"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life"

If you believe that, you are truly ignorant. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in delusions of god. That in no way implies that everything is known. Indeed, the atheist is generally more willing to state that he or she does not know the answers to questions like how the universe came to be, etc.

It is very clearly the theist that believes he has all the answers. Ask anyone deluded by a religious cult and they'll respond much the same: my god did it. Why's the sky blue? Its god's favorite color. Where did people come from? God put them on Earth just a few years ago. Why are there thousands upon thousands of fossils in geologic strata that appear millions upon millions of years old on a planet that religious superstition says is only 10 kya? God works in mysterious ways.

No, Vital, it is clearly the atheist that is able to allow himself the luxury of awe and wonder at the universe and who has questions that have yet to be answered. If this weren't the case, there would be no need for science, since this is the process by which we investigate the universe around us.

But, don't worry. I don't for a minute believe you're that ignorant to think that atheists think they "know it all." For the theist, it must be hard to admit that atheists -those that stand against or opposed to everything you think you know- could be right.

Edit: But as I look over the text of yours I quoted, it strikes me that perhaps you are confusing the point that many atheists (who are generally skeptics by nature) are trying to make. It isn't that there's no reason to "speculate" on supernatural explanations and things like "souls," "afterlife," "gods," etc. Atheists, a.k.a. skeptics, don't reject these things because they "already know all there is to know," and they aren't rejecting the speculation of such things. They're rejecting the claimed fact of such things that theists assert. These claims of fact are the basis for behaviors of theists that find their way into secular. In their attempts to codify their religious doctrines into government policy, theists assert these things as factual. These things are fine to speculate on, and I would encourage it. But to assert them as fact and then use these "facts" in establishing public policy, the theist forces others to participate in his delusion and adhere to his superstition. This is not only intellectually wrong, it restricts religious freedom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure by definition thats what it means. But look around at all the atheists in this forum. They constantly ridicule religion because they think they know it all already. There is no need to speculate.

I disagree, atheists claim to have the answers for everything. Most theists believe science is great and useful but still incomplete, there are many things that are unknown and undiscovered. I don't know any theists that respond in the manner you describe.

But atheists, they're different. They know it all already, science is 100% true and accurate to them. They hold on the science in the sameway radical religious people do to scriptures. Even though neurology cannot yet fully explain how celebral processes, matter, and chemical reactions cause consciousness there is a 0% chance of a soul or immaterial mind. This is the logic of an atheistic person.

Really, then why is it that atheists constantly ridicule religion? If that were true atheists would wonder about things beyond our current scientific knowledge, instead they constantly say "there's no evidence" thats all I hear from atheists. They hardly ever wonder about a soul, afterlife, God, or anything beyond scientific knowledge.

Why is it ignorant? Its not ignorant, its just true. Atheists have the answers for all.

However atheists must know it all already which is why they ridicule religion. Look at almost every post in here it has an atheists ridiculing religion because they think they know it all...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Vital,

You seem to be generalizing too much about what atheists think and believe. Atheists have only one thing in common – a disbelief in gods; it is not safe to say too much more. I am sure some atheists do think science is the ultimate answer while others have no real clue about science.

But I think you’ll admit that science does have a good track record of making discoveries and establishing knowledge. I’m also sure that most if not all atheists here do not claim that science comes anywhere near to knowing everything, quite the reverse. It is because there is so much more to discover and so much we don’t know that atheists find religious claims so ridiculous, especially the theist assertions of absolute certainty that a god is the cause of everything, but have absolutely no evidence and no methods for proving such claims as truth.

Perhaps if all religions around the world said the same thing then maybe one might pause to consider that religion had something, but what we see is that every culture creates its own superstitions and ideas of gods and they all conflict with each other. Each religion claims it has the ultimate truth and that all others are wrong, i.e. every religion thinks the others are deluded. For the same reasons that you think other religions are deluded why can’t you see that your religion is equally delusional?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you think we are doing now? Speculation is not belief.

 

Perhaps they ridicule religion, not because they "know it all," not only because adherence to superstition is silly, but also because asserting your superstition as fact to the point that it forces others to accept your superstition is complete and utter poppycock.

Then, please, back this fallacious assertion up with data. Show us the data that demonstrate that atheists, in general, claim to have the answers for everything. That would mean that you would have to cite at least 50% of the atheists in this forum who have claimed to "know everything." But I'll let you off the hook if you can just cite a post where I've claimed to "know everything." That's just one atheist, Vital. Surely, if your assertion holds any water, you can back it up by showing where I, a single atheist, has made this claim.

Clear evidence that you haven't a good understanding of science and the scientific method. And for atheists that believe that "science is 100% true and accurate" (I don't know a single one, but perhaps they exist), they're simply deluded. But this perspective of atheism by theists is a common misconception and evident of their misunderstanding of science.

See my answer above. It is a non sequitur to believe that because atheists ridicule superstition, they must believe they know everything.

