Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?
|
|
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
|
11-02-2005 08:08
From: Kevn Klein The quote is somethig like... render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is God's. Jesus said this when people tried to make him out to be anti-tax. He was refering to the image of Ceasar on the money, the image of God is on the people, so render to God yourselves was the message.
The problem we have is, many within the scientific community have allowed science to become dogmatic. Much of what is taught to children as fact is actually dogma, no better than religious teachings.
When people use science to suggest there is no God they cross the line of seperation of church and state. Atheism is a religion, and pushing it on children is at least as bad as telling them God created life. If education is to be religion neutral, it can't support either view. Otherwise, those on the other side will demand equal representation of their side. reductio ad absurdum |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-02-2005 08:10
Atheism is not a religion, Kevn. Asserting that it is simply shows your own bias and lack of understanding of what the Atheist position actually is. I've explained this to you before in another thread. Disbelief is the default position for any rational person regarding any extraordinary claim. Only when a sufficient burden of proof has been satisfied does that position change to belief. I'm an atheist in regards to Santa, The Easter Bunny, the Loch Ness Monster, and so on... disbelieving any of those things does not constitute a religion. If an atheist were presented with sufficient evidence for the existence of a god or gods they would become believers. Atheism is not in any way a leap of faith. Claiming that it is is intellectually dishonest.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
11-02-2005 08:20
From: Chip Midnight Atheism is not a religion, Kevn. Asserting that it is simply shows your own bias and lack of understanding of what the Atheist position actually is. I've explained this to you before in another thread. Disbelief is the default position for any rational person regarding any extraordinary claim. Only when a sufficient burden of proof has been satisfied does that position change to belief. I'm an atheist in regards to Santa, The Easter Bunny, the Loch Ness Monster, and so on... disbelieving any of those things does not constitute a religion. If an atheist were presented with sufficient evidence for the existence of a god or gods they would become believers. Atheism is not in any way a leap of faith. Claiming that it is is intellectually dishonest. "Religion, 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Wikipedia The term religion has more than one meaning. Religion can be anything one is commited to with zeal or conscientious devotion. Atheists fit this discription since they deny the existance of God with zeal or conscientious devotion. If one is agnostic, one isn't making a statement about the possibilty God exists, atheists stand firm that there is no God, making it a dogma. They do so with zeal or conscientious devotion. One can't be an atheist in regards to Santa, because santa isn't God. the term Atheist refers to "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." - wikipedia |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-02-2005 08:31
All agnostics are atheists, and most atheists are agnostics. Since they remain unconvinced about the existence of a god or gods they do not have belief. You can't believe in something you don't know wether or not you believe in. Therefore they are without theistic belief, aka a-theist.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
11-02-2005 08:34
From: Ulrika Zugzwang They are actually not contradictory. Given that I'm heading to sleep, I'll keep this brief.  Stated simply, evolutionary psychology states that the our consciousness and emotions evolved together. Emotions exist as methods of influencing an autonomous being. For instance, lust serves the purpose of convincing an autonomous being to stop playing chess and to go reproduce. Fear serves the purpose of convincing an autonomous being to avoid a dangerous situation or animal. (Did I answer the wrong question?) ~Ulrika~ Alright. That works for me, as long as we stick with the term "influence". The contention of some evolutionary psychologists is that all human behavior can be derived from the process of evolution, which would to me contradict the view that we are actually conscious beings, capable of deciding things, originating things in the world, and creating our own emotions. Since all these are easily demonstratable I tend to discredit the extent to which evolution can be used as a predictor or explainer of people's behavior. |
|
Kurgan Asturias
Apologist
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
|
11-02-2005 08:36
From: Chip Midnight Atheism is not a religion, Kevn.
...
Atheism is not in any way a leap of faith. Claiming that it is is intellectually dishonest. Atheism is the disbelief in a deity (or deities), or rather stated a belief that none exists. Theism is the belief in a deity (or deities), or rather stated a disbelief that none exists. An agnostic is more what you claim Chip. That is, a deity (deities) is not provable, but should evidence or the inverse of such become know, they will make a decision then. Based on what religion and faith are by definition, I don't know how you can say 'Atheism is not in any way a leap of faith'. If you know for certain that things are one way, that is a belief in such, or a religion. So how can you say that 'it is intellectually dishonest' for someone to state the obvious? |
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
11-02-2005 08:37
Kevn, would you make the same mistake Chip makes, by trying to define his faith to him the way he tries to assert what yours is?
|
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
11-02-2005 08:38
From: Chip Midnight All agnostics are atheists, and most atheists are agnostics. Since they remain unconvinced about the existence of a god or gods they do not have belief. You can't believe in something you don't know wether or not you believe in. Therefore they are without theistic belief, aka a-theist. The two words are seperate and apart. Maybe you are agnostic and didn't know it. Let's compare their meanings... Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. It's simple to see the words have different means. One believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God, the other disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. |
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
11-02-2005 08:40
From: Ananda Sandgrain Kevn, would you make the same mistake Chip makes, by trying to define his faith to him the way he tries to assert what yours is? Actually, I'm pointing out the true meaning of the words. In order to discuss matters of importance, we must use the same defintions. Otherwise we can't undrstand one another. |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-02-2005 08:41
From: Kurgan Asturias Based on what religion and faith are by definition, I don't know how you can say 'Atheism is not in any way a leap of faith'. If you know for certain that things are one way, that is a belief in such, or a religion. So how can you say that 'it is intellectually dishonest' for someone to state the obvious? Would you consider it a leap of faith to be unconvinced of the existence of Bigfoot? Or gnomes? As I said, the default position for every possible belief is disbelief, until convincing enough evidence is presented. If it were not that way then you would have to believe in everything until proven otherwise and no one does that. It would be irrational. If you classify atheism as a leap of faith then you must classify all things about which you remain unconvinced as faith, and that is intellectually dishonest because no one does that, not even religious people.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
11-02-2005 08:47
From: Chip Midnight Would you consider it a leap of faith to be unconvinced of the existence of Bigfoot? Or gnomes? As I said, the default position for every possible belief is disbelief, until convincing enough evidence is presented. If it were not that way then you would have to believe in everything until proven otherwise and no one does that. It would be irrational. If you classify atheism as a leap of faith then you must classify all things about which you remain unconvinced as faith, and that is intellectually dishonest because no one does that, not even religious people. Then I would suggest one use the term agnostic if one believes we can't prove God either way. Otherwise, it appears one rejects the notion of God, when in reality one doesn't, one is waiting for evidence before deciding. That's not to say one should change their belief system, only that they use the correct terms to describe it. |
|
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
|
11-02-2005 08:49
From: Kurgan Asturias Atheism is the disbelief in a deity (or deities), or rather stated a belief that none exists. Theism is the belief in a deity (or deities), or rather stated a disbelief that none exists.
An agnostic is more what you claim Chip. That is, a deity (deities) is not provable, but should evidence or the inverse of such become know, they will make a decision then.
Based on what religion and faith are by definition, I don't know how you can say 'Atheism is not in any way a leap of faith'. If you know for certain that things are one way, that is a belief in such, or a religion. So how can you say that 'it is intellectually dishonest' for someone to state the obvious? A lot of this ground was covered between chip and myself in this thread: /120/53/58801/1.html If you want to debate him on atheism and agnosticism it may help to review this thread (unless you want to hash out the definitions yourself)
_____________________
From: Bud I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
11-02-2005 08:50
This is a question that requires a yes or no answer. Let me ask it again. Do you understand that natural selection is not a random process? ~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Kurgan Asturias
Apologist
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
|
11-02-2005 08:54
From: Chip Midnight Would you consider it a leap of faith to be unconvinced of the existence of Bigfoot? Or gnomes? As I said, the default position for every possible belief is disbelief, until convincing enough evidence is presented. If it were not that way then you would have to believe in everything until proven otherwise and no one does that. It would be irrational. If you classify atheism as a leap of faith then you must classify all things about which you remain unconvinced as faith, and that is intellectually dishonest because no one does that, not even religious people. Chip, the words atheism and theism are very well documented. I am not make the statement that you must follow a specific set of rules of my choosing (or of anyone elses choosing for that matter). I am making the point of what the rest of the world considers as definitions for these words. BTW, Bigfoot exists but is(are) not a god(s). Gnomes, while I have never seen one are not gods either (that I know of). |
|
Ellie Edo
Registered User
Join date: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 1,425
|
11-02-2005 08:57
Hmmm..
