Print

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

[Neruz]

Dude, how can you say that the theories "big bang" "dark matter" "universe accelerating outwards" "evolution instead of creationism" "insert any of the 100's of the -ologies here" are not beliefs? There being a powerful being that created the world is a belief and atheists don't believe it. So why is something that atheists believe that other religions don't not considered a belief?

You're focusing on entirely the wrong part.

Because it is not a set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and lacks all the extra bits as well.

Scientific theories do not give any explanation for the purpose of the Universe. At best all they can ever tell us is it's cause and nature.

[Micro102]

Explain why atheism cannot incorporate the results of science into it's beliefs? And I am pretty sure they are heavily related as not believing in a god means the universe had to be created in another way, and that can't really fall under any other category other then science.


Purpose, I believe there is no purpose, that a bunch of energy turned into mass and has gathered into the big bang and blown itself up and recollecting and repeating for almost an eternity and humans are just a form of random acts.

(and saying "you are focusing on the entirely wrong point" all the time is meaningless)

[Neruz]

That's because you are. The reaon Atheism doesn't qualify for a religion is because it does not attempt to explain the purpose of the universe. That is the important part.

[G-Flex]

Explain why atheism cannot incorporate the results of science into it's beliefs? And I am pretty sure they are heavily related as not believing in a god means the universe had to be created in another way, and that can't really fall under any other category other then science.

There are a lot of things wrong with this paragraph.

First off, there's no strict set of beliefs called "atheism"; this has been made obvious in the thread already. Atheism can't incorporate anything into "its beliefs" because it is not a set of beliefs; it is, in itself, simply a lack of (or outright rejection of, depending) one particular belief: The belief in anything one would call a "god".

Also, there are PLENTY of modes of thought that are neither scientific nor theistic. For one thing, there is such a thing as nontheistic religion. They're relatively rare compared to the theistic philosophy in terms of major religions you would have heard of, but they exist; Buddhism, for one, is not explicitly theistic, but definitely comprises some religious and supernatural teachings/philosophy. On top of that, you an be neither scientific nor religious. Not examining the world around you in a scientific manner doesn't make you religious (necessarily), and being irreligious doesn't mean you're very scientific about how you do things, either.

So yeah, you can certainly have nonscientific views about the Universe that aren't "religious", per se. "Science" encompasses certain methodology and practices, it doesn't just mean "nonreligious thought" or "rational examination". This sort of thought actually used to be much more popular, that being the sort of "natural philosophy" that involves rationally discussing the natural world without religion necessarily entering the picture, but that does not involve quite the sort of rigor or methodology that any reasonable person would call "science".

As far as the universe being "created in another way", there are some schools of thought which render this moot, such as the universe always having been there.

[Grakelin]

That's because you are. The reaon Atheism doesn't qualify for a religion is because it does not attempt to explain the purpose of the universe. That is the important part.

If the universe was created by random chance, this means that there is no purpose.

[Cheeetar]

That's because you are. The reaon Atheism doesn't qualify for a religion is because it does not attempt to explain the purpose of the universe. That is the important part.

If the universe was created by random chance, this means that there is no purpose.

I don't get your point.

[Neruz]

That's because you are. The reaon Atheism doesn't qualify for a religion is because it does not attempt to explain the purpose of the universe. That is the important part.

If the universe was created by random chance, this means that there is no purpose.

You were created by random chance. Does that mean you have no purpose?

[Jackrabbit]

None but that which we make for ourselves?

That's what I've always thought.

[Neruz]

None but that which we make for ourselves?

That's what I've always thought.

Your DNA would say you have the purpose of successfully reproducing.

[Jackrabbit]

That too. It's a given, really.

[MrWiggles]

Yea, but then we can tell that drive to go fuck itself, cant we? We have a level of birth control unforeseen before.
 
Reproduction isn't a purpose. Its not a goal, reproduction is happenstance.

[Neruz]

Yea, but then we can tell that drive to go fuck itself, cant we? We have a level of birth control unforeseen before.
 
Reproduction isn't a purpose. Its not a goal, reproduction is happenstance.

Sure about that? The number of people in the world continues to increase, i'd say our DNA is still winning.

Our DNA has had a billion years of practice getting us to do what it wants us to (make more of ourselves), it's gotten pretty good at hardwiring our brains to make sure we do what it wants us to.

[G-Flex]

Keep in mind that the implicit goal of DNA isn't to make everybody reproduce as much as possible, it's to secure its own existence.

In a social species like humans, this doesn't always mean a high birth rate; it means whatever's necessary for that particular social group to survive. Sometimes this means higher birth rates, but not always.


You can tell this works in practice; in heavily modernized nations, the birth rate is actually quite low, but the group (and thus its gene pool) is pretty secure.

[Neruz]

So long as the birth rate is nonzero, the DNA is doing what it set out to do.

Not all of it will succeed, that's how natural selection works. But enough of it will.

[MrWiggles]

Yea, but then we can tell that drive to go fuck itself, cant we? We have a level of birth control unforeseen before.
 
Reproduction isn't a purpose. Its not a goal, reproduction is happenstance.

Sure about that? The number of people in the world continues to increase, i'd say our DNA is still winning.

Our DNA has had a billion years of practice getting us to do what it wants us to (make more of ourselves), it's gotten pretty good at hardwiring our brains to make sure we do what it wants us to.

The population is rising, but the percentage by which it is rising, is declining. The population is equalling out, and will reach equilibrium about 2050 or so, as the projections suggest. As what happening here is that first world nation are having population decline with national births, but its being off set by immigration as those escape third world countries. The population after 2050 may very well start declining, until a new equilibrium is reached and world level of living keeps rising.

Animals and plants reproduce with no mind or will, or thought about it. Whether they conceive and populate is of little thought or concern. It doesn't matter if they bare offspring. They'll continue to do so because they have to. Its happenstance that copulation gives offspring.

Its a blind mechanic in the natural force of evolution. When chemical chains were bounding and dividing, and rebounding it had no intent on doing so, that what the laws of chemistry stated to happen.

Why this continues to happen in flora and fauna is a mystery. Its one of those 'why' questions, that may very well have a definitive 'how' answer.