So I'm going to post this and see how it goes! I think that theists think that the atheists who believe that god does not exist because they think it's a belief of the same kind as their own. However this is not the case. I believe there is no god because: 1. The overwhelming evidence of science and how two facts can correlate with each other even though they have no relation whatsoever by subject. 2. The fact there's more than one god and more than one story for things like the creation of everything make it sound as if people have just made it up from their surroundings hundreds of years ago. 3. Just in general I don't think any religion has a convincing answer and they keep changing their story with the progression of science so they don't have too many contradictions. More than anything though science is based on fact and reason. Like 1 + 1 = 2, it's fact and indisputable it's not a belief 1 + 1 = 2. For me one of the easiest arguments for natural selection is the orgasm. A being had a good feeling down there so had more reason to mate so there is more offspring possibly with the same thing going on and so on and so on!
OK... Let's keep it flame-free please people. Do NOT use it as a bandwagon to jump on religious believer's backs. It's boring, and there's plenty of places to do that. p.s. This is a pre-emptive warning, obviously Archtronics isn't flaming.
Religion is a belief system: a network of spiritual beliefs and principles considering the meaning of our lives and the universe. Science is a discipline: a way of finding out facts and principles about the nature of the physical universe. One is "why?", the other "how?". The two can be complementary, but they are not interchangeable. Problems occur when people start to apply one to the domain of the other. So an atheist can decide not to believe in God because there is no scientific proof that He exists, but there wouldn't be, would there? God is metaphysical: He can't be scientifically proved or disproved. So the correct scientific position is to be an agnostic. Belief has nothing to do with science. Similarly someone can believe in God because they see proof of His existence everywhere, but belief is not science. If you believe, it is because you take a leap of faith, not because you scientifically evaluated the proof.
Science can answer the why too. It says there is no why. It's probable as there are so many planets, solar systems, universes etc. earth was going to happen somewhere. Why does there have to be a why?
Science is just the latest(on a very long list) of world views or belief systems, every 'world view' or 'belief system' that came before thought it had reached the ultimate way of looking at or explaining the world/universe ...this is not probable/rational sic. The entire Universe & Existence is a complete mystery & always will be ...it is unknowable by it's nature.
Isn't agnosticism a position on knowledge, rather than belief? I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist as I don't hold a belief in god (or any other deities) but can't say I definitely know they don't exist. I am, however, agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about things like dragons, fairies, goblins etc. As Nexxo has said above, science is a discipline, not a world view or belief system. It's been around for a long time, building on itself to produce the knowledge we currently have. Except it's not a complete mystery is it? We can explain a fair amount as it is and that is only increasing as time goes by. Will we eventually be able to explain everything? Possibly, possibly not, but we're definitely not in a position to say that it definitely won't be possible (or indeed possible).
I'm afraid that is quite wrong, it's a world view or belief system like any other, also it has not been around that long, yes it may build on itself, but so does every other body of knowledge, world view or belief system. How do you know what you believe is true, how do you know that what you are observing is exactly how that object IS & that object is the thing you think it is when you are not observing it? Science in itself cannot do anything wrong, as it is not a person, therefore has no moral compass, therefore can do nothing wrong ...or right for that matter. Maybe you need to re-calibrate the question?
As an atheist the original post could not be farther from my reasons for this stance. There is no hard proof against the existence of a higher power. It's entirely belief that says "Nah, I don't think there is". The reasons for that belief stem from factors such as no evidence of existence, conflicting religions, et cetera but those are by no means conclusive. It's quite similar to a theist basing their beliefs on religious texts and such. Science has done and certainly will do quite a bit wrong. All those things it has down could be disproven a hundred years from now. And in that time everyone will then think it has quite a lot down. Until the next hundred years go by... That's the whole point.
Science doesn't concern itself with the "why?" (as in: "what does it all mean?"). That's not its domain. OK, I'll play. Please explain how science is a belief system? Welcome to science! These are the philosophical questions underpinning the logic on which scientific discipline is based. I'll reiterate: science is a discipline. A discipline is a way of doing things.
Given the long list of 'world views or 'belief systems' that came before Science, I think the onus is on you to to explain why Science is not just another belief system & what exactly makes it exempt. I heard you the first time, repeating yourself does not add any weight to your arguement. Zen Buddhism also meets this criteria, but it doesn't exempt Zen Buddhism from being a belief system. ------------ Lets see if we can interrogate the ideas without turning the thread into another troll/**** fest,
Sorry, not how it works (scientifically speaking). You made the claim that science is a belief system, now you have to underpin that with logic or proof. But I'll meet you halfway: Zen Buddhism is based on a spiritual philosophy: "I believe these principles to have existential meaning, therefore I live my life in accordance with them". Science is based in a rational* philosophy: "Logic dictates that these principles allow us to derive fact from assumption, so I build knowledge in accordance with them". Basically: belief systems are built on first axioms that are based in assumption or faith (nothing wrong with that; morals are too. Sometimes you have to start somewhere). Consider the US Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these...". Those are first axioms based in belief. Scientific discipline is based in logic and reason. We don't believe in falsifiability as a way of establishing fact; it is logical that it does. * 'rational' is meant in the purest meaning of the word: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Because science isn't a world view or belief it's fact and built on fact. How do you type on your keyboard view my thoughts on your computer screen, communicate over thousands of miles? All based on just another world view or science, physics and fact you hypocrite.
Er, yeah. That is a much simpler way of putting it than I did. Or even more simply: Those planes don't fly on belief. Those diseases aren't cured by prayer (we did try). Your computer doesn't work because you believe it does. Just for the record, this does not in any way diminish faith, spirituality or humanist philosophy. Without those, we wouldn't be motivated to try and cure disease in the first place.
Your trying to be very careful here Nexxo. I'm curious would you take this much consideration to someone's political beliefs?
People die for their political beliefs, so I guess they do kind of matter. We enjoy the luxury of bitching about our not very powerful, changing every four years politicians because in the past people sacrificed their lives fighting oppressive despots. We lie on a comfortable 21st century bed made by the toil and sacrifices of those throughout the history of humankind who had a vision of a better humanity; who struggled against oppression, persecution or ridicule for no other reward than the hope of that vision realised for future generations they didn't even know. Some of those people were scientists. Some were political activists. Some of them were people of religious faith. But they all had an idea. And sometimes they died for it in horrible ways. A Christian client recently asked me if I believed in God. I said no, but I believe in faith. It doesn't have to be religious faith; just a faith in an idea: that people matter, that we can become more than what we are, that humanity is the most important thing worth investing in. Those are not scientific ideas, but they are as important.
When a theorem is scientifically unproveable, the wise man hedges his bets. You keep asking the wrong questions, then disliking the answer. Science does not explain the things that belief is designed to. And we are programmed far more for belief than we are for science.
*i try and stay away from religious discussions as i seem to come across in a bad way, this is not intentional, its my shoddy way of wording things so if any offence is taken at what i say that its not intended. Belief isnt designed to explain anything, you just come to a conclusion on something and then believe its true. In an essence its the first attempt at science. Is there a good example of something that can be answered by belief/religion but not by science? Or does it always come down to believing things on faith?
