• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Any Atheists here?

rickolasnice said:
I'd love to see a world where law is not governed by religion, where [faith in] science, rationality and reason replace superstition and unfounded faith. A world where the church has no power.
Click to expand...
Correction.

Also, the world would probably be a better place if people didn't spend so much energy and time attacking other people their opinions, but instead used this energy to aspire great achievements in science, philosophy, literature, art, etc. If people can contribute something positively to humanity, other people will be inspired and follow naturally. Attacking other people their beliefs (or the apparent inconsistency of some religious texts) is useless, in my opinipon. You know... people -as a rule- don't like to admit their own mistakes/stupidities, they prefer to be inspired.

Sorry, but your anti-religious obsession, since you joined P&S, is becoming a caricature (taking on Dawkinian proportions). You seem a very intelligent person. Is there really nothing more productive you can do with your time?
 
Faith in science? Science tests things, they work out how something works and why it works. Then they test and test and test to make sure their theories hold true.

They don't just guess how and why something works and leave it there. So yeah i have faith in science - founded faith.

Psyduck said:
Attacking other people their beliefs (or the apparent inconsistency of some religious texts) is useless, in my opinipon. You know... people -as a rule- don't like to admit their own mistakes/stupidities, they prefer to be inspired.
Click to expand...

These aren't attacks. They are statements / questions to inspire free thought for people to either question or learn a little bit more about their faith. As well as for them to inspire me and for me to learn more about their faith.

Or are you saying it's ok to get people to think as long as it isn't to question their belief?

I enjoy talking about religion either way..

I can spend my time doing as I wish, thank you very much :)
 
Last edited:
you know science can only test which can be perceived/observed and science itself is subject to change just as logic is. Look at the progress of particle physics!

why believe in something when there's no evidence? well exactly, there's no evidence for or against God, so why believe either way? I'm a Theist because i have faith, but i don't care if i'm wrong either, i may be wrong but that's a chance i take. My faith is based on my experiences and that's it. I don't claim that there is indeed a God, i just hope there is. If not, well then fuck it, i won't even know. I'm agnostic mostly but because of intuitions, feelings i have and the sheer beauty of the universe, i'd think there is a God, what qualities such a God may/may not have i cannot say.

Take the statement, all metals expand when heated. This is a scientific fact, empirically true by every measure but there's still the possibility we haven't tested all metals right? that's the problem with science, well one of the problems.

Your faith in science is as legitimate as my faith in God - both could be completely wrong in the end. Rationality itself isn't the greatest thing either, look what came from the enlightenment era - capitalism. I guess it's better than having things based on bullshit belief systems but still, reason and rationality aren't the saving grace of humanity IMO at least. And for that reason, i don't think it's possible to build an objective framework for morality based on rationality and reason.

In terms of belief in God, the metaphysical other untestable unobservable things; i'll wait for proof of non-existence rather than just take a lack of proof as evidence of anything. It's up in the air at this point, so i'll believe what makes sense to me. I don't believe that a teapot is circling the Sun or that a unicorn is our creator, simply based on the fact that i don't feel like that is true, purely subjective i know.

check out black swan theory for a better explanation of my issues with science and empiricism!
 
As I said - You may as well, then, believe in anything that hasn't been DISproven.. Hitler having a tea party on Titan, your pet knowing the entire works of shakespeare, etc.

Imo there is a reason to believe something.. that reason being evidence for it's existence.

So why trust science?

Well. Because it's been tried and tested. I don't put 100% faith in science as being 100% accurate. But it's the closest thing we have to truth outside of guess work and superstition.

Take your metal example (although I kinda disagree with it).. We know that Copper expands when heated under the conditions it's been tried.

We also know that copper is a very good conductor of electricity. Imo believing in Yahweh, Jesus, Mohammed, etc, and reading those books as if they are true, getting what is right and what is wrong from them and believing if you act in a certain way you will get into heaven, is like picking up a random thing in the street and believing it to be a better conductor of electricity, with no evidence for it being so, and being happy with your conclusion to the point you use that unknown material to wire everything in your house and then (for some theists) protesting that it be taught in schools that it is most definitely a better conductor of electricity..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6OLPL5p0fMg

And will do..

Edit: Aye I'm not denying that science has, and probably will do have some black swan events. "But it's the closest thing we have to truth outside of guess work and superstition." ;) When you drop a ball I trust that it will fall to the floor, and not float upwards. Why? Because it's been tried and tested. Over and over. If I destroy my brain, i trust that i will die / be dead. Why? Because i have some knowledge of what it is and why I need it.. There is also concrete evidence that the human body dies without the brain.

Edit again: Remember i said my beef is with organised religion, not ideas, btw :)
 
Last edited:
@Rick - I'm assuming you're referring to the modern methods of material reductionism. There are many kinds of "science" in the world, some pre-dating the Age of Reason. The branch of science you're referring to as "the" science was originally called natural philosophy.

Material reductionism is incompatible with spirituality. The very understanding of spirit requires one to believe that we are more than this physical body. Saying that believing in science is logical because it can prove things is sort of circular logic. If it doesn't concern itself with the non-material then it's not about disproving or proving, but about discounting it altogether.

I don't know what that has to do with atheism though. Atheism just means lack of a belief in God. Not all atheists are material reductionists or scientists. You could be completely ignorant of the scientific method and be an atheist. Buddhists are atheists.
 
wikipedia said:
Regarding the relationship between religion and science, Sagan stated: "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual."
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

non-physical things cannot be tested by science ATM. The scientific method rests on reproducing studies to increase the validity of conclusions or theories, you can never prove something 100% like that. It's always approaching 100% or 0%, as is the probability of a God existing, so having a belief or faith in science is just as legitimate as having a belief in God. Universal statements of any kind are only valid and sound until we find one example that is not true, like the black swan. Like a metal that doesn't expand when heated. It only takes one counterexample to completely destroy a universal statement that was once taken as fact by 'science.'

The scientific method is also subject to many possible errors with humans because humans fuck up data, manipulate data or data mine, or whatever over methods are used to interpret data to find a result where there isn't one. Like cases of SETI finding alien communications only to later realize it was just a false alarm. Even in the hard sciences people will go out to prove an idea instead of going out to find out what is there to create a theorem or idea, it's a backwards way of going about things that leads to false conclusions. Examples of this can be found all over the place. Even within the scientific community there are still issues about methodology and plenty of disagreements about the nature of the universe, cause of the big bang, time, and all that stuff that most people just consider as fact because 'some scientists are who smart figured it out already.'

Why believe in a pantheistic God over a teapot creating the universe? or Hitler or Hitler the unicorn who creates teapots?

Intuition is what guides me. As well a teapot is a human creation so i'd assume that it did not in fact create or is everything that exists. I can go into some big logical arguments about probabilities and why i think that a pantheistic God is likely the case based on the idea of infinite universes but there's no point. If there is truly only one universe, or 8 or a small number, then the probability of a pantheistic God existing increases, if there are infinitely many universes, that probability decreases. So i'll wait for our scientists to figure out if there are infinitely many universes then i'll make a full decision. Until then i'll believe at least that there is a possibility of a pantheistic God because i feel there is, and it's as simple as 'i think therefor i am.' I feel this God, therefor this God exists.

when i trip i feel that connection to that unity, oneness, singularity. I feel it coursing through my body, that's enough evidence for myself. I won't go around proclaiming there is a God based on this and ramming it down people's throats.

As well, if there really is no God, or anything like that, how the fuck do you explain how anything exists today? The big bang? before that? brane plates? before that? why is there anything at all, instead of just nothing? It's absurd and meaningless and i cannot grasp that everything exists for no reason at all and it's just here and has always been here. For what purpose? perhaps that just lies outside of human understanding but definitely throws a wrench into Atheism imo and the very idea took me from Atheist, to Agnostic to leaning towards Theism.
 
^how do you mean?

i suppose i'm using the word faith in that context as having the reference of, confidence or trust in, as its meaning.

Really, that sentence alludes to a long winded argument on science, probabilities and God but in short, that's how i feel. Someone's confidence in science or the results of scientific study through the scientific method are limited by empiricism and as such can never produce a statement of 100% truth or absolute truth. The same thing happens in regards to arguments for the existence of God, we either get to a 0 probability or a 1 probability of such a God existing (there's an argument that leads to this premise that i posted earlier in this thread). So we in both cases, never get that absolute truth but we do at least get a probability either approaching 1 or approaching 0, which doesn't really mean anything i guess but to myself, it at least suggests that my faith in God is comparable to having a trust or confidence in science. I don't see the two being incompatible at all either.

feel free to pick holes in that argument though.
 
RobotRipping said:
^how do you mean?

i suppose i'm using the word faith in that context as having the reference of, confidence or trust in, as its meaning.

Really, that sentence alludes to a long winded argument on science, probabilities and God but in short, that's how i feel. Someone's confidence in science or the results of scientific study through the scientific method are limited by empiricism and as such can never produce a statement of 100% truth or absolute truth. The same thing happens in regards to arguments for the existence of God, we either get to a 0 probability or a 1 probability of such a God existing (there's an argument that leads to this premise that i posted earlier in this thread). So we in both cases, never get that absolute truth but we do at least get a probability either approaching 1 or approaching 0, which doesn't really mean anything i guess but to myself, it at least suggests that my faith in God is comparable to having a trust or confidence in science. I don't see the two being incompatible at all either.

feel free to pick holes in that argument though.
Click to expand...

Not trying to pick holes in anything, just saying faith and science have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Faith requires you to believe in something blindly, with no physical or testable evidence that it exists. The great thing about science is it actually rewards skepticism. If one theory is proven wrong, it is replaced by a better one. There are no commandments or edicts demanding we abide by the conclusions science makes. No threats of eternal torture, no asking people to suspend logic or rationality. And I know you are defending theism more than any specific religion. Just saying.
 
RobotRipping said:
^how do you mean?

i suppose i'm using the word faith in that context as having the reference of, confidence or trust in, as its meaning.

Really, that sentence alludes to a long winded argument on science, probabilities and God but in short, that's how i feel. Someone's confidence in science or the results of scientific study through the scientific method are limited by empiricism and as such can never produce a statement of 100% truth or absolute truth. The same thing happens in regards to arguments for the existence of God, we either get to a 0 probability or a 1 probability of such a God existing (there's an argument that leads to this premise that i posted earlier in this thread). So we in both cases, never get that absolute truth but we do at least get a probability either approaching 1 or approaching 0, which doesn't really mean anything i guess but to myself, it at least suggests that my faith in God is comparable to having a trust or confidence in science. I don't see the two being incompatible at all either.

feel free to pick holes in that argument though.
Click to expand...

The thing about "faith" in science is that this means faith in the process of finding answers, rather than the theories themselves. Science isn't a doctrine, its not a rule, its not an answer. It's a process in which we understand the world and the universe around us. This differs greatly from religious faith, which claims to have the answers already.

There are many theories that have been proven as absolute truth. It's a difficult process, as theories have to be scrutinized and defended until there is absolutely no room for argument to be declared law, but they do exist. Gravity, for example. Scientists can debate on exactly how gravity works in certain conditions but the idea that gravity exists at all is a fundamental, unquestionable truth.
 
okay okay bozos, i did not intend to use the word faith in that sense, just replace it with belief or confidence in or whatever suits your needs. lol My point was that the claims of science are not truths, they are tentative and subject to revision, as is my belief in God or pantheism or whatever.

Name one theory that has been proven with absolute truth? Gravity exists only in so far as we understand it at this moment, in 200 years from now, there is the possibility we find that it's a different set of forces acting in some strange manner or what have you. Just in the last 100 years our understanding of the universe has grown so vastly that ideas from today would seem outrageous or impossible 100 years ago. keep that in mind as well.

remember that theory that an object can only be in one place at one time? yeah that took logic and science for quite a fucking spin.

As well for a law to exist, you'd have to argue that such a law exists a priori, how would such a law come into place without something setting that law as such? unless you have infinitely many universes, then that would show there is indeed a God of some sort, as one Universe with just the precisely dialed in physical constants to create our universe would be quite the fucking coincidence.

I believe in the pantheistic God or idea of God and however it may transform as science progresses and further shapes our understanding of the universe.
 
RobotRipping said:
Name one theory that has been proven with absolute truth? Gravity exists only in so far as we understand it at this moment, in 200 years from now, there is the possibility we find that it's a different set of forces acting in some strange manner or what have you. Just in the last 100 years our understanding of the universe has grown so vastly that ideas from today would seem outrageous or impossible 100 years ago. keep that in mind as well.
Click to expand...

That was more or less my point. Science in itself isn't the belief in anything but the method in which to discover and understand, as well as to dismiss previous understandings. Confidence in this process of discovery and understanding isn't in the same realm as confidence in a creator of some sort. But, if it turns out that there is some sort of supernatural being that is responsible for the universe, I have confidence that science will eventually lead us to this conclusion ;)

If we're talking about universal truths, does such a thing even exist? Can such a thing be proven to exist? I don't like jumping to conclusions. If these questions can't be answered now, then its open ended in my book. Filling in the blanks with religious faith doesn't bring any solace to my heart and it doesn't provide any satisfaction for my mind.
 
no such a thing does not exist and cannot be proven to exist (you could say it exists in a Platonic sense) as we're bound by empiricism since we are subjects of this universe and cannot get outside of it. Kind of a paradox i guess. You could argue for and against such things, like a Platonic argument vs say an idealist or pragmatic argument - essentially you get no where. Wittgenstein just simply says these are not the problems of philosophy, and poof metaphysics is gone.

I suppose such truth can logically exist but we just can't know that it exists absolutely (in all possible universes). In theory, 1+1=2 should be true in all posssible universes, but it may not be, as a particle or subatomic particle can exist in two places at once, so we could have 1+1 = 1 even in this universe, the concept doesn't make any sense but in reality we could count two parts and they could be the same part, so empirically, the idea breaks down. However arguments like all bachelors are unmarried men must necessarily be true in all universes. The only way to change that is to change the definition of a bachelor which doesn't fly, so analytical statements as such are universal, absolute truths however mathematics (can't remember who made this argument in contemp philosophy) may indeed be a synthetic system and not analytic ie. won't hold universally, in all universes, not true in virtue of its meaning.

We discover these laws and properties of the universe that are fixed and assume they are absolute truths, like gravity but they are still subject to change based on our perceptions, science, logic, math and everything else that shapes our subjective view of this objective reality. You can even argue that the universe is entirely generated through your mind if you so wish.

let's just leave out religious faith, that set of words have a very negative connation to them. Why don't we just call it hoping for the best. I know science isn't a belief in anything really (other than perhaps that the scientific method can obtain turth through experiements and reproducability that can accurately predict things), but the science itself rests on an axiom that cannot obtain a universal truth, at least in the collective minds of this new so called era of enlightenment where we disregard anything that cannot be empirically proven. I'm sure most scientists realize this but the vast majority of people clinging to science and proclaiming their Atheism are likely not.

That kind of leaves out a lot of possibilities, and science in itself will never prove that God exists however with science, logic and maths i think at some point we'll reach self actualization and realize that we are all God. If there is a God, it exists either as the entirety of this universe/mutliplex/brane plates and didn't even necessarily create our universe or as the collective consciousness of all things existing (both are compatible even). Since nothing doesn't exist (you can argue that point as well), everything in this universe exists and is all part of the same thing, that big bang explosion, all made up of the same very things. If that's not unifying and suggestive of an entire universe as a conscious being or entity itself, then i don't know what would.

i don't put blind faith in any of this, i back these claims up with years of reading/experience, especially in philosophy and religion in particular. I can post some interesting articles for those Athiests if they're up for opening their mind.

