Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is being atheist the absents of belief? Adam_PoE you are not thinking clearly, someone who has no belief is an agnostic. Atheists have a belief that there is no God.
But you are thinking wrong as well...everyone has beliefs...agnostics believe that god can never be proven....
Originally posted by Bardock42
But you are thinking wrong as well...everyone has beliefs...agnostics believe that god can never be proven....
I know a few agnostics who say that God is something they don't think about, they have no opinion. Sure, agnostics may believe different things, but atheists have one thing in common, they believe there is no God.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Though how can someone have a positive belief that there is not something, since we don't have all the answers yet.
Critical Atheism is the belief that because there is no material evidence for the existence of any dieties, the default belief in the interim is that they do not exist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is being atheist the absents of belief? Adam_PoE you are not thinking clearly, someone who has no belief is an agnostic. Atheists have a belief that there is no God.
There are two types of atheism:
[list=1][*]Positive Atheism or the belief that no dieties exist.
[*]Negative Atheism or the lack of belief that any dieties exist.[/list]
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of any dieties is unknowable.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas atheism is an ontological position.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Critical Atheism is the belief that because there is no material evidence for the existence of any dieties, the default belief in the interim is that they do not exist.There are two types of atheism:
[list=1][*]Positive Atheism or the belief that no dieties exist.
[*]Negative Atheism or the lack of belief that any dieties exist.[/list]
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of any dieties is unknowable.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas atheism is an ontological position.
Thank you, but I still believe that to not believe in something requires faith. I do not believe in Santa Clause because I have faith in science and science tells me that what is reported about Santa Clause cannot happen.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you, but I still believe that to not believe in something requires faith. I do not believe in Santa Clause because I have faith in science and science tells me that what is reported about Santa Clause cannot happen.
Imagine that a completely isolated culture exists, and this culture has no concept of "diety."
By your reasoning, their absence of belief requires faith.
Ridiculous.
Originally posted by Adam_PoENot talking about a deity per say, but something of intelligence existing. Since science is going into this field, do Atheists discount the possibility that there could be?
Critical Atheism is the belief that because there is no material evidence for the existence of any dieties, the default belief in the interim is that they do not exist.
.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Imagine that a completely isolated culture exists, and this culture has no concept of "diety."By your reasoning, their absence of belief requires faith.
Ridiculous.
No, under those circumstance you are right, but I'm talking about reality, with all of the pressures in today’s societies.
However, there has never been a society with no concept of god or worship or superstition.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you, but I still believe that to not believe in something requires faith. I do not believe in Santa Clause because I have faith in science and science tells me that what is reported about Santa Clause cannot happen.
why do we need religion when we've got science to explain things more accurately.
Originally posted by KostaI've never heard of it. Even if he did say that, which goes against every other scientist, I wouldn't believe him because it doesn't make sense. We don't follow everyone else like religious people do. We teach it ourselves and change it to a more sensible way. Therefore, science keeps developing and "evolving" if you will, whereas religion was just created by dickheads with nothing better to do.
Theres a famous quote by Einstein that goes something like"Science without religion is dull, religion without science is pointless"
Originally posted by Storm
There is more than one definition of faith, one which is based upon experience and reason and one which is not (equivocation fallacy). Religious faith is very different. Atheism is not the presence of some different kind of faith, but rather the absence of one particular faith.
I think I know what you are talking about, but the way you put it is different than I would. I think you are talking about the difference between a leap of faith and blind faith. Blind faith is where you are told how it is, but then never look for yourself. A leap of faith is drawing a conclusion based on all the information you have and determining the answer to a question that cannot be answered. To believe that there is a God or not; both require a leap of faith because you cannot prove God one way or the other.
Re: Science vs Religion
Originally posted by Machete_Guy
In the end, who do you think will win?
Religion is bereft of rational thought and logic, regardless of what people try and spin. When you say "I have faith in God/Gods/the doctrine, etc." you are basing it on a promise that probably comes from an ancient source subject to time and/or political revision. You're also basing it on a few sources that aren't empirical or logical proof.
Science, on the other hand, uses empirical proof along with logical proof and common sense (Things that appeal to the way our minds are hardwired) and explain the universe and how it operates using natural causes and not supernatural causes like religion does. It works with what is or what can be argued to be in accordance with observation data and logic. Religion simply says "This is, now you must believe."
