OdgenTugbyGlub
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
(sorry wrong thread people)
It's an interesting subject. Atheism is usually thought of the acceptance or belief that there is no God, weak atheism or agnosticism are usually what you are describing.Mr. Fungus said:Not even close. Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing more.
It virtually is biology.nkgupta80 said:also, it is amazing how important and productive the idea of evolution has been in biology.
steen said:Rick Santorum, R-PA:
Then:
“Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”
— 2002 Washington Times op-ed article
Now:
“I do not believe it should be required teaching.”
— 12/21/2005 The Inquirer
Seems like the world is full of republican fundie flip-floppers.
steen said:Rick Santorum, R-PA:
Then:
“Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”
— 2002 Washington Times op-ed article
Now:
“I do not believe it should be required teaching.”
— 12/21/2005 The Inquirer
Seems like the world is full of republican fundie flip-floppers.
Well, thre was the Bush flipflopping over whether to fire those involved in revealing ID of CIA agents. Oh wait! That was also a republ... Erm, I mean, I'll look for another one.MrFungus420 said:Come-on, be fair. The world is full of poiticians flip-flopping. It really is just being disingenuous to attribute it to one political party.
Originally posted by MrFungus420
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing more. Saying that it is a religion is like saying that absolute zero is hot.
You are saying that the lack of something is the same as that thing.
kal-el said:Yup.
Correct. I'm sure he dosen't believe in mermaids? Hence, he's a amermaidist. The negative prefix "a" dosen't tell anything about what the amermaidist believes, only that they don't.
Mr. D said:Nope! You're both wrong! To "believe/accept" anything without any data/proof and support a conclusion either way is to believe based in faith and by definition religion! Atheism is a religion! It is to believe there is no god with no data/proof to support your belief!
Mr. D said:Agnostics simply say, "Having no data/proof/no facts, I simply don't know and suspend judgement! I have no reason to believe in god since I see no evidence/data/proof to lead to that conclusion!"
Mr. D said:It's like saying, "Do you believe there a bird at a certain latitude and longitude at this very moment?" I have no data to use to form an opinion so, I have no reason to believe there is or is not!
Mr. D said:Whether these definitions of the terms fit grand philosophers, it's what makes sense to me!
:2wave:
Mr. D said:Nope! You're both wrong! To "believe/accept" anything without any data/proof and support a conclusion either way is to believe based in faith and by definition religion! Atheism is a religion! It is to believe there is no god with no data/proof to support your belief! Agnostics simply say, "Having no data/proof/no facts, I simply don't know and suspend judgement! I have no reason to believe in god since I see no evidence/data/proof to lead to that conclusion!" It's like saying, "Do you believe there a bird at a certain latitude and longitude at this very moment?" I have no data to use to form an opinion so, I have no reason to believe there is or is not! Whether these definitions of the terms fit grand philosophers, it's what makes sense to me!
:2wave:
tecoyah said:Is the Scientific Method then.....a religion?
bandaidwoman said:No
The Scientific Method demands that we be prepared to reject a hypothesis or belief (when experimental data proves or disproves a scientific theory) but faith (religion) requires us to hold a belief with certainty.
At the most fundamental level, science and religion are distinguished from each other because of the latter's requirement of faith.
kal-el said:Why do I need faith to disbelieve in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. I would think not believing is the default position. Do you have faith that there is no tooth fairy? Of course not, you simply disbelieve because of the overwhelming lack of evidence.
Mr. D said:A complete lack of evidence supports no conclusion!
"I just bought a new Chevy diesel pickup!" Do you believe that or not? Why conclude either way with no evidence other than my statement?
My point is that most atheists seem to have a pyschological "need" to believe there is no god, as much as fundamentalist Christians "need" to believe there is a god!
As an agnostic, I don't "need" to believe there is no god! I simply see no evidence to support the concept other than it seems man likely did not create the universe!
Thinker said:It supports the conclusion that the concept is unworthy of further consideration.
