Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    You don't agree with any of what, that there are many other threads here that explain the differences between weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism? O...k then. :bugeye:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So if your opinion is so 'solid', why do you say believe ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Hang around for a while, you'll meet them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    In one sense, yes - as a further point I would also say that consciousness itself ("what we are investigating the physical universe with") cannot be reduced to these same elements of the "physical world"

    mental confirmation is the arena of rationalism - generally the confirmation of ideas are done through defining qualities of concepts and/or logic (aka philosophy)
    mind and senses are a subset of consciousness


    whatever - but the thread issue is under what terms such atheism becomes a "fundamentalism" ....
     
  8. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Personally, I believe in a higher power. What it is... I have no idea. Im not a Christian or anything, but rather would be concidered a Deist if my beliefs were labeled.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    then why would one hold that scientific education promotes a non-belief in heaven
    (walks like a chicken, sound likes a chicken etc etc)
    not really
    if a person asserts that science promotes an atheistic world view, it seems straight forward ....
    brilliant
    now maybe you start to explain why you would hold that science could begin to come to the position of validating/invalidating theistic claims

    (grabs popcorn)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Let's be accurate.. The claim was that "effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven".

    It's not promoting non belief, its dissuading belief - there's a vast difference and I explained the reason. My grounding in science and the scientific method means I do not have a "belief in heaven", I have a lack of belief in heaven because there is no evidence. My scientific grounding dissuades me from having belief in many things because they do not fall within the scope of the scientific method.

    Eh? I already told you, quite clearly, that these things are outside the scope of the scientific method. I didn't say heaven exists or doesn't exist, I merely explained that those properly educated in science might possibly be dissuaded from having a belief in heaven and other things outside the scope of the scientific method because they are outside the scope of the scientific method.
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I was thinking along the lines of FSM.
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    snakelord
    and this doesn't strike you as fundamentalism?
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    interestingly enough, issues of against the FSM seem to be more capable of being coherently presented through the medium of rationalism rather than empiricism ..... but that's a separate issue - you still haven't clarified your usage of the term "non-entity" from an empirical vantage point
     
  14. elsyarango Registered Member

    Messages:
    78
    there is no god. there. furthermore i believe im sitting in front of my computer writing all this. your belief is your belief. a theist will say there is a god because he believes there is a god. i am simply expresing my position in opposition to other positions. when discussing theism and atheism, the word belief is proper. theism is the belief in the existence god. atheism is the belief that reality is without god. that is why theres an 'a' which signifies without. any opinion or position you hold on anything is your belief.

    if i say atheists 'believe' that the universe is without any god, the word 'believe' is in proper context.


    take your pick. atheism is atheism. i find these categories senseless and inapplicable.
     
  15. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Uhh.. no.. it seems quite standard and normal to lack a belief in something that has no supportive evidence regardless to what it is from drinking a cup of tea to crossing the road.

    Unfortunate I know, but if one cannot find an answer to a claim, where is the worth in believing that claim is true? Surely the best we can do is lack a belief in that claim until such time where there is something to support it?

    But it isn't, regardless to personal feelings on the matter. Please, take the time to search other threads to save a conversation that need not be had all over again.
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    This means you don't believe in God, not that you believe there is no God.. :shrug:
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    a-theism = without belief
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    ON the side:
    I was thinking of how much more rational common people were living 2000-5000 years ago. They didn't have time to worry to much about non-entities and they expected their Preists to provide some "material evidence" as proof of the power of their Gods. The common people went to the temples and expected to see something happen. They expected to see miracles and magic. And if they didn't see it they said f*ck this and went else where. Pretty rational really. AND funny enough, when something like a storm hits or the economy tanks lots of religion people take this as "proof" of God's intervening into the material world. People still like to have some sort of "proof".

    But we know there is no proof. If something doens't exist it can not be measured and so it's outside of science. Try "proving" "scientifically" that the FSM does not exist. It's impossible.

    I wonder how many people would worship their God if they were given NOTHING after death - they just died. Pretty few I'd imagine. So people are willing to suspend their beleif JUST in case they might get to live after they die. I beleive that the ancients did not tie beleif in a God to their afterlife. I think they just assumed they'd live after they were dead and really it was what they did in life that had an effect on their standing in the afterlife. Hence they usually demanded proof of a God's power if they were going to worship it. As people wised up it became nessesary to change the scheme.
    God does nothing,
    you worship God
    you get to live after you die.
    you don't worship God you don't.

    Seems like a jip to me.
    Michael
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    non-entity = something that does not exist in physical reality.
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    how did you just go from "empiricism deals with empircism" to "anything outside empiricism doesn't exist/cannot be verifiable"

    I'm asking for an explanation why one would hold that something existing outside the empirical method would not exist ..... as opposed to yet another fundie atheist claim
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    then I guess we can disregard such fictional entities as "justice" "people's minds" etc etc
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    non-entity != something that does exist in non-physical reality.
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    its not clear what body of knowledge you are drawing upon for claims about civilizations 2500-5000 years ago (admittedly where archeology finishes and imagination takes over is a subject of much scholarly discussion)
    even more difficult is how one can empirically assert there is no life after death
    I am not sure why you threw this in - its all hearsay deeply dyed by your current cultural conditioning
     

Share This Page