This reads like a Mission Statement for atheism What did I say that was untrue? What's untrue is this idea my perspective is based upon the meanderings of a few "talking heads." I've debated enough theists and atheists to judge their proclivities. I wouldn't say you've succeeded in changing this. Nowhere do I say atheists can't be "spiritual" (although I do feel they're more likely to succumb to nihilism). And I recall parenthesizing not all, but MOST atheists have a tendency to misappropriate the sciences. Atheists feel they can disabuse "believers" of their follies by insinuating the adhoc nature of the sciences can guide society to some supreme empirical truth. I always found atheism isupremely negative. It isn't so much the way they treat believers or their penchant for saying "no", its their adamant belief science is on their side.
huh?? I come in here to read about the old fart nut case Ron Paul and we are talking atheism??? LOL. Oh yeah, its wwbm, that's how we roll. LOL.
That makes some sense to me, in a way. I grew up in a polytheistic household, with 1 parent who was a preacher's kid and the other a pagan. Eventually I came to the conclusion that either what's up there isn't involved, doesn't much give a hoot about humans, or certainly not a particular human, or isn't there at all. In any event, it matters not because the practical impact of any of those options is the same. So I guess I'd describe myself as a pantheistic agnostic pagan with deist and atheistic leanings. I see the connections, interconnections and interplay between things in the universe as somewhat sacred without needing to impose a deity or personalize that. That interconnection is enough on its own.
I find it very arrogant and more so cocky when someone claims that seeking answers through empirical evidence equates to being negative. Truth be told, it's a disingenuous statement as well. Rather, it's much more accurate to state that an individual who seek answers would rather find them if the evidence can be tested? You'll have to take that up with the secular communities as well because secular philosophy and science would agree that things can be explained without the concepts of the supernatural playing a hand. And what about the unknowns in existence? Rather than taking a "fill in the gap" position, atheists would rather not exercise an arrogant position and say that something is there. And agnostics can be as guilty as anyone who holds a strong conviction. You keep stating that nothing is truly knowable, let alone the existence of God, I say you're sitting too deep on the fence and not look at the general overview of the human mind and how we're capable of constructing ideas and how certain ideas can survive out of a "want".
I made no such claim. It's disingenuous to suggest I did. Yet another misattributed remark. I never said atheists couldn't be spiritual, that seeking truth through science is negative, or nothing is truly knowable. Enough of the strawmen arguments.
Arrogance demonstrated by this post: There's no "resolution" in sitting on the fence. I wasn't referring to the bold statement. There are such things as facts. Science isn't merely truth as much as factual deductions about the world around us. To say otherwise that even the findings are subjective only achieves nothing but the most pompous of uncertainty.
BBW&Trixie Are you guys kidding me? Most public athiest such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Maher love assert an intellectual superiority over those who believe in deity. A lot of athiest are very arrogant in the way they present their argument. It usually comes across as mocking someone for not recognizing what they the athiest believe is so obvious. I recognize that fundamentalist assert their beliefs as truth but so do a lot of the athiest. Even the way the origin of the universe is discussed shows how both sides have zero respect for each other because God/science forbid you're both right. God is the why science is the how.
Andrae, there's a fine line to draw between personal belief with merely a faith-based construct and one that start of as an idea which is tangible and tested in order to have the idea proven to be truth - through factual understanding. The argument is as general as this. Science is a secular practice and religion/god is a theological/philosophical concept. Y ou're very much correct on their purposes hence why I said it. But, with all that being said, it's perfectly honest to let go of certain ideas which can't be explained and readily accept that we don't know beyond what we know or continue to seek answers through crossing through that unknown path. Compatibility between supernatural concepts and science just doesn't exist.
Says you. You can't possibly prove that. And I never said anything about religion I said God for a specific purpose. All I know are two things and that's 1. Science is constantly changing there are certain temporary constancies but they can change. 2. Lack of proof doesn't prove no existence. Like I've said to you before radio waves uv rays electromagnetic waves existed 2000 years ago but how could you possibly prove it. If someone brought it up people would have called them fucking crazy. I'm just saying in plain english you can't determine there isn't a a God at all you lack the proof. Now maybe a redefinition is in order that I can agree with.
I think your understanding of science is a little too...questionable. Certainly that science changes constantly, but ONLY if information provided prove the original theory to be more credible than the previous one. And this all is thanks to the scientific method. As for the "lack of proof doesn't prove no existence" comment...of course it does. Your statement is a contradiction. For instance, we cannot see air, but we acknowledge it because we experience it from a universal plain. And this is due to oxygen and millions of particles and atoms. Of course, this is one example we both can agree upon. However, this is not the same as God, as it's mere more of a projected construct of the human ego, whether theist, deist, or other. That brings me to the last part of your statement. Certainly many of these things have existed since they are integral in the earth. You're right that many common folk would immediately dismiss it, but they would consider it as something "magical" as opposed to something that can be understood through research. The tools weren't there back then, but now with the resources, they are provable. Again, not the same as God.
