Printable View
the reason i ask this question was because my religious studies teacher was talking about how no ordinary person has ever seen an atom (except from pictures that could just be drawings) and yet we are taught that they exist... this is kinda a leap of faith to think the whole world is made up of things so small we can't see them
Atheism is an epistemic stance regarding the non-existence of a metaphysical absolute (God). In either its strong or weak forms it requires no further commitment from the subject. Faith as a religious vernacular is not simply belief, but implies the object of faith is extant and relationable. Given that understanding, it would be a misuse of the term to apply it to a being rejecting posture.
We've been through this before. It is a frequently raised debate. I believe that atheism is not a religion as such, but that some atheists are happy to adopted the trappings of religion such as evangelism and preaching. They care too much and it becomes more than a lack of belief, it becomes more like a faith.
I myself am quite happy to believe that a god may exist in some form, but cannot see why I should care or, indeed, why he/she/it would. I'm simply not interested. Would that make me agnostic?
the ahtiests are commonly associated with evolution, in which case they worship TIME.
Close enough to what I think about atheism to state, I agree. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Simple apathy towards any religion is fine and not a religion, but I would rather call that agnosticism.
Atheists have a belief that no supreme being exists, so i am more critical of calling that a lack of religion. When they start preaching Athiesm then the preachers, then it has adopted religious trappings and I would certainly not refrain from calling it a religion.
The question in the title of the thread begs another question, are 'belief system' and 'faith' equivalent terms? Atheists have to make assumptions about unanswerable questions, so in my book they certainly qualify as a belief system. But my defintion of faith (which is different than religion, also) is a communion with that greater ideal. People that believe in 'humankind' and 'the greater good' are engaging in faith. There is no provable thesis to support these concepts (belief system) and they are in communion with the idea expressed (they act/think) in such a way that supports the object of their belief... they believe they are benefactor and beneficient of this 'greater good' or 'humankind'. I do not see that phenomenon that I'm calling 'communion with the object of the belief system' within athesists: atheists do not believe they benefit from the lack of a God, and they do not seek to benefit this lack of an entity in their actions. That's not the same thing as saying they don't seek to spread a creed, which has more religious ovetones, in my book. Clear as mud, right? Let me try more concisely...
At the end of the day, atheism is not a faith as there is no interpersonal relationship (real or imagined) with demands on both parties in the relationship between atheists and their notion of non-existence of the supernatural.
I hadn't thought of it that way. But to me there is no difference between a belief system and a faith when you are dealing with theological questions.
Yes it does. Rather than religion and atheism, agnosticism is what that should have been taught at school. But then again; it`s nothing to teach about it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
I tend to personally consider atheism to be a sort-of religion - AFAIK true atheists have a tendency to be just as fervent about it as the truly religious, and often expend comparable mental effort on the issue, save in the negative.
Far as I'm concerned the two can butt their stubborn heads together to their heart's content so long they don't start dismemebering each other or bothering me or other people in general.
Although I consider it an important difference that where the true believer tends to consider his religion the Only Right Truth and path to salvation (and whatever), and those of the others at best cheap copies if not outright lies and suchlike in something of a spirit of "my Scripture is bigger and better than yours", the proper atheist equally denounces all religions irrespective of their names and sundry and everyone more or less equally left high and dry as far as the ultimate fate of the hypothetical immortal soul is concerned.
The rather major difference between "religious" and "scientific" world-explanations then tends to be that the former are, ultimately, based on various revelations and the like you're supposed to believe just because; there's nothing directly falsifiable or provable about them, they're matters of faith (sic). The latter rely heavily on logic, observation, provable theories etc. etc. and rather more importantly only very rarely try to claim any moral truths - and when they do tend to get seriosuly dissed by their peers.
And, yes, the above is heavily caricaturized. It's that or a page-long discourse I seriously don't feel like typing up. I get to write *those* sorts of things quite enough in the university tests.
Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.Quote:
the reason i ask this question was because my religious studies teacher was talking about how no ordinary person has ever seen an atom (except from pictures that could just be drawings) and yet we are taught that they exist... this is kinda a leap of faith to think the whole world is made up of things so small we can't see them
It's perfectly true that no one has seen, or ever will see, an atom. But people can readily see rather a lot of evidence that is neatly and consistently explained and simplified by the theory that atoms exist, and furthermore there are perfectly doable experiments that would prove that atoms did not exist (assuming that they did not).
Therefore although a belief in atoms involves a faith of a sort (faith that our sense data do not deceive us, faith that we have the reasoning abilities that we think we have, a belief that there is not some even better theory that explains all our sense data without postulating the existence of atoms, and so on) it is foolish to equate that faith to a faith in God. For the two to be the same there would have to be features of the real world that could be readily observed and that were most elegantly and satisfactorily explained by the existence of God.
Which it seems to me there are not.
Hence why you need physicists to teach religious studies. Humanities teachers really bug me on the whole. The level of ignorance is staggering.Quote:
Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.
It seems even the courts are confused
It also seems the atheists want their cake and eat it to.Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
Everything is a belief...You even have to believe that a fact is a fact. In that case, atheism requires belief, or at least I believe so :dizzy2: ...
:laugh4:
Yes, Rutherford scattering ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering ) and Deep Inelastic Scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering) are examples of how repeatable experiments can be used to explore the composition of matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
[QUOTE=English assassin]Slightly OT but your religious studies teacher is an idiot.[QUOTE]
i resent that.... he is a very good teacher and i was saying that god couldn't possibly exist cos he hasn't helped anyone (that i know of) in the recent years and he said just because god doesn't make himself known doesn't mean he isn't there and that we have never seen an atom yet we are till taught to think they are there... he is an atheist btw but he just has to 'broaden our minds' to all paths...
What Pindar said, except that I wouldn´t have used "vernacular".
The ultimate athiest would believe nothing unless it was proven and shown to them, alla the atomic theory argument.
I suppose the ultimate fundamentalist would believe anything unless it is proven and shown not to be true - ie God commands you to go kill lots of people, now do it.
Agnostic is more of a beleif That Somethin could Posibly be out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
im more of an agnostic than an atheist.
For example.
I beleve In the big bang.
Lots of smaller Big bangs Happen all the time and We happen to be able to see them Thanx to hubble and so on,
To many religions Thats Blastfamy.
but think about it....
All the matter was compressed And then it EXPLODED and bits of debree went flying all over the universe.
Biger rocks whilst spining create gravity (all mass has gravity)
The biger rocks draged in stellar dust and Other smaller rocs these heated up and melted and the planets were being fromed.
Now we can take that to be fact.
Cos u can see it hapening to starts and stuff out there in space.
And there are also newly formed planets excetera,
HOWEVER
This is whete the agnostic part comes in.
Where di the matter come from to vreate the big bang?
of course Some will say God Created it.
And if i ask where god came from...
You will say he always was and always will be.
And to that extent I can use the same Argument For where the matter came from to create the planets.
These Are BAD ANSWERS.
They Have NO Logical reasoning behind them,
And asd such my feble Mind Cannot comprehend Andy more of the situation.
There fore i am agnostic.
Look at the Typo's In that Then :(
GAH!
I want my edit button back :stwshame:
The only time I think about the existance of god is when these threads come up on the forum. If there were no religious people we wouldn't even have a word for atheism and no one would talk about it at all. If there were no atheists all you christians would still pray at supper time and go to church :2thumbsup:
The categorical definition of the object, i.e. "faith", is what confuses.
Change "faith" to "existential perspective" and you have a rhetorical question.
A denial of God is more or less equivalent to an acceptance of God when the two concepts are compared within the appropriate context as an existential perspective.
Religion and science are not opposite ends of an axis, they are two different ones.
You can be a religious scientist , a non-religious scientist, a religious non-scientist (new agers), or a non-religious non-scientist.
Darwin's voyage on the Beagle was to collect natural specimens... after which he intended to become a man of the cloth by some accounts.
Einstein believed in God.
Also there are plenty of scientists who believe in God but not in man made trappings ie religion.
Well as far as i know.
Religion Was science in the begining.
As monks were technicaly alchemists.
