Atheism and Agnosticism

[Confess]

You say you have faith in science, but science is commonly proved wrong. Science is also many times 'blind faith'. There are several things in science which cannot be proven, but are known to be true. Therefore...you are the same as any person that believes in a God.

[»Lynx]

You say you have faith in science, but science is commonly proved wrong. Science is also many times 'blind faith'. There are several things in science which cannot be proven, but are known to be true. Therefore...you are the same as any person that believes in a God.

 

Okay, ignoring the fact that you're being very presumptuous about me in your post, I'll reply...

 

Yes, there are several things in Science that simply cannot be proven, however those things generally provide me a very pragmatic and well-described logic. For example, I cannot prove infinity, however I understand what infinity is. I also cannot prove God, however I can understand what God is. I have faith in my understanding of both things, but I lack belief in both, also. I do not believe that there is infinity, however I believe that it's a possible concept. I do not believe in God, either, however I believe that it's a possibility there is some omnipotent power. But that's beside the point, we're talking Religion/Religious here.

 

I believe more in Science, because as I said it provides me a very realistic reasoning that I can relate to - and therefore from that reasoning I have more faith that there is no God. However, I do realise that I *might be wrong, but I have little doubt there...

 

The truth is, that I simply do not know if there is a God or not, however with what I have portrayed to me daily, in all probability (I think) there is no God. I'm happy this way, and I am happy to know that I am not a part of any religion. Therefore... No, I am not the same as any person that believes in a God. Oh, and I'm not religious, either.

 

-L

[Confess]

You lack to understand what being religious means. When you have taken up the idea that there is no God, the idea of no God has become your god. I believe your fight is not whether there is a god or not, but rather with religion in itself, and especially with the Almighty God Himself. The very fact that you fight that there is no God, means that there is question in your mind as to 'What if?'. You are still searching, and when you've allowed your eyes to be opened, the truth will set you free.

[»Lynx]

You lack to understand what being religious means. When you have taken up the idea that there is no God, the idea of no God has become your god. I believe your fight is not whether there is a god or not, but rather with religion in itself, and especially with the Almighty God Himself. The very fact that you fight that there is no God, means that there is question in your mind as to 'What if?'. You are still searching, and when you've allowed your eyes to be opened, the truth will set you free.

 

Yes, there are several things in Science that simply cannot be proven, however those things generally provide me a very pragmatic and well-described logic. For example, I cannot prove infinity, however I understand what infinity is. I also cannot prove God, however I can understand what God is. I have faith in my understanding of both things, but I lack belief in both, also. I do not believe that there is infinity, however I believe that it's a possible concept. I do not believe in God, either, however I believe that it's a possibility there is some omnipotent power. But that's beside the point, we're talking Religion/Religious here.

 

I believe more in Science, because as I said it provides me a very realistic reasoning that I can relate to - and therefore from that reasoning I have more faith that there is no God. However, I do realise that I *might be wrong, but I have little doubt there...

 

The truth is, that I simply do not know if there is a God or not, however with what I have portrayed to me daily, in all probability (I think) there is no God. I'm happy this way, and I am happy to know that I am not a part of any religion. Therefore... No, I am not the same as any person that believes in a God. Oh, and I'm not religious, either.

 

-L

 

----

 

And to me not understanding what being religious means: I think that we've covered that. Read a book on Linguistics, you'll understand that definitions aren't the primary answer to any question. I know that I have faith in many different things, however that faith doesn't make me part of any group, or belief structure. It simply means that I accept a broad range of things to possibly be true, but with a questionable doubt. As you can tell from the above quote, I do not believe that there is no God - however, I have more faith that Science is correct, and that God is just something for those who need that comfort, or have lost a loved one or something. The only reason I think that God could possibly ever exist, is because what we have is so advanced and that there are currently *THAT many unanswered, or impossible to answer questions laying around. When I was a naive child, I had a stronger belief in God, because I understood less about the world - however, now I understand more and therefore, have less faith in God.