The reality of this point (which really belongs to another thread) is that
people with a belief cannot understand how other people can fail to believe,
and so they try to resolve their own conflict by labelling "lack of belief" as
an actual belief. It is, of course, utter nonsense.
Mr. D said:Many atheists tell others there is no god...
Engimo said:Even more importantly, science has the requirement of falsifiability. This, in my opinion, is what sets it apart from religion. Religion requires that you believe in something that absolutely cannot be proven, while science only accepts things that could be proven wrong.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Exactly.
The statement "There is no God" is a hypothesis perfectly consistent with the scientific method.
It conforms with all known data, but a person adhering to this statement is free to reject it when additional data finally refutes it.
Atheism isn't religion, it's science!
Mr. D said:A scientific conclusion based on absolutely no data is not science! Lack of data is not data! A good scientist would never come to a conclusion when no data exists! Ex. Can scientists "scientifically" answer this question: Do planets exist beyond the universe that we have absolutely no way of detecting? To say, "No!" because we have no way of detecting them is not coming to a conclusion based on evidence, but based on total and complete ignorance on the subject! A good scientist should say the question is moot and unanswerable because their is no evidence/data to apply to the question (by definition) other than total and complete ignorance!
Creationism and Atheism are not science not matter how you try to make them science! They both try to form a conclusion based on not having data! In Creationism since we can't explain how the Universe was created as a fact, god must have done it! In Atheism since we can find no proveable facts proving there is a god, there must be no god! Poor logic and not science! Lack of proof neither confirms or denies anything! We simply don't know! If atheism scientifically proves there is not god, show me the proof instead of telling me you have no proof! You can't prove a true negative!
It doesn't hurt that much to just say, "We don't know the answer!" Try it!
bryanf said:Well, I haven't seen convincing evidence making evolution any more credible than intelligent design.
Since both are theories, then it wouldn't be fair to teach one without giving airtime to the other.
There is no possible way that science can prove or disprove the origin of the universe, so anything taught to explain it is theory, based on faith.
Mr. D said:A scientific conclusion based on absolutely no data is not science! Lack of data is not data! A good scientist would never come to a conclusion when no data exists!
Mr. D said:Ex. Can scientists "scientifically" answer this question: Do planets exist beyond the universe that we have absolutely no way of detecting?
Mr. D said:To say, "No!" because we have no way of detecting them is not coming to a conclusion based on evidence, but based on total and complete ignorance on the subject!
Mr. D said:A good scientist should say the question is moot and unanswerable because their is no evidence/data to apply to the question (by definition) other than total and complete ignorance!
Mr. D said:They both try to form a conclusion based on not having data!
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Atheism isn't religion, it's science!
George_Washington said:Atheism is not science. A physicist can examine the Universe and make just as much argument for the existance of a God as one can make for the non-existance of one. I know physicists who are Christians. No, not at some Bible college but at one of the top research Universities in America. Some physicists argue that because it's so hard for amino acids to form into complex chains, that there must have been some kind of guidance. There have been many leading physicists that have argued the existance of a god for various reasons, many of which are beyond my expertise to explain.
It's a scientific conclusion based on fact.
If you actually look at science communities throughout Universities, the overwhelming majority are not atheists. Most of the great scientists in the past have not been atheists. Most of my friends who teach science at the University level have said that most science Professors are either really strong atheists or really strong theists.
I think it is foolish for anybody to discount the possiblity of a god unless they themselves have studied physics and math in depth.
To give you an example of what I've stated-consider the pyramids. Nobody as of yet can determine a solid explanation of how they were built, leading many to conclude that they were created by extraterrestrial life.
There is not direct evidence to prove this but does that mean we should just rule the possiblity out? Should we just dismiss it and toss it aside? To do so would be just as foolish as saying that humans must have built the Pyramids, just because we don't have proof otherwise. This is the analogy and this is why agnosticism makes much more sense than atheism does.