Post: #51

(05-17-2016 04:06 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Thats why its they only rational and sensible way of looking at the universe.

Its the polar opposite of faith based systems.

Can you prove that remark scientifically? No. Your remark goes beyond the realm of science, so your remark is epistemologically self-defeating.

To answer the OP, no, not necessarily. I submit Christopher Hitchens (as wrong as he was) as an example of a right-wing atheist.

Post: #52

(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:51 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Religious and non-religious people seem to have their brains wired differently. If you take an inherently religious person and put them in an atheist environment, they just end up making a religion out of atheism, and you get atheism+ and social justice zealots. If you take an inherently non-religious person and put them in a religious environment, they'll just go through the motions for social acceptance, and you get Christians that only show up to church on Christmas and Easter.

It's best to just accept that some people have faith and some don't, and as long as neither side fucks with the other then we're all better off.

I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person. EDantes is exactly right: humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion. Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion. The other spiritual choice people make is self-worship: gratifying the ego and the pleasures of the flesh. This narcissistic hedonism becomes the defining life purpose for many "non-religious" people. It never occurs to them that they're engaged in self-worship despite spending all of their time in pursuit of their own self-gratification.

To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin). Denying the existence of God - or at least of some creative force, regardless of who or what it is, and whether or not we could have knowledge of it - was regarded as insanity. If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe. It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God.

You're so wrong on everything it's not even funny (it actually kinda is).


"I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person."

You probably believe lots of false/wrong things.

"humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion"

You just contradicted yourself within the same sentence, amazing. If someone creates a god out of something or has faith in something supernatural, or turns something into a religion, he/she is by definition not non-religious.

"Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion."

I'll give you social justice and equality, but science and evolution? There is plenty of proof for science and evolution. Science is all about proof and the theory of evolution is one of the most tested, most proven and best documented scientific theories to date.

"To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin)."

Now I know for sure that you don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Atheism is as old as humanity. The word 'atheist' comes from 'atheos', a word that dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and literally means "without god" or more accurately "without belief in god".
As long as there has been theism, there has been atheism.

"Denying the existence of God"

You can't deny something that isn't proven to exist and it's not what atheism means. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

"If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe."

So what? If you had been born 1000 years ago you would have believed the earth is flat.

"It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God."

It's only because you never paid attention at school that you have faith in the nonsense you're spewing here.

Post: #53

(05-17-2016 04:32 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Truth is science alone can never give meaning, it can only explain what exists not what it means in the lives of humans, all philosophical beliefs do require a certain degree of faith

Science does give true meaning to the lives of humans.

Why we get sick, why men crave pussy, why we are social, while we feel angry etc.
Why we have tides, why the sun comes up etc.

A meaning based on evidence, experimentation and logic.

A Real meaning, not a "made up" one that religions give us. Religion gives meanings like " a dude drags the sun behind on his chariot each day".

Religion gives you false meanings based on dogma. Not something that really gives your life authentic meaning at all.

Do humans know everything, and have the answer and the meaning to everything in the universe? No. We probably don't know a lot more than we do know.

But at least the things we do know, we have arrived at from the most logical, rational and proven method of inquiry. Thats good enough for me.

Everything else we are seeking the answers for, and one of the most amazing things about humans is that we have the curiosity and drive to seek those answers...

I marvel at the ape that has put robots on Mars.

Post: #54

(05-17-2016 08:05 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Can you prove that remark scientifically? No. Your remark goes beyond the realm of science, so your remark is epistemologically self-defeating.

Yes.

Run it through the attached flow chart, and it comes up golden. Proven scientifically.

HTH

Post: #55

(05-17-2016 11:48 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 04:32 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Truth is science alone can never give meaning, it can only explain what exists not what it means in the lives of humans, all philosophical beliefs do require a certain degree of faith

Science does give true meaning to the lives of humans.

Why we get sick, why men crave pussy, why we are social, while we feel angry etc.
Why we have tides, why the sun comes up etc.

A meaning based on evidence, experimentation and logic.

A Real meaning, not a "made up" one that religions give us. Religion gives meanings like " a dude drags the sun behind on his chariot each day".

