Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Atheism is *NOT* "science's theory of god." Science does not have a theory of god.
For that matter, evolution isn't a theory of creation.
For that matter, evolution isn't a theory of creation.
Dumac
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,391
- 1
- 0
Are you a permanent agnostic?
Your state only applies to certain situations. For example, if I said that baby jesus incarnate rested smack dab between Earth and Mars, most would be inclined to disbelieve.
It is not as simple as existing and non existing, as there are varying shades of probability. A true agnostic would be directly in the middle, clamining that the existance of god and non-existance of god are equally probable. However, most agnostic are biased, leaning towards one side or the other.
A better example than the baby jesus is alien life. It is hardly provable today, as we had sets of incomplete and unkown data. However, few people regard alien life as equally probable of existing as not existing. Most people fall in various places. Some say, the existnace of aliens is improbable, but it could happen. Other say that the existance of aliens is likely, but we don't know for sure.
Dumac
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,391
- 1
- 0
Athiesm uses scientific principles of proof and reasoning in order to grant a disbelief in 'god'. Evolution can be applied to the creation of the various species found on Earth today.
You are correct that science doesn't have a theory on god, since when does science have theories for cocnepts with no evidence?
Atheism is by definition not a religion. The real question is whether that distinction is meaningful when trying to evaluate the logic behind different beliefs.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Uh... that's not what agnostic means at all. It's not like shades of gray between atheism and theism with agnosticism right in the middle. As atheism means the opposite of theism, agnosticism means the opposite of gnosticism. Gnosticism was a religion of ancient Greece who followers felt they could receive enlightment, or special knowledge, from the supernatural. The word "gnosis" means "knowledge."
Agnosticism is the exact opposite of that. The American Heritage dictionary defines it perfectly IMO as "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge."
So a true agnostic does not hold a balance of beliefs, or agree that pink elephants orbiting Pluto are equally likely or unlikely -- they hold no believe on such a subject whatsoever.
So if I told you that the Andromeda galaxy was created by a large alien taking a large dump you would have "no opinion"?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
What you are describing is exactly one of the religion aspects of atheism, wherein they take science for their bible and scientists for their priests.
I am sorry, but science does not support such a disbelief, any more than it supports the believers.
I believe you were talking about "reaching" earlier...
Vic, you're trying to force a square peg to fit in a round hole by calling Atheism a religion. I know we've been through this before, but no matter how hard you try to redefine Atheism, it simply will not fit in the religious mold.
And before you say anything, I know you disagree.
Dumac
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,391
- 1
- 0
Science does support a disbelief, as of now, as there is no proof granting a belief. If a hypothesis consisted of the existance of a supernatural creator, there would be no supporting evidence, and with no supporting evidence the hypothesis would be considered untrue, for the time being.
Science is just an aspect of reasoning, as beleif in god is just an aspect of faith. Athiest use reasoning, in the name of science, for the most part, while the god-believing require a bit more faith.
EDIT: Comparing science to an athiest's bible and scientist to priest is "reaching"
The whole point of the bible is that it is a holy book, falsely thought to be a direct word of god untouchable by man. Science doesn't come directly from some supernatural being; it just comes from observation and reasoning. Scientists aren't given any special position to athiests, like priest are in different religion sects. They are just normal people with different agendas.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Straw man. Modern scientific evidence based on observation proves otherwise, therefore an agnostic is capable of holding a rational opinion on the topic of how the Andromeda galaxy came to be.
Let's clear this up. Humans only know what our senses are capable of telling us. We expand our senses by using our brains to create technologies, etc., but that only does so much. Theists claim to know that there do, in fact, exist things beyond all possible range of our senses, i.e. they believe in the supernatural. Atheists claim to know that absolutely nothing exists beyond the range of our senses, i.e. they claim to have knowledge that the supernatural in fact does not exist. Gnostics believe that either have or can receive knowledge from beyond our senses, i.e. that they can sense beyond the natural limits of the body. Agnostics hold that that which is beyond the range of the senses (the supernatural) can neither be known or not known, i.e. that "absolute truth is unattainable."
FFS.
Let me rephrase it. Atheism is the scientific minds response to god, just like evolutionary theory is the scientific minds response to creationism.
Happy?
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
No, it doesn't. Atheism doesn't purport any "proof" at all, nor does it reason to a conclusive belief in god's non-existence.
Not really. Evolution explains the diversity of life, but it begins by assuming that said life exists.
Modern scientific evidence no more disproves the andromeda dump theory than it disproves the existence of god.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Not really. Plenty of "scientific minds" have no problem doing science while believing in god, so your statement cannot be true.
Secondly, evolutionary theory is a response to the evidence in reality, not a response to creationism.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Vic, you're trying to force a square peg to fit in a round hole by calling Atheism a religion. I know we've been through this before, but no matter how hard you try to redefine Atheism, it simply will not fit in the religious mold.
And before you say anything, I know you disagree.
I see a preacher pounding a pulpit, an infidel being denounced, and a congregation cheering.
Your issue, Jack, is that you have narrowed your concept of what is and is not in this regard into exactly the kind of intangible you claim to renounce, belief. I am far more interested in the characteristics of human behavior. The intangible (i.e. what they believe in) is IMO of no meaning compared to the actions that surround the belief. If the actions are the same, then the beliefs are the same, the rest is just meaningless labels and symbols, smoke and mirror tricks performed by shaman for the benefit of the mindless masses.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Vic, you're trying to force a square peg to fit in a round hole by calling Atheism a religion. I know we've been through this before, but no matter how hard you try to redefine Atheism, it simply will not fit in the religious mold.
And before you say anything, I know you disagree.
I see a preacher pounding a pulpit, an infidel being denounced, and a congregation cheering.
Your issue, Jack, is that you have narrowed your concept of what is and is not in this regard into exactly the kind of intangible you claim to renounce, belief. I am far more interested in the characteristics of human behavior. The intangible (i.e. what they believe in) is IMO of no meaning compared to the actions that surround the belief. If the actions are the same, then the beliefs are the same, the rest is just meaningless labels and symbols, smoke and mirror tricks performed by shaman for the benefit of the mindless masses.
You see what you want to see. That is no preacher I follow.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Then you must "hear" some pretty intelligent responses. Feel free to step into the batter's box and actually argue as to why it's incorrect, though. Betcha won't.
Sure it does. We already have a working theory of how the galaxy was created. Unfortunately, no fecal matter has to date been observed.
Eh, you're right on the first part... maybe i just wont consider those people to have scientific minds.
On the second part, though, i disagree... creationism deals with humans popping up out of nowhere, not how the first microbes appeared. And evolutionary theory certainly disproves the bible's story of creation.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
He is correct and you are not, but your positions are not really that far apart.
Evolutionary theory is most certainly not a response to creationism. It is the summation of observable phenomenon today and a set of logical conclusions based upon that. It is not coloured by the bias of, "We need something to counter Theory Y." Secondly, the Bible's story of creation does not necessarily conflict with evolution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter