Question for the atheists

[Random_John]

Of course some would say that Atheism is religion without many rules or structure except to stay hard and fast to the belief that there is no God.

It's a subject where everyone can go round and round and never change anyone's mind? So why get into it?

 

[nolebum]

A Claim such as 'I only believe what is scientifically verifiable or provable" is an epistemological claim not a scientific claim. Can the claim "I only believe what is scientifically verifiable or provable" a claim verifiable/provable by science?

 

[helmetnuts]

I'm an agnostic theist...someone or something created the universe but I doubt he gives a crap about your day to day problems.

 

[Banditking]

Of course some would say that Atheism is religion without many rules or structure except to stay hard and fast to the belief that there is no God.

It's a subject where everyone can go round and round and never change anyone's mind? So why get into it?

Shrug. People learn things when they examine their beliefs.

I don't see how your argument is sensible. People could say that they aren't related to monkeys or that eating boogers extends your life. And?

 

[Banditking]

A Claim such as 'I only believe what is scientifically verifiable or provable" is an epistemological claim not a scientific claim. Can the claim "I only believe what is scientifically verifiable or provable" a claim verifiable/provable by science?

That's not really a good stance. One could say, regarding the nature of things (i.e., physical properties such as the universe) that one only ascribe to that which is scientifically falsifiable. But, to say that which is provable. . . that's too limiting. It's not also not really how science works. It might be how math works, I suppose. Anyway. in my view, "god" is a useless construct as an explanation for "why" because god is not falsifiable. You could make up, literally, any attributes as long as you stay away from something testable and you have something equivalent to "god" as defined by the bible or quoran or -insert theistic religion here -.

 

[GwinnettNole]

Of course some would say that Atheism is religion without many rules or structure except to stay hard and fast to the belief that there is no God.

It's a subject where everyone can go round and round and never change anyone's mind? So why get into it?

I like to learn others perspectives. But I'm sure I'm in the minority.

 

[YogiNole]

OP I hope your question was answered. This thread is devolving into nonsensical arguments quickly.

 

[nolebum]

That's not really a good stance. One could say, regarding the nature of things (i.e., physical properties such as the universe) that one only ascribe to that which is scientifically falsifiable. But, to say that which is provable. . . that's too limiting. It's not also not really how science works. It might be how math works, I suppose. Anyway. in my view, "god" is a useless construct as an explanation for "why" because god is not falsifiable. You could make up, literally, any attributes as long as you stay away from something testable and you have something equivalent to "god" as defined by the bible or quoran or -insert theistic religion here -.

Banditking, I agree that science functions better on the principle of falsification. One can always find some justification for scientific views. Einstein is an example of one who practiced falsification. If this is true, he wrote, then my theory of relativity is false .I do not think the principle of falsification is utilized enough in science. My response addressed some on the board addressed those who made epistemological claims based on upon the scientifically unfalseifiable claim that scientific methodology functions as the only source of knowledge. The claim that "I only believe what is scientifically proven" is a self-defeating statement logically.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

OP I hope your question was answered. This thread is devolving into nonsensical arguments quickly.

LOL i have no idea what's being discussed.
Taking a simple thing and making it exceptionally complex.

In closing: Tacos.

 

[YogiNole]

LOL i have no idea what's being discussed.
Taking a simple thing and making it exceptionally complex.
In closing: Tacos.

I agree. It's pretty much binary to me when it comes to this topic. Read the post above your last one as an example of how people try to complicate it.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I agree. It's pretty much binary to me when it comes to this topic. Read the post above your last one as an example of how people try to complicate it.

Jeez, based on the syllable count of some of those words I'm just going to assume he knows what he's talking about because I sure as hell don't.
So much navel gazing. Seems like either a joint or bottle of bourbon would be required for me to continue participating in this thread.

 

[Spearchucker87]

I guess atheism isn't a belief "system". But full blown atheism does require faith.

 

[KRB123]

Why do atheists get so pissed off at religious people? What I'm trying to say is, why get bothered that someone prays at school, the 10 commandments are at the court house, etc...They are always suing someone or some institution to remove the idea of God.
Don't give the separation of church and state argument.
If you're an atheist.....good for you. If you're a devout Christian....good for you too.
I just don't get why the radical atheist finds it necessary to litigate to prove their point.

