Topic: Atheism

[Jiminy Cricket]

This has nothing to do with your point, but I'm totally okay with being called a heathen.

Well, I would hardy get worked up about it either. I expect I'd just roll my eyes. But, BUT, would you generally refer to yourself as a heathen?

[Schmidt]

Well, I would hardy get worked up about it either. I expect I'd just roll my eyes. But, BUT, would you generally refer to yourself as a heathen?

I've definitely referred to myself as a heathen before, admittedly somewhat tongue in cheek.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I've definitely referred to myself as a heathen before, admittedly somewhat tongue in cheek.

Is this you?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Don't mention her. She sells sanctuary though.

Is this you?

Our youth seem to be from a similar period, and somewhat similar musical tastes (at the time at least). One of my best mates from back then (and now) was a big Paul Heaton / Beautiful South fan. And I saw the Cult live at least a couple of times. Music and life were more interesting and varied back then - and I don't think it is all to do with getting older. I digress.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Our youth seem to be from a similar period, and somewhat similar musical tastes (at the time at least). One of my best mates from back then (and now) was a big Paul Heaton / Beautiful South fan. And I saw the Cult live at least a couple of times. Music and life were more interesting and varied back then - and I don't think it is all to do with getting older. I digress.

Yeah modern music is mostly manufactured shite. But there are still a few decent musicians and bands about



I reckon the oldies when I was a kid in the 70s were saying the same thing back then too!

[ianburns252]

Yeah modern music is mostly manufactured shite. But there are still a few decent musicians and bands about



I reckon the oldies when I was a kid in the 70s were saying the same thing back then too!

I'm sure you mean modern pop music there big man?

There is still some fantastic stuff being produced in the prog and post hardcore scene

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'm sure you mean modern pop music there big man?

There is still some fantastic stuff being produced in the prog and post hardcore scene

I need to deffo look around a bit more.

Dusted my old DAB off and enjoying having a bit of music around the house

[Jiminy Cricket]

I'm sure you mean modern pop music there big man?

There is still some fantastic stuff being produced in the prog and post hardcore scene

Youth culture seemed more varied back then. There seemed to be a multitude of sub-cultures. But maybe it is the same now but I am too old to know/understand/observe.

[Riquende]

Where do theories come from? Before they start have they got proof?

It starts with observing a phenomenon, thinking up a hypothesis about the cause, devising tests that can disprove that hypothesis and collating the results of those tests as evidence that the hypothesis is true.

Other scientists will also be trying to disprove the hypothesis (not just because they don't support it, but because the more tests that fail to disprove it, the stronger the body of evidence that it's true). When we have overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis can't be disproven, we consider it to be a theory that is generally held to be true.

At any point, someone could actually disprove a hypothesis and send us back to square one, even over something like gravity.

Individual scientists may have 'faith' that their research will bear fruit, if that's the gotcha moment you're looking for. But it's not logically reasonable to believe a hypothesis is true until there's at least some experimentation that's been done that's failed to disprove it. Thresholds may vary on that.

I know you like to post about high-concept science fiction and the reality of what scientists actually do is far more mundane and tedious. But crucially, their work actually leads us to new medicines, technologies, so on. If the majority of engineers worked from scientific research that was just assumed to be true, then we'd have a lot more planes falling out of the sky etc.

[Kenny's Jacket]

You think humanity has had no cultural breakthroughs from how they acted, say, 2,000 years ago and today?

Where do theories come from? Before they start have they got proof?

Were discussing Faith lacking reason, I dont get how cultural breakthrough is connected to that statement.

Are you suggesting the theory of god will eventually be proven?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It starts with observing a phenomenon, thinking up a hypothesis about the cause, devising tests that can disprove that hypothesis and collating the results of those tests as evidence that the hypothesis is true.

Other scientists will also be trying to disprove the hypothesis (not just because they don't support it, but because the more tests that fail to disprove it, the stronger the body of evidence that it's true). When we have overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis can't be disproven, we consider it to be a theory that is generally held to be true.

At any point, someone could actually disprove a hypothesis and send us back to square one, even over something like gravity.

Individual scientists may have 'faith' that their research will bear fruit, if that's the gotcha moment you're looking for. But it's not logically reasonable to believe a hypothesis is true until there's at least some experimentation that's been done that's failed to disprove it. Thresholds may vary on that.