They experimaneted to find the elixer of life.
they did this my trying to turn a base mettal in to gold.
Gold being Purest form of mettal They knew of.
And if they could change lead from being lead in to pure gold.
They could Obviously Then Use the elixer on them selfs To make Humans Pure again,
So they would be allowed back in to eaden.
over the years science and religion drifted apart.
With some scientific studys contradicting religious beleifs.
So its not actualy 2 diferent axis(s) "Axie?"....
There more Like 2 estrange brothers,
Who were born from the same mother. Which both have the same goal In life.
Although 1 took the path of faith,
and the other of logic.
Don't like vernacular ehh?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
However "atheism", by definition(of my dictionary), is unbelief of God or deities. Unbelief simply means lack of belief.
Denial of God would be what the Romantics did in the 18th century (ie. Byron) for example.
Isn't this like asking if black is a color?Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan
Legally yes.
I always love well-used analogies :2thumbsup:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalmoxis
Black is the lack of colour Thats why it does not reflect the any colours back.
Red objects are red becous they Trap all other colours in the light spectum and only Bounce back red.
Same for all colours,
Whit objects arent a colour either.
They bounce back ALL the colours in the light spectrum.
Atoms however exist.
Thats why they were able to split an atom.
i dont think youl find that they were able to Split god.
You deserve an award for that comment. That is the best I have heard in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalmoxis
No, it's a shade.:laugh4:
Black is the absence of white and since black = dark and white = light and light>dark therefore white>black
lol.
Lol i already told you Black is not a colour Colours Bounce back the light spectrum that matches there colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
As black is not a colour it does not.
White technically Is a colour... But technically its ALL of them, so it bounces back all the spectrums of light and apears white.
And then i went on to say....
Atoms however exist.
Thats why they were able to split an atom.
i dont think youl find that they were able to Split god.
ahn han. Ya we can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Ask my wife, I've given her at least half of God and then some.
[evil laugh] heh heh heh heh heh heh [/evil laugh]
edit: AND WHICH ONE ARE YOU DAG NABBITT?!?!? LET US KNOW IN YOUR POST SOMEHWERE SHAMBLES/JUSTAGIRL!!!!!!!!
Hes Shambles His Posts Dont Make No Sense
Now now StfS.
dont we have a truce :P?
and what dosent make any sence about my post lol?
Humans split the attom So thats evidence that attoms exist,
humans have only ever Beleved in god so no evidence there.
Also. About colour...
its true.
red things absorb all the other colours in the spectrum and only reflect the Red part of the light spectrum.
So you see it as red.
White is technically all colours' So it reflects all the colours in the spectrum Which as we know then becomes white.
And black, being the basence of any colour at all. Reflects no colours of the light spectrum back and there for is black.
The first post doesn't so much beg the question of whether Atheism is a faith as much as it asks whether science is a faith. Faith requires belief in something that has not or cannot be proven, and as such I would say that scientific explanation often requires faith, thouth it is significantly different than religion. (Science seeks to answer questions through attempted falsification, theoretical models, and Occam's Razor, Religion provides answers from metaphysical revelation and generally doesn't attempt their falsification.)
On a deeper level we all require faith to survive on a daily basis, believing in things such as cause and effect that are so central to every paradigm of existence that we probably couldn't even think of an objective way to conclusively test them.
(sorry for the vernacular ~;) )
Ajax
So do I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
And I intend to reenact it tonight, up to five or six times.
And I will be as vernacular as I can possibly be.
And to top this all, I might even convert an atheist.
Oh, Gooooood… :knight:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Agnosticism is lack of belief, while atheism is the belief in/claim that no god exists. That`s what separates the two.
not quite.
Its more like
Agnostics beleve that there may be something out there,
but wont comit to any thing.
And
atheists.
Beleve that there is no god.
Lets see..Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgnosticismQuote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I have read far from everything on that page, but the first sentences pretty much sums up my view.
see this part?
also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion.
Nm.
I think the word that's not quite registering there Viking is 'may'. Agnostics believe that there may be something out there, that is they allow for the possiblity. But they don't necessarily hold it to be true.