 

 

And yes, my fight is with Religion. It's retarded. Period. There's nothing about any religion that I admire, I just see religion as a bastardised way of controlling sheep-like morons to do stupid things. But, if you believe in God (something beyond death) - I can accept and respect that. If you believe in Christianity.... Then lawls and good luck to you.

 

 

The very fact that I fight that there is no God? I'm searching? I'm asking 'What If?' - I'll soon be 'free'? Firstly, it's healthy to scrutinise what's infront of you. If you didn't you'd be left with a bum deal all of the time, and the world wouldn't progress. I'm asking 'What If?' - Yes I am, and everybody should be. I'll be 'Free'? - I'm as free as I let myself be, I guess. I don't need a God or a religion to make me free, just myself.

 

-L

[Sketter]

There seems to be a lot of word throwing around.

 

What I believe is a definition of a religion is a well established organization. Well in put with rules and guide lines that benefit the body of the religion.

 

It is true that a lot of religions share same values, but it is the 'practice' that gives religion.

 

Yes there are those that classify as 'non practicing' catholic for example, but they have put belief, into the practice.

 

To say that atheist is a religion (to me) you need to prove it has a culture behind it, and not just say they have shared morals and vales. Because religion has cultural structure.

You really can't say the same about atheism.

[Confess]

Those that are athiest always have one definite lining, and that is that they think they can describe the proof of no God through science. In which case, science becomes their God, they have a desire to find out that there is no God through science, and therefore Science becomes their 'church'..There are good 'scientist', and bad 'scientist', those that search for the proof that there is no God, and those that believe what the scientist spit out to them. Truth be told, however, there is no true Athiest..as in order for them to be 100 percent athiest, they would have to prove absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God. If they cant, they are agnostic.

 

For example, lets say someone says 'All dinosaurs are extinct'. Now, in order for them to know that ALL dinosaurs are extinct, they would have to have someone on each inch of the world looking at the same exact time all saying to each other 'Nope, nothing here'. There are jungles in Africa which are yet to be explored, and it is ever still possible (though, unlikely), that they can be there. Which still brings the question, what if one of those people lied about their being dinosaurs or not?

Edited July 24, 2009 by Confess

[»Lynx]

Those that are athiest always have one definite lining, and that is that they think they can describe the proof of no God through science. In which case, science becomes their God, they have a desire to find out that there is no God through science, and therefore Science becomes their 'church'..There are good 'scientist', and bad 'scientist', those that search for the proof that there is no God, and those that believe what the scientist spit out to them. Truth be told, however, there is no true Athiest..as in order for them to be 100 percent athiest, they would have to prove absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God. If they cant, they are agnostic.

 

For example, lets say someone says 'All dinosaurs are extinct'. Now, in order for them to know that ALL dinosaurs are extinct, they would have to have someone on each inch of the world looking at the same exact time all saying to each other 'Nope, nothing here'. There are jungles in Africa which are yet to be explored, and it is ever still possible (though, unlikely), that they can be there. Which still brings the question, what if one of those people lied about their being dinosaurs or not?

 

Your definite lining is incorrect. Not all atheists disprove God through Science, but question God through what they perceive as either believable, logical or pragmatic. Furthermore, not all atheists are there to disprove God, depending on explicit or implicitness can just not believe in God, and therefore be atheist. I find that atheists use Science as further ground to discredit religion (i.e. point out the stupid loopholes, mistakes etc. that should not have been there, being the 'word of God' and all), but Science used as a vessel to disprove God is completely pointless. It's impossible to disprove something which is 100% based through faith (imaginary) with Science, as Science requires proof, empirical evidence and so on... It's easy to disprove some retard who thinks he's Jesus - but that is not disproving God - that's disproving a delusional moron.

 

Now, as I said - you have explicit and implicit atheists. Those who are extremely explicit, can easily believe without a shadow of doubt that there is no God, and therefore be atheist. They'd most likely be a moron, but it's still possible. Just like it's possible for a Christian to believe without a shadow of doubt that there *is a God. Like I said, they'd have to be a moron, but it happens.

 

-L

[all_shall_perish]

"You say you have faith in science, but science is commonly proved wrong. Science is also many times 'blind faith'. There are several things in science which cannot be proven, but are known to be true. Therefore...you are the same as any person that believes in a God."

