Sym touched upon the respective realms of science and religion. In a nutshell, Science is the what, religion the "why." Gould's famous non-overlapping magisteria (sic?) argument comes to mind. Here's my problem with that: Religion used to be more literal, it used to be an active God that was frequently involved in human affairs. Science changed that conversation. And it's to the point now where an informed theist actually does believe in a scientific worldview, except with religion on top of that answering the abstracts about human existence. Religion has become entirely conceptual, having had to retreat from the empirical because of science.
To me, it seems like discarding religion altogether is just the next step. Because it's to the point where there IS no evidence, nor any promise of evidence. And it's become a wholly conceptual enterprise, when it was once far grander. The "why" can be found without religion, and the "what" certainly can, so it is not needed. When the entirety of a belief has become abstract, faith-based, and conceptual, it ceases to have relevant meaning imo, and becomes absurd to believe in.
Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking those guys are the minority. I'd like to think they're just so annoying that they seem like a bigger group of atheists than they really are.
I don't know if they are a minority or not, but there are indeed an awful lot of them. Their aggression smudges the reputation of atheism as much as extreme evangelism does.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
I would think the same thing...except they do have quite a ton of Subscribers. Then again, it's Youtube we're talking about....people trying to be popular and stuff....
It's no different from the cockiness of Theists who "know" God did it.
Science can't ask why, because then it stops being science and becomes biased.
In a murder trial, science (forensics) can explain how the murder occured, but not the abstract and immaterial reason of "why". Motive is often illogical and no field in science can always explain the killer's incentive.
Science = how, Religion = why
__________________
Last edited by Quiero Mota on Jun 15th, 2010 at 07:02 AM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
For me there wasn't one point where I could say I was suddenly atheist either. I was brought up as Roman Catholic, I went to church most sundays, I participated in activities offered by the church, I had Roman Catholic religious education in school until I was 16. I don't think I ever believed any of it as true, I don't think I really thought of it when I was younger either. My parents were definitely more secular so I suppose I just got the feeling that this is just a big storytime we go to every sunday. I don't know, most of my youth is hazy at best anyways. But yeah, I am pretty sure I was convinced that there wasn't a God by the age of ten, and since then I've been flip flopping between calling it agnosticism or atheism, the skeptic in me likes to call it agnosticism, but for all intends and purposes it is really atheism. It is definitely atheism for any of the main theistic religions, I strongly don't believe in any Judaism, any Christian God, or any Islam, of course like lil b tried to say, we don't know everything, and I know even less, so I would even speculate too much in that direction.
As for youtube atheists, there are many dumb and rude ones, but I would hardly call them all that. That is an unfair generalization and to me seems like someone who hasn't done too much research. In fact I'd almost wager that people actually thinking that have at most seen the Amazing Atheist and one or two others, and he is very loud and very rude and somewhat dumb at times, though I can enjoy his videos. However there are very good youtube atheists out there too, who discuss the matter calmly and rationally, often it is not their sole focus, as just atheism makes for boring videos in the long run. Some of my favourites are the always great TheraminTrees and the not very popular, but rather enjoyable XOmniverse.
Oh also we shouldn't forget that the fundamentalist theists they debate can be just as bad or worse, so I would definitely not put the blame solely on the atheists, although there is a sort of smugness that many uneducated atheists get simply by considering themselves superior (though it happens to religious people, too)
And Religion is not the only thing that can look for the "why". Secular philosophy can just as much attempt that. Additionally I would argue that we are close to 100% sure that there must be a "how" whether there must be a "why" is debatable, and a question that could possibly be answered by answering the "how".
Those atheists have arrived at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
If the premise that all theistic religions share, i.e. that a god or gods exist, cannot be substantiated, then the ways in which they are different, e.g. how each views the nature of a god or gods, is irrelevant.
Aside from the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods, there is no belief, opinion, or principle that all atheists share; and with no doctrine or community, there can be no reputation.
In any event, now I'm wondering if the highly vocal minority of aggressive atheists (and I do believe they are the minority) are highly vocal and aggressive due to failed expectations (ie, "I will no longer be fooled! And I will save others from being fooled!"). All that "fervor" has to come from somewhere.
On a related note, I see the bottom line as not whether or not one believes in God, but how one treats others. Respect is paramount, and agreeing to disagree about something ultimately unfathomable is an honorable outcome. A reality map needs to incorporate a healthy dose of common sense. IMO this does not necessarily mean becoming an atheist but it can ward off wish-fulfillment theism.