Religion gives you false meanings based on dogma. Not something that really gives your life authentic meaning at all.

Do humans know everything, and have the answer and the meaning to everything in the universe? No. We probably don't know a lot more than we do know.

But at least the things we do know, we have arrived at from the most logical, rational and proven method of inquiry. Thats good enough for me.

Everything else we are seeking the answers for, and one of the most amazing things about humans is that we have the curiosity and drive to seek those answers...

I marvel at the ape that has put robots on Mars.

Your language is inaccurate.

Science can't give meaning. It just tries to describe "how" and can occasionally do it.

You lump all religions together, another mistake. Isn't there "bad science"? Of course there is. Why wouldn't there be "bad religion"?

The things that mean MOST in your life are certainly not how electric circuits work, or the 1s and 0s of the internet ... they are the "unmeasurables" love, kindness, beauty, goodness

Even depraved emotions aren't measurable.

I love science. But my point here is to keep US ALL honest about what it is that we are talking about.

Post: #56

(05-17-2016 11:50 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 08:05 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Can you prove that remark scientifically? No. Your remark goes beyond the realm of science, so your remark is epistemologically self-defeating.

Yes.

Run it through the attached flow chart, and it comes up golden. Proven scientifically.

HTH

What scientific experiment can you run in order to demonstrate it?

Post: #57

Someone said the Earth was thought flat during the Middle Ages. That's not true.

Eratosthenes showed that the world was round in the 3rd century BC.

Post: #58

(05-17-2016 04:06 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  If people believe the scientific method is infallible this is a faith based position, it's essentially just deifying science and treating it like the Catholic Catechism.

Mate I don't think you had a good look at the flowchart I posted and understood it.

Scientific method is not infallible. Its riddled with mistakes, gaps in knowledge, human bias, corruption and all manner of comedy of errors. Just like religion.

The difference you are missing is that all knowledge and facts are up for revision, if you can bring the evidence and proof. Its a continual improvement system that navigates the flaws of human endeavor.

Thats why its they only rational and sensible way of looking at the universe.

Its the polar opposite of faith based systems.

Please try to understand this seismic shift in understanding the universe that is human kinds greatest achievement, and has given us so much.

I don't think that this is entirely accurate. Religious matters are revised and revisited with some frequency to establish the core set of rules. There have been dozens of councils and meetings throughout the history of the Catholic Church where they got the smartest guys together and decided on what to believe. Then people who didn't like that line went off and made their own.

Post: #59

(05-17-2016 08:08 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  You're so wrong on everything it's not even funny (it actually kinda is).


"I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person."

You probably believe lots of false/wrong things.

"humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion"

You just contradicted yourself within the same sentence, amazing. If someone creates a god out of something or has faith in something supernatural, or turns something into a religion, he/she is by definition not non-religious.

"Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion."

I'll give you social justice and equality, but science and evolution? There is plenty of proof for science and evolution. Science is all about proof and the theory of evolution is one of the most tested, most proven and best documented scientific theories to date.

"To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin)."

Now I know for sure that you don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Atheism is as old as humanity. The word 'atheist' comes from 'atheos', a word that dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and literally means "without god" or more accurately "without belief in god".
As long as there has been theism, there has been atheism.

"Denying the existence of God"

You can't deny something that isn't proven to exist and it's not what atheism means. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

"If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe."

So what? If you had been born 1000 years ago you would have believed the earth is flat.

"It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God."

It's only because you never paid attention at school that you have faith in the nonsense you're spewing here.

Gentlemen, note the extreme arrogance and smugness of these replies. This is atheism in a nutshell. This is also why atheism is so often tied in with left-wing thinking: atheists are utterly convinced that they are smarter and know better than everyone else, and this extends to their political views as well, which they do not hesitate to force on others.

Now, Mr. Calicoat, why are you so angry and combative? Why are you insulting my intelligence simply because I believe in God? Sir Isaac Newton invented Calculus. He also spent much of his spare time studying the Bible. Total idiot, right? I guess we all can't be as smart as you...

As for evolution, please post proof that the universe and all matter emerged randomly out of nothingness, for no reason, and that billions of complex lifeforms subsequently evolved from inorganic material by pure chance.

