, and then tries to disprove hypotheses. When a hypothesis have stood undisputed through a sufficient number of experiments, then it is considered valid until it eventually is disproved.

"Atheist" is a meaningless term. It doesn't really identify anything. There's no reason to assume that atheists agree with each other any more than they agree with religious claims. It's like saying "Non-Hindus" or "Non-Christians".

Saying that "atheism" is a religion is like saying that Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[redhawk23]

Research it, even scientists say they can not truly "prove" anything. The only thing we can prove is our own existence. And science is something you believe in. The majority of people just put their faith in what the scientists say.

See the deal with the claims scientists make is that they are inferences drawn from evidence that is acquired through a systematic process. Every step of what they do has to be shared and transparent so that others can examine their work in order to find flaws in their work and their ultimate claims.

If you have reason to doubt a scientific study, you can gather the resources and do the experiment yourself and draw conclusions and engage in open discourse.

Its not a matter of "faith" in scientific claims, as others have said, its a matter of trust in the process. Its a matter of basic scientific literacy. That said I DO have quite a bit of skepticism in scientific claims. But so do scientists. Skepticism is the basic necessary disposition for free inquiry.

Can you really not see the difference between that and revealed truths that are true because a book says they are true? That religious claims are untestable? You keep saying that no one has disproved God, but it is moot as there are no grounds that anyone could ever do so.

If you want to keep following the line of what you can ABSOLUTELY prove, then basically the only thing you can be at all reasonably sure of is the existence of your own mind. If you want to go there, fine but its shallow and pedantic.

 

[Doctor Evo]

An observation that offers an explanation on how things work.

That's not science.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The majority of people just put their faith in what the scientists say.

Yet those same people have the ability (in principle) to verify those claims for themselves.