As well, i subjectively feel there is a pantheistic type God. When you see a tree, do you question its existence? what about a person? likely not, because you see them and in seeing them you know they exist (unless of course you're hallucinating but we don't need to get into that descartes shit). Well in feeling that connection to the unity, i make that same jump and say since i feel it, i know it exists. As far as arguments go, there's not one convincing one way or the other, so ultimately it's your personal choice to believe in what you want do. I hope that i didn't annoy the Athiests here or anything and just provided some food for thought if nothing else.

Confidence in the process that science produces any claims of any objective or universal validity is analogous to believing in a pantheistic God, neither grasp the total concept or the absolute truth, both strive for it but cannot achieve it because as humans we are limited by not seeing objects in themselves for one and the inabillity to get outside of the Universe to determine what is happening. I'm not going to slam science or atheism or whatever, these are just my thoughts and views on the matter. If you'd like to have a rational argument about some of the points to create further discussion that's cool and if not, that's fine too. Essentially, we will not come to any conclusions that will either affirm Atheism or Theism.

sorry for rambling - too stimmed and tired out to sleep yet. whew that was a mess of a post but hopefully it shows anyone who can actually read through it all without falling asleep, what i am getting at.
 
Last edited:
RobotRipping said:
Your faith in science is as legitimate as my faith in God - both could be completely wrong in the end.
Click to expand...

the fundamental difference is that people who put their faith in science are excited about being wrong. science is the search for the truth. religion, on the other hand, assumes that most truths are subservient to one absolute truth, which is that there is a creator figure, and that truth is not open for debate. it's not legitimate to equate a faith that accepts challenges to the very logic of the universe to a faith that accepts any challenge except ones that would dispute a core tenet for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:
Atheist here.

I grew up in a devoutly baptist christian family. Growing up I really really wanted to believe in God, and believe all the stuff they told you at church like God loves you and if you accept him you get to go to heaven and live in eternal bliss forever, but something about it always felt wrong. I went through the motions until I was 18 or 19, but when my HS youth group clique broke up after highschool, I started to realize that the only thing I ever really liked about church was that it plugged me into a social network of peers and gave us something in common that was profound enough to make us all friends.

Every time I see my family they subtly remind me that I don't go to church anymore and that they will miss me when we all die and they're all in heaven while I am suffering eternal torment in hell. I always think to myself that it is strange that they think they could live in eternal bliss if they had the knowledge that their son was burning in eternal torment, but I guess they haven't really thought it through (big surprise).

Deep down, I think I always kind of knew it was a load of bullshit. Requiring your followers to have faith in the validity your doctrine as an all-powerful God, while offering no verifiable evidence of your existence is the the most contradictory thing about Christianity I think. If there is a God, and he wanted you to believe in him, why did he give you the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality based on critical examination of the world around you, and leave no trace of evidence for his existence?

The more I learned about history and human culture the more it became apparent to me that religion was just a way for people to explain the things that defied explanation .Back in olden times God literally lived in the sky, and the devil literally in the center of the earth. Fast forward to the present, we as humans have discovered that those things certainly aren't true, so in the minds of believers they have become metaphors, however they still use God as an explanation for the tough, unanswerable questions (such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and what happens after death). Humans are naturally social creatures who seek comfort in these traditional answers that tell them everything will be okay after they die. Religion gives people a sense of community, and a way to deal with the inherent suffering of life by looking forward to the afterlife.

In the end though, God is completely imaginary. He doesn't exist, except for in the collective minds of the people that have faith in his existence based on nothing other than the desire to explain the tough questions of the world or be a part of a community of believers (I suspect that many, many Christians don't actually believe, but go through the motions so they can belong in a community, or see it is the best bet for a sort of afterlife insurance policy). The community reinforces the belief in god, and makes something that completely lacks evidence believable because so many people believe the same thing that they think it must be true. I always chuckle at the idea of a world where only one person was religious, and how stupid the idea would seem to everyone else because of the complete and utter lack of evidence. The ONLY reason why people have faith the specifics of the Bible is because so many other people still adhere to christian doctrine to this day. Without that faith, the bible would have equal credence to old Nordic or Greek mythology.

