Atheism

Goldilox

How do I edit this?
dangerousdave said:
if you believe that science has disprovedn 'god' or a 'higher power' you have no concept of how science works, and also how any good scientist would think
Not quite. In science there is a burden of proof on those making a claim.

The famous illustration of this in relation to religion would be Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot...
Bertrand Russell said:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
The point being, just because anything can't be disproved doesn't mean that we should assume its' truth, otherwise we'd believe all manner of highly unlikely things.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Evidence, although probably not proof, I agree..

ufo_teapot.jpg


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as I once tried to explain to a driver who had not seen the motorcyclist that they had just nearly killed.
 

Nicedave

Well-Known Forumite
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell
 

Monquey

Dressed like Cadfael
db said:
me & ms. db went to a humanist wedding last year - that of another forumite, who i may point in the direction of this thread as i'm sure he might have some interesting points to make.. i have to say, it was one of the loveliest weddings i have ever been too, and the introduction of the "human" element as opposed to "spiritual" made it seem a lot more grounded, more sturdy somehow :)
Cheers mate, glad you enjoyed it, we certainly did. I came across the British Humanist Society at my Grandfather's funeral. There is a celebrant, who takes the role of the priest, says many, well-researched words about the deceased, some simple, honest musings on the nature of mortality - without all the mumbo-jumbo. It was what he wanted.

We had no interest in a church wedding - neither of us believe in a God or Gods any more than we believe in Fairies, Djinn, Wizards or the Easter Bunny. I'm not ruling out the existence of any of them but really, it's vanishingly unlikely. But, we still liked the traditional format of the wedding, and using them for a wedding meant we could still have a semi-traditional ceremony. We were able choose most of his and our words for ourselves, without paying lip service to an unknowable sky pixie, and I think it made it all much more meaningful for us. That, and having a great big piss-up.

I've no problem with people holding any kind of faith, what I never understand is why they'd want to. The God of the Old Testament, for instance, is not a moral role-model, he's basically just a massive dick.

Edit: Ha, haven't posted here in ages, forgot about my avatar pic.
 

MyCult

SEO to the FACE
Monquey said:
paying lip service to an unknowable sky pixie
This always massively pisses me off at funerals. I go to pay my respects to the very real person whose life has just ended and the virgin at the front spends most of the time talking about his imaginary friend. I find that extremely disrespectful, but maybe that's just me.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
Monquey said:
The God of the Old Testament, for instance, is not a moral role-model, he's basically just a massive dick.
Surely that is something to aspire to?..
It is, arguably, aspirational to have one - it is certainly not so to be one.

At least for most people.
 

Goldilox

How do I edit this?
Gramaisc said:
Two mentions of Bertrand Russell now. Did you happen to listen to The First Media Academic? Unfortunately 'no longer available'.
At the risk of dragging this wildly off topic, I heard bits of it as I was in & out while it was on. I did recently read the rather good graphic novel Logicomix which was based on his life.
 

Timeflies

The Weatherman
MyCult said:
Monquey said:
paying lip service to an unknowable sky pixie
This always massively pisses me off at funerals. I go to pay my respects to the very real person whose life has just ended and the virgin at the front spends most of the time talking about his imaginary friend. I find that extremely disrespectful, but maybe that's just me.
Completely agree. We had a humanist funeral for my dad and it was all about him and the things he and we as a family had done together. Far more fitting in my opinion... We also had a single prayer for the religious types which you where to told you could either say or remain politely quite. No hymns either, we had The Script - The Man Who Cant Be Moved on the way in, Phil Collins - 2 Hearts in the middle (It was a fave of his) and Fairground Attraction - Perfect on the way out. It made a bad day as good as it could have been and would have been what he wanted. Everyone agreed it was a lovely service (Even the religions types!)

On the flip side I went to a religious wedding and the vicar/priest(?) gave a 45 min sermon on how we should all bow to God, etc,etc... He also went of on one saying how all bankers where evil!!! Felt like Id been punched in the head after that...

What I'm trying to get at religion should be what makes you personally happy as it should be a personal thing...

Ill let you guess on my beliefs (or lack of...)

Just my 2p worth.

T
 

Jenksie

Well-Known Forumite
dangerousdave said:
henryscat said:
Funny you should mention Richard Dawkins, as I am a raving atheist too.
thought i'd start this thread after reading the above in another thread. can I just say form the off that if you're an athiest of the highest order, and if you believe that science has disprovedn 'god' or a 'higher power' you have no concept of how science works, and also how any good scientist would think
I'm struggling to find the meaning in DD's initial post. And TM's reply come to that.

Seems you have got it arse about face. It's not for us Athiests to prove the non existance of a God - it 's for the believers to prove existance. If people asked me why I was an athiest I would answer because there is no Scientific proof of Gods existance at all. None. Nothing Credible. It's a blindingly honest and truthful answer.

How can Athism be a religion? We just belive in what is a Scientific fact.

If you want to change the facts then it's up to you - but don't offer Opinion or Faith. You are entitled to your own opinions not your own facts. Science will not discriminate for good or bad.
 

Rikki

Well-Known Forumite
I think belief is the wrong word to use in this case but I can see why you use it as its not possible to directly test for the existence of god. However there are scientific theories that are supported by enought evidence to be considered as facts that contradict the bible (or other religious books). It's therefore possible to say the bible isnt factual but fiction.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Surely atheism is an absence of belief that gods do exist, rather than a belief that they don't.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Withnail said:
Surely atheism is an absence of belief that gods do exist, rather than a belief that they don't.
I thought agnosticism was not believing in god(s) and atheism was believing that god(s) do(es) not exist..
 

ATJ

Well-Known Forumite
MyCult said:
This always massively pisses me off at funerals. I go to pay my respects to the very real person whose life has just ended and the virgin at the front spends most of the time talking about his imaginary friend. I find that extremely disrespectful, but maybe that's just me.
I agree. My grandparents spent a lot of their life at Church and helping out with various events and duties. Despite that fact, at both of their funerals, the priest chosen to perform the ceremony was one they didn't know and who knew nothing about them. One tried to talk personally about my grandmother and actually managed to make a massive faux pas, and the other refused to play 'Flower of Scotland' at my grandfather's funeral because it was too sectarian.
 
Top