Post: #60

(05-18-2016 06:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 08:08 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  You're so wrong on everything it's not even funny (it actually kinda is).


"I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person."

You probably believe lots of false/wrong things.

"humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion"

You just contradicted yourself within the same sentence, amazing. If someone creates a god out of something or has faith in something supernatural, or turns something into a religion, he/she is by definition not non-religious.

"Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion."

I'll give you social justice and equality, but science and evolution? There is plenty of proof for science and evolution. Science is all about proof and the theory of evolution is one of the most tested, most proven and best documented scientific theories to date.

"To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin)."

Now I know for sure that you don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Atheism is as old as humanity. The word 'atheist' comes from 'atheos', a word that dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and literally means "without god" or more accurately "without belief in god".
As long as there has been theism, there has been atheism.

"Denying the existence of God"

You can't deny something that isn't proven to exist and it's not what atheism means. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

"If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe."

So what? If you had been born 1000 years ago you would have believed the earth is flat.

"It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God."

It's only because you never paid attention at school that you have faith in the nonsense you're spewing here.

Gentlemen, note the extreme arrogance and smugness of these replies. This is atheism in a nutshell. This is also why atheism is so often tied in with left-wing thinking: atheists are utterly convinced that they are smarter and know better than everyone else, and this extends to their political views as well, which they do not hesitate to force on others.

Now, Mr. Calicoat, why are you so angry and combative? Why are you insulting my intelligence simply because I believe in God? Sir Isaac Newton invented Calculus. He also spent much of his spare time studying the Bible. Total idiot, right? I guess we all can't be as smart as you...

As for evolution, please post proof that the universe and all matter emerged randomly out of nothingness, for no reason, and that billions of complex lifeforms subsequently evolved from inorganic material by pure chance.

Quote:You're so wrong on everything it's not even funny (it actually kinda is).

To be honest, anyone who makes statements such as the above are red flags for both trolls, and the type of people you don't want on the forum. It's the blueprint argument of the SJW and Feminist.

Post: #61

(05-17-2016 08:08 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  "To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin)."

Now I know for sure that you don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Atheism is as old as humanity. The word 'atheist' comes from 'atheos', a word that dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and literally means "without god" or more accurately "without belief in god".
As long as there has been theism, there has been atheism.

Atheos, ἄθεος that is, was a charge laid against a citizen of the Greek state. It was not a belief system; it was the crime of not believing in the gods officially recognised by the State itself. This is a crucial distinction to understand. The legitimacy of the Greek (and later, the Roman) state rested on the assertion that the gods themselves upheld that state. Therefore a person who was atheos was, in fact, a subversive: someone analogous to your average terrorist who wanted to upend democracy entirely. The term was also intended to describe an accursed person, or one of poor fortune, since the word also meant "abandoned by the gods".

Early Christians in Rome, in fact, were accused of atheism because they did not believe in the Gods the Roman state held to support the legitimacy of the state.

Per Wikipedia, the first open denial of the existence of God and avowal of atheism since classical times may be that of Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature. Classical philosophy, from roughly 600 BC, did not take a position of atheism as such but simply sought to explain the world by natural processes rather than mythological accident. That was the basis of Democritus' material philosophy: not outright abandonment of the gods. Epicurean thought itself -- so often said to be an important "development" of atheism -- acknowledged the existence of gods but did not acknowledge their interest or presence in the world. Epicurean thought had died out by the end stages of the Roman Empire, its existence ironically only preserved because of the work of decidedly theist monks who kept copying out Lucretius's On The Nature Of Things faithfully for roughly five hundred years or so.

Epicurus and Democritus's philosophies have a lot more in common with modern scientific philosophy than they do atheism. All of them seek to explain the material world by a set of ordered processes. If -- as most credible scientific thought currently does -- you acknowledge science as capable only of judging those propositions which, per Karl Popper, are falsifiable, the distinction between scientific thought and atheism is clearly drawn. Only someone who doesn't understand the intellectual limits of science (not to mention inductive versus deductive reasoning) calls science the proof of atheism, since even classical thinkers understood the distinction at some level.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #62

(05-18-2016 06:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Gentlemen, note the extreme arrogance and smugness of these replies. This is atheism in a nutshell. This is also why atheism is so often tied in with left-wing thinking: atheists are utterly convinced that they are smarter and know better than everyone else, and this extends to their political views as well, which they do not hesitate to force on others.

