Then why is it that Marxism fails every time it's tried? Marx's atheism failed for one simple reason - in the absence of religion, people lose hope much more easily. And, in the absence of religion, they are forced to worship the Marxist communist government, an aristocracy that rolled on gold.
You have to admit, atheism is DEFINITELY for the morally and intellectually weak, those that can't accept love and compassion. And, as jumpboy has once again proved with his above post, atheism is often a haven for bigots and liars. Empathy, understanding, love and compassion - yeah, sure, atheists reject all of this.
You are assuming that all Jews and Christians take the Bible literally. You are wrong, very very wrong. Even my Orthodox Hebrew friends believed that Genesis was an instructional parable, one that teaches us that the source of all evil are guilt and shame - guilt is what we experience when we hurt others, shame is what we experience when others hurt us. Again, this is what atheists do - they stereotype people.
It's a shame that you see honesty as an inherent flaw in an argument, Corwin. But then that type of thing is indicative of the religious way of thinking. The fact is we currently don't know how the universe came into existence, and neither do you. But there are some important points that i think you need explained to you. 1. The current lack of a scientific answer doesn't make an unsupported answer any more likely. 2. It's better to accept that you don't know something than to just make something up and then believe it dogmatically, especially if a part of your explanation involves you never questioning it through fear of eternal torture. 3. atheism has never claimed to have answers, it's not what we do. Science provides the answers. atheism just disbelieves in magic invisible men in the sky.
Um, as I have already stated in this thread, I'm definitely not religious! Does that further prove my point??? I think it does hehehe YES, the lack of honesty in the atheists in this thread is an inherent flaw in their arguments. Satisfied?
What lack of honesty? The atheists have answered all the questions as honestly and as simply as they can, and the first thing you done was criticise them for it. what do you want them to do? make up a load of shit like religious books did and then just demand that everyone accept it without evidence? is that what you think honesty is? Id like you to get me an example of an atheist being dishonest in this thread. Or are we expected, like we are with your magic man theory, to accept it solely on the grounds that it has been claimed?
Nice stOx, I see you are tempering your bullsh*t with bits of fact now. Its a welcome change. Fact Opinion, and yet another bigoted generalization to describe all theists. Did you ever stop to think that many theists simply feel the complexities of science indicate there is a higher intelligence, which you refer to as "god", or "the magic man in the sky"? Of course you did, because I've pointed that out to you on many another thread. That belief is certainly no more dogmatic than your supposed belief that there is no god (I really think you havent though the issue enough to have an opinion, and just hate the religious). Have you ever stopped to consider that the majority of theists do not believe in eternal torture? Atheism claims to have at least one answer. You claim to know whether or not there is a god/higher intelligence. Oh, you try and claim that saying something doesn't exist relieves you of the obligation to backup your claim. How convenient.
Science isn't particularly concerned with what you "feel" to be the case. but again, we are back to your god of the gaps fallacy. As soon as you don't understand something or there is a gap in our current understanding you crow-bar a magic man in and demand everybody accept your ludicrous, unsupported explanation. When have i ever claimed to know there isn't a god? or are you just making stuff up again? I reject the claim that there is a god, just like you reject the claim that goblins exist. But rejecting the unsupported claim that something exists is a long way from knowing it doesn't exist. you should pick your words more carefully, otherwise you may appear to be deliberately misrepresenting someones views.