I know you like to post about high-concept science fiction and the reality of what scientists actually do is far more mundane and tedious. But crucially, their work actually leads us to new medicines, technologies, so on. If the majority of engineers worked from scientific research that was just assumed to be true, then we'd have a lot more planes falling out of the sky etc.

From what I've seen, the biggest advances in science come from a genius who thinks outside the box, rejects everything that went before and starts humanity on a new path

[Riquende]

From what I've seen, the biggest advances in science come from a genius who thinks outside the box, rejects everything that went before and starts humanity on a new path

Well sure, to a point. Creativity in seeing new solutions or explanations is where the hypotheses come from, and explains why we celebrate notable scientific accomplishment. The word 'Eureka' has been passed down the ages for a reason.

But it's still dependent on the rest of the scientific method to bare out what these people are coming up with, to accept it as generally true and then use it in real world applications. We don't just say "Yep, that person is right" and then think no more about it.

[McSquared]

This is a decent channel if you have the time

https://youtube.com/@HistoryoftheUniverse

[WhereAngelsPlay]

You think humanity has had no cultural breakthroughs from how they acted, say, 2,000 years ago and today?

Where do theories come from? Before they start have they got proof?

I think that religion held back humanities progress by a good 1000yrs at least.

[Robinred]

From what I've seen, the biggest advances in science come from a genius who thinks outside the box, rejects everything that went before and starts humanity on a new path

I urge you to seek out and read, Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The structure of scientific revolutions’ Andy. It’s a seminal work and fits in with some of the content of Riquende’s posts.

[Flaccido Dongingo]

I was taught in a convent grammar school in Ireland by priests and nuns, and if that doesn't turn you into an athiest, then quite frankly nothing will, as they're a shower of bastards.

[damomad]

I was taught in a convent grammar school in Ireland by priests and nuns, and if that doesn't turn you into an athiest, then quite frankly nothing will, as they're a shower of bastards.

Same. It didn't really hit home how indoctrinated I was until I left Ireland. The most shocking example was when at 13/14 our RE teacher showed us a video of an abortion happening. We were all completely mortified watching it, I'll never forget it, remember exactly where I was sitting for it. I can't even recall if it was on the syllabus, I'm almost certain the teacher just had an axe to grind. Not once was there ever any open discussion around the benefits of abortion to women and society in general, we were just told that it was murdering babies.

And on the same scale, we never once talked through how maybe there isn't a God, why humans could maybe have just made the whole thing up. Why are we just so shit scared of death? And certainly we were not were we prepared for the philosophical and mental hardships of life as an adult with something other than "just have faith".

[Alan_X]

If you don't actively believe in a god (or similar concept) then you're an atheist by definition. Atheist and Agnostic aren't mutually exclusive terms.

Any intellectually honest Atheist should describe themselves as 'generally' agnostic also - it's impossible to know there isn't any sort of deity at all, although we can easily dismiss a lot of specific claims as clearly and unarguably wrong.

This is just plain wrong. Atheism is just rejecting claims, faith has nothing to do with it.

Exactly. I'm 100% sure I don't believe in a Cristian God, or any of the 5,000 other gods because there is 0% evidence that God exists. However, if someone produced that evidence I'd happily reconsider my position.

I'm pretty sure I understand what religion is. There are threads on here where it's been discussed ad infinitum. It's the basic impulse we have as humans to understand explain the world around us, even on the most limited evidence. Story-telling is part of the human make-up, it allows us to spread information in a memorable way.

At it's most basic it's a verbalisation of cause and effect, an impulse to assign 'agency' to things that happen. The sun comes up and goes down every day. Why? Something must be making it do that. We are born, grow old and eventually die. What's that all about? Where do the babies come from and where does the 'life' in a person go?

That's what religion is - it's just a good story to answer thenknown questions. If I'd been alive a thousand years ago I'd probably have believed in God because it was the best story around back then in the Christian world. In other cultures at the same time, or in earlier cultures I would have believed the best story available there or then.

In the twenty-firsts century, I don't need to believe in stories because critical thinking and the scientific method allow us to 1) investigate and understand the world and the universe in a far better way and 2) allow us to accept that there are things that we don't yet understand.

And point 2 is the one that religious people don't get. A critical thinker doesn't claim to 'know everything'. On the contrary, I am clear that I know very little but I there are know lots of people who know lots of detail about many things and are constantly pushing and asking questions.