I won't go too deep into this, because dealing with religious people is infinitely worse. Any evidence will be ignored, and they'll continue spouting nonsense about blind faith. Myself, being a believer in science will admit that no one really knows what happened to create the Earth and all planets in the universe; until 100% proof is shown, I'll always be a skeptic - that, is atheism. Not the outliers you proclaim.

Every religious argument in existence is "I believe". Can you see the parallels between an Evangelical nutcase and a Feminist who claims "I believe that 5000 women are raped each day" - no proof, just baseless claims. Shall I go over the point that a large portion of Americans STILL believe that the world is 6000 years old? You can't just sneak away from that fact; it's been disproved.

For every solid moral principle that the bible presents, there's an equal number of horrendous principles. Take some, discard the rest - don't place so value on a baseless book.

Science can estimate the age of the planet, it created medicine, sent us to space, explains the laws of gravity, and much more. The bible can do nothing; it can't even get the age of the planet right - the book was written by ignorant scribes, and it's full of inconsistencies. It's credibility is almost null, outside of a few good moral principles which are important for the foundation of our society/laws.

Post: #63

(05-18-2016 05:20 PM)ovloV Wrote:  I don't think that this is entirely accurate. Religious matters are revised and revisited with some frequency to establish the core set of rules. There have been dozens of councils and meetings throughout the history of the Catholic Church where they got the smartest guys together and decided on what to believe. Then people who didn't like that line went off and made their own.

"where they got the smartest guys together and decided on what to believe."

I stand corrected!

This process is obviously solid, and identical to the scientific method flowchart I posted.

Post: #64

(05-18-2016 09:56 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Science can't give meaning. It just tries to describe "how" and can occasionally do it.

You lump all religions together, another mistake. Isn't there "bad science"? Of course there is. Why wouldn't there be "bad religion"?

The things that mean MOST in your life are certainly not how electric circuits work, or the 1s and 0s of the internet ... they are the "unmeasurables" love, kindness, beauty, goodness

What do you mean by "meaning" then. What is the 'meaning' of the sun coming up tomorrow? What is the religious meaning of love? (as opposed to the scientific meaning : evolved behavior to facilitate pair bonding and assisting reproductive success etc)

Science does explain the meaning of these events/attributes/behaviors/events.

Love, kindness and your preference for "beauty" all have scientific explanations.
Those explanations are based on the scientific process as per the graph.

These are more solid than "made up" meanings that religion present as meaning.

Religions are all lumped together because they are faith based belief systems, a polar opposite to a scientific/rational based belief system. They are all demonstrability bad and fallible as each other when compared to the scientific model.

And don't forget, EVERYONE is an atheist (not believing in the existence of thousands of gods).

Its just some of us have gone ONE GOD MORE than others....

Post: #65

(05-18-2016 06:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  As for evolution, please post proof that the universe and all matter emerged randomly out of nothingness, for no reason, and that billions of complex lifeforms subsequently evolved from inorganic material by pure chance.

Evolution doesn't cover the initial creation of replicating life. There are theories on that, but they have very little supporting evidence, and we just don't know how it happened.

I'd rather say "we don't know" than reach for a supernatural explanation, because if you do that, you don't really solve the problem of how a supernatural being came into spontaneous existence from nothing either.

These are big, difficult questions. Where does matter and energy come from?
But given we are just an ape on a rock looking through melted glass at space, its OK to assume we may never know the answer to those big questions.

Evolution does however cover how billions of complex lifeforms evolved once self replicating life did get a start however. And its a pretty solid explanation, with a huge amount of evidence.

Post: #66

(05-18-2016 06:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 08:08 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  You're so wrong on everything it's not even funny (it actually kinda is).


"I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person."

You probably believe lots of false/wrong things.

"humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion"

You just contradicted yourself within the same sentence, amazing. If someone creates a god out of something or has faith in something supernatural, or turns something into a religion, he/she is by definition not non-religious.

"Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion."

