Atheism Thread

[Adeptly_Inept]

The scientific method insists that hypotheses are tested, tested and then tested again. Science acknowledges that by its very essence it is not stable. The beauty of it is that it is subject to change and is ever evolving.

I agree!

Region on the other hand is static and therefore religious believers must adapt their worlds to conform to held beliefs, eg stem cell research, abortion, marriage.

The video tries to demonstrate that human nature tends to construct an idea and then tries to fit the evidence around to prove that idea. Science tries to omit the human element (where possible) to allow more and more information (as it becomes known) to shape ideas, theories and eventually our understanding.

This is what I was trying to get at. But obviously didn't explain it too well.

Facts can be known unless you want to delve into the realms of extreme scepticism.

I'd rather not I ended up there once!

The most objective way to understand the natural world is by the scientific method. Being wrong is not a dirty word. It's the only way to discount your path to being right.

Good point! ... Throughout life I have assumed that 'wrong' is the worst thing to be.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I can't stand organised religion but I'm not particularly an athiest either.

For me scientific fact is something like a disease being cured by a medicine. This isn't a theory, it's a fact. When it comes to all the stuff on this thread there are only theories, no facts, even if some of the theories are very persuasive and I believe most of them to be true.

People always seem so determined that their theory is more relevant than another, or that everything should be dismissed unless it's scientifically "proven"/dismissed because their religion doesn't say so even if it's impossible to prove a theory either way. I've never understood why you have to pick a scientific or spiritual side, why not both?

Rather than piss arsing about whether there's a God, anything else, or nothing the more important debate is to hold organised religions to account for their errant, oppressive ways while factually showing where each of their nonsensical dogmas originated from.

Once you lance that boil it doesn't matter a damn if a person believes in God or not.

 

[realitybites]

First off, that video demonstrates nothing particular to scientists or atheists and thus has nothing to do with atheism. Does it mention atheism once? No. Humans area pattern-seeking species. All of us. Including non-scientists and atheists. Our brains are hard-wired to seek and find patterns, whether or not the pattern is real. This explains why all the folks in the video looked for the pattern then sought to confirm it.

Atheism is not believing in god(s) because one doesn't think there is enough evidence to support such a belief. It makes no claims of its own. It simply doesn't agree with the claims made by believers. Has nothing to do with patterns.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Likewise, the belief in God is most likely because one doesn't think there is enough evidence to support a belief that there isn't one.

Both seem pretty impossible to prove and so meaning neither side can take the intellectual high ground or be correct and any claims from either side to be correct are erronous.

 

[Iona Mink]

I can't stand organised religion but I'm not particularly an athiest either.

For me scientific fact is something like a disease being cured by a medicine. This isn't a theory, it's a fact. When it comes to all the stuff on this thread there are only theories, no facts, even if some of the theories are very persuasive and I believe most of them to be true.

People always seem so determined that their theory is more relevant than another, or that everything should be dismissed unless it's scientifically "proven"/dismissed because their religion doesn't say so even if it's impossible to prove a theory either way. I've never understood why you have to pick a scientific or spiritual side, why not both?

Rather than piss arsing about whether there's a God, anything else, or nothing the more important debate is to hold organised religions to account for their errant, oppressive ways while factually showing where each of their nonsensical dogmas originated from.

Once you lance that boil it doesn't matter a damn if a person believes in God or not.

It is possible to be a spiritual atheist. Like RB has said, to identify as an atheist means you lack a belief in a god or gods.

Science studies the natural world. This is its limitation. It can't study the supernatural world because we exist in the natural, material world. Everyone has to decide for themselves if they believe a supernatural world exists and how they know that to be the case.

- - - Updated - - -

Likewise, the belief in God is most likely because one doesn't think there is enough evidence to support a belief that there isn't one.

Both seem pretty impossible to prove and so meaning neither side can take the intellectual high ground or be correct and any claims from either side to be correct are erronous.

You cannot prove a negative. You can only prove what is being claimed to be true. If a claim can't be proven then you have to take the default position that the claim is false.

 

[realitybites]

Likewise, the belief in God is most likely because one doesn't think there is enough evidence to support a belief that there isn't one.

Both seem pretty impossible to prove and so meaning neither side can take the intellectual high ground or be correct and any claims from either side to be correct are erronous.

Belief doesn't work that way, Charlie. Come one. There a many things we don't believe in. We don't look for evidence to support non-belief in things. I don't look for evidence to support non-belief in fairies, dragons, six headed lions, etc. We don't seek to prove negatives because we can't. Can you imagine if that were the case? We would believe in EVERYTHING until it were proven false. You would have to believe my cat has five tails if I told you it did, until you could prove it didn't. This is just non-sense.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Belief doesn't work that way, Charlie. Come one. There a many things we don't believe in. We don't look for evidence to support non-belief in things. I don't look for evidence to support non-belief in fairies, dragons, six headed lions, etc. We don't seek to prove negatives because we can't. Can you imagine if that were the case? We would believe in EVERYTHING until it were proven false. You would have to believe my cat has five tails if I told you it did, until you could prove it didn't. This is just non-sense.