I very well may be irrestiably attractive to women of all ages, appearances and backgrounds, but even I find this idea strains the bounds of credibility. :laugh4:
I tend to consider agnosticism the "I Don't Care Club" of religion.
theist is greek for something along the lines of 'believes in god' and atheist is the anti- of that (i think) but i used atheists as in the people who believe most of what scientists say...
take this example... ages ago when HG Wells' war of the worlds became a radio production many people believed it to be real because they tuned in late but in a way is that a belief? because they had to rely upon the radio to inform them of what 'was' happening they didn't know if it was for real and yet they trusted in it much like we trust in what scientists say about how the universe is made up or how christians believe the stories of the bible and muslims the koran
Er, yes, that`s correct... :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Yup, and that`s my personal stance too; I really don`t care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Why do Us non religious types seem to be so inclined to come discuss religion?
I my self tend to research religion a lot. And I tend to have debates with religious people,
I think that deep down subconsiously We are looking for that 1 person who can give us the faith they have.
yeah i know many will call this ludicrous.
And when i was younger (not that long ago either)
I would have said its ludicrous 2.
but as ive grown older I understand that people have there right to beleve what they like,
Without me telling them there wrong.
ovcourse i may argue that christians dont really follow the teachings of christ,
and I may state that I dont like How christianity came to be.
but thats not really attacking a religion, its just pointing out a fact.
Where as in the past I would have insulted People for their beliefs..
And what 4??
What gain is there 4 me??
And How would brain washing religous people in to beleving what i believe help them,
Having no faith Sux. (if you start thinking about stuff)
I beleve every 1 should be allowed to beleve what they beleve Without people sticking there noses in,
Of cours a rational debate About certain Aspects of religion Without actualy trying to destroy or belittle some 1s beleifs would be acceptable.
Well I guess im just banging on here .
And i was only taking a 5 min break any way
So im gonna go back to my work (nice to work from home)
:bow:
Lol I wouldn't be surprised if someone calls you racist for that. Good one though. You get props *gives SFTS props*Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Hum, no. That is not right. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Rememeber that you can think of "apple" as meaning "of biting surface of molar" but that will not make it true. You have to study the semantics of the two words carefully and then figure out how to use them properly. I know it might be tough for a little kid but you should try.
How exactly is Viking wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Agnostic (a gnosos) = unknowing
Atheist (a theos) = no god
Agnosticism is more of a withholding of judgment, either saying one does not know or cannot know that God exists. Atheism is an assertion that God does not exist, so it makes a bold claim Agnosticism does not. Agnostics are sort of on the fence while Atheists and those who believe in God or a god or gods (Theists, I suppose) each make similar but opposite claims, and both require faith.
Ajax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
We have already Discussed This And Pointed out where his asumption was slightly incorrect...
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
this was followed by A post of the definition of agnostic.
Followed by me disecting the Description.
The matter was resolved...
Lets moove on...
HEY!!!
I just read That text Properly
Stop the Damn insults!
There Was no reason for Subtle. Snide remarks there.
And Thats Virtualy A personal attck.
= Major warning
= 2 points.
So stop it!
Steady, Lads.
Meanwhile: If there is a supreme being, does she care what we think or don't think about her? And is the relationship between a god and men symbiotic; does each need the other to survive?
i thought god was an 'it' not a she.... or it depends on who is worshiping i suppose and man doesn't need god but if i was god i would get pretty bored without some lowly beings worshipping me....
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan
Well if there is a god,
what makes you think we are his number 1 prioraty?
For all you know Life here could have been a mistak "god" could have been playing about with some attoms 1 day. When they exploded and created the big band,
and then god ran way and went to do something els.
And pretends that That back room in the back of his house with the boarded up door does not exist.
“i dont think youl find that they were able to Split god” No, but the Christian did. One God in three: The Father, the Son and Holly Ghost.:2thumbsup:
I am atheist. For me that means I have no answer and I accept there are things I can’t explain.
Okey, I will. Speaking of which you`re probably old enough to be my dad. :shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Viking: Ignore peoples like him...They like to criticize everything...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking