|
lotto: the atheist's religion (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Project-K |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Krypton PERIOD. |
That's a pretty strong argument there. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Atheists who think science negates the existence of any god DEFINITIVELY are fooling themselves. |
And theists who think atheism is based solely on science are just as mistaken as these atheists are.
You know, it was not science alone that killed God. Naturalism as a whole did it, and science can only account for methodological naturalism in general. It's absurd to think that contemporary science causes atheism because there was atheism long before natural philosophy was dubbed "science", and even then, atheism is not absolute among scientists (although they do need to subscribe to methodological naturalism in order to produce scientific works).
Science can reinforce the non-belief in deities, that's true, but there's far more to it than just this ~science vs. religion~ debate. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
What "propositions" are those? |
#1. There is no god, divinity, spirits, etc. etc.
#2. There is a god, gods, divinity, spirits, etc. etc.
| quote: | And theists who think atheism is based solely on science are just as mistaken as these atheists are.
You know, it was not science alone that killed God. Naturalism as a whole did it, and science can only account for methodological naturalism in general. It's absurd to think that contemporary science causes atheism because there was atheism long before natural philosophy was dubbed "science", and even then, atheism is not absolute among scientists (although they do need to subscribe to methodological naturalism in order to produce scientific works).
Science can reinforce the non-belief in deities, that's true, but there's far more to it than just this ~science vs. religion~ debate. |
The idea that science and religion are incompatible is wrong. CREATIONISM...Now that is something incompatible with science. Don't let fundamentalist Christians make you believe that all theists don't believe in evolution or proven scientific theory.
Science is a neutral medium of knowledge. It makes no supposition as to the existence or inexistence of any god, gods, spirits, etc. Therefore, science can not be used to disprove or prove the existence of the supernatural. As a result, both propositions (god/no god), rely on axioms of faith. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The idea that science and religion are incompatible is wrong. CREATIONISM...Now that is something incompatible with science. Don't let fundamentalist Christians make you believe that all theists don't believe in evolution or proven scientific theory. |
I don't. Both Christianity and Evolution have co-existed here in Brazil for quite a while, with few Creationist attempts to reform Darwinian evolution..
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Science is a neutral medium of knowledge. It makes no supposition as to the existence or inexistence of any god, gods, spirits, etc. Therefore, science can not be used to disprove or prove the existence of the supernatural. As a result, both propositions (god/no god), rely on axioms of faith. |
The first half is correct. However, it does not follow from any of this that both axioms must rely on faith. If you claim there is a tea cup orbitting around the Sun, and I claim it is absurd, can you say that both prepositions have the same probability of being true? How about atheism as a form of nontheism (rather than antitheism)? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
#1. There is no god, divinity, spirits, etc. etc.
#2. There is a god, gods, divinity, spirits, etc. etc. |
How would a world in which God existed be observably different from one in which no gods existed? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I don't. Both Christianity and Evolution have co-existed here in Brazil for quite a while, with few Creationist attempts to reform Darwinian evolution.. |
Here in America, a creationist is one who completely rejects evolutionary theory in favor of a literal understanding of Genesis.
| quote: | | The first half is correct. However, it does not follow from any of this that both axioms must rely on faith. If you claim there is a tea cup orbitting around the Sun, and I claim it is absurd, can you say that both prepositions have the same probability of being true? How about atheism as a form of nontheism (rather than antitheism)? |
A tea cup orbiting the sun can be observable because a tea cup and the sun are both matter. Science can prove and disprove natural objects and their behavior. The supernatural is not an observable phenomenon. Therefore, science has nothing to say about it.
| quote: | | How would a world in which God existed be observably different from one in which no gods existed? |
Very good question. But your question assumes I am trying to prove the existence of the supernatural which is not my point. My main point is not to prove the existence of god or the supernatural, but to point out that science is neutral on the issue. Science has nothing to say about the existence of the supernatural. Whatever one's belief in the existence/nonexistence of the supernatural, that belief is ultimately a faith proposition. So, to an atheist such as Richard Dawkins, I would say to him, "Don't be so sure of yourself as to something which science neither proves nor disproves." |
|
|
| Slylee |
| we need religion whether we realize it or not. i'm not religious but i respect what it does for society. imagine how society would act if we were going through life with no fear of any consequences of our actions whatsoever? religion instills fear, and we need that fear. i'm just not one of those who gets sucked into it, and yet i don't go through life breaking laws and being uncivilized because of it. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Very good question. But your question assumes I am trying to prove the existence of the supernatural which is not my point. |
Okay, but if you can't specify how the world would actually be observably different one way or another, the whole "debate" is kind of meaningless and pointless, isn't it?
| quote: | | So, to an atheist such as Richard Dawkins, I would say to him, "Don't be so sure of yourself as to something which science neither proves nor disproves." |
Funny, I don't know many atheists who claim to be certain that no gods exist. I certainly wouldn't.
It's just that as far as I can tell, the traditional idea of a God who wants all the best for humanity seems pretty unlikely given the actual condition of the world that we live in, which is very far from what most people would consider the best possible one.
But of course religious people have all sorts of convoluted rationalizations to answer that concern, right? |
|
|
| chach |
| Someone wins it. I've gotten 3-6 which got me 30 bucks lol. But the most I've won is 200 on a scratch off. And I only get them when I'm feeling really lucky. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Okay, but if you can't specify how the world would actually be observably different one way or another, the whole "debate" is kind of meaningless and pointless, isn't it? |
You're trying to get me into a debate on whether the supernatural exists or not. Sorry, but I will not be drawn into such a debate in this thread.
| quote: | | Funny, I don't know many atheists who claim to be certain that no gods exist. I certainly wouldn't. |
Then you haven't met any atheists. Atheism is a firm philosophical proposition that no supernatural reality exists; or, the rejection of theism.
| quote: | It's just that as far as I can tell, the traditional idea of a God who wants all the best for humanity seems pretty unlikely given the actual condition of the world that we live in, which is very far from what most people would consider the best possible one.
But of course religious people have all sorts of convoluted rationalizations to answer that concern, right? |
You seem a bit hostile of theism. We can get into a debate over the existence of god in the Political Discussion/Debate forum, but I won't be drawn into it here. I've made my original point clear about science and religion. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You're trying to get me into a debate on whether the supernatural exists or not. Sorry, but I will not be drawn into such a debate in this thread.
Then you haven't met any atheists. Atheism is a firm philosophical proposition that no supernatural reality exists; or, the rejection of theism.
You seem a bit hostile of theism. We can get into a debate over the existence of god in the Political Discussion/Debate forum, but I won't be drawn into it here. I've made my original point clear about science and religion. |
For christ's sake, not this again...I would call myself an atheist, but I don't say that no god exists, I simply lack belief in a god. That is not a faith based statement.
This is a typical tactic by believers to try and say that both atheism and theism are equally logical...it is such a blatant straw man argument; you're misrepresenting what atheism means.
You've had this explained to you before yet you still persist with this crap. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Then you haven't met any atheists. Atheism is a firm philosophical proposition that no supernatural reality exists; or, the rejection of theism. |
Nah, this is just your own straw man of what "atheism" is.
I'm an atheist, so I've "met" at least one of them. My "proposition" is simply that I know of no good evidence to believe that a god exists -- so I don't, just as I don't believe in phlogiston or astrology or cows that are born with horns made of gold.
| quote: | | You seem a bit hostile of theism. We can get into a debate over the existence of god in the Political Discussion/Debate forum, but I won't be drawn into it here. |
How the heck is a debate about the existence of God a "political" one? |
|
|
|
|
