Religious folks views of Atheists

[sandorski]

I'm always amused by people who quote famous scientists in support of their beliefs - especially atheists that use them to support their belief.

Scientists are no more capable of discerning the nature of reality than the Buddhist monk or anyone else for that matter. Appeals to authority are for people who can't think for themselves.

Wow, what a silly thing to say.

 

[Charmonium]

If you really want some amusement why don't you regale us with some quotes on the nature of reality from religious authorities?

Why would I want to do that?

 

[disappoint]

Wow, what a silly thing to say.

You have to be in absolute awe of this part:

Scientists are no more capable of discerning the nature of reality than the Buddhist monk or anyone else for that matter.

By including anyone, he's pretty much saying that scientists are no more capable of discerning the nature of reality than a drooling lunatic in an insane asylum, an Alzheimers patient that can't remember what their car keys are for, or politicians that eat crayons. Ok that last one was only a joke, but you get the idea.

People manage to convince themselves of absolutely ridiculous ideas and the funny bit of it is that they haven't the slightest clue as to why.

 

[disappoint]

Why would I want to do that?

Oh I'm sure you wouldn't want to. I imagine it might turn out quite embarrassing for you if we were to go toe to toe with religious quotes vs. quotes by scientists.

 

[Charmonium]

You have to be in absolute awe of this part:



By including anyone, he's pretty much saying that scientists are no more capable of discerning the nature of reality than a drooling lunatic in an insane asylum, an Alzheimers patient that can't remember what their car keys are for, or politicians that eat crayons. Ok that last one was only a joke, but you get the idea.

People manage to convince themselves of absolutely ridiculous ideas and the funny bit of it is that they haven't the slightest clue as to why.

They aren't any more capable. They don't even understand quantum mechanics and that's been around for 100 years.

Seriously, look it up and see how many different interpretations there are. We are far more ignorant that you can possibly know. Maybe you more than most.

 

[sandorski]

They aren't any more capable. They don't even understand quantum mechanics and that's been around for 100 years.

Seriously, look it up and see how many different interpretations there are. We are far more ignorant that you can possibly know. Maybe you more than most.

Ugh. If it were not for them we wouldn't even be aware of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[jackstar7]

They aren't any more capable. They don't even understand quantum mechanics and that's been around for 100 years.

Seriously, look it up and see how many different interpretations there are. We are far more ignorant that you can possibly know. Maybe you more than most.

Except science understands our ignorance is a starting point, not the goal.

 

[disappoint]

Ugh. If it were not for them we wouldn't even be aware of Quantum Mechanics.

What a great world that would be where instead of filling your mind with that silly arrogant sciencey ignorance we could be throwing stones at people who leave our religions.

 

[soulcougher73]

Atheists to my perception are a pretty diverse group but for myself they come in three general categories:

1. Atheists who don't believe in anything supernatural and don't care if anyone else does or doesn't. Perfectly fine people in my opinion.

2. Atheists who may not really be atheist but who thrive on thinking they're being oppressed so they call themselves 'atheist' just so they can lay claim to some form of victimhood (usually at the hands of Christians who they can't name).

3. Evangelical Atheists. Okay, I hate these idiots. It isn't enough for them that they don't believe in anything supernatural, oh no. They go all jihadi on religious people and insist that no one else is allowed to believe in anything either. Silent prayer offends these assholes. Someone reading a Bible offends them. A Nativity crèche on private property offends them and they'll sue to get it removed. These idiots invest so much hatred against God (but not Allah, Buddha, etc.) that they end up demonstrating a devout faith that not even most Christians demonstrate these days!

Seriously, kids. If you fight hard enough against something then somewhere along you're making the case for its existence.

Mind you I totally support the right of people to be free from religion.

But then I should also be free from their lack of it. It's a two-way street.

I'm glad I've never known #3. Rarely even hear about that type. I think they are pretty rare.

 

[disappoint]

I'm glad I've never known #3. Rarely even hear about that type. I think they are pretty rare.

They are so rare Gordon Ramsey flies into a rage every time someone mentions them.

 

[Charmonium]

Ugh. If it were not for them we wouldn't even be aware of Quantum Mechanics.

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point was the fact that even physicists can't agree on how to interpret quantum mechanics. Whether it's real or just a convenient contrivance (epistemic or ontic). Whether the wave function collapses (Copenhagen interpretation) or the various quantum states should be explained by the many-worlds theory (Everett). Oh don't forget de Broglie's interpretation.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point was the fact that even physicists can't agree on how to interpret quantum mechanics. Whether it's real or just a convenient contrivance (epistemic or ontic). Whether the wave function collapses (Copenhagen interpretation) or the various quantum states should be explained by the many-worlds theory (Everett). Oh don't forget de Broglie's interpretation.

