Atheism Thread

[Rowntree]

I'm actually ok with uncertainty, after all, it's me who keeps saying that I have an open mind. I never said the things that I described were supernatural, I'm just saying that I haven't got a rational explanation for them. Science is great, it just doesn't have all the answers and never will, hence my open mind about things that I and science don't have all the answers for.

 

[Uncleskinny]

I'm actually ok with uncertainty, after all, it's me who keeps saying that I have an open mind. I never said the things that I described were supernatural, I'm just saying that I haven't got a rational explanation for them. Science is great, it just doesn't have all the answers and never will, hence my open mind about things that I and science don't have all the answers for.

There are things which we used to not understand, such as love, now we understand it via oxytocin, melatonin and the selfish gene. People, such as yourself, have supernatural experiences, which you say cannot be explained. There is always an explanation. Always. You may not have noticed the clues, but they are always there. Your experience may be part of a greater experience, such as, for instance, Near Death Experience. I used to subscribe to the Fortean Times because I wanted to find more about anomalous experiences, and I still find them fascinating, but nothing I have read, seen, heard or otherwise experienced, has convinced me that there is anything other than a scientific or rational explanation for these experiences.

P.

 

[Skylarker]

I used to subscribe to the Fortean Times because I wanted to find more about anomalous experiences, and I still find them fascinating, but nothing I have read, seen, heard or otherwise experienced, has convinced me that there is anything other than a scientific or rational explanation for these experiences.

P.

OK, but even in the absence (as far as you could tell) of any such scientific/rational explanation?

Besides, why is a "paranormal" experience immediately linked with the word "irrational?" I'm not saying just with your post, but all time. Why can't an experience that is unexplainable simply be classified as "unexplainable?" I have never understood why the scientists and rationalists are so uncomfortable with acknowledging that something is unexplainable...that's very telling about their lack of confidence in their idea that there is no reality other than that which the great god Science has already explained.

After all you can call something "unexplainable" without saying that it is "otherworldly" or other similar such hyperbole. But even the term unexplainable is anathema to the skeptic...and I wonder why that is.

 

[Uncleskinny]

OK, but even in the absence (as far as you could tell) of any such scientific/rational explanation?

Besides, why is a "paranormal" experience immediately linked with the word "irrational?" I'm not saying just with your post, but all time. Why can't an experience that is unexplainable simply be classified as "unexplainable?" I have never understood why the scientists and rationalists are so uncomfortable with acknowledging that something is unexplainable...that's very telling about their lack of confidence in their idea that there is no reality other than that which the great god Science has already explained.

After all you can call something "unexplainable" without saying that it is "otherworldly" or other similar such hyperbole. But even the term unexplainable is anathema to the skeptic...and I wonder why that is.

Well science is about evidence, so let's have some evidence. Can you give me some examples of phenomena, which science is at a loss to explain?

P.

 

[realitybites]

I'm actually ok with uncertainty, after all, it's me who keeps saying that I have an open mind. I never said the things that I described were supernatural, I'm just saying that I haven't got a rational explanation for them. Science is great, it just doesn't have all the answers and never will, hence my open mind about things that I and science don't have all the answers for.

Are you sure? That sounds like cemented-minded thinking to me. Why can't you fathom the notion that science will one day have all the answers? Have you closed the book? Pot calling kettle black?

 

[realitybites]

OK, but even in the absence (as far as you could tell) of any such scientific/rational explanation?

Besides, why is a "paranormal" experience immediately linked with the word "irrational?" I'm not saying just with your post, but all time. Why can't an experience that is unexplainable simply be classified as "unexplainable?" I have never understood why the scientists and rationalists are so uncomfortable with acknowledging that something is unexplainable...that's very telling about their lack of confidence in their idea that there is no reality other than that which the great god Science has already explained.

After all you can call something "unexplainable" without saying that it is "otherworldly" or other similar such hyperbole. But even the term unexplainable is anathema to the skeptic...and I wonder why that is.

