Jump to content
Islamic Forum
vishah

Congratulating An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Huffing and puffing perhaps demonstrates your inability to see your own weak epistemological position.

 

Science can say so much ... it cannot say everything ... which is indicative of your acknowledgement that you no have 'sympathy' (is that the right word) anything of Mozart ... so I can understand why you see people who can actually read a book become a point of attack.

 

There are no 'solid points' as you imagine ... that's just the issue ... the great quest for certainty does not lie in scienceism.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

lol...there are no atheists , only those who "claim " to be atheists . the atheist ,  looking around and observing what a mess "religion " has made of the  world ,it is therefore considered by them to be a position of moral and intellectual superiority .

  They claim that to be a "good person " requires no belief in a religious dogma or belief that a Superior force has created the Universe . Yet they cannot deny the existence of good and evil in as much as man's behavior has displayed throughout history , and are  quick to point out that  men of religion are and have been  responsible for great evil as well as good . They miss the obvious point , that in spite of the existence of God , men have the free will to choose good or evil , regardless of their beliefs .

 Intuitively in their heart of hearts atheists know there is a GOD , but choose to  argue against it , although they cannot prove empirically that there is no God , no more than the believer can  prove there is .

 Neither side can look to science to reinforce their argument since science  by it's nature simply observes and predicts . Philosophy , is not in the realm of any scientific discipline . Nor is any theological premise or theorem .

  Atheists believe in God , they simply deny it publicly for intellectual sparing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice dance , but at the end of the day , it is the simple definitions  and existing proven facts that define the argument . Free will absurd ? Really ?  Since when ?  .......since you made that statement ?

 Start with the premise that all men are basically created equal ,atleast in that they possess a functioning brain capable of logic , and reasoning , by which they reach conclusions .

 

So I guess an atheist  has no "belief " in the existence of free will , according to your above statement . That would assume no difference between the animal kingdom where creatures act by instinct , either learned or congenital and acts by man according to a conclusion reached by their own free ill . If that is so then man are not capable of 'evil " or if we are the same as animals , the same would hold true in their case .

 But we know better ,  do we not ?  Animals act according to their natural instinct , and are therefore really incapable of evil .

 BTW , where did I denote that atheists are " bad guys " , they merely express any one of the myriad of human emotions and conclusions reached by their available free will .

 Both can look at the Universe and come to different conclusions as to it's Prime Mover or lack thereof .

 

  Yet neither have any proof . Ergo both Theism and Atheism  have no scientific premise for their conclusion . They are both philosophical conclusions with the weight of proof non-existent for EITHER view . [ proof in this case being scientific and arrived at empirically . ]

  Science , for all the data retrieved over the centuries is no closer to determining the origin or purpose of the Universe . Philosophy has fared no better . Therefore the argument remains purely philosophical .  To assume that there "is no proof " or "that there is proof " for the existence of God or a Superior guiding force or entity in the Universe is not at all scientific . Proof for either could be in front of us but undetected as we still do not know if light is particle , wave or both . And for the same reasons we have no idea of what becomes of matter which enters black hole , we have no idea of what becomes of our consciousness at physical death .

 To say that one is an agnostic , is a much more honest description , in view of what we do know . Therefore both theism and atheism require a "leap of faith " based on a human point of view , rather than an  empirically arrived at scientific conclusion .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you actually reading what I wrote? Are you able to comprehend what I wrote?

 

I was absolutely and totally and exhaustingly clear that an atheist only has one, single attribute: the lack of a belief that there is evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

 

Where in this sentence can you find something about free will?

 

You are not making much sense with the rest of what you write either. Can't you first prepare a structure what you want to say and then follow some sort of pattern?

 

What argument is defined by what "existing proven facts"?

 

No, not only men are created equal but all human beings are created equal. I am not going to go into another one of these futile "free will" discussions. It's dead, refuted, done, over. If you don't understand it and don't understand biology and are incapable of looking it up I can't help you.

 

Oh goodness, you are really ignorant when it comes to science. Why do people who know the least about it use it the most?

 

That’s simply a given but that doesn’t strengthen one’s argument and it is not an argument in anyway, it is a claim in need of an argument.

 

You may be different from many atheists that usually hold various views and therefore have a worldview- which like anything else, they would need to show the burden of proof too.

Edited by The Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STOP S -

 

 

 

LOLOL....."reading what you wrote " ? LOLOL....are you understanding  what you wrote ??????is a better question .