Science is not atheism. It is, I repeat, nothing more nor less than an operating handbook for the material world.
Atheism is not deducible from Science. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and even if it were, God doesn't have to be in the material world to exist, unless the material world is all there is, which is itself another question.
So I am close to agreeing that Atheism, if we take it to mean a positive belief that no god exists, being based on no rational evidence, is indeed a religion under many definitions.
Children should not be taught that atheism is "true", only that science is the well-tested practical material explanation and handbook, and is unable to prove or disprove anything beyond the material world.
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-02-2005 08:58
From: Kevn Klein Then I would suggest one use the term agnostic if one believe we can't prove God either way. Otherwise, it appears one rejects the notion of God, when in reality one doesn't don't, one is waiting for evidence before deciding. That's not to say one should change their belief system, only that they use the correct terms to describe it. I'm trying to get people to use the terms correctly, as almost no one does. It's very simple, really. It is not possible to believe in something about which you are unconvinced. Believers are believers. All others are atheists. Beief is binary. It is either on or off. "Almost on" and "maybe possibly I could be on in the future" are still "off." Pretending agnosticism is a middle ground between belief and disbelief is every bit as non-sensical as someone stating that they're "sorta pregnant."
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
11-02-2005 09:02
From: Chip Midnight I'm trying to get people to use the terms correctly, as almost no one does. It's very simple, really. It is not possible to believe in something about which you are unconvinced. Believers are believers. All others are atheists. Beief is binary. It is either on or off. "Almost on" and "maybe possibly I could be on in the future" are still "off." Pretending agnosticism is a middle ground between belief and disbelief is every bit as non-sensical as someone stating that they're "sorta pregnant." Please call the makers of dictionaries and explain to them there is no such word as agnostic. Tell them to please remove the word from all dictionaries so we can discuss religion correctly. TY |
|
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
|
11-02-2005 09:04
From: Kevn Klein Please call the makers of dictionaries and explain to them there is no such word as agnotic. Tell them to please remove the word from all dictionaries so we can discuss religion correctly. TY I can safely say there is no such word as "agnotic". |
|
Ellie Edo
Registered User
Join date: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 1,425
|
11-02-2005 09:08
From: Chip Midnight I'm trying to get people to use the terms correctly, as almost no one does. It's very simple, really. It is not possible to believe in something about which you are unconvinced. Believers are believers. All others are atheists. Beief is binary. It is either on or off. "Almost on" and "maybe possibly I could be on in the future" are still "off." Pretending agnosticism is a middle ground between belief and disbelief is every bit as non-sensical as someone stating that they're "sorta pregnant." I'm no dictiionary king, but off the top of my head, I disagree. Agnosticism is a completely valid intermediate position. ie "in the absence of evidence I retain an open mind". There are propositions in logic which are provable undecidable, and there is no necessity to arbitrarily assign them either to true or false. To me A-theism is without-god, or no-god. I'm sure you would argue for the first, and say that those unable to make their minds up are indeed without him. But if we take the second, it now represents a positive decision. I wonder which position the Oxford english dictionary takes up, based on the history of the word? Probably both. Or Dr Johnson ? |
|
Kurgan Asturias
Apologist
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
|
11-02-2005 09:10
From: Zuzu Fassbinder A lot of this ground was covered between chip and myself in this thread: /120/53/58801/1.html If you want to debate him on atheism and agnosticism it may help to review this thread (unless you want to hash out the definitions yourself) Thanks Zuzu for the heads up on that thread. I am not sure that it differs from my point. If one KNOWS in their heart that there is no deity, they have made a statment of faith since there is no empirical proof of that position. I do not however see that this From: Chip Midnight The "argument from ignorance" fallacy (that all propositions must either be known to be true or false, or that lack of proof is proof) applies only to "strong atheism" which represents only a tiny fraction of atheists. is applicable at all unless we are going to change what atheism is by definition. BTW Chip, I have to hand it to you, in all these discussions, you are quite admirably easy to discuss things without things getting 'ugly'. This goes out to all of you who discuss things in an mature and intelligent basis as well. Thank you all. |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-02-2005 09:11
From: Kevn Klein Please call the makers of dictionaries and explain to them there is no such word as agnostic. Tell them to please remove the word from all dictionaries so we can discuss religion correctly. TY Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. Using the terms as if they were is incorrect. Everyone is either agnostic or gnostic AND atheist or theist. The vast majority of atheists (myself included) are agnostic atheists. To claim certain knowledge that god does not exist would be gnostic atheism (gnostic = knowledge. theism = belief). There are very few people who hold that posiiton. Only gnostic atheism can be considered a leap of faith in the same way that relgion is. What most people call agnosticism is actually agnostic atheism. I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in... you can't believe in something that you're not sure you believe in, and if you don't believe (even if you think it likely you'll be convinced some time in the future) you're an atheist.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
11-02-2005 09:12
From: Ellie Edo Hmmm..