 

[YogiNole]

Why do radicals of any color do what they do? Just like religious radicals, there are radical atheists.

 

[LesClaypool]

Tacos, indeed.

 

[nolebum]

I agree. It's pretty much binary to me when it comes to this topic. Read the post above your last one as an example of how people try to complicate it.

Bacardi and Yogi, maybe this can simplify the issue.
1. The claim that science is the only avenue to knowledge is logically inconsistent because the claim can not be justified scientifically. (The claim is operating upon the justification principle.)
2. Science operating on the basis of the falsification principle is better than science operating on the basis of justification principle.. The proper question is not "Is there scientific proof of God?" The proper question is "Does science falsify the existence of God?" I personally think the answer is no.
3. As a religious person that has great respect for science, I believe that some claims, such as a few expressed on this board, are scientific hubris rather than science.

 

[LesClaypool]

Give nolebum the last word. Pleeeeeaasse!

 

[Banditking]

Why do atheists get so pissed off at religious people? What I'm trying to say is, why get bothered that someone prays at school, the 10 commandments are at the court house, etc...They are always suing someone or some institution to remove the idea of God.
Don't give the separation of church and state argument.
If you're an atheist.....good for you. If you're a devout Christian....good for you too.
I just don't get why the radical atheist finds it necessary to litigate to prove their point.

Why does it have to be radical?

Take issues like homosexual marriage, teaching evolution, influences on public policy that impact participation in social programs, poverty and crime (I.e. Freely available birth control), ridiculous religious rituals (e.g, people praying five times a day or wearing garb that obscures identity or could be considered oppressive, how women are treated, laws regarding drugs and alcohol. All heavily influenced by religious views.

 

[Banditking]

"The proper question is not "Is there scientific proof of God?" The proper question is "Does science falsify the existence of God?" I personally think the answer is no."
ion
I agree. It's largely why I argue that religion is irrelevant with respect to truth about the nature of existence and its weight is overemphasized in society, especially with regard to notions of objective moral authority, and concepts of "good" and "bad." The arguments are largely from authority and, as such, both of little interest from a philosophical perspective and dangerous from an impact on people and how they treat information from religious sources. Basically, a mental virus.

 

[GwinnettNole]

Why does it have to be radical?

Take issues like homosexual marriage, teaching evolution, influences on public policy that impact participation in social programs, poverty and crime (I.e. Freely available birth control), ridiculous religious rituals (e.g, people praying five times a day or wearing garb that obscures identity or could be considered oppressive, how women are treated, laws regarding drugs and alcohol. All heavily influenced by religious views.

Why is praying 5 times a day considered ridiculous (Muslim or not)? That is the point-- why does it bother you as an atheist?

Most Christians I know are indifferent about what others do in much of everything else in your paragraph. I think people like to point to the extremists.

 

[Banditking]

"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."

- Einstein

 

[Banditking]

Why is praying 5 times a day considered ridiculous (Muslim or not)? That is the point-- why does it bother you as an atheist?

Most Christians I know are indifferent about what others do in much of everything else in your paragraph. I think people like to point to the extremists.

Voting patterns and what the religious right part of the republican party seems to demand in platform suggest differently.

Regarding the prayer thing, it can be disruptive in my opinion (making accommodations for breaks, weird superstitious behaviors and rituals [foot baths as an example]) . I didn't mention muslims though I know have given several examples that fall within their sphere. My views of muslims is no different than my view of christians or any other religious group. They are all ridiculous. And, I support their right to believe in stupid things. But, where that support wanes is when it is disruptive in the public sphere or influences policies or the treatment of groups that are not part of their silliness in a way that is detrimental.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I sense this thread going downhill but I'll indulge.

First: Tacos. I have to reiterate that.

Second:

Why do atheists get so pissed off at religious people? What I'm trying to say is, why get bothered that someone prays at school, the 10 commandments are at the court house, etc...

You can't be serious? Really?
Prayer in a public school or a religious document posted in a courthouse seem like totally normal things to you?

Hmm... screw it. Let's focus on the tacos.