My lack of proof argument was spot on my friend. Follow the logic. 2000 years ago radiowaves existed correct? Were humans aware of it? We don't need to be aware nor acknowledge something for it to exist. I've always felt like belief in a higher power or a connection to the universe as something instinctual. Too many cultures completely cut off from one another share an idea of a creator. I've yet to here of the culture or group of people who just believed ww lived and we died and that's it. That might be the case but I'm not arrogant enough to say for sure
Exactly what is arrogant about that statement? Your characterization of agnosticism as "sitting on the fence" is at worst arrogant, at best misguided. It's a common misconception. Besides, sitting on the fence? I thought atheists were less likely to engage in dualism? "Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer." Simple as it is decisive. It is not uncertainty in science but doubt in the possibility science will ever "resolve" what is essentially unknowable. The spirituality claim was one of the many you yourself propped up and proceeded to knock down. You stay pontificating about science as if atheism offers us some sort of cosmic epistemology. Atheism perhaps takes on the pretense of being scientific, but does little more than muddle the sciences with yet even more dogmatism. Its no different than theism. I mean here I thought I was dedicating my life to science. But now I have atheists informing me agnosticism is to believe nothing is truly knowable, science is subjective and blah blah blah. And she wondered why atheism annoys me. It doesn't take an atheist to see through folk tales like talking snakes or immaculate conception. They really seem to believe knocking down such low hanging symbolism is tantamount to being "scientific." LOL Disgust.
Well actually, you're sort of trying to mesh tangible existence through hypothesis with something conceptualized by the person. Those are two very different examples and to mesh them together as though you're making a point is dishonest in of itself. Simply feeling something won't build equal credence to your personal conviction. It requires every bit of source of understanding of the How. That means, radiowaves, while the information was scarce, it definitely wasn't intangible and beyond our reach. And look at where we are today? There is proof in the notion that radiowaves and radiation DOES exist on our planet due to the devices. You're not holding a strong argument here and for the most part...illogical. You tout those words when arguing with others, especially a certain someone, yet you neglect to follow your own advice when trying to argue with someone who can see past the smoke and mirrors.
My point being that unlike those who adhere to the tenets of a specific faith, atheism simply means a lack of belief in deity. I think the whole idea of movement atheism is bizarre. I also think Dawkins is an asshole, but that has to do with some rank misogyny coming from his direction in the last couple of months. Maher drives me up a flipping wall. Sometimes, he's spot on, but he's arrogant as all get out, another misogynist, and he thinks his shit doesnt stink. Hitchens I'm personally less familiar with. The accepted standard creation of the universe is the Big Bang, followed by an ever expanding universe. That's pretty well proven. What has not been proven by anyone is what came *before*, and what (or who) made the big bang happen. I'm far more interested in the what came before part. I find that sort of physics and cosmology fascinating. It's entirely possible that a deity or deities set off the big bang. I personally have no experience with said deity or deities, so I tend to dismiss the "do you believe/do you not believe" argument out of hand by saying "It does not matter what I believe, it only matters what IS, and from a functional perspective there is no deity in my life." If there's one or more out there, cool beans and all, but if whoever is out there isn't going to help when I need a hand, she/he/it/they are of no use to men.
The more we learn about quantum physics, the closer we get to proving that the "supernatural" is nothing more than natural stuff we don't yet know how to explain.
In a nation of people who hold dualism as a core principle in their ideology, certainly those concepts can be confronted verily, but it's not often, nor too common. And it's not a misguided definition when in fact you're willing to assert that the existence of a higher being is unknowable. Contrary to that, I'm willing to argue that any conception or idea of a God, notably those in the theist front are very much a participant in the old world principle of exercising egoism at a very fine moment. More often than not, we're ignoring that we, as humans, have a strong feel or "need" of mysticism or the unknown, when in fact, it's merely an existence that we tend to yearn for. This is one thing we can agree upon as of now: Not everything can be explained explicitly. However, whatever is in reach and can be proven through testing and analysis, it's very doable. Death would be the only means for that resolve. That's not true at all. How is simply lacking the belief in a god muddling itself with more dogmatism when equating to science? Shouldn't secularism be the thing to consider, especially since science is a secular practice in nature? I think your deeply rooted hatred for atheism sort of muddled your way of thinking. Atheism isn't necessarily secularism, although most atheists would commonly be considered secular, especially in the field of science. Doesn't matter though. What you hold is more of a philosophical way of thinking. As for I, simply an absolute realist in how things are.
