Atheist FAQ

[BrokeProphet]

I decided to make this clear to all those out there who dislike or are confused by atheism and science.

1. If atheists are so right then why don't they disprove God.

You cannot disprove something that is NOT proven. It is impossible. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the person or persons who make the assertion. In God's case this means theists and not atheists.

2. Isn't the Bible proof of God's existence.

NO. If this is your only evidence then Islam, Mormons and Scientologist have the SAME amount of evidence you do. The bible has no more evidence for God's existence than the book Tom Sawyer does for the existence of Tom Sawyer.

3. We have good and evil doesn't this suggest some type of presence in the universe.

NO. Good and evil are completely subjective. We have evolved as social creatures. We deem things that are better for our survival and social functions as good; things that are bad as evil.

4. Why do so many people believe if it is not true?

The nature of theism is a meme complex a mind virus. It is an idea that spreads like a virus through a culture. Urban legends are an example of a mind virus. This coupled with excommunication and execution of heretics led us to a point where it is much easier to profess what the group believes.

5. Is science a religion?

No. The word religion stems from latin word "religio" meaning reverence for the Gods. Science MAY be considered to some a philosophy but this is not true either. Science cannot be catagorized into either of these two thought processes. Science is it's OWN thought process.

6. Why are atheists such assholes about their disbelief?

Because they SEE outside of your box more clearly. They see the terrible atrocity committed by relgions (past and present) for the garbage it is. They do not blame the devil. They blame the sole people responsible.......Theists.

Also nobody likes to have their life affected by another person's fantasy (that is what it is until you PROVE otherwise).

7. Why do I feel better after I pray to God if he is not real?

The same reason ANY other religion and/or philosophy feels better after SELF-REFLECTION, you see things more clearly in your life if you step back and observe it. It is the same principle and result behind any mantra, prayer or meditiation. Your prayers are NOTHING new or special.

8. Why do atheists seem to pick on xtians more than the others?

For me (and I assume others) it is b/c Xtians have demonstrated for over a thousand years it's complete inablility to effectivly lead humanity and yet it continues to try and do so. Xtians affect me more than ANY other fantasy belief system out there.

9. There was a beginning to the universe doesn't that suggest a creator?

Not to science. The bang is an event. The universe COULD BE eternal and the big bang a cyclical event. There is not much evidence to suggest this however, there is ZERO evidence to assert an intelligent creator.

10. How do I disprove evolution?]

This is VERY simple. Dig down to the Jurassic or Cambrien layers of the Earth and find me a modern day human skeleton. A modern day dog skeleton. It is that simple. In all of the fossil beds and dig sites all over the world there has YET TO BE a fossil that is out of place in evolution. That is to say that the oldest layers of the Earth hold fossils of the simplest creatures. The upper layers get more and more complex until you get the present layer. Complex vertabrates are NOT found in the Pre-Cambrien layers.

I hope this helps many theists out there who are struggling to grasp the REASON behind an atheist view. I would suggest to any theist looking for help to first read up on a meme complex so you can identify your problem. Then read an 8th grade science book. Look up scientific method. Apply this to your reasearch into astrotheology, crusades, inquisition, and evolution. Look up the wealth of YOUR church's corporate headquarters (yes you are a member of that).

Does anyone have any reading suggestions for a theist looking to grow up, beyond a science book?

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

5. Is science a religion?

No. The word religion stems from latin word "religio" meaning reverence for the Gods. Science MAY be considered to some a philosophy but this is not true either. Science cannot be catagorized into either of these two thought processes. Science is it's OWN thought process.

The development of the scientific method was pretty dependent on philosophical contributions from people such as Aristotle, Descartes and Popper. Some people, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained Newtonian Physics to be no more advanced than the Greek system of explaining nature in terms of Gods, such as Thor for thunder. I’m not saying he’s right, but you’re going to have to do a little more than merely assert it’s different.

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

6. Why are atheists such assholes about their disbelief?

Because they SEE outside of your box more clearly. They see the terrible atrocity committed by relgions (past and present) for the garbage it is. They do not blame the devil. They blame the sole people responsible.......Theists.

Also nobody likes to have their life affected by another person's fantasy (that is what it is until you PROVE otherwise).

A better response to this question would be to ask the questioner why they like to generalize people who simply share one disbelief. But beside the use of a meme mind virus being a little bias and subjective, as that can be applied to communism, capitalism, etc., the rest of what you have said seems ok. Although maybe a more apt response to the question of why atheists are perceived to critique Christianity more than any other religion may be that that’s the dominant religion in the western culture both the person asking the question and the atheists he knows live in.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

The development of the scientific method was pretty dependent on philosophical contributions from people such as Aristotle, Descartes and Popper. Some people, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained Newtonian Physics to be no more advanced than the Greek system of explaining nature in terms of Gods, such as Thor for thunder. I’m not saying he’s right, but you’re going to have to do a little more than merely assert it’s different.

Science is most certainly NOT a religion. A religion from it's very root and usage today suggests reverance of gods. Science has no Gods.

Scientific method is most certainly derived from philosophical contributions from great thinkers but in it's present form is the most logical and rational thought process we have discovered to date. Science has surpassed all other philosophical ways of thinking as can be seen by our lack of great philosophers today.

Feyerabend's position is generally seen as radical in the philosophy of science. Not to say he does not have interesting points some of which may be valid he is a philosopher trying to critique science. Since his views are still a huge minority and seen as radical I would say he failed in his half baked idea that relates science to greeks explaining thunder as the big hammer of an immortal man who lives on a mountain and fucks with mortals.