Ok, I'll put it another way. Say we look at the ghosts thread, there are things on there which seem to have happened and can't be explained. Do these things prove there is a supernatural? No, but they suggest there is - not if you've never experienced anything but for those that have then definitely. If you make the leap of faith that things that aren't directly in front of us may be a possibility then it's not quite just a case of proving fairies aren't real and aligning that to a non-belief in God(s).

There are infinite possibilities but only a couple are never discussed. If we're talking about what's written in religious texts then I'm inclined to agree that most of it is absurd.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it before all the drugs that I took back in the day start to show in what I write!

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Apatheism: God = meh. It doesn't matter if God exists or he doesn't, what's important is being a good person.

http://www.reddit.com/r/apatheism/comments/21kdet/today_i_discovered_apatheism_i_think_ive_found_my/

 

[Anonymous]

For example, it was once assumed that the earth was flat because it made logical sense at the time. However the invention of space travel disproved that idea.

So, before men travelled to space, they weren't exactly sure if the earth is flat or not? *rofl*

 

[Peterb]

Apatheism: God = meh. It doesn't matter if God exists or he doesn't, what's important is being a good person.

http://www.reddit.com/r/apatheism/comments/21kdet/today_i_discovered_apatheism_i_think_ive_found_my/

Oh Crystal, you are so right.
I'm not interested in arguing about the existence of god. If you believe then you will not change your mind because of discussion with a plum duff such as me.
However, I'm much more interested in your morals than your beliefs.

 

[realitybites]

Apatheism: God = meh. It doesn't matter if God exists or he doesn't, what's important is being a good person.

http://www.reddit.com/r/apatheism/comments/21kdet/today_i_discovered_apatheism_i_think_ive_found_my/

FBE. That reddit contributor does not understand the definition of apatheism. And neither do you, obviously. It has nothing to do with morality. Two separate subjects.

Apatheism is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Period. Has nothing to do with morals.

Neither does atheism. Atheists don't believe in god(s) because they think there is a lack of evidence to justify such beliefs. Apatheists have no passion for the debate; they are indifferent. Theists, of course, believe in god(s). Agnostics believe there is not enough evidence for belief either way (the scientific position).

None of those philosophical positions includes a moral belief system of any kind.

Belief, or lack of belief, or indifference to belief in a deity does not necessitate belief or concern with morals or morality.

One can be an apatheist: she is indifferent to the question of whether a god exists or not. But then also be a moralist: one who claims to concern herself with morals and morality. But they are two separate labels--completely independent of one another. And the god debate is not about morality anyhow. Religion concerns itself with morality (as does moral philosophy). You can believe in a god and care less about religion or morality. Theism, religion, and morality are independent of one another.

I'm not interested in arguing about the existence of god. If you believe then you will not change your mind because of discussion with a plum duff such as me.
However, I'm much more interested in your morals than your beliefs.

Why can't we care about both the god question and morality? I can and do.

I have a good friend who is an apatheist and an anti-theist. He thinks there is no reason for believing in a god but also no means of disproving it. So why bother thinking about it? Yet, he is vehemently opposed to religion. And enjoys debating with Christian apologists because he thinks those beliefs CAN be disproved.

I DO care about the god question. I think there is no evidence for belief. So I affirm this by stating I do not believe. When the majority of persons no longer claim there is a god, I will no longer need to refute such claims. There would be no atheists if there were no theists. I am also opposed to organized religion for the obvious reasons. But I'd rather concern myself with the root of the problem: faith. My friend is more interested in poking holes in their belief systems by pointing out the flaws in their scripture and dogma.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

FBE. That reddit contributor does not understand the definition of apatheism. And neither do you, obviously. It has nothing to do with morality. Two separate subjects.

Apatheism is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Period. Has nothing to do with morals.

Neither does atheism. Atheists don't believe in god(s) because they think there is a lack of evidence to justify such beliefs. Apatheists have no passion for the debate; they are indifferent. Theists, of course, believe in god(s). Agnostics believe there is not enough evidence for belief either way (the scientific position).

None of those philosophical positions includes a moral belief system of any kind.

Belief, or lack of belief, or indifference to belief in a deity does not necessitate belief or concern with morals or morality.

One can be an apatheist: she is indifferent to the question of whether a god exists or not. But then also be a moralist: one who claims to concern herself with morals and morality. But they are two separate labels--completely independent of one another. And the god debate is not about morality anyhow. Religion concerns itself with morality (as does moral philosophy). You can believe in a god and care less about religion or morality. Theism, religion, and morality are independent of one another.




Why can't we care about both the god question and morality? I can and do.

I have a good friend who is an apatheist and an anti-theist. He thinks there is no reason for believing in a god but also no means of disproving it. So why bother thinking about it? Yet, he is vehemently opposed to religion. And enjoys debating with Christian apologists.