Science? I thought we were talking about belief systems, namely Atheism vs. Theism. What the hell does Science have to do with Atheism? Answer: nothing. Did I demand anything of anyone? Care to find that quote? Did I offer an explanation? Care to find that quote? What you refer to as ludicrous is the idea of God. I suppose you feel your belief is based on science and you are a better educated scientist than Einstein. Ego. Hatred, Bigotry. I love the fact you need to nitpick the semantics, to feel your argument has some merit. For your edification: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Do you mind? What have I done to harm you? Please do not slander me with atheist generalisations. I have very strong morals and principles thank you very much. I do not push my beliefs on anyone that doesn't start a debate, I don't preach unprovoked - I am certainly no bigot or liar. I experience love, empathy and compassion every day when I spend time with the love of my life, so take your ignorant bullshit somewhere else. .....
whether you like it or not, an explanation for the origin of the universe will be a scientific one. You mean Einstein the atheist? Which is neither here nor there as using someone else's beliefs to bolster your own is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy... and we all know how believers like to use logic, not. If you are going to use logical fallacies as an argument you should at least do your research first. Go with Newton, he was a theist. I love the fact that the very definition you presented in no way supports your claim that atheists claim to know there is no god. Words have meanings for a reason, if you are going to try to use words to convey an idea i think it best if you use the words with the correct meanings. Don't worry though, if you have trouble finding the correct words i will be here to pull you up on it.
I think Corwin got too many wedgies by atheists in high school... he becomes enraged at the mere sight of the word.
1) Assuming you are right (I so happen to agree by the way), how does that support Atheism or Theism? Answer. It doesnt. 2) On what scientific basis do you make this claim? How do you know? Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. Do you know what an agnostic is? Do you know the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist? Since you brought up Isaac Newton, I thought I'd provide you a list of some others: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Robert Boyle (1791-1867) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Max Planck (1858-1947) Albert Einstein (1879-1955) It seems that you are the one who keeps quoting science and implying there is some connection between science and Atheism and that somehow science conflicts with Theism. It hard to understand why you keep referring to science when you cant follow a logical written argument. Again, you are twisting your own argument. Your quote: and from the Definition of Atheist: the doctrine or belief that there is no God In what way is one NOT to infer that Atheism claims to have the answer to to the question "Is there a god"? Your trying to change the subject to a discussion of the word "Know" versus the word "Believe" does not change the point I made in the slightest. And just for the sake of humor, you went ahead and tried to link your religion to science once again. I don't know about everyone else here, but I HATE being preached down to. Feel free to believe in whatever you like, just quit trying ram your beliefs down everyone elses throat. Quit talking like your religion has some facts behind it that make it right and everyone else wrong. Quit throwing out bigoted comments that disparage others for their beliefs. Not only does it make you look like a moron, it makes you the least popular guy in the room, even amongst Atheists.
This thread has an inherent flaw because of the way it was worded. The original poster stated that Atheism does not have an answer for a scientific question - incorrectly coupling science and Atheism against Theism. I think for this thread to progress, we need to actually define what the real question is, else everyone is going to be arguing in circles, for a long... long... time. The question should be either: 1. 'Science can/cannot explain the creation of the universe' - The scientific evidence is debated, 2. 'Theism can/cannot explain the creation of the universe - The Theistic evidence is debated. Atheism is irrelevant as it's a lack of particular beliefs. There is no evidence to analyse or evaluate! Claiming Atheism doesn't have an answer for this and that proves and means absolutely nothing. Of course it doesn't have answers, it doesn't claim to. Attempting to use Atheism as evidence for or against something is like trying to use nothing as evidence. Gah this thread is a mass of confusion.