The point is that they have discovered what "Spiritual" persons never have and would not have. Our understanding of Reality is all because of Science and Science alone.

 

[Charmonium]

The point is that they have discovered what "Spiritual" persons never have and would not have. Our understanding of Reality is all because of Science and Science alone.

Why do most atheists seem to assume that science and religion are mutually exclusive? It's like you're trying to create a straw man just so you can cut it down.

Granted, the two can be inconsistent if you start to approach things from a fundamentalist perspective, but that doesn't describe the vast number of believers.

I should also make it clear that I am NOT one of those believers. I'm a true agnostic. Not a weak atheist, agnostic. And contrary to popular belief, there is a difference.

 

[sandorski]

Why do most atheists seem to assume that science and religion are mutually exclusive? It's like you're trying to create a straw man just so you can cut it down.

Granted, the two can be inconsistent if you start to approach things from a fundamentalist perspective, but that doesn't describe the vast number of believers.

I should also make it clear that I am NOT one of those believers. I'm a true agnostic. Not a weak atheist, agnostic. And contrary to popular belief, there is a difference.

You're right, there is a difference between Atheist and Agnostic. Just not the one you seem to think there is.

Theist/Atheist is about Belief
Gnostic/Agnostic is about Knowledge

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't Know if there is a god and I don't Believe there is a god.

In what way is Religion and Science not mutually exclusive?

 

[Charmonium]

You're right, there is a difference between Atheist and Agnostic. Just not the one you seem to think there is.

Theist/Atheist is about Belief
Gnostic/Agnostic is about Knowledge

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't Know if there is a god and I don't Believe there is a god.

In what way is Religion and Science not mutually exclusive?

Agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive. To say you are an agnostic atheist doesn't make any sense.

From the Oxford English dictionary definition of agnostic.

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

As far as science and religion not being exclusive, what exactly do you want me to prove? There are plenty of scientists who are believers. Do you think they're idiots because they believe? Do you think that they're too stupid to see the supposed "contradiction?"

Religion is about the metaphysical. Science is about the physical. There is no inherent contradiction unless and until the two overlap.

 

[jackstar7]

Agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive. To say you are an agnostic atheist doesn't make any sense.

From the Oxford English dictionary definition of agnostic.

As far as science and religion not being exclusive, what exactly do you want me to prove? There are plenty of scientists who are believers. Do you think they're idiots because they believe? Do you think that they're too stupid to see the supposed "contradiction?"

Religion is about the metaphysical. Science is about the physical. There is no inherent contradiction unless and until the two overlap.

Instead of whipping out OED definitions, you could look at the one he provided you and extend the courtesy of taking it.

Just something to consider.

 

[Charmonium]

Instead of whipping out OED definitions, you could look at the one he provided you and extend the courtesy of taking it.

Just something to consider.

For language to have any meaning, you need consistency. When you start making up your own definitions, you no longer have that.

 

[sandorski]

Agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive. To say you are an agnostic atheist doesn't make any sense.

From the Oxford English dictionary definition of agnostic.

As far as science and religion not being exclusive, what exactly do you want me to prove? There are plenty of scientists who are believers. Do you think they're idiots because they believe? Do you think that they're too stupid to see the supposed "contradiction?"

Religion is about the metaphysical. Science is about the physical. There is no inherent contradiction unless and until the two overlap.

Gnostic is about Knowledge, not Belief. What the dictionary says doesn't matter, it merely reflects Usage and not the root Original Meaning of words. Regardless, I'll just agree to disagree on the labels.

No, they are not idiots, but whether they believe or not it has nothing to do with whether Science and Religion are mutually exclusive or not. What makes Science and Religion mutually exclusive is their Method of determining what is True. Religion Believes a set of "Truths", usually based upon Traditions, Holy books, and Dogma. Science assumes nothing, except that the Material world exists, then it investigates that world in order to better understand it.

That is why Religion thought an Earthquake was god's anger at us and Science discovered that Earthquakes were caused by the movement of Tectonic Plates. Or why Religion thought Epileptics were possessed by Demons and Science discovered they had a Medical Condition. The list of contrasts can go on ad infinitum.

There have already been examples of the Religious type in this very thread. At least a couple posters have taken Experiences and merely tacked on religious labels to those experiences. However, even if those experiences were Spiritual Plane induced(exceedingly unlikely, but whatever), they have no sound reason to assume that their particular Religious icons had anything to do with it. They merely experienced a phenomena and applied the labels they are aware of to it. Many of those experiences can be induced in a Lab through changing the chemical balance of the brain and through other stimuli that have no Spiritual connection at all. Many claims by Spiritual people when under Lab conditions have completely failed to work as claimed.

 

[Charmonium]

Gnostic is about Knowledge, not Belief. What the dictionary says doesn't matter, it merely reflects Usage and not the root Original Meaning of words. Regardless, I'll just agree to disagree on the labels.