Science is not atheism. It is, I repeat, nothing more nor less than an operating handbook for the material world.
Atheism is not deducible from Science. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and even if it were, God doesn't have to be in the material world to exist, unless the material world is all there is, which is itself another question.
So I am close to agreeing that Atheism, if we take it to mean a positive belief that no god exists, being based on no rational evidence, is indeed a religion under many definitions.
Children should not be taught that atheism is "true", only that science is the well-tested practical material explanation and handbook, and is unable to prove or disprove anything beyond the material world.
As a trained mathematician, I am well aware that there is at least one science which deals with pure disembodied idea, but it is a big step to believe that its abstract concepts and pure logic can encompass all there is. This question is at the heart of my own current personal continuing examination of existence, and the further development of my own crackpot ideas.
How's this for crackpot ? What if the whole of this particular highly-structured-cause-and-effect material existence was brought about to create, via physics, mathematics. Mathematics being the highest expression to date of God's (our) ability to communicate, model, and hence ultimately control and reshape the very underlying fabric of our existence. Is God, through us and our science, feeling His way toward a huge renewed burst of creativity ?
Whats so beautiful about it is the fact that, like everything else, it's total nonsense, since there is no time, nothing changes or happens, and all we are doing is peeping at a tiny corner of gods (our) pre-existing toenail. Peeping ?
Nonsense and not-nonsense, both at once. Breathtaking.
Said I was crackpot, didn't I ?
And have you seen how worked up I get about politics too ?
Just how inconsistent is that ? I'll agree science shouldn't suggest whether there is a God or not. The issue I'm stuck on is science classes teaching(as fact) some issues that have not been tested or recreated that conflict directly with religious teachings. There may be data suggesting something might have happened, and that should be taught. Teaching theories as theories isn't at issue. When theories are taught as fact, and directly conflict with religious dogma, we have a problem. |
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
11-02-2005 09:12
Per most any dictionary, atheism is denial of God, agnostism is the assertion that God's existence or nonexistence cannot be known for certain. So far we have these philosophical viewpoints: "I deny, I disbelieve." "It can't be known." Neither of these, to me, provide a means for a rational person to look upon the universe and discover what is there. However, there is another viewpoint which is fundamentally different than either of these, from which a rational observation and decision process can begin: "I don't know." In the past I has assumed that "agnostic" was synonymous with this third viewpoint. Thanks for pointing out the difference. By these terms I am neither theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. So what would that be?  |
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-02-2005 09:12
From: Ulrika Zugzwang This is a question that requires a yes or no answer. Let me ask it again. Do you understand that natural selection is not a random process?
~Ulrika~ Natural selection is indeed a random process. It's the process of things being more or less sucessful. For instance, you could have some mutation that creates some kind of super intelligent cat, and that mutation could have only beneficial effects. But then a tree could fall on that cat, and that genetic trait would still be considered a failure from evolution's point of view. It's a mistake to try to inject purpose into evolution, because it taints the theory with elements of religion. Evolution has no "goal". Evolution simply is. It's not so much a force, as it's simply an effect of the world. Some things are simply more successful than others. |
|
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
|
11-02-2005 09:14
here we go again From: someone
just some quick definitions....
Originally these words meant:
theist - person who belives in the existance of one or more gods
atheist - (the prefix "a" is negating) is a person who belives that there are no gods
gnostic - person who believes that god can be understood through knowlege
agnostic - person who belives that the nature of god is unknowable
Through common useage the word agnostic has come to mean someone who is uncertain about the existance of god, although that was not the original meaning. This association came about because agnostics claimed that, becauase god is unknowable, chruches can not dictate what the gods do or do not want us to do. Therefore, belivers in organized religions label them as atheists.
_____________________
From: Bud I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
|