As for Religion and (empirical) Science: problems always arise when one tries to do the other's job.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
My money is on their ego, self pride, and prolly a superiority complex. In any case I see an atheist no different than anyone else....an atheist is a person...who thinks for themselves (just like everyone else) and who can have as much flaws as any other person. Proclaiming Atheism is some unique principle in though leads me to believe that there is elitism behind the movement. Or at least that is the impression they leave behind. From what I read and seen there are disagreements among atheist on certain ideas. Which is normal for any group to experience. So my suggestion to all is that we should not base judgement upon the movement but rather on the individual. One bad apple does not spoil the bunch. Same with religion ...me thinks.
I've just chosen to ignore him. He was snide to me about this topic before it was made. No reason to validate his responses if they're going to border on trolling.
I think it may have more to do with the Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory (google-able if you haven't heard of it). I highly doubt the "angry" atheists fervor is intellectual in origin.
Though to answer another of your musings, I do think some peoples' agnosticism and/or atheism is just one step removed from apatheism. Some put in the legwork to have fully rationalized reasoning behind their beliefs. Many do not, of any religious disposition.
I was reflecting my own thoughts and perceptions of some books/articles I've read and shows I've watched but wasn't totally clear. For me, I've had no problems reconciling science and Faith. It seems like more scientists are coming forth every year to say something along the lines that the math indicates a higher power. But by no means are there more scientists who affirm that the numbers indicate a higher power than scientists who don't. It just appears to me that there are more now than 10 years ago, or at least more coming forward.
I agree and have always been hesitant to use science to explain Faith and vice versa. They should be 2 separate entities. But I do think at times they can and do compliment each other. So, I apologize if my thoughts came across as muddled. I agree with what you've said. Well said.
As for all of you Atheist sinners, I'll pray for you.
I usually avoid these discussions due to the fierce passion shown by both sides. It's nice to have civil convos with people I know from KMC.
See, that's what I mean: you had to draw a distinction by saying theistic religions. So religions are not all the same.
Exactly, they lack cohesion and unity. There's more No Religion people in the States than people who identify as black, Jewish, gay or Hispanic. If they got their shit together and organized, they actually have the potential to be a serious political force.
__________________
Last edited by Quiero Mota on Jun 15th, 2010 at 06:43 PM
We can ALL regenerate.
The research is about re-growing limbs.
Things that CAN re-grow their limbs are certain amphibians and not mammals. It is not possible for humans as for range of other species to spontaneously re-grow their limbs.
Saying ''there is that in the nature'' does not mean everything can automatically do it. There are things that fly in the nature, it does not mean we or dogs can grow wings and fly.
The point of research is to see if we can artificially induce such things and how, as automatically, or naturally, such is simply not possible.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
oh, I totally agree, and as much as I behaved in the opposite fashion, I'm relly not interested in the "no-it-dosent" / "yes-it-does" side of the god debate.
I just thought it was funny, because there could be no better proof that the characteristics that are being generalized to atheists are, in fact, the same predispositions toward obnoxious belligerance that all humans who believe anything have.
I like this. I find it strange that people can think there is no "why" to my life without religion, as if the purposes I choose to involve myself with engender a fake type of meaning. it is totally possible that any search for supernatural meaning only exists because people continue to argue that there must be, and the cynic in me sees it as a easy power grab for religious institutions to claim to be the only access point to this truth.
Religious people in my life are always mystified that I find meaning outside of religion. Or they assume that I actually don't have purpose and meaning. It's apparently impossible for them to come to terms with, because their entire purpose is driven through the prism of religion. And when asked to explain how I find meaning, I'm always at a bit of a loss...it's just something that comes naturally in life. There was very little existential crisis in my leaving religion (though I'd be lying to say there was none). So I can relate to the sentiments above from both Bardock and in.
I never had any religion... people have said i'm a raging atheist irl and online. It's always really bothered me whenever someone has a view that I know is wrong in my own mind, not just in regards to religion.
That depends on what qualifies as religion. Buddhism is arguably not a religion, and is largely atheist. Deism and Pantheism define god in such a way that whether or not a god does or did exist is irrelevant. The god claims of theistic religions are the only ones that can be meaningfully discussed.
If Jews, Christians, and Muslims are not united in their shared belief in the existence of arguably the same god, then why would unbelievers be united their shared disbelief in one?
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Buddhism is by definition a religion. Your definition of religion is not valid. Just Google "List of world religions" and you will find Buddhism in that list.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 15th, 2010 05:26 AM