It's Christians who are stuck with a two-thousand year old belief that everything can be explained by 'God did it' and anything tricky is explained by 'God has his reasons and we just have to have faith'.

[Alan_X]

From what I've seen, the biggest advances in science come from a genius who thinks outside the box, rejects everything that went before and starts humanity on a new path

That's simply not true though Andy. Einstein, for example, didn't reject everything. He developed his theories on the back of Newtonian physics. And Newton of course is famously quoted as saying: "if I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." and the reality is that Newtonian physics are still used for most human scale calculations.

There are exceptional thinkers and geniuses in the history of scienec but they operate within a wider context. Einstein's work was supported and discussed by many others at the time. It makes a great story to have the individual genius fighting against the 'scientific establishment' but it's rarely the case. They might come up against religion, prejudice, vested interest and public indifference but thats a different story.

[stewil007]

Exactly. I'm 100% sure I don't believe in a Cristian God........

The best term i heard to explain what you've put is 'The God of gaps' ie an explanation for the unexplainable.

[Riquende]

The best term i heard to explain what you've put is 'The God of gaps' ie an explanation for the unexplainable.

Indeed, from what I recall, "God of the Gaps" is the idea that because there are things that science can't explain, you can just freely insert 'God' as the answer and that it's justified to do so.

Reminds me of this:

[Brissyred]

Who else broke out the calculator and worked that out? 

[liverbloke]

as i've said - i do not believe in a god whether that's man-made or something fantastical that we can't comprehend, but because i 'choose'  to not believe doesn't mean that a god does not exist and therefore i am now contradicting myself because i'm saying i do not believe yet i am open to debate

if i did not believe then why would i happily listen to others?

how would they know? how would i know they are right?

here we go again round and around

but what pisses me off is people that are quite happy to rule out the 'god' question with such ease - and then offer another explanation that can just as easily be dismissed with the same disdain

we all agree that there are some things that cannot answered - yet? ever? do they have an answer? have we got the questions wrong?

i think we all make a choice to stand with the faith mob or the atheist/agnostic mob (those last 2 put together because we can't even seem to separate them ourselves on here)

but that doesn't make you right - nor wrong

maybe it's best to just be oblivious and enjoy life for what we do know/can understand

or you could choose to follow a doctrine - be that a religious one, an atheist/agnostic one, a philosophical one or a scientific one

they are all belief systems but maybe not 'truth' systems - science being the 'nearest', but one that is constantly breaking barriers and finding new answers so therefore proving that it didn't have the complete answers correct in the first place so how can you believe that it's got them right now?

we need to rid ourselves of bigots on both sides to have any chance of finding an/the answer

[thejbs]

But atheism has no dogma, doctrine nor belief systems. There is no faith involved. No bigotry. It’s completely false to say so.

And science never claims to be ‘right’ or have ‘the correct answers.’ Overturning scientific theory is a fundamental of science.

With respect, while your post is well intentioned, some of it is just fundamentally wrong.

[liverbloke]

But atheism has no dogma, doctrine nor belief systems. There is no faith involved. No bigotry. It’s completely false to say so

And science never claims to be ‘right’ or have ‘the correct answers.’ Overturning scientific theory is a fundamental of science.

With respect, while your post is well intentioned, some of it is just fundamentally wrong.

i disagree - if you hold something as a value (you are calling yourself an atheist) then that in itself is a belief of something or if you don't belive you are an atheist then that too is a belief (not a religious 'belief' so don't get confused)

and regarding science - it's looking upon science as having the right answers, it's not saying that they do that's the point

[Jiminy Cricket]

i disagree - if you hold something as a value (you are calling yourself an atheist) then that in itself is a belief of something or if you don't believe you are an atheist then that too is a belief (not a religious 'belief' so don't get confused)

and regarding science - it's looking upon science as having the right answers, it's not saying that they do that's the point

You are mistaken. 'Atheism' literally means 'without theism'. So, atheists simply do not share the theistic beliefs of others. If I was to describe myself as an 'afairyist', would you argue that 'afairyism is just belief and no more valid than belief in fairies'?

[Corkboy]

we need to rid ourselves of bigots on both sides to have any chance of finding an/the answer

I don't think you know what that word means.

