Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Opticom

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am talking about "private" in a more society context such as keeping entirely unsubstantiated beliefs out of our halls of power, education and science.

Like atheism for example ? Or is all this pretend zeal for true secularism all a one way street ?

smash

Min wrote: »

So no one has an answer why it is ok for for scientists to hold a belief in something that has not been proven to exist apart from their own belief and how this is somhow different to believing in an existence in God.

Well the big difference is that they have a theory, then they conduct studies to see if said theory is correct. If it is then it's good, if it's not, then they try a different method. Now what has the church done to prove their theory is correct?

Min wrote: »

I suppose this is why the Higgs Bosum is aslo referred to as the God particle, but it is more acceptable for some atheists to believe in something that hasn't been yet proven than to be more accepting that a God may exist.

Because more often than not, the basis for their theories are sound.

Min wrote: »

You are moving the pride from oneself to the work, if you looked at yourself as being better than someone who was cleaning toilets then that would not be good, you would be putting yourself above the toilet cleaner.

I think I'll forget this argument now, you just don't seem to understand what you're even talking about and you keep moving the goal posts.

Min wrote: »

I just feel a presence of a God in my life, I just can't stop believing even if I wanted to, it is not that I feel I need God as such, I just feel God exists, so I wouldn't use the word need, but more so faith that a God does exist.

So why do you feel the need to make other believe?

Min wrote: »

I don't have pride that I believe in God, as I said it has nothing to do with pride.

Then what do you feel?

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

and why not? So long as it doesn't descend into hubris. We should be proud of our species.

Not quite. The church by the time of Galileo(and for a good while before) weren't in the habit of such acts, lurid Protestant propaganda and fearmongering aside. Indeed "heretics" were far more likely to be chopped up by non Catholics. Protestants in England killed far more "witches" than the inquisition ever did and over a shorter period of time too. Being tried by the various Catholic inquisitions was significantly safer for a person accused of a capital crime than being tried in secular courts of the time. Their 2% rate of handing down death sentences was much much lower than in secular courts and they obeyed their own internal laws and rules more(actually the Italian inquisitions highest penalty was imprisonment).

Galileo actually debated his theory with church scholars and it was only after the second debate did he fall foul of the authorities. He was tried by the inquisition and cleared of all charges the first time. During this time he promised not to publish more on the theory. It was 20 years later when he went ahead and published that really got on their tits and they found him guilty and sentenced him to house arrest. Whats odder is that the heliocentric theory had been around for decades and the church did feck all about it. Contrary to popular Copernicus' works barely raised an eyebrow from church officialdom.

Of all the Christian churches the Catholic church has been most open to science. For a start and early on they avoided literalism in biblical interpretation. Evolution a good example. The church stayed pretty quiet on the matter officially. Compare that to the other christian denominations who being more literal went batshít. Still are if you regard the various non catholic sects in the US and elsewhere who follow creationism.

While the Catholic church does have a deep pit of shít that needs to be dug out, there are also quite a number of half truths and downright inaccuracies from some about that version of Christianity.

It should also be noted that Copernicus was championed by Lutheran reformers.

While what you say is essentially true Wibbs - reformist religions, based as many of them were on a strict adherence to Scripture, took (take!) a very dim view of anyone who did not conform. As most of these religions lacked any form of centralised authority, things tended to be dealt with in a directly localised way rather then refer things to Rome as Catholics did.

But - statements like 'Protestants in England killed far more "witches" than the inquisition ever did and over a shorter period of time too' are a bit too whataboutery for my tastes. Should we have a body count? Can we count the Albigensian Crusade in the Inquisition's figures - they were involved after all. What about The Reconquista - do we count that?
Should we compare the overall number of victims of Christian fundamentalism and the number of victims of Muslim fundamentalism?

This is about all Religions.

When someone can show me people have been systematically tortured and murdered for not believing in Evolution or Relativity or Gravity or any other scientific theory we can do a compare/contrast the body count. I don't see the point in comparing which Christian denomination killed the most people who disagreed with them tbh.

Min

Wibbs wrote: »

and why not? So long as it doesn't descend into hubris. We should be proud of our species.

Yes, that is fine.

Though the saying is true, pride comes before a fall. We can be proud of our species and then see people do really stupid things...

smash

Min wrote: »

If religion had all the answers then why does the Vatican for example have an academy of sciences? Why do they put in top people who have won Nobel prizes?

Because they work for the Vatican, don't assume they automatically believe in god.

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

Well the big difference is that they have a theory, then they conduct studies to see if said theory is correct.

I think the problem may be in how people associate the word theory. A theory isn't just something that is plucked out of thin air, it's not something imagined as such, which I think religious folk may think is what theory's are just something made up. They may think scientists are imagining some "theory" and then going off to prove that theory.

They maybe don't realise that a theory is something that formulates over time based on evidence.

coffee_cake

smash wrote: »

Well the big difference is that they have a theory, then they conduct studies to see if said theory is correct. If it is then it's good, if it's not, then they try a different method. Now what has the church done to prove their theory is correct?

No: hypothesis, testing, theory

please don't let them think they have an actual "theory", it's a tested "proven as you can get" explanation of facts, not an idea

Bannasidhe

smash wrote: »

Because they work for the Vatican, don't assume they automatically believe in god.

This is true. Colleague of mine did extensive work for the Vatican and she is an Atheist. She is also a renowned expert on the work of Albrecht Durer - the Vatican needed their collection appraised....it's worth millions, especially now that most of it has been authenticated ( by the same Atheist).

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But - statements like 'Protestants in England killed far more "witches" than the inquisition ever did and over a shorter period of time too' are a bit too whataboutery for my tastes. Should we have a body count? Can we count the Albigensian Crusade in the Inquisition's figures - they were involved after all. What about The Reconquista - do we count that?
Should we compare the overall number of victims of victims of Christian fundamentalism and the number of victims of Muslim fundamentalism?

This is about all Religions.

When someone can show me people have been systematically tortured and murdered for not believing in Evolution or Relativity or Gravity or any other scientific theory we can do a compare/contrast the body count. I don't see the point in comparing which Christian denomination killed the most people who disagreed with them tbh.

Neither do I B, but I do see the point in at least being accurate about it. The Catholic church while a right bunch of Noddys at times, get a lot of baseless stuff thrown on them too, especially on Irish websites. The lapsed catholic syndrome is strong around here and for good reason of course. Like you say it's about all religions and none can exactly claim much of a high ground overall.

Min

smash wrote: »

Because they work for the Vatican, don't assume they automatically believe in god.

I never claimed that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Opticom wrote: »

Like atheism for example ? Or is all this pretend zeal for true secularism all a one way street ?

Nope because atheism is just the position of rejecting the claims of theism. It is not itself an idea and it does not itself require any substantiation.

Again: The point is simply to keep unsubstantiated claims out of our politics, education and science. That is all.

Given there is no evidence there is a god, it is one of the claims of which I speak.

smash

Min wrote: »

I never claimed that.

Well then why state that the Vatican have them working there? What exactly was the point in raising it if you are not creating a link between these scientists and their belief in god?

Seriously? You're beginning to wind me up now because you keep throwing out statements and then not backing them up or just admitting that the statements have zero relevance to the thread.

Opticom

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope because atheism is just the position of rejecting the claims of theism. It is not itself an idea and it does not itself require any substantiation.

Again: The point is simply to keep unsubstantiated claims out of our politics, education and science. That is all.

Given there is no evidence there is a god, it is one of the claims of which I speak.

. . . . and yet Atheism is still an unsubstantiated claim, and I've yet to see a good argument put forward for it, never mind evidence or proof backing up same.

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

. . . . and yet Atheism is still an unsubstantiated claim, and I've yet to see a good argument put forward for it, never mind evidence or proof backing up same.

So you think we should just assume that things exist as long as there isn't evidence that they don't?

smash

Opticom wrote: »

. . . . and yet Atheism is still an unsubstantiated claim, and I've yet to see a good argument put forward for it, never mind evidence or proof backing up same.

- Do you believe in god?
- no.
- Why?
- Because there's no proof to suggest there is such a thing.

Pretty solid in my opinion. What evidence or proof would you like to back up that belief?

Bannasidhe

smash wrote: »

- Do you believe in god?
- no.
- Why?
- Because there's no proof to suggest there is such a thing.

Pretty solid in my opinion. What evidence or proof would you like to back up that belief?

Do you believe in unicorns?
Yes.
Where is your proof?
Here in this book.
That's a story book.
DIE UNBELIEVER!!!!!
:pac:

Min

smash wrote: »

Well then why state that the Vatican have them working there? What exactly was the point in raising it if you are not creating a link between these scientists and their belief in god?

Seriously? You're beginning to wind me up now because you keep throwing out statements and then not backing them up or just admitting that the statements have zero relevance to the thread.

I never said what religion or none the scientists had, just the president was a protestant. Stephen Hawking is a lifetime member of the Pontifical academy of Sciences and he is an atheist in nature, believes a God is not necessary in the universe and that there is no heaven or afterlife.

I think you are not interpreting my posts correctly is the problem.

nozzferrahhtoo

Opticom wrote: »

. . . . and yet Atheism is still an unsubstantiated claim

Again: No, it is not. It is a term without meaning. It is merely the position of listening to your claim and concluding you have not supported it.

