Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Super19

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

2,035 posts in this topic

Was doing some reading this morning, stumbled upon this and thought it was kind of interesting given one of yesterday's topics in here.

Does Atheism Mean "A Lack of Belief in God?"

Let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Excerpt:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT/BELIEF, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know/believe what they are each claiming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an atheist, I have no reason to believe in the claim that a god or gods exist.

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence would require you to change that belief?

If presented with such belief, would you genuinely worship God?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add a bit more then.

If God exists, you would accept him to be the creator of all things, right? As creator, do you think he created things without purpose? I don't believe so.

I believe all things have purpose, and so with God we can end the age old question, what is the meaning of life.

Don't view God as a clock maker who winds up the universe and lets it go without any interaction. God is a personal infinite God who created everything with purpose. Every person in the world.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about atheism being a religion. You can be a non-practicing atheist if you want. Nobody will force you to go to church.

But if you're an activist in atheism anyway, like, say, writing hundreds of posts in order to try to convert theists to atheism, then i'm not sure why you'd be totally against atheism becoming a religion anyway.

Certainly there are atheist activists who are taking this approach now. They must think that the pros (free money) outweigh the cons (hypocrisy). It's their right. Just like how it's your right to not be a 'practising' atheist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing this in here for the whole atheism as a religion thing. It does seem like a lot of people who identify as atheist throw the label around so much so loudly that it is a movement.

P.S. For the record, I identify with Tyson. I am scientific, and though I don't think there is a God, I can't say I know because there isn't any definitive proof that God doesn't exist. I don't identify myself based on the belief or disbelief of a God, and I don't worry much over it. Is that 'agnostic'?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about atheism being a religion. You can be a non-practicing atheist if you want. Nobody will force you to go to church.

But if you're an activist in atheism anyway, like, say, writing hundreds of posts in order to try to convert theists to atheism, then i'm not sure why you'd be totally against atheism becoming a religion anyway.

Certainly there are atheist activists who are taking this approach now. They must think that the pros (free money) outweigh the cons (hypocrisy). It's their right. Just like how it's your right to not be a 'practising' atheist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitionofatheismphilosophicaldoctrinereligiousdoctrineandreligion_zps02452ef6.png

http://oxforddiction...english/atheism

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

When it comes to English:

Oxford, England > Stanford, USA.

As an atheist, I have no reason to believe in the claim that a god or gods exist.

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing this in here for the whole atheism as a religion thing. It does seem like a lot of people who identify as atheist throw the label around so much so loudly that it is a movement.

P.S. For the record, I identify with Tyson. I am scientific, and though I don't think there is a God, I can't say I know because there isn't any definitive proof that God doesn't exist. I don't identify myself based on the belief or disbelief of a God, and I don't worry much over it. Is that 'agnostic'?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it goes further than that with you no? You not only have no reason to believe in a god or gods; perhaps based on lack of evidence, contradictions stuff like that but you have all sorts of reasons and arguments put forth by guys like Dawkins, Harris Hitchens etc. that would suggest he doesn't exist at all. If you simply only lacked belief you would be a non-theist agnostic. As an atheist you are taking the complete opposite view as a theist. I know you don't just lack belief, you also don't believe one exists because not only is there a lack of evidence in your view but in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Otherwise what are you arguing with theists for?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I argue against their truth claims about god.

Like this message board, for example, if one puts out an assertion or makes a claim in a post, then they are opening that claim and assertion to scrutiny and disagreement, should there be some. Likewise, when theists make extraordinary claims without even minimally ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence which can, will and does have wide ranging tangible affects and effects not only on the shared society in which we live in, but also on all those that inhabit and participate in that shared society, then they are open to rebuttal, disagreement, and such, in opposition, as many atheist do in turn to the non-credibly evidenced truth claims of the existence of their deity, let alone their claims to know its mind.

That's the why or the 'what for' as you chose to put it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do like your answer I guess I just have one last question on the subject. Is it true that you not only lack the belief in a god or gods but that you also think there is sufficient evidence and arguments to reasonably conclude that none exist at all?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that history is absolutely decimated by sexist men who do not love their wives but instead beat them and even torture them, but that exists even in a culture that is supposed to be 'equal', for example like America now. Drunkards and generally abusive husbands are responsible for this behaviour. It isn't the functional structure prescribed by the Bible

To answer you, no, I wouldn't. It is not Biblically prescribed for a holistic and functional church and family. Although a women may easily take up the role as the head of a family or church (not a judgement on skill) but the Bible prescribes women not to, on the basis on our personality and predisposed purpose in life. Again, you have to embrace the existence of God to understand intrinsic value and purpose. If a women was perfect, and following the functional roles prescribed by the Bible, then the husband she supports would basically have the most wisest counsellor the world has to offer. For the women has been described as "counsellor" both in Old Testament and New Testament, a similar word used to describe the Holy Spirit. Now that's on par with God!

Again, in no way do I advocate that women are lesser than men, nor vice versa. But rather, men and women compliment each other with our character and personalities.

I know a couple who have been married for over 5 years. The wife has been pretty much wearing the pants of the relationship, making decisions and bringing in the cash. She feels absolutely exhausted and wants her husband to apply himself more in the relationship. Though at first he is the timid type, he eventually told her that she is "leading" too much and it makes him feel out of place to want to lead. So after speaking with their pastor, she decided to lead less, and instead, support her husband in decisions he makes and so on. The relationship today is a very very different one, where the husband is more confident in his roles and the wife is much more happier now. She feels open about being a supporter and loves how her husband is WANTING to be in the relationship now.

Ratiocinator, there is really no way I can convince you this is the way to live since you reject the existence of God and most likely Christianity altogether, so the only thing I can do is show you it's not sexism or chauvinism. Those things you mentioned like beating wives and abuse exists EVEN in families that aren't complimentarian.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats kind of a pointless question IMO.. if there is no evidence, why would he think something exists? There's no evidence for a teapot orbiting Jupiter either.. does he need to argue that it doesnt exist?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so then there is no evidence to the contrary then?

Atheists only lack a belief because no theist or deist has given enough evidence, but theres nothing to suggest the opposite; that a god or gods in fact do not exist at all? So it's just an absence of evidence. That is the only problem with a "god" existing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not religious but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just makes for a weak argument in my opinion.

Same goes for aliens and Sasquatch.

(I'm being serious)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do like your answer I guess I just have one last question on the subject. Is it true that you not only lack the belief in a god or gods but that you also think there is sufficient evidence and arguments to reasonably conclude that none exist at all?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. There's plenty of "problems" with it. It's simply the easiest, most direct, most obvious and arguably "biggest" one. And the problem isn't that theists/deists haven't given "enough" evidence. The problem is there is NONE.

Give us some satisfactorily researched, verified ACTUAL scientific data proving otherwise. Go ahead, I'll wait here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not religious but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just makes for a weak argument in my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example I lack a belief in fairies because there is no evidence for them.

If someone tries to present evidence for them they are making a claim that they exist.

Now after they make their claims I can use science, philosophy, reason etc. to give reasons why it is impossible or highly improbable that they exist.

Once I make my claims I leave the world of simple lack of belief and support a stance of non-belief.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.