Science is the hieght and perfection of philosophical methology for determining fact from fiction.

[Rolloffle]

You're wasting your time.

[youth in asia]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

The development of the scientific method was pretty dependent on philosophical contributions from people such as Aristotle, Descartes and Popper. Some people, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained Newtonian Physics to be no more advanced than the Greek system of explaining nature in terms of Gods, such as Thor for thunder. I’m not saying he’s right, but you’re going to have to do a little more than merely assert it’s different.

well you're going to have to do a little more than assert what some jackass said. Greek mythology and newtonian physics are both inaccurate, sure, but whereas one makes a large amount of presuppositions without any real predictive power, the other is able to predict the outcome of a range of macroscopic situations quantitatively. The latter also accomplishes this with far viewer (as well as logical presuppositions).Newtonian physics is obviously more advanced.

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Science is most certainly NOT a religion. A religion from it's very root and usage today suggests reverance of gods. Science has no Gods.

That’s not my accusation. My accusation is that you’re making ill thought out statements about the nature of science.

Scientific method is most certainly derived from philosophical contributions from great thinkers but in it's present form is the most logical and rational thought process we have discovered to date. Science has surpassed all other philosophical ways of thinking as can be seen by our lack of great philosophers today.

I can think of many great philosophers from the second half of the 20th century: Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Rorty, Habermas, Foucault, Popper, Deleuze, Lyotard and Baudrillard. Sadly, many of these philosophers have been misrepresented as postmodern nonsense. Also, the reason many of them haven’t contributed to the field of the epistemology of the method of the hard sciences is because they have been concerned with sociology, politics, history, media and other soft sciences. But, as Quine and Popper suffice to prove, there has been much rumination over the hard sciences.

Feyerabend's position is generally seen as radical in the philosophy of science. Not to say he does not have interesting points some of which may be valid he is a philosopher trying to critique science. Since his views are still a huge minority and seen as radical I would say he failed in his half baked idea that relates science to greeks explaining thunder as the big hammer of an immortal man who lives on a mountain and fucks with mortals.

So he’s wrong because his thought hasn’t been accepted by the majority? That sounds like the appeal to majority you yourself responded to in question four of your initial post.

Science is the hieght and perfection of philosophical methology for determining fact from fiction.

Get off your Enlightenment soapbox and do some research sometime. Many philosophers of science subscribe to instrumentalism, that is, that the job of science is not to sort fact from fiction but to produce useful tools for predicting events. If true, in doing so, scientists possibly ignore a lot of information and hold many fictions. Another view is that we cannot know what is true and what is false, we can only know what has been falsified and what has so far not been falsified. You may like to know that this is very popular among many scientists and came from 20th century philosopher Karl Popper. Then, of course, there’s Kuhn, who I do not agree with, but I’m certainly sure you haven’t considered, who has maintained that scientific progress is incommensurable.

My point with all of this is that you’re making statements about science I have so far not seen you support. Yet you scoff at Feyerabend simply because the majority of scientists do not accept his theory that physics is no different to Greek cosmology. You’ve arguably done little research into this area, yet you make assumptions such as that philosophy and science are distinct from one another. You may respond that you don’t want to get all academic, it’s just a little totse post, but I’d rather think twice before posting something that may not be true, because unquestioned assumptions about a method of acquiring knowledge and the knowledge it produces seems familiar to me…

Originally Posted by youth in asia

well you're going to have to do a little more than assert what some jackass said. Greek mythology and newtonian physics are both inaccurate, sure, but whereas one makes a large amount of presuppositions without any real predictive power, the other is able to predict the outcome of a range of macroscopic situations quantitatively. The latter also accomplishes this with far viewer (as well as logical presuppositions).Newtonian physics is obviously more advanced.

I don't have to do that at all, since that would be beside the point.

[Scraff]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

That’s not my accusation. My accusation is that you’re making ill thought out statements about the nature of science.

Your accusation was that he "merely asserted it’s different".

He didn't just assert that science isn't a religion. He told us where the latin word "religio" stems from and in doing that showed how science is not a religion. Most common dictionary definitions of 'religion' will do the same.

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by Scraff

Your accusation was that he "merely asserted it’s different".

He didn't just assert that science isn't a religion. He told us where the latin word "religio" stems from and in doing that showed how science is not a religion. Most common dictionary definitions of 'religion' will do the same.

I was also arguing about his distinction between philosophy and science. From subsequent posts, he clearly carries the typical bias of science being superior to philosophy. Plus, although I don't agree that science and religion are the same, using the dictionary for creating distinctions in such instances as these is far from tenable. In discussing what exactly mental illness is, there's not going to be much progress if we simply accept what the DMV says because what it has written down as the definition of insanity must be insanity because it says so. I'd rather examine various so called religions in depth, then make a comparison between it and science and philosophy.

If it were me, I would have made two FAQs in one thread. To mix statements about science in with statements about atheism in an FAQ that's supposed to be about atheism can easily misconstrue atheism.
Anyway, I'm just ranting now. I should back out before I make any more of an ass of myself.

[Scraff]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

Anyway, I'm just ranting now.

Yes, you are. The point is that you accused BrokeProphet of 'merely' asserting that science is not a religion when he did more than that.

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by Scraff

Yes, you are. The point is that you accused BrokeProphet of 'merely' asserting that science is not a religion when he did more than that.

Right, he also stated that it cannot be categorized as philosophy and gave no reason for why.