[Riquende]

You are mistaken. 'Atheism' literally means 'without theism'. So, atheists simply do not share the theistic beliefs of others. If I was to describe myself as an 'afairyist', would you argue that 'afairyism is just belief and no more valid than belief in fairies'?

I don't think you know what that word means.

That's the poster who demonstrated zero comprehension for the topic the last time this thread flared up (and painfully struggled to follow along with some basic English) so it's really no surprise they've wandered back in and immediately started making the exact same errors & incorrect assertions.

I couldn't work out if they were trolling or not so just moved on.

[Jiminy Cricket]

That's the poster who demonstrated zero comprehension for the topic the last time this thread flared up (and painfully struggled to follow along with some basic English) so it's really no surprise they've wandered back in and immediately started making the exact same errors & incorrect assertions.

I couldn't work out if they were trolling or not so just moved on.

Ah. I did not recall the username, but I wrote similar comments a short while ago, and Giverbloke even quoted them. So, I expect, my words will again fall on deaf ears.

For what is worth, I'll chip in my tuppenny's worth.

'Atheist' is a problematic term for me for two reasons: it is a term invented by theists to describe non-believers; it is generally used to describe people who assert there is no God ('strong atheism').

Having said that, linguistically, 'atheist' is the correct word to describe my position - that is, I am without theistic belief. 'Without' being the keyword, denoted by the inclusion of the prefix a in atheist.

But given that 'atheist' is used by theists in a manner not totally dissimilar (and sometimes as a direct substitute) to 'heathen' or 'infidel' - and because of its etymology and its general use/meaning - I try to avoid its use when talking or writing about my position.

'Agnostic', too, is misused. But its true meaning (that the existence of God is unknowable) best describes my position. I assert that agnosticism is the correct, logical, scientific position to take when the question is non-testable and, ultimately, the answer is unknowable. However, because people tend to take agnosticism as indicating indifference or fence siting on the matter, I will instead tend to nuance its use with the term 'strong agnostic'. I recall that Dawkins is dismissive of the my take on agnosticism, because he see no functional difference between it and his use of atheist. Well, that's all well and good, but the use of 'atheism' is not defined by how Dawkins alone uses the word.

If I write, I am an atheist in exactly the same way as I am an afairyist, you might begin to understand why the term 'atheist' seems silly and moot to me. Of course I am an 'atheist'; why should I need to declare this?

[thejbs]

i disagree - if you hold something as a value (you are calling yourself an atheist) then that in itself is a belief of something or if you don't belive you are an atheist then that too is a belief (not a religious 'belief' so don't get confused)

and regarding science - it's looking upon science as having the right answers, it's not saying that they do that's the point

You can disagree, of course. But, respectfully, you’re still wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Nothing more. No belief is required for one to have an absence of belief.

On science, I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying we shouldn’t follow science because in future that science may be shown to have been wrong? Or that its value is somehow diminished because it can indicate things that later turn out to be wrong?

[liverbloke]

You can disagree, of course. But, respectfully, you’re still wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Nothing more. No belief is required for one to have an absence of belief.

On science, I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying we shouldn’t follow science because in future that science may be shown to have been wrong? Or that its value is somehow diminished because it can indicate things that later turn out to be wrong?

man you're just not getting me when i'm talking about belief - i'm not talking in the religious sense

you need to believe what you are saying/standing for - hence you have a belief

regarding science - i'm talking about looking for something to believe in and making that choice to follow

listen, it's cool - you just don't get me and i can live with that

[thejbs]

man you're just not getting me when i'm talking about belief - i'm not talking in the religious sense

you need to believe what you are saying/standing for - hence you have a belief

regarding science - i'm talking about looking for something to believe in and making that choice to follow

listen, it's cool - you just don't get me and i can live with that

You're mixing and interchanging different definitions of the word belief.

I understand what you're saying. But it isn't right. It requires no belief to have a lack of belief. Now, I can have other 'beliefs' born out of a position of atheism, but being an atheist itself requires no belief in any sense of the word.

Having belief in science is not like having belief in a deity. Again, you need to look at it from two different definitions of belief. One is confidence based on examination of evidence. The other is faith without evidence.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You're mixing and interchanging different definitions of the word belief.

I understand what you're saying. But it isn't right. It requires no belief to have a lack of belief. Now, I can have other 'beliefs' born out of a position of atheism, but being an atheist itself requires no belief in any sense of the word.

