Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AtomicPaperclip]

It's pretty solid, if you don't believe there is a god, your an atheist.

I would argue rather if you believe there is not a god, you're an atheist, whilst not believing there is a god can still place you in the agnostic category.

[chaoticag]

Explicitly avoids? When?

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

It basically avoids the whole, what ifs that Philosophy deals with, like whether the world exists and so on and so forth. That is how it avoids the fundamental (I cannot stress this enough, fundamental) problems with existance, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language.

It studies those subjects, but it assumes them to be natural phenomena. It doesn't set values, but it may look into the effects of them. It doesn't try to prove existance or question, but it explains why things exist.

I would argue rather if you believe there is not a god, you're an atheist, whilst not believing there is a god can still place you in the agnostic category.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

[TheDarkJay]

I'd argue the what ifs are inherently devoid of meaning, but I have trouble with a lot of abstract concepts.

Anyway, yeah: Harking back. I'm atheist (Athestic Agnostic is a nice term), as I lack a belief in any gods for the same reason I lack belief in faeries and unicorns. No valid, reliable and verifiable proof of their existence, ergo we should operate under the assumption they don't exist. After all, did Thomas Jefferson not say "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

If reason (logic) leads me to conclude no gods exist, then those gods if they do exist should approve and if they don't, they aren't gods I would worship anyway.

Besides, everyone knows all Atheists worship the GREAT LORD ATHE!

[chaoticag]

Or if they did exist, why would they need worship etc etc.
Really does seem like chasing the rainbow. Yes, a pot of gold is nice, but it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a pot of gold in the first place.

[Urist McOverlord]

I consider myself a "logical agnostic." Logically, I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, because there are simply too many questions that science and/or philosophy fail to adequately. Nor, however does religion answer them. Both sides, sadly, bring up more questions than they answer. Especially religion, although the sayings of any church (in my opinion, at least) have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God.

In fact, if there is a god (or gods, for that matter,) I think He (or She, or They,) would be very little like that omnipowerful, omnibenevolent diety that modern (Christian) religion would have us believe.

[Siquo]

Simple, an explanation of the natural world derived from information obtained from the natural world.
Science doesn't explore those fundamental problems, it explicitly avoids them.

True and agreed. But can it be a subset of philosophy, as theology is?

Philosophy brought us many good things, so it's far from pointeless or useless (eg. Science, Ethics, and (probably) Democracy). It's the philosophers themselves who are useless...
(Yes, I took a few classes in university and no, I found out I don't like people who study philosophy  )

[MrWiggles]

Philo of science, is a sub set of philo. Science itself isn't.

[Siquo]

What is it then, MrWiggles?

Except for Absolute Truth, that is. That just makes me giggle.

[MrWiggles]

What is it then, MrWiggles?

Except for Absolute Truth, that is. That just makes me giggle.

I dont think there is an absolute truth. Its a silly notion.

I know this is ill form, to answer a question with a question.

Why must science be apart of something? Excuse the tautology but for now why cant science be science?

[Siquo]

Because language is (can't find the word). Relative to eachother. Every concept in language is explained using other concepts in the same language, eventually in a circular fashion. A chair is a board with legs. A leg is a component on which something stands. Standing is done on legs. A chair only has legs because it stands. Stuff like that.

That's how definitions work, I think. So what other words could you use that would describe Science?

[RAM]

Language is unusually separate from reality, it really isn't a good source of inspiration...

That is an interesting thing you say there though, of words being relative to other words and forming an internally consistent system. I don't really agree with this at all when applied to language but it is very applicable to scientifically acquired data. Science gives you an internally consistent world, if you live inside of science you can pretty reliably predict the consequences of your actions. If you live outside of science, then you can expect to suffer from unpredictable failures with frustrating frequency. And for the record, science can be used to explain much of why people exist, and a good deal of what would be valid goals for existing, although the answers may not always be particularly comforting...

But none of this has anything to do with Atheism. Is there any reason at all to think that any god might exist that couldn't be refuted in a matter of moments by anyone with any actual familiarity in the fields it refers to?

[Huesoo]

Because language is (can't find the word). Relative to eachother. Every concept in language is explained using other concepts in the same language, eventually in a circular fashion. A chair is a board with legs. A leg is a component on which something stands. Standing is done on legs. A chair only has legs because it stands. Stuff like that.

That's how definitions work, I think. So what other words could you use that would describe Science?

SCIENCE IS SCIENCE.

[TheDarkJay]

There is an "absolute truth": What is.

That's all the world comes down to: What is, is. What isn't, isn't. Very Zen, don't you think? Just because we may never know that absolute truth, doesn't mean it isn't there..'cause, ya know: Shit be real, yo ^.^

There is a definitive answer to the question "Does the Christian god exist as described in the bible?", just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean it isn't a simple, binary question with only two possible answers: Yes, or No.

[Kebooo]

This is what I've never quite understood, the argument that because science isn't an absolute truth, that it requires belief, even faith, then it must be equally as reasonable or plausible as religion.

Everyone in this topic has a chance to die today.  It's possible.  Do any of you have any reason to believe you will die today?  Do you have reason to believe this forum is anything but me, the great evil mind, and every user on this forum is actually me, except for you?  If I told you I'm a billionaire, would you believe it?  What if I told you tomorrow World War 3 would start?  Can you prove without any shred of doubt, right now, that any of these are untrue or not possible?  Of course not.  And yet if I made a topic claiming they were true, I would most likely have everyone, religious or otherwise, disagree and contest the truth of my claims, with or without evidence.  So why then, by the mere fact science cannot be absolutely proven as the ultimate truth, do people argue against its evidence based on the fact it can be argued at all on any level?  We should debate merit and evidence, not the idea something can be possible. 

When our lives are constantly based on our beliefs and expectations, why does possibility even come into our conclusions?  It's possible Tom Brady will decide to fly up to my town tonight and go to a restaurant where I'll meet him and become good friends with him.  I have no reason at all to believe that will happen though, I'm very convinced that won't happen.  I have no reason to believe you are all a figment of my imagination, even though you could be.  This is what bothers me about the opposition of science, questioning its practical validity merely because it can be doubted in any way.

So the question becomes, which of you are agnostic about every action and possibility in your life?  After all, we can even doubt probability, so why take one position over another?  Why believe or disbelieve I am a billionaire without evidence either way?  It's interesting, how the average person would need evidence of my being a billionaire to believe me.  And no one needs evidence to believe I'm not just a collaboration of fifty individuals typing up these posts for a psychology experiment.  Likewise, shouldn't they need evidence of a god's existence to believe in it?  Not just the fact it is possible, after all, I am the great evil mind controlling the forum posters (except you, the guy reading this), or I am the fifty scientists typing this post up, or I am the billionaire playboy.  They're possible, so should you believe them?  This leads us to holy books, which we can certainly debate whether or not they should be believed to be divine evidence.

[TheDarkJay]

The difference is in approach. Belief, especially fanatical belief, not only is quite willing to exist irrelevant of evidence, but even persist despite contradictory evidence.

Science is based around the concept that: If evidence to the contrary is found, the idea is wrong.

As for which ones to accept as being reasonably likely to be true or close to the truth: I say it's about playing the odds. For example, the odds of a plane crashing into my house are ridiculously low, so I don't let it trouble me. Also, the more useful information we have, the more accurately we can predict the odds.