I'll give you social justice and equality, but science and evolution? There is plenty of proof for science and evolution. Science is all about proof and the theory of evolution is one of the most tested, most proven and best documented scientific theories to date.

"To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin)."

Now I know for sure that you don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Atheism is as old as humanity. The word 'atheist' comes from 'atheos', a word that dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and literally means "without god" or more accurately "without belief in god".
As long as there has been theism, there has been atheism.

"Denying the existence of God"

You can't deny something that isn't proven to exist and it's not what atheism means. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

"If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe."

So what? If you had been born 1000 years ago you would have believed the earth is flat.

"It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God."

It's only because you never paid attention at school that you have faith in the nonsense you're spewing here.

Gentlemen, note the extreme arrogance and smugness of these replies. This is atheism in a nutshell. This is also why atheism is so often tied in with left-wing thinking: atheists are utterly convinced that they are smarter and know better than everyone else, and this extends to their political views as well, which they do not hesitate to force on others.

Now, Mr. Calicoat, why are you so angry and combative? Why are you insulting my intelligence simply because I believe in God? Sir Isaac Newton invented Calculus. He also spent much of his spare time studying the Bible. Total idiot, right? I guess we all can't be as smart as you...

As for evolution, please post proof that the universe and all matter emerged randomly out of nothingness, for no reason, and that billions of complex lifeforms subsequently evolved from inorganic material by pure chance.

I'm not insulting your intelligence, you're doing that to yourself by posting this nonsense drivel.

I don't care if anyone believes in any god. Like you said, there are plenty of rational religious people. But you sir, are not one of them. You are so completely uninformed that it's just insulting religious people in general. People like you are the reason why everyone looks down own the religious-right these days. And that's a damn shame because there are plenty of intelligent people on the religious-right side, but their voices are drown out by the overwhelming stupidity that people like you shout.

I mean just look at you, first you claim atheism didn't exist until after Darwin, and now you're asking me to prove how the universe "randomly emerged out of nothingness, for no reason". You clearly are so uneducated that you don't even know that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor do you seem to understand what the big bang theory is actually about and what scientists actually believe on that front, and why they believe that.

It's not my job to educate you, but if you really want to know what they theory of evolution and the big bang theory are actually about, then reading the wikipedia articles would be a good start.

Here, I'll even be so kind to link them both for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

If you have any questions about these two theories after reading that then I'm more than willing to answer them.

Post: #67

(05-18-2016 09:25 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 08:08 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  "To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin)."

Now I know for sure that you don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Atheism is as old as humanity. The word 'atheist' comes from 'atheos', a word that dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and literally means "without god" or more accurately "without belief in god".
As long as there has been theism, there has been atheism.

Atheos, ἄθεος that is, was a charge laid against a citizen of the Greek state. It was not a belief system; it was the crime of not believing in the gods officially recognised by the State itself. This is a crucial distinction to understand. The legitimacy of the Greek (and later, the Roman) state rested on the assertion that the gods themselves upheld that state. Therefore a person who was atheos was, in fact, a subversive: someone analogous to your average terrorist who wanted to upend democracy entirely. The term was also intended to describe an accursed person, or one of poor fortune, since the word also meant "abandoned by the gods".

Early Christians in Rome, in fact, were accused of atheism because they did not believe in the Gods the Roman state held to support the legitimacy of the state.

Per Wikipedia, the first open denial of the existence of God and avowal of atheism since classical times may be that of Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature. Classical philosophy, from roughly 600 BC, did not take a position of atheism as such but simply sought to explain the world by natural processes rather than mythological accident. That was the basis of Democritus' material philosophy: not outright abandonment of the gods. Epicurean thought itself -- so often said to be an important "development" of atheism -- acknowledged the existence of gods but did not acknowledge their interest or presence in the world. Epicurean thought had died out by the end stages of the Roman Empire, its existence ironically only preserved because of the work of decidedly theist monks who kept copying out Lucretius's On The Nature Of Things faithfully for roughly five hundred years or so.