Having belief in science is not like having belief in a deity. Again, you need to look at it from two different definitions of belief. One is confidence based on examination of evidence. The other is faith without evidence.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think what Liverbloke is saying is;


Person A: I believe in a God/some Gods
Person B:  I  believe there aren't any god/gods

The word god can be interchangeable with fairy./unicorn/Santa etc

"New atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris, inadvertently give credence to this.

[TepidT2O]

I think what Liverbloke is saying is;


Person A: I believe in a God/some Gods
Person B:  I  believe there aren't any god/gods

The word god can be interchangeable with fairy./unicorn/Santa etc

"New atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris, inadvertently give credence to this.

Absence of belief is not a belief!

You know, if you show me hard evidence for a pixie, I’m prepared to re-evaluate not believing in them.  Right now I think they’re a bit unlikely.

[thejbs]

I think what Liverbloke is saying is;


Person A: I believe in a God/some Gods
Person B:  I  believe there aren't any god/gods

The word god can be interchangeable with fairy./unicorn/Santa etc

"New atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris, inadvertently give credence to this.

Yup, we know what he’s saying and he’s incorrect in saying so.

Person A and person B are using different versions of the word believe:

verb
1.(used by person A)
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
2. (Used by Person B)
hold (something) as an opinion; think.
"I believe we've already met"

For this reason, it is better that person B phrases it correctly: I  have a lack of belief in gods. As person B’s position doesn’t assert anything, they do not require belief.

[RAWK Meltdown #1]

Some might argue that anybody who takes a position, has an opinion, or expresses their thinking.....is kind of stating their "belief".....as in....they're nailing their own colours to the mast on a certain topic. But religious belief, by its very nature, is an emotionally proactive exercise which requires private investiture for the person doing the "believing."

Those who don't feel any investiture, and see no reason whatsoever to declare any....are merely people without investiture.

You may love your wife and kids etc....but that doesn't mean everybody else has to, and others NOT loving your wife and kids in no way invalidates how YOU may feel about them.

When it comes to "god" however, there's this common notion (amongst believers) that everybody must take a position...(one way or the other) and that position is extremely revelatory about a person's thinking, their ethics, their morality etc....and a whole host of other "deductions" that their expressed position is supposed to reveal.

For those who state quite openly and honestly that they personally don't experience any kind of "otherworldly" connection, feeling, bond or relationship with an unseen personality and have no dialogue with it, either privately or in collective worship.....well that's hardly an assertive opinion is it?

That's usually just an individual who feels no investiture, and if truth be told.....may not even WANT to feel such investiture given that there's no rational or logical reason for them to feel that their lack of investiture even matters in the grand scheme of things.

Whereas it may puzzle "believers" why none-believers actually exist....it also puzzles none-believers why believers actually exist also.

I guess a fervent one-time-believer who claims to have outgrown their belief MAY have something to say on the subject because then you're dealing with somebody who has likely experienced both sides of the spectrum. At the end of the day however, belief is a very personal thing.....as is disbelief.

These are evaluations that each person must make for themselves.

Just as with politics, there are people who occupy strongly opinionated, polarised camps and who will likely have their own "sound" reasons why they feel their camp is the right one for them....and will perhaps wish that everybody could see things through the same lens as them.

Some people believe that the world could do with much more atheism, and would benefit as a result.

Some people believe that the world could do with many more devout, worshipful people...who've submitted themselves to the spirit of "god."

What's worse?

A socially conscientious atheist who strides to bring peace and harmony to his/her community?

Or a devout, hubristic believer who thinks that guns and bombs are his/her best way of advertising their "god" and his holy agenda?

[thejbs]

I am somewhat anti-theist. I think religion is poison. Now, it is not some atheistic dogma or teaching that has brought me to that position, but rather my Christian upbringing. All of negative pinion on religion and the indoctrination of kids stems from the experience of religion, not atheism.

[Yorkykopite]

i think some people (not naming names here) garner all their beliefs and truisms from people and books and have never sat and thought and came up with an individual personal philosophical thought - the wiki-philosopher if you will

I'm new to the debate so uncertain about what your position is.

Are you talking about the Bible, or maybe the Koran?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Absence of belief is not a belief!

You know, if you show me hard evidence for a pixie, I’m prepared to re-evaluate not believing in them.  Right now I think they’re a bit unlikely.

How about someone that doesn't believe they exist, but thinks they exist?