I DO care about the god question. I think there is no evidence for belief. So I affirm this by stating I do not believe. When the majority of persons no longer claim there is a god, I will no longer need to refute such claims. There would be no atheists if there were no theists. I am also opposed to organized religion for the obvious reasons. But I'd rather concern myself with the root of the problem: faith. My friend is more interested in poking holes in their belief systems by pointing out the flaws in their scripture and dogma.

You can't just type FBE every time I say something you don't like. Knee Jerk reactors are genuinely really f***ing stupid people...wait. Nevermind.

 

[Mozza220559]

What I think CG is trying to say is that regardless of your religious stance it shouldn't stop people being kind, caring and nice.

But it seems that you missed the point. As usual.

 

[realitybites]

You can't just type FBE every time I say something you don't like. Knee Jerk reactors are genuinely really f***ing stupid people...wait. Nevermind.

OK. Take the FBE out of my post. Now respond to my points, if you care to continue the discussion. You erroneously defined apatheism. And posted your link to a 'personal journey away from god and religion yet still embracing morality' story in the atheism thread. Why? Her story is not enlightening. Provides no insight into what apatheism is at all. If you want to understand what apatheism is all about, you need to converse with a genuine apatheist--not someone who shifts labels every week to fit her ever evolving belief system.That reddit contributor, most likely, will be embracing a new label soon. She is a seeker. Not apathetic at all, imo. She cares very much about deities, religion, and morality. She just removed god from the equation--for now. She'll return to it, most likely, when she decides that god is 'oneness' and takes a journey to India to study under some Hindu guru. Happens all the time. Once you have the god bug, it is hard to get rid of. It usually manifests again and again in some other form.

 

[realitybites]

What I think CG is trying to say is that regardless of your religious stance it shouldn't stop people being kind, caring and nice.

But it seems that you missed the point. As usual.

Confirmation bias times two!

For someone who embraces the label atheist, you sure are clueless about the concepts and definitions.

No, that was not what she was saying. She was providing a definition of apathesim. An incorrect one.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Confirmation bias times two!

For someone who embraces the label atheist, you sure are clueless about the concepts and definitions.

No, that was not what she was saying. She was providing a definition of apathesim. An incorrect one.

ALL I SAID WAS GOD = MEH.

 

[realitybites]

ALL I SAID WAS GOD = MEH.

That is where you should have left it. Why use her story to help clarify the concept? It didn't; it convoluted it, if anything.

I think the subject of apatheism is interesting.

Many apatheists are technically agnostics. They are 'consciously' indifferent. Their indifference position is one arrived at through careful contemplation. It is not because they don't care about debate or metaphysics. They do. They usually have philosophical minds--are thinkers. So they are not really apathetic about much. They actually care about many things/ideas. They just think it is pointless to argue for a god or against one; because you cannot know either way. And so debating god is meaningless--not a concern for them.

Someone raised in an insular culture without a concept of god, would most likely be an apatheist. The idea of a god would not even be a part of their mental landscape. But no such culture exists to study to learn if this would be the case. I was raised without 'god' but was introduced to the 'god concept' by the larger culture. If I had not been exposed to it, I would most likely be an apatheist rather than an atheist. I wouldn't be refuting anything.

Cultures where there is little belief in god and religion have far more apatheists than we do in the US. The people don't have religion and god in their faces every day. In the US, we do. Thus we are forced to think about these things. It is difficult to escape it. You are asked daily to decide, are you in or are you out? I'm out. And proud to be.

 

[Mozza220559]

Confirmation bias times two!

For someone who embraces the label atheist, you sure are clueless about the concepts and definitions.

No, that was not what she was saying. She was providing a definition of apathesim. An incorrect one.

There's no point is there? Anyone and I mean ANYONE who agrees with someone's else's statement other than yours they're deemed ill informed, clueless and bias by you.

Does it ever occur to you that you might just be wrong, I mean even a little bit? Are you really such an utter f***ing c***?

Yeah I said the word c***.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

 

[realitybites]

There's no point is there? Anyone and I mean ANYONE who agrees with someone's else's statement other than yours they're deemed ill informed, clueless and bias by you.

Does it ever occur to you that you might just be wrong, I mean even a little bit? Are you really such an utter f***ing c***?

Yeah I said the word c***.

You are not a thinker. So why do you try to debate with someone who is? You are incapable of having a serious discussion. Yet you chime in with your troll-like ad hominems time and time again. You do not win the argument when you do this. You just look silly and dull. If you cannot contribute something meaningful perhaps you should say nothing at all.

I am going to ignore you from now on. You don't stimulate me to think. You are like a child that is annoying and should go play outside with the other kids and leave the discussion for the adults. You don't have the intellect or chops for debate. At least CG can act as a muse of sorts. Albeit more of a 'thorn in my side' kind of muse rather an an inspirational one.

Cue the posse trolls...