Epicurus and Democritus's philosophies have a lot more in common with modern scientific philosophy than they do atheism. All of them seek to explain the material world by a set of ordered processes. If -- as most credible scientific thought currently does -- you acknowledge science as capable only of judging those propositions which, per Karl Popper, are falsifiable, the distinction between scientific thought and atheism is clearly drawn. Only someone who doesn't understand the intellectual limits of science (not to mention inductive versus deductive reasoning) calls science the proof of atheism, since even classical thinkers understood the distinction at some level.

That was an interesting read. And I agree with most of it.

I'm well aware that the word 'atheos' included everyone who didn't worship the gods of the state, including those who worshiped other gods. I know that the modern word 'atheist' does not mean exactly the same thing, but it does come from the word 'atheos'.

I'm not denying that atheism (as in: the lack of belief in any gods) used to be rare and only recently became more popular, but it has always existed. To give you an example of an ancient atheist: Epicurus, an Ancient Greece philosopher, was by modern standards, an atheist. He did not believe an all-powerful god who's also benevolent could exist based on his observations of the world around him. He is the one who coined the 'problem of evil' paradox.

Now I understand that science is not, will not and can never proof atheism. Ultimately the concept of a god is unfalsifiable and therefor outside of the realm of science. But it does make the realm of theism and the supernatural smaller every single day. Humans used to believe the sun itself was a god, now we know it's a big ball of gas at the center of our solar system. Humans used to believe thunderstorms were created by gods. Now we know it's created by friction between hot and cold air. Humans used to believe the earth and the universe were created in 6 days as described in the bible. Now we know it took billions of years.

Like I said, I agree that science does not prove that god does not exist, but it does make the realm of god smaller and smaller and smaller with each new discovery.

Post: #68

(05-19-2016 05:59 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  I mean just look at you, first you claim atheism didn't exist until after Darwin, and now you're asking me to prove how the universe "randomly emerged out of nothingness, for no reason". You clearly are so uneducated that you don't even know that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor do you seem to understand what the big bang theory is actually about and what scientists actually believe on that front, and why they believe that.

First of all, there's no need to continue with the snide insults. They just make you look insecure and petty, and it's against forum rules to boot. Please conduct yourself with more class.

Secondly, evolution is inextricably linked to atheism and all "godless universe" theories because it provides the only semi-plausible explanation for the self-evident existence of mankind (as well as all other life) absent a creator. In other words, before Darwin there was no reasonable explanation for a godless universe - atheism did not exist as we know it today, the equivalent back then was more in line with what we'd call Pantheism or even Deism now, more of a rejection of the existing recognized gods/organized religions than a wholesale rejection of the idea of any sort of creator or creative force. There is simply no way to account for the existence of life in a godless universe if you do not have the theory of evolution. This is the reason that literally every civilization has gods and creation mythologies of various sorts. This is why I said that traditionally atheism would be equated with insanity - because pre-Darwin it was essentially the denial of reality itself (i.e. Given that reality obviously exists and must have some origin, and a god/creator was the only reasonable explanation for that origin in pre-modern times, to deny the gods was therefore to deny reality, aka to be insane).

Post: #69

The only people who literally believe in their (creation) myths are christians and muslims, and maybe jews.

To try and compare pre Christian with Christian religiosity demonstrates a lack of understanding and knowledge.

People have this conception that ancient peoples were stupid, for intance, if it thundered they literally believed Thor or Zeus was angry or something. How many people here really believe that? I bet there are many.

"Oh those Greeks didnt have 'Science', they thought rain was Zeus taking a piss"

This is not the case. Look through pagan mytholoy and I guarantee you will not find a single explanation for any phenomena (creation included) that would be expected to be taken literally. Look through the history and literature of pagan Greece and Rome, is there any evidence at all they took their myths literally regarding natural phenomena? You wont find it.

Pagan religiosity is simply something a Christian would never understand.

As far as Christian belief is concerned, no they did not believe.

You try to conflate the Christian God with pagan Gods, the two are very different.

Your writing on Roman Atheism is consistent with my point. It should be easy to see that the Roman Gods were symbols for Roman Values/Culture/Tradition. Hence not giving them respect is to abandon the Roman identity itself. This would also explain why Christians were considered Atheist.

Pagan religions, as I mentioned earlier, are more consistent with Atheism of today than Christianity, in terms of literal belief.