Atheism by its definition is a non-belief /or as you put it - a lack of rove as to the existence of god or God or ant superior force in the Universe .

Atheism is peculiar only to that question of said existence , atheism applies to nothing else . LOL...are you an atheist when it comes to tectonic plates and their movement ?

 

You play with words thinking yourself as being intellectually superior , and that is evident in virtually every sentence which you spit out . You are also condescending in your attitude . Not to mention distorting statements , including your own , for what end can only be guessed at .

 

I said all men are created equal in that biologically , with the exception of congenital defect or disease , we all possess the  same powers of cognizance , and reason . Thus we can logically conclude things given the same FACTS .

 

 I find your statement that  "no not only men are created equal but all human beings " ????  you do realize that is a generic for the species and not gender ....or do you ? Or may you are of the belief that there are different kinds of human beings ? LOLOLOL..

 

 As for "free will " , it is not a notion but a reality as life around you displays it every day . Just as you have the free will to make condescending and foolish remarks as in your last post . They smack of human emotion and are therefore a result of free will .

 

Stop trying to sound scientific , because thus far you have been more emotional than scientific and have  made yourself look rather ridiculous .

Edited by Aligarr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

Premature in this case is jumping to conclusions.  You can say you believe god did it, that you hold that personal belief without evidence, but you can’t base that claim on our current lack of understanding.  We can’t know yet what we will one day understand.  Till you find evidence that shows that we can never understand something you can’t say we never will.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Sounds to me, as an atheist who actually does not believe in any gods, as if you don’t know much about atheists.

 

Some gods are framed in such a way that science can disprove them, it’s happened often enough in the past, some gods are framed such that they are outside the direct scope of science and it’s not surprizing that it is largely only those gods who persist today.  The gods who can be disproven, those who throw lightning around for example, have long ago been relegated to legend by science and we are left with only the more craftily framed ones today.

 

Good and evil are human ideas, remove us and there is no such thing.  As such I do not deny the existence of good and evil but it’s not some absolute given by god rather it is just what men think is ok and what men don’t.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As such I do not deny the existence of good and evil but it’s not some absolute given by god rather it is just what men think is ok and what men don’t.

 

'Men' ... ?  ... or are you suggesting women should no think ... you are playing god ... which is the very result when evils fades into good ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

I disagree that all men are equal, look at the number who are born with the intellect of Einstein or Ralph the garbologist.  How may ‘men’ are born with disabilities etc so no we are not all born equal but I believe we are all equally deserving of rights.

 

Free will is an interesting question, certainly we are nowhere near as free as many would like to think and the source of that freedom appears to be a physical brain making constrained decisions.  Everything we’ve seen of the brain shows it to be a physical structure, a sort of biological computer, an amazingly complex biological computer and one we really don’t understand that well yet but a physical system none the less.  Like any physical system it is constrained by its structure so that it can only make decisions within specified boundaries.  Those boundaries vary from person to person but they are there none the less.

 

We’ve done lots of research on animal intelligence and found some amazing things, one thing that seems startlingly clear is that we are very very alike.  Humans have bigger, more capable brains than animals but that is a difference of degree not kind.

 

If there were no free will there would still be a place for a judicial system because brains are constrained to make decisions within the framework of the world they inhabit and that world includes the constraints of punishment for actions that the community doesn’t support.  Even if there is no free will that system will alter the decisions made and so has value.

 

I disagree that neither position has any proof.  Sciences proof is in the simple fact that it works, we can use our scientific understanding to predict things about this universe and this world that we would never have guessed at without science and we can use our understanding to create technology that is simply impossible without a true understanding of this universe.

 

Science can explain mathematically where this universe may have come from, science can explain in great detail how it evolved from the very earliest moments of its existence till the present day.  Science has not found a purpose for the universe and all the evidence we have found to date suggests that the idea that it has a purpose is a human invention, there is no purpose here except for that which we invent ourselves.

 

If there were a force beyond the universe guiding and driving things is there anything we would expect to see scientifically?  This is a crucial question because you have claimed that there is no evidence on this question in either direction.  One of the things that such a power would do would be to destroy science.  Science is based on the idea that the universe is a physical entity that operates on predictable, mathematically modelable laws.  Such a being would have to transcend such laws or it could have no agency yet that is not what we find when we look at the universe at any level.