I don't think they are uncomfortable... but I think they like to rise to the challenge of figuring out how our world works. And thank goodness for that. But they don't throw in the towel either, simply because they don't have the answers. They keep researching. They don't say, I don't know, therefore I give up. And they don't give credit to a god or some other supernatural force, simply because they don't have a rational explanation--yet.

 

[realitybites]

There are things which we used to not understand, such as love, now we understand it via oxytocin, melatonin and the selfish gene. People, such as yourself, have supernatural experiences, which you say cannot be explained. There is always an explanation. Always. You may not have noticed the clues, but they are always there. Your experience may be part of a greater experience, such as, for instance, Near Death Experience. I used to subscribe to the Fortean Times because I wanted to find more about anomalous experiences, and I still find them fascinating, but nothing I have read, seen, heard or otherwise experienced, has convinced me that there is anything other than a scientific or rational explanation for these experiences.
P.

 

[Uncleskinny]

I don't know think they are uncomfortable... but I think they like to rise to the challenge of figuring out how our world works. And thank goodness for that. But they don't throw in the towel either, simply because they don't have the answers. They keep researching. They don't say, I don't know, therefore I give up. And they don't give credit to a god or some other supernatural force, simply because they don't have a rational explanation--yet.

If I understand your point correctly, your point is this...

P.

 

[realitybites]

If I understand your point correctly, your point is this...

P.

 

[Anonymous]

You two are worse than Christians.

 

[Skylarker]

Well science is about evidence, so let's have some evidence. Can you give me some examples of phenomena, which science is at a loss to explain?

P.

Yes, but would it make a difference?

If I understand your point correctly, your point is this...

P.

Why can't it just be, "I don't know, therefore...I don't know."

Seems much more rational a mindset.

It's all well and good to say "Science can explain everything" and theoretically, depending on the elasticity of your definition of science (i.e. if you define it as the studied observation and classification of any phenomena which occurs in the natural world), it can.

But if it doesn't explain something at any given time then why still say that it does...which is basically what is being implied by your ideology, as I understand it.

Some people put things in the God bucket when they can't figure them out, others put them in the Science bucket. Either way no one can explain what it is they don't understand so why ascribe it to one catch-all or the other?

 

[realitybites]

Why can't it just be, "I don't know, therefore...I don't know."

 

[Uncleskinny]

Yes, but would it make a difference?



Why can't it just be, "I don't know, therefore...I don't know."

Seems much more rational a mindset.

It's all well and good to say "Science can explain everything" and theoretically, depending on the elasticity of your definition of science (i.e. if you define it as the studied observation and classification of any phenomena which occurs in the natural world), it can.

But if it doesn't explain something at any given time then why still say that it does...which is basically what is being implied by your ideology, as I understand it.

Some people put things in the God bucket when they can't figure them out, others put them in the Science bucket. Either way no one can explain what it is they don't understand so why ascribe it to one catch-all or the other?

Last sentence - I'll tell you why. Science is about experimentation, reasoning, doing things again, figuring out why things are wrong, doing it all again, time and time again, until you keep getting the same answer, then you are some way to an explanation. Religion is not. It's not explanation, it's the opposite. In a life where we use so many things arrived at with science - mobile phones, proton-pump inhibitors, instant communication with people on the other side of the world, airplanes, why would you, in one area that's important to your life, call it faith, the exact opposite of science? Religion and the belief in an invisible pilot of the ship is silly, unscientific, and runs counter to everything else you encounter on a daily basis.

P.

 

[realitybites]

Last sentence - I'll tell you why. Science is about experimentation, reasoning, doing things again, figuring out why things are wrong, doing it all again, time and time again, until you keep getting the same answer, then you are some way to an explanation. Religion is not. It's not explanation, it's the opposite. In a life where we use so many things arrived at with science - mobile phones, proton-pump inhibitors, instant communication with people on the other side of the world, airplanes, why would you, in one area that's important to your life, call it faith, the exact opposite of science? Religion and the belief in an invisible pilot of the ship is silly, unscientific, and runs counter to everything else you encounter on a daily basis.

P.

 

[Rowntree]

Are you sure? That sounds like cemented-minded thinking to me. Why can't you fathom the notion that science will one day have all the answers? Have you closed the book? Pot calling kettle black?