No, they are not idiots, but whether they believe or not it has nothing to do with whether Science and Religion are mutually exclusive or not. What makes Science and Religion mutually exclusive is their Method of determining what is True. Religion Believes a set of "Truths", usually based upon Traditions, Holy books, and Dogma. Science assumes nothing, except that the Material world exists, then it investigates that world in order to better understand it.

That is why Religion thought an Earthquake was god's anger at us and Science discovered that Earthquakes were caused by the movement of Tectonic Plates. Or why Religion thought Epileptics were possessed by Demons and Science discovered they had a Medical Condition. The list of contrasts can go on ad infinitum.

There have already been examples of the Religious type in this very thread. At least a couple posters have taken Experiences and merely tacked on religious labels to those experiences. However, even if those experiences were Spiritual Plane induced(exceedingly unlikely, but whatever), they have no sound reason to assume that their particular Religious icons had anything to do with it. They merely experienced a phenomena and applied the labels they are aware of to it. Many of those experiences can be induced in a Lab through changing the chemical balance of the brain and through other stimuli that have no Spiritual connection at all. Many claims by Spiritual people when under Lab conditions have completely failed to work as claimed.

Look. I don't want to seem impatient but I've explained this a couple of times now in different ways.

You're talking about individual religions. I'm talking about religion generally. Or to put that more simply, you're talking about dogma I'm talking about general metaphysics.

Metaphysics by definition is about things that transcend the physical world. So by definition, there is no contradiction between physics and metaphysics. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Carl Sagan, another agnostic.

• Sagan himself routinely described himself as an agnostic, and believed that the question of God's existence is inherently outside science.

 

[jackstar7]

For language to have any meaning, you need consistency. When you start making up your own definitions, you no longer have that.

Actually, language does not need to be consistent, with English being a language almost constantly in flux.

What it needs is communicator and audience to share the same meaning.

But pedantry on this board is not uncommon.

 

[sandorski]

Look. I don't want to seem impatient but I've explained this a couple of times now in different ways.

You're talking about individual religions. I'm talking about religion generally. Or to put that more simply, you're talking about dogma I'm talking about general metaphysics.

Metaphysics by definition is about things that transcend the physical world. So by definition, there is no contradiction between physics and metaphysics. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Carl Sagan, another agnostic.

Metaphysics are not a thing in the same way Physics are a thing. At best they are a Hypothesis.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive. To say you are an agnostic atheist doesn't make any sense.

You seem to think that atheism is the belief that exactly zero gods exist. In fat, it is rather the lack of belief that a god exists.

In other words, where X = a god exists, atheism is "I don't believe X."

You think atheism is "I believe not-X."

Those are not the same thing, and the latter only represents a subset of atheists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

For language to have any meaning, you need consistency. When you start making up your own definitions, you no longer have that.

Nobody is making up any definitions. You are just distracted by the bastardization that has happened in common language which has treated agnosticism has some kind of "third leg" that is "in between" an otherwise perfect dichotomy of theism and atheism. This is not consistent at all with the way we treat other dichotomies like say, symmetry and asymmetry, or typical and atypical. Gnosticism and agnosticism form their own orthogonal dichotomy.

 

[Charmonium]

Metaphysics are not a thing in the same way Physics are a thing. At best they are a Hypothesis.

Oooo, it's not a "thing" is it? Really? It's an entire branch of philosophy.

Nobody is making up any definitions. You are just distracted by the bastardization that has happened in common language which has treated agnosticism has some kind of "third leg" that is "in between" an otherwise perfect dichotomy of theism and atheism. This is not consistent at all with the way we treat other dichotomies like say, symmetry and asymmetry, or typical and atypical. Gnosticism and agnosticism form their own orthogonal dichotomy.

The bullshit is strong with this one.

Agnosticism is indeed a third leg between theism and atheism. Except it is broader than either. The latter 2 are primarily concerned with the existence of a god or gods. You should probably include pantheism in there somewhere as well.

Gnosticism, at least in the Christian sense, hasn't existed since about 2nd or third century AD/CE. The Gnostics were effectively killed by the early church. Athanasius of Alexandria was probably the writer who did the most to quell the "gnostic heresy." It was because of this pogrom of competing beliefs by the early church that the books of the Nag Hamadi library were buried in the desert for us to find.

The term "gnostic" isn't even used anymore outside of talking about gnostic Christians. To the extent anyone does still use the term in the broader sense however, it applies mainly to mystical traditions in various faiths. Although as I said, it now is synonymous with gnostic Christianity.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't recall seeing the term 'gnostic' used before except in reference to gnosticism. I learned something today.

Given the extremely negative impact of gnosticism during the early church, the term 'gnostic theism' is never used in the Christian community.