Also, I think it is wrong for someone to say they "believe" in God (even though I use the word in the context myself). When you really get right down to it, the word "believe" means that you think something is true, and can point to examples of why they think it is the case, but there are other opinions that are contrary and equally valid. An example would be someone believing that capitalism is the best economic system, or believing that the stock market will continue to rise because of their past experiences. When a religious person talks about their "beliefs" what they are really talking about is faith. Faith is different from belief because faith recognizes the fact that there is no logical or rational reason for taking a side or opinion, but taking that opinion anyways despite the weakness of the position. In reality, the only thing that religious people have to justify their position on the existence of god is faith.

It is not surprising to me how human beings (many of them very intelligent critical thinking people) can totally convince themselves in the "truth" of such a lie in order be able to live a more carefree life where the big, tough questions are answered for them and they don't have to worry about finding the real answers. Honestly, I find no comfort in being an atheist. The knowledge that I am just a speck of stardust spinning through the universe, and that someday I will die and the ego I have created for myself will cease to exist is absolutely terrifying. The one thing I take solace in is the fact that every human that has ever lived, and ever will live has died or will die someday. Dying is part of the human experience. So in order to compensate for the uncertainty of the future it is important to live life in the moment with no regrets and take advantage of the gift I have been afforded in the time I have.
 
Last edited:
^lol intelligence comes in many forms, you could say one race is more intelligent than others and back it up with scientific data, studies, meta analyses and whatever else you want but the whole premise is fucked in the first place!

^^seems you are, like others, more against ideas propagated by organized religion. I am a Theist based on my own experiences, which do not answer the big questions at all, do not give me a security blanket or allow me a carefree life or confidence in an after life. All i know is that i exist, and that i had once existed in a universe on a planet at some time, is such a profound thing that i don't really need anything other than that to live a carefree life. It is so special of a feeling to live life, to perceive and think and be human or any creature, to experience this universe. So that universe, the collective whole of all that is, whether that be infinite many universes, or one, or 9 or whatever, is what i put my faith into being defined as God, that initial matter and energy that created us is a part of that, not even necessarily the whole or not (who knows?) but it's everything in this universe at least.

i think there are plenty of Theists who share this point of view or something similar.

I don't see how you can say God is completely imaginary and yet refer to God as a male, what God are you referring to?? If you are denying that God is a human being shaped figure, the father, son and holy ghost then i think most rational people are going to agree with you, but just because there is no evidence of God does not mean God does not exist, especially when God is vaguely defined anyway. The arguments for and against God are problematic because of such things, as well, if there is a God it is plausible that our understanding of the universe is such that it is impossible to know one way or the other, thereby leading to faith.

Why do so many humans just have faith in God? and not in a teapot or a rock or something? Some of my first memories were of questioning how God could exist, but why was that idea of God already in my head in the first place? why does the very idea generate so much controversy, hatred, change, power? just because so many people believe/have faith in a God (or not)? it's certainly plausible in my eyes that there is another reason why such a concept fascinates us to no end and seems to have intuitively been integrated into our culture (i'd argue the collective consciousness especially) as our species evolved rationally.

Maybe it's just out of fear, but there are plenty of religions or forms of theism that offer no comfort whatsoever, perhaps offer even far less comfort than Atheism. If you think you're just going to be nothing after living, well that's nothing to fear at all, that'd be fucking great, i'd be far more afraid of pretty much any other possibility than that. If death is like before you were born, you won't even know it anyway, so what's to fear? oh no your loved ones are gone forever? fuck i find great comfort in that idea but i can't be sure it's any more true than the idea that upon death i'll be blasted into DMT hyperspace or some other strange dimension or whatever.
 
Consciousness comes from the brain.

Without the brain there is no consciousness.

That is why i can say with almost complete certainty that there is no life after death.. Just as there was no life before birth.

And yes Robotripping i dislike religion, not theism ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top