 

You show your ignorance of science when you suggest that light may be a particle or a wave, the fact is, from everything we know of light, that it is neither thought it has characteristics of both.  Light is a quantum object and like all quantum objects it does not have any direct analogues in the macro world.  Particles and waves are simply the closest macro descriptions we can find to explain some of its properties but others simply have no analogues.  Spin for example is not about physical rotation but a label given to a property of subatomic particles that has no macro analogue.

 

We have plenty of evidence that at physical death our consciousness ceases.  It’s created by a very complex physical system, our brains, as an emergent property just as it is for the other animals with brains complex enough to create it and, like them, it ends when the brain that creates it dies.  We have plenty of evidence for this conclusion but people don’t like the idea so they cling to alternatives without evidence.

 

Theism/atheism is about belief, to be a theist you have to be able to point to a god idea and say “I believe in him/her/it/them”, to be an atheist simply entails that you can’t.  Agnosticism is about knowledge, if you believe that you can know there is a god you are not an agnostic, if you do not believe we can know for certain that there is a god you are an agnostic.  Most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  I’m one of those.  I don’t believe in any gods and I think the chances that there is a god are vanishingly small but I don’t believe we know enough to know for sure and probably never will.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

Einstein also said, in trying to explain his religious position better :-

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

I use ‘men’ to represent humanity not a gender.  Hasn’t this been covered in this thread?  I explained that we should all have equal rights that includes males and females. 

 

When a creed says that a man can marry multiple women but a woman can only marry one man that’s sexist and so evil for example.  When a system says that a woman can’t travel around alone if she wants to while a man can that too is sexist and so wrong.  There are many more examples of practices within religious systems that are wrong because they discriminate based on sex.  If there is anything in your system that says “you can or can’t do X because you are a woman” while having a different rule for a man then your system is evil.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All men are created equal , [ male & female -for the hairsplitters ]  in that they have the mental capacity to be cognizant of heir surroundings and can reach conclusions based of experience and logic .

 No not everyone's an Einstein .......yet Hubble a mule driver , saw what Einstein  initially could not .  However all that is not analogous to the point I was making . All men are intellectually capable of theism or atheism , it is a choice , not based in  science ....no proof for ether position , nor is either position less likely to be possible .

 We can play semantics with the word atheism , but for all practical purposes , it applies only to a denial of an existence of a god/GOD /or supernatural force . Atheism is not a scientific discipline , it is an opinion . -as is Theism

  Take the two statements :

 

It is not possible that a god/GOD /Supernatural force  exists in the Universe .

 

It is possible that a god/GOD /Supernatural force does exist in the Universe .

 

Which statement do you feel carries more weight ?  And remember whichever your choice , it does not outweigh nor is it superior to the other .   This is  not science .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I explained that we should all have equal rights that includes males and females.

 

Why 'should' we all have 'equal' rights when we are different?

 

I certainly don't have the same so-called 'rights' as the local politician ... I simply cannot afford a lawyer ... we can only claim some equality of rights when we are all of the same socio-economic status ... and even then genetically we are still different which effect any outcome ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

I use ‘men’ to represent humanity not a gender.  Hasn’t this been covered in this thread?  I explained that we should all have equal rights that includes males and females. 

 

When a creed says that a man can marry multiple women but a woman can only marry one man that’s sexist and so evil for example.  When a system says that a woman can’t travel around alone if she wants to while a man can that too is sexist and so wrong.  There are many more examples of practices within religious systems that are wrong because they discriminate based on sex.  If there is anything in your system that says “you can or can’t do X because you are a woman” while having a different rule for a man then your system is evil.

 

Russell

 

Which is more likely to be attacked for the purpose of rape a man or a woman?  So he needs protection? women.  That is why women are supposed to be with men when they leave.  As for the marry thing its not that simple.  If you read what it actually says it says that the man has to love them equally and for anyone who has ever been married they know that in truth, generally, this is next to impossible so truly God fearing men wouldn't.  And I believe that was the point, to decrease it down to one not to allow for multiple as their society already allowed for such.  There are reasons for everything.  A lot of it is to protect the woman, the other parts are out of respect for the woman and in many instances it is the woman who has to make the choice.