Pot, kettle and black my arse. I'm in the only factual place on this - in that we have no answers and science doesn't either. You're pinning your hopes on one day there being some. Good luck with that. You'll find out when you die one way or the other same as the rest of us, you might as well sit back, enjoy and forget about it until then instead of thinking that you've got it all figured out, none of us have it all figured out no matter how much we think we do. I'm not prepared to rule a whole swathe of possiblities out though just because I'm relying on somebody else to figure out the meaning of life and they haven't got around to it yet.

 

[realitybites]

kettle and black my arse. I'm in the only factual place on this - in that we have no answers and science doesn't either. You're pinning your hopes on one day there being some. Good luck with that.

You don't think your absolutist statements—like the one above—don’t make you sound closed-minded? I do. But I don’t really care if you are closed-minded, to be honest. I only care if your beliefs are irrational and thus harm others. You don’t seem to be in a position where this might be the case—at least not on a global scale. However, I would argue that if you are transmitting these beliefs onto children that this is destructive. But that is another topic all together.

Back to the original theme… This is just a thread that started with a discussion about atheism, which as I argued, doesn't say much in itself. Now we have moved onto discussing rational thinking and a natural worldview as opposed to belief in the supernatural and god.

It is interesting how the people who claim that we will never know the answers are the same ones that believe in god and the supernatural. You want us to be OPEN to the notion that these things that you believe in might exist. But you are not open to the idea that they can't. Being open isn't just a position which allows for something to enter, it is a position which allows something to exit. This can be a thought or belief. You want us to honor your faith in God. If faith is permissible, then why can't you simply call what we have faith in science. I don't consider the belief that science can solve problems to be an article of faith, however, because science has shown it can do this time and time again. Whereas God has not followed through on any promises—just ask the mother who's dying child is not saved by her god after countless days of prayer, or all the suffering animals in shelters and in factory farms. Where is their god as they cry out from between the metal bars? Where is this merciful, all-powerful god when we need him to halt global warming, mass extinction, flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes, and all the other horrible natural disasters that destroy Earth and her peoples? This is not a god I want to believe in.

Thank goodness we have science to come along and cure illness, build dams, and develop technologies to predict disasters before they occur—thus saving countless lives. Science seems to be more worthy of being worshiped than a god. And science can be magical and mysterious and transcending as well. Just ask a cosmologist to talk about the cosmos. Look at the passion and illumination in his eyes as he relays the latest discoveries, new mathematical models being used, and theories on the developing block. He is no less elevated to a higher state than the person chanting and prostrating in a monastery.

Do I believe in science? Yes, I do. Does science exist? Yes, it does. Can I prove it? Yes, I can. Do I worship science? No. Do I think it is omniscient? No. Do I think it has all the answers? I don’t know. But it has possibility. God has no possibility because it can’t be known. It can’t be understood. I have a much better chance at having a real meaningful relationship with science than God.

You'll find out when you die one way or the other same as the rest of us, you might as well sit back, enjoy and forget about it until then instead of thinking that you've got it all figured out, none of us have it all figured out no matter how much we think we do.

What I expect to find out after death is nothing. Nothingness is what I will be.

I'm not prepared to rule a whole swathe of possibilities out though just because I'm relying on somebody else to figure out the meaning of life and they haven't got around to it yet.

The meaning of life is another topic all together. Have you seen the thread that MORRIZEY started? Perhaps you wrote something over there. I will have a look.

Nobody, according to my position on the subject, is deciding what the meaning of life
is for you. You have the freedom and responsibility to decide that for yourself.

 

[realitybites]

A little atheist humor to lighten things up...

“He has his father’s eyes.”

Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

Source

 

[Skylarker]

A little atheist humor to lighten things up...

“He has his father’s eyes.”

Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

Source

Some more humor on the subject from a film...a joke Woody Allen tells in Anything Else about a young boxer getting his ass kicked during a match. The boxer's mother and a priest are ringside and she turns to the priest and says, "Father, pray for him!"

The priest turns to her and says, "I will pray for him, but it would help if he could fight..."