That isn't to say that religion isn't inherently wrong or bad; it's just not progressive. Religious leaders are human and they corrupt the doctrine over time or retranslate it. They make their own interpretations on things and they generally encourage close-mindedness and a sort of religious egocentrism.
Especially those of you here in the states and Canada, how many of you hear the term "They're strict Muslims/Christians/Protestants/etc." and think to yourself "Oh hell... here's a group that thinks DnD is the work of the devil, won't watch movies with swear words and violence and thinks the world is as young as recorded time." It's a stereotype, I agree. And it's not a fair one, but it's one that's noticeable. When you see someone strictly adhere to their faith, they tend to focus in rather than out an new ideas are lost to them. It is doubtful that prayer and meditation- things that people have been doing for thousands of years- will ever cure cancer entirely. But modern medicine is already making leaps and bounds into neccessary and beneficial fields of science. And I'd trust the failing health of my wife or only daughter to a doctor or researcher long before I'd trust it to a priest or shaman.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
Posted again only because someone keeps getting the quote wrong.
Science quantifies, showing what Can be done.
Religion (not Religionism) qualifies, showing what Should/Shouldn't be done.
I think it's odd how they act like they can't co-exsist, and even odder about who defends what.
Would it not make more sense for liberals to be the ones toting religoun? Afterall, they're the ones who believe everything is subjective to personal opinion, and considering all the differant varatians of the same damn religoun, you would think liberals would enjoy the diversity and multiple belief structures sorrounding "The one and only God". (And that's just Christianity, i'm not counting OTHER religouns!)
There is no room for opinion in science, only speculation and admittance to unknowing, when this happens, scientists could argue till thier face turns blue, but in the end it will still only be a theory, once trial and error has proven otherwise, there is no going back. They may discover something later on they did not know before, but the facts remain, and the only thing modified is the definition and how exactly it functions. This cut and dry to the point mindframe would be better suited for a conservative.
But eh, mortals tend to be very ass-backward creatures.. is it any wonder they wage war on eachother and dig thier own graves with sin?
^ oddly enough this SPECULATION have brought us to our current dazzling develpmental stage. the clothes ur wearing, the structure your sitting in, the electricity ur using, your car the very computer your using to message here is a product of this SPECULATION. infact your entire LIFE is currently based on and runs because of this SPECULATION. think about that. think about what science has hypthesized and how much of that has come true and what are the PROOFS of that{everythin to do with technology and scientific/mathematical studies. now compare that with what relegion has put forward and how much of that has come true and how much of that has reeped results.
your stance seems to be, person A says theres sumthing infront me which looks like a wooden table, feals like a wooden table, breaks like a wooden table, tastes like a wooden table and seems to perfectly fit the definition of a wooden table. however since i cannot be 100% about my senses working perfectly, or this being a dream or this being a plot to try to make me sinisterly THINK in that direction i wont accept that there is a table there, because my mother says that there is no table infront of me. GET REAL PEOPLE.
God vs Science and the Evolution War
Recent TIME cover story featuring a debate of sorts between Professor Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, recent author of "The God Delusion"
and
Dr Francis Collins, Director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, recent author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief"
and another older cover story documenting the insidious nature of "intelligent design." well imo anyway.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html
Thoughts on the articles and debate excerpt?
With regard to the first article do you think science can, will or should eventually completely supplant religious views with naturalistic explanations of the world among the majority of people.
Do you personally agree more with Dawkins or with Collins?
With regard to the second, do you think "intelligent design theorists" will manage to subvert the U.S. education system into teaching faith-based pseudoscience and what impact do you think that would have on U.S. ingenuity, and the country's scientific and technological standing in the world.
P.S. You may have to watch a car ad to read the article...
P.P.S. If anyone knows of a full transcript, I'd be curious to read it.
Re: God vs Science and the Evolution War
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
With regard to the first article do you think science can, will or should eventually completely supplant religious views with naturalistic explanations of the world among the majority of people.
No.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Do you personally agree more with Dawkins or with Collins?
Dwakins.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
With regard to the second, do you think "intelligent design theorists" will manage to subvert the U.S. education system into teaching faith-based pseudoscience . . .
No.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
. . . and what impact do you think that would have on U.S. ingenuity, and the country's scientific and technological standing in the world.
It would hinder it.