But for the record, I'm not "pissed off at religious people." Not sure why I got cast into that net sadface.

 

[nolebum]

Give nolebum the last word. Pleeeeeaasse!

No, Les. I do not seek the last word. Fascinating discussion!!!!

 

[Banditking]

I like tacos. There's a lot of variety these days. Chorizo. Pork. Chicken. And there's even reasonable fast food options. Chipotle as an example.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

Bacardi and Yogi, maybe this can simplify the issue.
1. The claim that science is the only avenue to knowledge is logically inconsistent because the claim can not be justified scientifically. (The claim is operating upon the justification principle.)
2. Science operating on the basis of the falsification principle is better than science operating on the basis of justification principle.. The proper question is not "Is there scientific proof of God?" The proper question is "Does science falsify the existence of God?" I personally think the answer is no.
3. As a religious person that has great respect for science, I believe that some claims, such as a few expressed on this board, are scientific hubris rather than science.

These appear to be very thoughtful questions - I can appreciate that.
However, I can't answer because doing so, or even generally trying to get my mind around what you're asking, doesn't seem like a wonderful use of my time.
I'm going to focus on this: factsandchicks.com/ (slightly NSFW depending on who's looking over your shoulder en la oficina)

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I like tacos. There's a lot of variety these days. Chorizo. Pork. Chicken. And there's even reasonable fast food options. Chipotle as an example.

You know I used to be a Chipotle hater, I was more partial to Qdoba, but over time I've really grown to like Chipotle.
My go to move is to get a burrito bowl, with the tortilla on the side. I also like getting a meat + the veggies, for the longest time I didn't know they'd give you the veggie fajitas for free. SCORE!

 

[GwinnettNole]

Voting patterns and what the religious right part of the republican party seems to demand in platform suggest differently.

Regarding the prayer thing, it can be disruptive in my opinion (making accommodations for breaks, weird superstitious behaviors and rituals [foot baths as an example]) . I didn't mention muslims though I know have given several examples that fall within their sphere. My views of muslims is no different than my view of christians or any other religious group. They are all ridiculous. And, I support their right to believe in stupid things. But, where that support wanes is when it is disruptive in the public sphere or influences policies or the treatment of groups that are not part of their silliness in a way that is detrimental.

So the religious right makes up all Christians in the US? Could they be the vocal minority?

Your complaint about Muslims praying is very nit picky IMO. They have never disturbed me and I work with a few...

 

[Banditking]

If they were the vocal minority, politicians wouldn't be worried about pandering to them.

 

[nolebum]

Bacardinole and Bandtiking, Thank you for the great discussion. I have attempted to discuss the issues from a philosophical level rather than a biblical basis. I have attempted to respectfully discuss the issues without attacking, insulting, or belittling anyone. I look forward to discussions in the future on numerous topics.

As someone said, "What a person thinks about God is the most important thing about the person." From the issue of God, flow key issues of life. My faith provides integration in life, purpose and meaning outside of myself, a foundation for ethics and decision-making, a loving community of faith, resolution when I mess up, and hope regarding the future.

Philosopher Blaise Pascal, mathematician and inventor of an early computer type device, expressed the matter of God's existence in terms of a Wager. If there is no god, as a believer I have not lost. There is an opposite bet. Yet, personally God is much more than a mere bet.

Fish Tacos - specially Finns in PCB, for everyone.

We have a great evening to celebrate tonight.

GO NOLES!!!!

 

[Gonolz]

I like tacos. There's a lot of variety these days. Chorizo. Pork. Chicken. And there's even reasonable fast food options. Chipotle as an example.

You either like tacos or you don't. The variety of taco really makes no difference and just clouds the issue of whether one is pro or anti taco. Please refrain from making something so simple complex. By the way, those who don't like tacos are wrong and just contribute to the chaos in the world.

 

[nolebum]

You either like tacos or you don't. The variety of taco really makes no difference and just clouds the issue of whether one is pro or anti taco. Please refrain from making something so simple complex. By the way, those who don't like tacos are wrong and just contribute to the chaos in the world.

Gonolz, funny stuff.

 

[EconSean]

Check out Tipler's Omega Point theory. Interesting "sci-fi-ish" take on an "afterlife."