If you think there is a god the onus is on you to evidence that claim. Those who are waiting for that evidence have no onus to prove an unfalsifiable negative.

There either is, or is not, good reasons for thinking there is a god. "Atheist" is just the position of having realized there is not. "Theism" appears to just be the position of pretending there is, at length, without actually presenting any of them.

Sykk

Opticom wrote: »

. . . . and yet Atheism is still an unsubstantiated claim, and I've yet to see a good argument put forward for it, never mind evidence or proof backing up same.

Best post on the AH ever!!


Yes!! Here I was thinking.. "Will I do a PhD or not, gathering evidence for my theory of gnome mages who can shoot fireballs out of their arses will be tough". I don't need to prove it, someone needs to disprove it.. This is gonna be easy! :pac:

smash

Min wrote: »

I think you are not interpreting my posts correctly is the problem.

I think the problem is your own muddled messages. Pick an argument and stick to it!

Opticom

smash wrote: »

- Do you believe in god?
- no.
- Why?
- Because there's no proof to suggest there is such a thing.

Pretty solid in my opinion. What evidence or proof would you like to back up that belief?

That's agnosticism.

So how is absence of proof, proof of absence ?

What is the evidence for Atheism ?

Bannasidhe

Sykk wrote: »

Best post on the AH ever!!


Yes!! Here I was thinking.. "Will I do a PhD or not, gathering evidence for my theory of gnome mages who can shoot fireballs out of their arses will be tough". I don't need to prove it, someone needs to disprove it.. This is gonna be easy! :pac:

Indeed. My PhD thesis demonstrated that there was no conquest of Ireland and the so-called Battle of Kinsale was actually an early modern music festival where Irish 'rockers' and English 'Mods' beat the crap out of other with the Mods winning because the Rockers got bogged down in the mud in Oysterhaven. :rolleyes:

Sykk

Opticom wrote: »

That's agnosticism.

So how is absence of proof, proof of absence ? That's not a good enough argument or proof.

What is the evidence for Atheism ?

Where is your proof that there's no such thing as a flying unicorn that farts penguins?

Bannasidhe

Opticom wrote: »

That's agnosticism.

So how is absence of proof, proof of absence ? That's not a good argument.

What is the evidence for Atheism ?

Seriously. How many times do we have to do this?

Theism = belief in existence of God.
Mono Theism = belief in existence of one God only.
Poly Theism = Belief in existence of many Gods.
Atheism = lack of belief in existence of God or Gods.

I do not believe in the existence of God(s) therefore I am an Atheist.

It's really very simple.

I also do not believe in the existence of unicorns - therefore I am also an Aunicornist.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously. How many times do we have to do this?

Probably for as long as theists realize they can deflect from their uncomfortable lack of ANY evidence for a god entity by derailing every discussion into pointless discussions over what the exact definition of "atheist" and "agnostic" is.

Wherever you find theism cornered on it's lack of evidence you will find theists rolling in with this deflection cop out technique. Pointless equivocation over word definitions designed to do nothing but smoke screen the fact they are spewing out claims and not backing up any of them.

To my knowledge there simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to think there is a god. That fact does not change regardless of what label theists want to put on it.

Opticom

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously. How many times do we have to do this?

Theism = belief in existence of God.
Mono Theism = belief in existence of one God only.
Poly Theism = Belief in existence of many Gods.
Atheism = lack of belief in existence of God or Gods.

I do not believe in the existence of God(s) therefore I am an Atheist.

It's really very simple.

I also do not believe in the existence of unicorns - therefore I am also an Aunicornist.

So in reality, you can only offer only one argument for atheism/agnosticism ?

One with no evidence, and no proof ? The very position you claim.

Sarky

Oh, we've been over that more than once, Optipus is just clinging to "that's agnosticism!!!!!!11!!111eleventy" because he's afraid of admitting his lack of knowledge on just about everything he's posted so far.

Sykk wrote: »

Best post on the AH ever!!


Yes!! Here I was thinking.. "Will I do a PhD or not, gathering evidence for my theory of gnome mages who can shoot fireballs out of their arses will be tough". I don't need to prove it, someone needs to disprove it.. This is gonna be easy! :pac:

1. Stick a couple of tiny hats on these guys and take a few pictures.
2. ???
3. DOCTOR!

smash

Opticom wrote: »

That's agnosticism.

So how is absence of proof, proof of absence ?

What is the evidence for Atheism ?

That's such a non argument. Have you nothing better?

Opticom

smash wrote: »

That's such a non argument. Have you nothing better?

Exactly, so still waiting on a good argument for atheism . . .

smash

Opticom wrote: »

Exactly, so still waiting on a good argument for atheism . . .

Can you not see that it is a good argument to ask for proof? Or do you just believe everything you are told without anything to back it up?