Funny how little jokes like that can sum up entire existential arguments in a few lines and say more on the subject of God than most people could say in ten books.

 

[realitybites]

Some more humor on the subject from a film...a joke Woody Allen tells in Anything Else about a young boxer getting his ass kicked during a match. The boxer's mother and a priest are ringside and she turns to the priest and says, "Father, pray for him!"

The priest turns to her and says, "I will pray for him, but it would help if he could fight..."

Funny how little jokes like that can sum up entire existential arguments in a few lines and say more on the subject of God than most people could say in ten books.

Yes, very insightful.

Hey, I found some very well made animated gifs of scenes from Ghost World that you might like. I'll post them on the Give a Gif thread in a few minutes.

 

[Rowntree]

You don't think your absolutist statements—like the one above—don’t make you sound closed-minded? I do. But I don’t really care if you are closed-minded, to be honest. I only care if your beliefs are irrational and thus harm others. You don’t seem to be in a position where this might be the case—at least not on a global scale. However, I would argue that if you are transmitting these beliefs onto children that this is destructive. But that is another topic all together.

Back to the original theme… This is just a thread that started with a discussion about atheism, which as I argued, doesn't say much in itself. Now we have moved onto discussing rational thinking and a natural worldview as opposed to belief in the supernatural and god.

It is interesting how the people who claim that we will never know the answers are the same ones that believe in god and the supernatural. You want us to be OPEN to the notion that these things that you believe in might exist. But you are not open to the idea that they can't. Being open isn't just a position which allows for something to enter, it is a position which allows something to exit. This can be a thought or belief. You want us to honor your faith in God. If faith is permissible, then why can't you simply call what we have faith in science. I don't consider the belief that science can solve problems to be an article of faith, however, because science has shown it can do this time and time again. Whereas God has not followed through on any promises—just ask the mother who's dying child is not saved by her god after countless days of prayer, or all the suffering animals in shelters and in factory farms. Where is their god as they cry out from between the metal bars? Where is this merciful, all-powerful god when we need him to halt global warming, mass extinction, flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes, and all the other horrible natural disasters that destroy Earth and her peoples? This is not a god I want to believe in.

Thank goodness we have science to come along and cure illness, build dams, and develop technologies to predict disasters before they occur—thus saving countless lives. Science seems to be more worthy of being worshiped than a god. And science can be magical and mysterious and transcending as well. Just ask a cosmologist to talk about the cosmos. Look at the passion and illumination in his eyes as he relays the latest discoveries, new mathematical models being used, and theories on the developing block. He is no less elevated to a higher state than the person chanting and prostrating in a monastery.

Do I believe in science? Yes, I do. Does science exist? Yes, it does. Can I prove it? Yes, I can. Do I worship science? No. Do I think it is omniscient? No. Do I think it has all the answers? I don’t know. But it has possibility. God has no possibility because it can’t be known. It can’t be understood. I have a much better chance at having a real meaningful relationship with science than God.



What I expect to find out after death is nothing. Nothingness is what I will be.



The meaning of life is another topic all together. Have you seen the thread that MORRIZEY started? Perhaps you wrote something over there. I will have a look.

Nobody, according to my position on the subject, is deciding what the meaning of life
is for you. You have the freedom and responsibility to decide that for yourself.

I never said that I believe in God or the Supernatural but I don't disbelieve either. There is a big difference. I have an open mind on it.

I'm not sure why this makes me dangerous and to be honest that's a bit of an offensive thing to say. I think that makes you sound like a bit of a pillock to be honest and a righteous one like most atheists at that. I haven't said that science is a bad thing, not once, you've grasped that opinion from I don't know where. I've just stated that science doesn't have all the answers and in this instance and I can't see how it ever will. It doesn't have all the answers and isn't even close to having them. You have total faith in science, others have total faith in "God". I have neither in the religious or spiritual sense.

It's a different debate altogether if you want to discuss the effects of science in the medical and technological world but one which is irrelevant to this thread.

I do have kids and we don't teach them anything on faith despite their mother being a Catholic. Our stance is that it's up to them to find what they believe in or don't as they go along. I'm not a dictator, I'm a parent.