 

For instance:  in the case of the multiple marriages.  The first wife and the new wife has to both agree to the new marriage.  It is the woman's choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

As I said I disagree that all humans are created equal.  As everyone is well aware some are idiots and some are geniuses, some are supermen physically and some are Hawking’s but that’s beside the point.  Being human, having a human brain, gives you the same rights as everyone else regardless of your particular abilities or disabilities in my humble opinion.  Some of us cannot reach conclusions about the world around us due to mental disorders etc but even these people, so long as they can experience this world to some extent, must be treated as human.

 

Yes we are all capable of being theists or atheists.  By default we are atheists, to be a theist you must believe in a god and a child is born without sufficient knowledge to hold such a belief.  They are born lacking a god belief and so are atheists.  Their parents and/or their communities have to indoctrinate them into holding a god belief.

 

I disagree however that there is no evidence for either position.  If you want to cure a horrible disease that is destroying a population you could pray or you could invent a vaccine.  Science’s proof is in the simple fact that it works unlike the religious alternative.  In a published US prayer study the findings, when fully analysed, actually showed that slightly more of the prayed for cohort died after heart surgery than the unprayed for.

 

Science also has the distinct advantage of being parsimonious, it explains how complexity arose from simplicity while the religious position simply postulates that complexity already existed and calls that god avoiding answering the question that science has answered in great detail by explaining the source of complexity.

 

No semantics, theism = “I believe in that god, those gods etc”, atheist -= “I don’t”.  Simple as that.

 

No atheism is not an opinion it is a lack of a specific opinion.  An atheist does not have a god they can say they believe in.  That’s all it is to be an atheist.  True some atheists actually deny 100% the possibility that there is a god, by definition these too are atheists but that is not what atheism is.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

It sounds like you are falling into line with the earlier posters here in supporting the idea of different rights for different people.  Does that include gender rights?

 

We all have the right to drive cars assuming we have reached a certain age and passed a driving test.  The right is the same regardless of our mental abilities or our gender but there is a practical component to it for perfectly rational reasons.  That makes sense doesn’t it?  We are not restricting people based on some notion of who they are and what they should be able to do but on demonstrated practical abilities.

 

I have the right to carry a child to term, why should I not have this right, but being male obviously nature won’t let me but that’s not something humans should dictate.  I should have the same rights as anyone else but we have to live within our abilities as well as our societies’ moral codes and laws.

 

You could be the local politician if that was your want, stand up and get yourself elected and that’s you, you should have that right but, like the current local politician, you have to convince the rest of the voting public that you are the man for the job.  You should not however be prevented from holding that office because you are black or female or stupid etc even if you might have far more trouble convincing people to vote for you if you were.

 

So in the end your rights are identical to the politician, you have the right to holiday on that yacht so long as you can find the money just as he does.  The difference between you is practical / physical and not imposed by a society’s moral codes or laws.

 

In the end we do have different things that we can and can’t do but none of those things should be imposed by the society’s moral codes or laws.  That’s what equal rights is!  Or moral codes and laws must restrict people equally to be fair.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

I fully understand that women are more likely to get raped than men.  I also understand that children are far more likely to suffer from attacks than adults in some situations.  Vulnerable members of our society need protection from the law and from moral codes and from their families as appropriate I fully agree but I disagree that such protection must be made a dictate for adults.  Parent’s must protect their children because children are especially vulnerable but not so adults.

 

A woman has a brain just as capable as a man, there’s plenty of evidence to show that there is no overall difference between the mental capabilities of men and women so no grounds for discrimination there.  Yes on average men work harder on their brains and so are more likely to become scientists or other highly skilled mental workers but that is about application. It’s like going to the gym or sitting on the couch, the gym junkie is going to be stronger than the couch potato regardless of their gender.

 

I’ve met quite a few women who are strong enough to scare off most men if they wanted to.  My wife is just half an inch shorter than me and nearly as strong, if she was fighting for her life she’d almost certainly beat me in a fight.  You can’t write off all women just because many are smaller and weaker than men.  Many men are smaller and weaker than the average man but we don’t have special moral rules to protect short or weak blokes!

 

Being raped is a very small risk in many societies, certainly it’s rare where I live.  Jumping out of aeroplanes with a parachute on is far more risky but we don’t have moral codes to prevent people who choose to take that risk from doing so.  Why should women be restricted from doing certain things if they freely choose to take the risks involved?  Why is their opinion less valued than the male one?