 

The problem here is a very deep and silly misunderstanding of the word and idea "science". Science is not an institution or a conglomerate of anti-religious lab coats. Science is simply a methodology. As Wikipedia more eloquently puts it: "In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research." There is nothing wrong with science, only scientists (practitioners of the scientific method).

 

Also, perhaps "...but science is commonly proved wrong" is a poor choice of words. Science is always tentative and expects a better answer will come along eventually. This expectation is part of the beauty of the system itself. The fact that scientific theories are sometimes abandoned for something better should not detract from the validity of the scientific method. Science, good science that is, is never what you call "blind faith." Blind faith is a belief in something regardless of actuality. Because the scientific method is grounded in reproducible evidence, science itself cannot be blind, only those interpreting the information it has yielded.

 

"There are several things in science which cannot be proven, but are known to be true." There is no such thing as something existing within or without of science. Researchers have either applied the scientific method to solve a certain problem or they haven't. According to the scientific method something cannot be known to be true without evidence, and even then we can only assert its truth value so far. Even to simply say that the grass is green is only true to a matter of degrees.

 

This dispute seems to be more concerned with the literal meaning of the term "religion" which is incredibly ambiguous (like with most parts of language). The deeper question which should be probed is this: "is there a practical and significant consequence if we are to prove Atheists are indeed religious?" Does it change the fact that they deny or, in most cases, just are not concerned with the supernatural?

 

"Those that are athiest always have one definite lining, and that is that they think they can describe the proof of no God through science." This is just simply not true. You've corralled all atheists into a single bland category. Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief. No more. No less. It doesn't matter for what reasons they lack their beliefs in the supernatural. Science is also not their "church" as your describe. They may not believe in high powers for many reasons. Atheism does not require a blind devotion to the fruits of scientific thought. If someone is an atheist, all it tells you is what they DO NOT believe. It says nothing about what they do believe: science or otherwise.

 

"Truth be told, however, there is no true Athiest..as in order for them to be 100 percent athiest, they would have to prove absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God. If they cant, they are agnostic." This, also, is a severe abuse of logic. To be agnostic is to simply be unsure or to say "I don't have enough information yet (or maybe ever) to make a definitive statement about such topics." Communists don't have to present 100% definitive proofs of the soundness of their political ideology for us to believe they are communists. It simply means they hold political, social, and/or economic beliefs in common with communist ideology. By your same logic no Christian could claim they were truly a Christian as they are equally unable to definitively present a proof of God's existence. This does not mean they hold what is said in the bible to be any less true.

 

As far as my personal understanding and usage of the term "religion" goes, I would say calling atheism or agnosticism religions is sort of like calling bald a hair color.

Edited July 25, 2009 by all_shall_perish

[Sketter]

Well said.

[»doc flabby]

Heres an interesting thought:

 

I am god.

 

I have the ablity to create, change and destory anything within the reach of my godly powers.

 

Am I religious, or am I infact an atheist as i know no other such god exists?

Edited July 27, 2009 by doc flabby

[»Lynx]

There's a word for people who believe that they are their own God, and it has a nice broad description to fit you into a sect that probably in fact makes you religious. I just can't be arsed to research it to find out what that word is.

 

-L

[»doc flabby]

There's a word for people who believe that they are their own God, and it has a nice broad description to fit you into a sect that probably in fact makes you religious. I just can't be arsed to research it to find out what that word is.

 

-L

You missed the deep philosophical point I was getting at

Edited July 28, 2009 by doc flabby

[»Lynx]

 

Ahh, rub on rub off?

[Requiem.]

Why can't people justget along with the simple fact that noone person knows what happens when we die, and that we could all be wrong, or we could all be right.

We won't know until we die.

Getting sick of the bad feelings being put towards people due to their religious practices or lack thereof.

 

Edit: Ill be back later, I have to go to argue my point. Also to those who are going to troll this post (SeVeR ) I was generalizing, not being towards a specific person.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Requiem.

[»Lynx]

Have you read the thread?