-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Atheism
- Thread starter dangerousdave
- Start date
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
I always thought agnostics were undecided but atheists were sure there wasn't a god? Agnostics don't believe in god either, but are willing to be proven wrong. Maybe I'm an atheist with agnostic tendencies, as I am pretty sure he doesn't exist based on current findings but would believe if the evidence suggested so.Gramaisc said:
MyCult
SEO to the FACE
I should leave well enough alone, but I can't.dangerousdave said:
You are spot on in what you are saying. A Scientifically sound statement but the intent is all wrong. In scientific theory if i make a claim it is up to me to provide my peers with evidence. Evidence that is sufficient enough for them to prove the claims I have made.
If I make the claim I must prove it. Science doesn't work on the basis that we all make outlandish claims and it is up to everyone else to disprove them. If it did work that way we would be in a bit of a mess.
Atheist do not claim there is a god or gods and never have. Theists have been claiming there is a supreme being(s) in one form or another for all of recorded history.
If we are looking at this scientificly then it is the theists that must prove their claim, not the atheists that must disprove it. Perhaps the science of today cannot prove the things theists are asking of it. That doesn't mean they are right. Theists will never be scientifically right until sufficient proof to support their claim is presented.
Trolololololololol.
*edit - just realised this is basically what jenksie said but in more words. Must read whole thread before posting. Must read whole thread before posting.
I thank you again. Burden of Proof is the central tenet of Science.MyCult said:
Evidence. Peer reviewed. Solid indisputable fact.
Not: will, faith , opinion or wishful thinking.
Prove to me God exists and I'll believe.
Someone asked Ian dury once "Do you believe in god?" he replied "No, I believe in good" . I like that.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Ultimately, there is a conflation of ideas here.
Whilst it has become a commonplace that atheism v. theism has become synonymous with theism v. science, i reiterate that this does not necessarily follow.
I could just as easily not believe in god(s), yet still believe the Earth is flat - one does not preclude the other.
Ah, you say, but atheism is a product of advances in scientific understanding. This may be so to some extent, but it still does not necessarily follow that an a-theism is predicated upon a pro-scientific mindset.
Let us consider the following:
Statement 1 - the vast majority of scientists are atheists
Statement 2 - therefore to be an atheist is to be a scientist
compare and contrast
Statement 1 - the vast majority of scientists wear brown shoes
Statement 2 - therefore to wear brown shoes is to be a scientist
You could argue that science is akin to religion if you wish - you would find yourself down a dark alleyway and let's face it, who wants to go down one of them? - but it probably isn't worth the trying.
What you can't do is argue that atheism is akin to a religion. Because it isn't.
Whilst it has become a commonplace that atheism v. theism has become synonymous with theism v. science, i reiterate that this does not necessarily follow.
I could just as easily not believe in god(s), yet still believe the Earth is flat - one does not preclude the other.
Ah, you say, but atheism is a product of advances in scientific understanding. This may be so to some extent, but it still does not necessarily follow that an a-theism is predicated upon a pro-scientific mindset.
Let us consider the following:
Statement 1 - the vast majority of scientists are atheists
Statement 2 - therefore to be an atheist is to be a scientist
compare and contrast
Statement 1 - the vast majority of scientists wear brown shoes
Statement 2 - therefore to wear brown shoes is to be a scientist
You could argue that science is akin to religion if you wish - you would find yourself down a dark alleyway and let's face it, who wants to go down one of them? - but it probably isn't worth the trying.
What you can't do is argue that atheism is akin to a religion. Because it isn't.
I'm trying to untangle your syllogisms - I think I prefer your short answer.Withnail said:
We agree.
Others do not.
I've met enough dopey Tarot, Astrology, Ghost believing ninnies to know you can't convince everyone of blind logic or scientific fact. Just because Science doesn't know everything doesn't mean it knows nothing.
Must go now and watch Jonathon Meades - bet he believes in God!
dangerousdave
Well-Known Forumite
it's a bit too early in the morning for me to be reading all of the responses on here, but i think many of you are missing my initial point. Whilst I do not argue that science has proven many things, and indeed has disproven the bible (any many other religious texts) if you take them at chapter and verse (and i for one love how once science has proved many things some of the religious lot change how they perceive the bible), but here's the cruz of the matter, and if any athiests can answer one question in a reasonable manner i will both instantly
1) become an athiest
and 2) give 200 quid to a charity of your choice
so, here's the question: if there is no god or higher being, where did everything come from?
and if you cannot answer that question, then as tek monkey has pointed out, your athieism is merely a belief, and you're as bad as the jehovah's
1) become an athiest
and 2) give 200 quid to a charity of your choice
so, here's the question: if there is no god or higher being, where did everything come from?
and if you cannot answer that question, then as tek monkey has pointed out, your athieism is merely a belief, and you're as bad as the jehovah's
MyCult
SEO to the FACE
Just to clarify the question: "With the current level of understanding explian everything ever otherwise sky-man being made it?"
We don't know yet. We know so much and theories about the rest do not have enough evidence to be 100% proven. The current thinking evolves as understanding improves - quite the opposite of faith and religion. That is why theories are constantly being tested LHC. No one answer will be deemed the truth until it is proven.
Using the lack of that 100% evidence based answer (to the ultimate question) as proof of sky-man is cheating a little no?
Reasonable answer? If so EEF is my my choise.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
In Our Time this morning, is discussing the evolution of the scientific method over the centuries.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Eratosthenes gave it some thought a while ago.shoes said:I've stood on a cliff and observed the curvature of the earth as the sea disappears over the horizon....Hetairoi said:
And circumnavigation seems to be possible in any direction, I hear.