Yes, agreed. It is flawed because it asks for a conclusion, ignoring the difference in method between matters of logical inquiry over matters of faith. Science goes from the known to the unknown by empirical method. It creeps forward, into the dark, to reveal new light, by scientific method - hypotheses, tested empirically, and amended as needed to closer and closer approach the "truth," a description of reality, and, hopefully, a prediction of future outcomes. To say that atheism is a failed philosophy "because it hasn't answered the origin of the universe" is no more logical than saying a child has no brain because it hasn't yet learned why it's finger gets burned when touching a hot stove. The child learns; so does the scientist. To imply an atheist is necessarily "religious" is also flawed; to say, "I know there is no God" in the absence of empirical proof is a religious statement; to say, "I know there is a God" absent empirical proof is also a religious statement; to say, "I do not believe in deity absent verifiable proof" is a secular statement grounded in empiricism. Atheists seek proof, and do not leap to extra-empirical explanations absent proof. To quote an example given long ago by someone on the board (used by other theists, actually, at least in my experience), who challenged me to answer the conjectural "how did a car get into the middle of the desert?," I explained the first thing I would look for would be tracks; in the absence of tracks, the direction and strength of night winds from the previous night, that may have effaced the tracks to nothing....and so forth. I would not say, "God put it there" and leave it at that. To the notion that atheists are necessarily amoral or immoral in the absence of a belief in God, I'd answer, when all you have is this life, and all we have is each other, to make the world a better or worse place, isn't it better to live a life filled with compassion and moral code, because, well, we're conscious beings, and we can choose to live so? When one acts for some "payoff" after-life, and not because it's the right thing to do, here and now - isn't that, in fact, the height of selfishness?
Sorry, but your argument is flawed. to say, "I do not believe in deity absent verifiable proof" is a secular statement" True. however Atheism is "Belief that there is no god" Your argument of Atheism is Secularism is based on a flawed definition of Atheism. Atheism, is a belief system grounded in neither fact or science. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I'm very eager to see it.
Semantics always confound, and words are imperfect to convey meaning; but in the main, I'd have to disagree, and as I really only visit the forum once in a rare while, and have been involved in protracted arguments before, I hope this suffices; or, it will have to suffice. As an atheist, I do not have a belief in deity. This is not the same thing as a statement of proof that there is no deity. A-(without) -theism (belief in deity)...without a belief in deity. Now, I grant that there are all kinds of subtleties at play - including "strong" and "weak" atheists, agnostics v. atheists, probability arguments, and so forth; I guess I'm simply content to say, I don't have a belief in deity, and as that is longer to say than "atheist," I'll stick with the latter. As to, I do not understand your reasoning. Firstly, it's a blanket statement, and there is no one thing "atheist" that covers all individuals. Secondly, I can tell you that I, and others similar to me, do not have a belief in deity precisely for the reasons I earlier stated; we approach the investigation of nature by empirical method. I'd prefer to use logic and scientific method to uncover, for instance, why humpback whales are no longer travelling between the coast of Southern California and the Channel Islands. There was a time when religion would have said, "because the Sea-God is angry at the People for their lack of sacrificial zeal," instead of investigating the impact of whale-viewing charter boats that stress the populations, causing them to travel outside the channel island ring, and increase their mortality. I do not care what people believe - so long as anyone's belief does not bring harm to human beings on the earth, now, and for future generations. As witches like to say, "and it harm none, do what you will." I'm quite happy to marvel at a godless nature, be as good a steward to this earth and friend to my fellow beings as I can be, and realize the rare chance offered me by conscious life.
I agree with Northpointaiki, I have no faith in deities due to lack of empirical evidence. However I would refer to myself as Atheist for simplicity.
That is entirely fair. It might be more (but not completely) accurate to refer to yourself as an Agnostic. Some things that separate you from stOx are: 1) The belief that Science currently, or will in the future, disprove the existence of a greater intelligence. (No allowance for the possibility that Science might prove the opposite). 2) The need to berate those who believe differently. I too consider myself an agnostic, though by the definition of the word, agnostics believe that it will always be impossible to know whether or not there is a god, and I don't necessarily agree with that. I also feel that those without any spirituality whatsoever are incomplete individuals. To my way of thinking, this has much more to do with philosophy and having a well rounded personality than it has to do with belief in any deity. I also notice the words Diety, God, and in Stox's case, Magic Man in the Sky, being bandied about quite a bit. I haven't looked up the definition, but I suspect it is possible to be a theist without belief in a specific Diety or Personal God.
Sorry its off topic but kudos to who ever banned Nehemiah No, i think this post is completely biased and also complete bull. As do all religions this has nothing todo with your religious beliefs its todo with the specifics of the person in question.