 

Yes I understand that the women get to decide if the man can marry a second wife but why can’t the husband decide that his wife can marry a second husband if that is what she wants?  Twice the protection from rape would surely be worth it.  Yes tongue in cheek but you get the point.  Why is it only the man who can marry twice regardless of how it is arranged?  The option is not there for women no matter what and that’s sexist.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

I’ve heard before that Islam believes in science but it is a form of science that most scientists would not recognize.  Science shows how the world works mathematically, there’s no room in there for a ‘will’ driving those chemical reactions (for example).  A will would allow the reactions to work differently at god’s whim which destroys the foundations of science.  The observed world does not work that way at least it has not so far in our scientific observations.  Remember that we can observe those chemical reactions working exactly the same way over the entire span of more than 13 billion into this universes history.  Chemistry (for example) has worked exactly the same for as much of the history of this universe as we can directly observe and across as much of it as we can directly measure.  There are no observations in there which suggest that such reactions are at the whim of a god.  Is god constrained by science?  If not then the god hypothesis is incompatible with science.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife actually answered your last question for me.  If a man has sex with more than one wife then his sperm comes outside of him and the mother and father are known.  If a woman has sex with more than one man then the father is not known as there is multiple semen in her.  This is also unhealthy. 

 

As to your earlier comments statistics in the U.S. and Mexico would disagree with you as far as rape goes.  My mother always has a man with her when she goes out and she isn't Muslim.  Is she oppressed by secular society or does she realize that women are objects of predators?  My grandmother and sister are the same (none of my family is Muslim besides my wife & myself).  Now as far as mentally the same.  Are you serious?

 

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

 

 

One reason why differences in memory formation exist between men and women can be attributed to hormones, primarily estrogen and androgens such as testosterone. Studies of people receiving hormone-based therapies have shed some light on the involvement of hormones in the formation and storage of
memories. For example, estrogen replacement therapy in menopausal women improves long-term memory, and testosterone therapy in older men improves short-term memory.

source: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/02/who-has-a-better-memory-man-or-woman/

 

both are secular sources so your science disagrees with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi and his wife (you should give her a name so I can refer to her as something other than wife!)

 

I agree that the fatherhood of the children would once have been in doubt if a woman married two men but I’m not sure why that is so important.  He or she would still be a child of a specific family.  Of course today we can work out the father with a simple DNA test so that’s no longer an issue anyway but once upon a time things weren’t so simple.  Of course we now choose to have far fewer children than we once did so she’d only have to be selective about having sex with just one partner for a short time to ensure the father of her child was known anyway.  This is an example of what I have been talking about, this is a rule suited to a time that was far less capable than ours.

 

There are no more health concerns for a woman to have two husbands than there are for a man to have two wives so long as they are all faithful and clean to start with.  That cleanliness issue was once a difficult question but today we have simple tests that can ensure that neither partner has any diseases that are of concern so again this is a case of outdate rules build for a society that did not have the capabilities of our modern world.

 

I understand that some countries have a problem with rape, we’ve been hearing a lot lately about India here lately and how they are making progress on the prosecution of rape cases as in the past they did very little.  That is not true in my country where rape is vigorously prosecuted and the offenders are often locked up for considerable periods of time.  A recent case of rape and murder saw the perpetrator locked up for life plus 800 years just to make sure he’s not getting out any time soon.

 

Now your rule applies in countries that have a significant problem with unaccompanied women and in countries that have very little problems in this area so the rule is again out dated.  The rule also applies to the martial arts trained physically capable and large women as much as to the tiny and unfit while the former would be far more capable of taking care of themselves than the majority of men.  I have no problem with men wanting to look after their women, hey that’s me, but to force them to do so even when there is no danger in a modern well controlled society is foolish and again shows an out dated approach to our world.  Further such rules restrict women who may freely choose to take those risks just as people may choose to take risks by driving fast cars or parachuting for fun.  Shouldn’t people be allowed to choose their risks?

 

Am I saying that the sexes are mentally the same, yes and no?  Sure I understand that more men choose to do more schooling and to become better trained and more skilled at many things and their brains will follow this but we have women in my country who do all the same things and to the same level in the sciences as men for example.  No difference has been found in mental capabilities.  The variations you see are based on the normal spread of genetics that men and women share equally and in the level of effort that people are willing to put in.  If a woman works as hard as a man she is just as likely to succeed at an intellectual pursuit as the man and any area of the brain that is used will grow just as your muscles will if you exercise so finding differences in the makeup of brains across the sexes is hardly surprizing.