Post: #70

You're using an argument form silence to determine how much of the Greco-Roman creation myth was taken literally. You can apply the same argument to the scribes of the Enuma Elish or Atrahasis. It's not a valid argument.

I'm a Roman Catholic who doesn't take the Genesis creation account literally. Many educated Christians don't.

Post: #71

^ Do you believe in Evolution or think it's atleast a possibility? Or are you against it?

Post: #72

(05-19-2016 10:16 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 05:59 PM)Mr. Calicoat Wrote:  I mean just look at you, first you claim atheism didn't exist until after Darwin, and now you're asking me to prove how the universe "randomly emerged out of nothingness, for no reason". You clearly are so uneducated that you don't even know that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor do you seem to understand what the big bang theory is actually about and what scientists actually believe on that front, and why they believe that.

First of all, there's no need to continue with the snide insults. They just make you look insecure and petty, and it's against forum rules to boot. Please conduct yourself with more class.

Secondly, evolution is inextricably linked to atheism and all "godless universe" theories because it provides the only semi-plausible explanation for the self-evident existence of mankind (as well as all other life) absent a creator. In other words, before Darwin there was no reasonable explanation for a godless universe - atheism did not exist as we know it today, the equivalent back then was more in line with what we'd call Pantheism or even Deism now, more of a rejection of the existing recognized gods/organized religions than a wholesale rejection of the idea of any sort of creator or creative force. There is simply no way to account for the existence of life in a godless universe if you do not have the theory of evolution. This is the reason that literally every civilization has gods and creation mythologies of various sorts. This is why I said that traditionally atheism would be equated with insanity - because pre-Darwin it was essentially the denial of reality itself (i.e. Given that reality obviously exists and must have some origin, and a god/creator was the only reasonable explanation for that origin in pre-modern times, to deny the gods was therefore to deny reality, aka to be insane).

Pre-Darwin times should be not be the basis for which we form our belief.

In regards to the argument which I've seen on this thread 1000 times - "Evolution can't prove how the earth was created, there's no evidence"...

You can't prove the antecedent to the creation of the planets; what you can prove is the causal factors - what would cause mountains to form, evolution, etc. Scientists have proven (within a reasonable degree of probability) how the earth came about, our evolutionary tract, disproven most of what religion has claimed.

Still, however, despite having no evidence that anything the bible said was anything more than bigoted desert scribes, you (and again I don't mean you specifically) cling to blind faith.

It really is purely delusional. And by the way, the fact that people have to cherry pick what they take literally or don't take literally, is frankly proof in itself.

I'm aware that we're a bit off topic no, but I think the initial thread question was answered adequately.

Post: #73

(05-20-2016 07:17 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  ^ Do you believe in Evolution or think it's atleast a possibility? Or are you against it?

Is it even possible to be against it? Nothing is really left for dispute. Scientists have shown (to a near 100 percent certainty) that evolution is real. Fossils, comparative studies (bones, genes, structure), geographical distribution of animals/human fossils. I mean, the list goes on and on.

But hey - I forgot that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Post: #74

(05-20-2016 07:17 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  ^ Do you believe in Evolution or think it's atleast a possibility? Or are you against it?

I don't "believe in evolution," as I hate that kind of terminology. I believe that the neo-Darwinian synthesis provides the best explanation for the biological world we observe.

I also don't see that as being particularly inimical to belief in God. Logically, God can create however He sees fit.

To me, Young Earth Creationism is just as much of a joke as the idea that Jesus never existed.

Post: #75

Science itself is based on faith. By its nature, science must be empirical; if we run an experiment we have only the data gained from that experiment, we do not have records of every single instance of a phenomenon occurring and if we did, then that data would be empirical too. We ultimately must have faith that our sample is representative of the whole. For example: All mathematics is based on axioms, things that are self-evidently true (e.g. a+b=b+a). We just have faith that those are completely accurate and where, by species wide oversight, they contain flaws, so must our mathematics.

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It is the inability of 99.9% of atheists to understand this which causes head aches. You hear the ad nauseum statements from the left that it is 'laughable' to have faith in God, whilst atheists demonstrate the exact same faith in science, and their notion that there is no God. Rather hypocritical in fact.