Twilight Of The Godless: The Death Of Atheism?

[Mythopoeika]

what proportion are aetheists in the UK?

Probably a higher percentage than 3%, I should imagine.
3% sounds incredibly low.

 

[Vardoger]

- it could be that the 3% of people who are atheist, are also in the top 3% of the US population intellectually - which possibly explains why they are universally reviled (perhaps the politics of envy at work)?

Well, no, not envy -- it's just that often these people are so socially inept that no one wants to get near them.

That is, they are loud and bossy about being atheists while also under the delusion that they know the answer to every social, environmental, technological, and scientific problem.

Had these types as roommates. Can't always fault their intelligence, but the lack of wisdom is very evident.

But, as my husband says (and probably someone else has pointed out in the earlier messages): atheism is a religion, too.

Please give a good detailed explanation on how atheism is supposed to be a religion.

 

[ElishevaBarsabe]

Please give a good detailed explanation on how atheism is supposed to be a religion.

1. Atheists have a strong theological belief: no God exists.
2. They act on that belief (for example, insisting on legislation that removes all religious activity from public schools (in the US)).
3. They attempt to convert others to their theological belief.

That's religion.

My husband is agnostic: who knows whether God exists, eh?

 

[Mister_Awesome]

Please give a good detailed explanation on how atheism is supposed to be a religion.

1. Atheists have a strong theological belief: no God exists.
2. They act on that belief (for example, insisting on legislation that removes all religious activity from public schools (in the US)).
3. They attempt to convert others to their theological belief.

That's religion.

My husband is agnostic: who knows whether God exists, eh?

I'm an atheist and none of those things describe me. Aethiesm isn't a belief for me, so much as a lack of belief. It's not that I believe there is no God, it's that I don't believe there is a God.
Wanting to seperate church and state has nothing to do with being religious or not. It's there to prevent the abuses that went on when there was no such seperation.
And i don't attempt to convert anyone. This isn't really true of all religions anyways, mostly just Christianity. One of their nastier habits.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I'm an atheist and none of those things describe me. Aethiesm isn't a belief for me, so much as a lack of belief. It's not that I believe there is no God, it's that I don't believe there is a God.
Wanting to seperate church and state has nothing to do with being religious or not. It's there to prevent the abuses that went on when there was no such seperation.
And i don't attempt to convert anyone. This isn't really true of all religions anyways, mostly just Christianity. One of their nastier habits.

Quite. Not believing in something is not necessarily a religious belief. I don't believe in Father Christmas, or Scientology, either, for example.

And not wanting your children to be indoctrinated at school, into what you believe to be a faith based cult, like Christianity, Islam, or the cult of Stalin, would not necessarily suggest a religious belief either, I'm afraid.

 

[Vardoger]

ElishevaBarsabe belief about atheists are very typical of religious people. They think people must have a kind of religion no matter what. They think atheists "believe there's no god". But we don't have that kind of beliefs. Our way of thinking is more in the line of "until you can prove there's a god, we won't believe there's god".

 

[monster_magnet]

Einstein's God, which simply means the laws of nature which are so deeply mysterious that they inspire a feeling of reverence.

How do people feel about the above quote, can it sit within the confines of atheism?

If atheism isn't a religion, is it a faith?

and SameOldVardoger, what do atheists believe?

 

[boynamedsue]

We dont believe there is a god because there is no evidence to suggest such an entity exists.

If you show me any evidence that god exists I'll quite happily recant, I'd love it to be true, but htere is just no reason to believe in it. Same as elves an pixies an egyptology.

 

[monster_magnet]

We dont believe there is a god because there is no evidence to suggest such an entity exists.

oh.

Some would say that, that is why it's called a Faith.

 

[Vardoger]

and SameOldVardoger, what do atheists believe?

We just don't believe. Because there's no evidence of any god to believe in.
Don't Believism is no faith or religion.

 

[monster_magnet]

and SameOldVardoger, what do atheists believe?

We just don't believe.

So, smack me if i'm assuming to much, you can proove that there is no First Cause.

 

[Vardoger]

and SameOldVardoger, what do atheists believe?

We just don't believe.

So, smack me if i'm assuming to much, you can proove that there is no First Cause.

It is you who says there's a First Cause. The job of proving it is your job.

 

[monster_magnet]

It is you who says there's a First Cause. The job of proving it is your job.

So by that 'logic', in your opinion the existance of the universe has no explanation what-so-ever.

 

[Vardoger]

It is you who says there's a First Cause. The job of proving it is your job.

So by that 'logic', in your opinion the existance of the universe has no explanation what-so-ever.

The job of finding that out we should leave to the scientists, not some priests.
When I wrote about First Cause, I meant the Cause you imagine, your god. First Cause as defined by religious people is a god.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

We dont believe there is a god because there is no evidence to suggest such an entity exists.

oh.

Some would say that, that is why it's called a Faith.

More like lack of faith... :lol:

Do you still believe in Santa Claus? I'm sure your parents once led you to believe he existed, too.

Haven't quite grasped this concept of the need for 'proof' and the lack of it, have we?

The problem with 'First Causes' is that by their very nature, they are ultimately uknowable. Everything about the origins of the Universe can only be surmise, speculation, or at best, educated guess.

To an out and out atheist, not knowing what the origin of the Universe might have been, makes any speculation irrelevant, beyond, perhaps, the use of scientific method to push 'what we can know' further back to the beginning.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

We dont believe there is a god because there is no evidence to suggest such an entity exists.

oh.

Some would say that, that is why it's called a Faith.

More like lack of faith... :lol:

Do you still believe in Santa Claus? I'm sure your parents once led you to believe he existed, too.

Haven't quite grasped this concept of the need for 'proof' and the lack of it, have we?

The problem with 'First Causes' is that by their very nature, they are ultimately uknowable. Everything about the origins of the Universe can only be surmise, speculation, or at best, educated guess.

To an out and out atheist, not knowing what the origin of the Universe might have been, makes any speculation irrelevant, beyond, perhaps, the use of scientific method to push 'what we can know' further back to the beginning.

 

[monster_magnet]

When I wrote about First Cause, I meant the Cause you imagine, your god. First Cause as defined by religious people is a god.

Very presumtuous. Can you enlighten me as to what you think i am imagining?

The problem with 'First Causes' is that by their very nature, they are ultimately uknowable. Everything about the origins of the Universe can only be surmise, speculation, or at best, educated guess.

Why shouldn't this speculation allow for a First Cause?

also, Does the existence of the Universe have an explanation?

 

[gridban]

I'm an atheist and none of those things describe me. Aethiesm isn't a belief for me, so much as a lack of belief. It's not that I believe there is no God, it's that I don't believe there is a God.

Well, then, like me, I would say you're an agnostic rather than an atheist.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

The problem with 'First Causes' is that by their very nature, they are ultimately uknowable. Everything about the origins of the Universe can only be surmise, speculation, or at best, educated guess.

Why shouldn't this speculation allow for a First Cause?

also, Does the existence of the Universe have an explanation?

It could, but it would still just be speculation.

Since it appears to exist, then it's probably safe to assume that its apparent existence has some sort of explanation.

If it didn't exist, then no explanation would be necessary.

 

[monster_magnet]

It could, but it would still just be speculation.

So, one explanation for the existance of the universe is a First Cause/a Creator?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

It could, but it would still just be speculation.

So, one explanation for the existance of the universe is a First Cause/a Creator?

Yes. But, that would still just be speculation, unsubstantiated by little other than anecdotal evidence.

More idle speculation:

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[monster_magnet]

Yes. But, that would still just be speculation, unsubstantiated by little other than anecdotal evidence.

Ok. You are agnostic i presume?

Is there something you know relating to the creation of the universe that is anything more than speculation, unsubstantiated by anecdotal evidence?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Yes. But, that would still just be speculation, unsubstantiated by little other than anecdotal evidence.

Ok. You are agnostic i presume?

Is there something you know relating to the creation of the universe that is anything more than speculation, unsubstantiated by anecdotal evidence?

My personal beliefs in this matter are irrelevant.