 

Now that’s not to suggest that more women don’t want to be housewives, and do excel at raising children, than men but I’ve met house husbands who do it just as well.  They are uncommon but they exist.  An acquaintance of ours is just such a man, he runs the house, raises the children, does the cooking and cleaning etc while his wife, a lawyer, earns far more money than he could and spends long hours away from home.  He looks much like a biker, big, tough, mean, male but he’s a very good ‘housewife’, far better than his wife.  They tried it the other way around for a bit and she was terrible at it.

 

The problem here isn’t that more women will excel at being housewives and more men will be better at going out and earning money it’s the restriction that dictates that’s how it must be no matter what sort of person you are.  Your system does not allow the rare cases of people who don’t fit your moulds to live the lives that work best for them.

 

 

…"There's a lot of evidence that we build up our brain's representation of space by moving through it," Denckla tells WebMD. As anyone who spends a significant time around children knows, boys tend to get a lot more practice "moving through space" -- chasing a ball, for instance -- than girls do. "My hypothesis is that we could possibly erase this difference if we pushed girls out into the exploratory mode," Denckla says. She predicts that as more and more girls engage in sports traditionally reserved for boys, like soccer, the data on spatial ability will show fewer disparities between females and males.

This from the Webmd article you cited.  I have to say that I agree, we’ve seen that in a study of London taxi drivers who were scanned in an MRI machine and the areas of the brain used for navigation was significantly larger in this group than in the general population.  I doubt that taxi drivers are selected because they have a large chunk of brain dedicated to navigation rather that area grows with use. As this author says these differences may well be erased if people were pushed to live the same lifestyle, to exercise their brains in the same way but you’d expect to find differences in our brains given how differently people use them.  That’s not a reason to restrict some people because, even today, there are exceptions to all the rules you have cited here.

 

So in short I agree that, on average, our brains are different along sex lines but there are exceptions so discriminating against people on sex lines means discriminating against people for a characteristic that they may not possess which is immoral in my humble opinion.  Like earning the right to drive a car you should be restricted only if you have shown yourself incapable of a given choice.  Don’t restrict women because they are women, restrict those women who can’t drive a car safely just as you would men who fail their driving test.  Rights should be the same for all and restrictions should be applied equally based on demonstrated inabilities not on gender.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my we do digress !

 

 

Let's try Websters :

 

atheist      [ n ] a person who believes there is no god .

 

atheism   [ n ] the belief that there is no God , or denial that God or gods exist.

 

 

Keyword seems to be belief .  Does anyone detect science here ?

 

deism      [ n ]  belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on rvevelation or authority .

 

deist      [ n ] believer in deism .

 

 

No science there either .  But lets not leave out the most scientifically honest - agnostic/ the agnostic takes neither position because he just doesn't know . Why ? lack of scientific evidence .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Yes we do indeed digress.  What was this thread about originally?  LOL

 

Atheism has many definitions, the one you cite is among them though it’s actually rarely the one held by atheists themselves.  By that definition I’m not an atheist though I’m close.

 

Wikipedia has a better summary of the term:-
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

 

So in its common use by atheists themselves theism = “I believe in that god” vs. atheism = “I don’t”.  The A makes a simple opposite.

 

The term, as it is most commonly understood by atheists is the inclusive term cited, I personally believe that the chances that there is a god are very very low and I certainly don’t believe in any specific god but I can’t say there is 0% chance that a god exists.

 

The point you are reaching for next fails because there is tons of evidence that the world works on its own, that it could well have come about on its own and we have an amazing amount of detail about how that apparently happened all without any hint that a god played a part.  Certainly, like all scientific conclusions, this is not a 100% definitive position but it is a very well founded and evidentially supported position.  I personally think it’s very telling that the more science you learn the lower your chances are of remaining a believer.  Among top scientists in the US theistic belief falls into the 5% or so range and that’s in a population who boast an average rate of theistic belief in the 85% range.

 

So plenty of evidence for science’s view though not with 100% certainty but what evidence do we have that there is anything to theistic belief.  Scientific pray studies have actually shown that prayer for the health and recovery of patients is actually detrimental if you take the figures at face value.  From disease studies it’s pretty clear which approach cures more people the prayer approach or the scientific medicine approach.  Should I go on.  Evidence from every quarter suggests that science knows what it’s talking about all with just a little bit less than 100% certainty.  What can religion boast in return?  Can you show us evidence that supports your view with even 50% certainty?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×