I took an interest in the discussion because someone suggested that Atheism was a faith based religion (or, anti-religion). I just wanted to point out that when it comes to a logical, reason based argument, the weight of evidence (scientific, historical, cultural), is with the atheists.

There is a limit to what we can know. For mere mortals inside the system of the Universe, the ability to look beyond that system, is severely curtailed. We are 3, or 4 dimensional creatures, trying vainly to conceive of a multidimensional reality. 'Before the Beginning' is something we may never know.

If there was a Beginning. It's always possible that we are simply looking at the Universe from the wrong end of the telescope and that Fred Hoyle was right.

 

[monster_magnet]

I took an interest in the discussion because someone suggested that Atheism was a faith based religion (or, anti-religion). I just wanted to point out that when it comes to a logical, reason based argument, the weight of evidence (scientific, historical, cultural), is with the atheists.

I'd suggest that the weight of evidence is with the agnostics. Philosophical, logical, historical and cultural arguments are persuasive and plentyful for both the existance of God AND the non existance. In the end it is personal faith that defines ones position.

 

[MrRING]

There is a limit to what we can know. For mere mortals inside the system of the Universe, the ability to look beyond that system, is severely curtailed. We are 3, or 4 dimensional creatures, trying vainly to conceive of a multidimensional reality. 'Before the Beginning' is something we may never know.

If we can't know what the begining is to the universe, wouldn't any theory (atheist or religious) trying to explain it be just a belief itself?

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

There is a limit to what we can know. For mere mortals inside the system of the Universe, the ability to look beyond that system, is severely curtailed. We are 3, or 4 dimensional creatures, trying vainly to conceive of a multidimensional reality. 'Before the Beginning' is something we may never know.

If we can't know what the begining is to the universe, wouldn't any theory (atheist or religious) trying to explain it be just a belief itself?

You don't have to believe in a theory - its a hypothesis that sets up predictions that can be tested. If shown to be lacking it can be discarded.

Its when one starts believing in theories that problems start

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

There is a limit to what we can know. For mere mortals inside the system of the Universe, the ability to look beyond that system, is severely curtailed. We are 3, or 4 dimensional creatures, trying vainly to conceive of a multidimensional reality. 'Before the Beginning' is something we may never know.

If we can't know what the begining is to the universe, wouldn't any theory (atheist or religious) trying to explain it be just a belief itself?

Yes. That's why an atheist would probably say it is irrelevant.

Science can build better and better mathematical and astrophysical models to try and explain the first nano seconds of Universe creation, but there and before the alleged 'Big Bang' it's still models and educated guesswork.

Atheists don't have to speculate on supernatural causes, or natural ones. They simply have to point out that they have seen no solid evidence for any sort of Creator. And until some comes along they see no reason to believe in "six impossible things before breakfast".

It's not a matter of doubts, or hedging their bets like agnostics and it's not a belief based on faith. They would say. It's simply that there is no concrete evidence for a God. So, no point worrying about it.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I'd suggest that the weight of evidence is with the agnostics. Philosophical, logical, historical and cultural arguments are persuasive and plentyful for both the existance of God AND the non existance. In the end it is personal faith that defines ones position.

Simply not true, unless you have some evidence for the existence of God. In which case, please feel free to put it forward.

Atheists, on the other hand, have plenty of evidence for the fact that Gods are to a large extent Cultural constructs, based on scientific, historical and cultural evidence.

Also, they have plenty of scientific evidence to show that the Universe as we know it, can develop and evolve into being, without the need for any outside, Divine intervention.

 

[monster_magnet]

This is nice and simple

1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. So there exists a self-existent being.

ergo the prime move, first cause or god if you really want to call it that.. :shock:

 

[Mister_Awesome]

I'm an atheist and none of those things describe me. Aethiesm isn't a belief for me, so much as a lack of belief. It's not that I believe there is no God, it's that I don't believe there is a God.

Well, then, like me, I would say you're an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I've always been fuzzy on the difference between the two and always get conflicting reports on which is which. Just for simplicity I call myself an aetheist, but being an agnostic isn't out of the question. Who knows?