Then you don't get out much. You should actually try an education on for size, since much of the best science and discovery is being done by atheists who are completely turned on by "the wonder about things beyond our current scientific knowledge." Most scientists are atheist, agnostic and completely non-religious (it is, of course, the logical result of critical and unbiased thought), yet they never tire of discovery. Try reading works by Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Diane Fossey, Brian Fagan, or Stephen J. Gould. Each of these authors are scientists motivated by discovery and the unknown; that which science has yet to explain.

If science were able to offer explanations for all, it wouldn't be called science. It would be called history. You hear from skeptics "there's no evidence" because superstitious people are making claims of fact when there simply is no evidence to support the claims. It wouldn't be so bad if these were just a few kooks on the internet, but these kooks are influencing policy and becoming a hinderence to discovery. Real discovery is being affected by superstitious beliefs in the field of stem cell science; real discovery is being impeded by degraded quality in science education by nutters that claim the world is only 10,000 years old and ignore the facts of evolution.

So, yes, religious nutters get ridiculed. And rightfully so.

If its "beyond scientific knowledge" then that implies one of two things: science hasn't been able to discover anything about it as yet; or, science is incapable of observing it. Until such time as neuroscience is able to completely understand the brain and the nature of consciousness, concepts of soul and afterlife remain speculation. And fine speculations they are. But to make policy on how science should proceed based on baseless speculation is wrong, and this is what religious nutters do because of their superstitions. Silly ideas of magical beings that know-all, see-all are baseless superstitions and are being used to impede real discovery and real education.

So, yes, atheists and skeptics ridicule religious nutjobs that go on and on about how their superstitions are correct and impede real discovery based on superstition. These nutters rely on their arguments from personal incredulity to keep science from progressing, and I expect replies from others that will single the things that science has yet to fully understand as proof of their magical/mystical/supernatural/ poppycock, such as the unknown qualities of what it means to be "conscious" or aware. Their argument is that, because science cannot explain them, science must therefore be inadequate: but the rub is they can only claim that their superstition is able to explain such notions. When asked for the evidence of their claims, they beg the question by pointing out that science can't be right because science can't explain it either. An argument from personal incredulity.

Complete and utter poppycock.

If it were true, there would not be a thing called science. There would only be history.

Again, atheists ridicule religion because its adherents use their superstitions to interfere with science and discovery and attempt to impose their superstitions on others. Religion requires ridicule, criticism and inquiry.

 

Well, I am an Atheist and I think life has many mysteries. Women for one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

lol

I spend most of my time conducting research at Uni – the mammalian nervous system offers many wonders.

I love to travel and I love to learn of other cultures. I spend a lot of time studying language - Chinese and Japanese in particular. Well, I think that my Atheistic outlook may allow me a more open-mind when I enter new cultures. Example: I’ve met some Xians in Japan that feel sad that all these Japanese people are going to burn in damnation for eternity because they didn’t except Christ into their lives. I thought to myself: What a sad and pathetic comment to make.

As to Buddha’s comment: perhaps he was referring to society in general? I agree, most people need to believe in some religious bullshit or another to get by in life

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That said, I’d really like to know what he meant by spiritual life? It certainly had nothing to do with worshipping a Godhead (or two) - so maybe the whole meaning has been lost in the translation?


Michael

 

Can not burn without fire is redundant, it is can not burn without oxygen....

By the way, I am doing just fine, and I take the oxygen anyday over spirituality...

 

It is when it attempts to move into the region of fact

 

Did it occur to you that the athiests in this forum are the ones patiently countering every thiestic point with a logical counterpoint, even though everything they say has no logical basis?

 

Hear! Hear!
You have hit the nail on the head Vital.

Jan.

 

I'm not really generalizing too much, just look around at this forum.

No, I disagree. Science has a horrible track record of establishing knowledge. One century this is true and the next century something else is true.

Actually, I don't think every religion claims to be only the path, or that the others are deluded.

Most atheists here aren't speculating, they KNOW theists are wrong.

This is quite ironic, atheists seem to force others to become atheistic by trying to find flaws in religion.

I don't think there is any available data for this, nor do I think any atheists has directly said they know it all. However atheists always point to science, and ridicule religion, by doing so you're saying you have so much knowledge that you know for sure that there is no soul, no afterlife, no God, and everything religion says is false.

If atheists don't beleive science is 100% true and accurate then why do they so forcefully reject religion? Where do they get the ideas that there is no soul, afterlife, God, etc...?

Thats not entirely true. Most scientists try to discover things within the realm of what they think is true, like another planet existing, not any real new knowledge, not anything beyond our current knowledge.

Atheists say no evidence can be gathered yet they constantly request evidence? Isn't that ironic?

But according to atheists there is no chance that there is a soul, immaterial mind, or afterlife, even though there very well maybe. So they must know it all already.

Doesn't seem so, there's posts that have nothing to do with God or religion with atheists coming in and saying its all fantasy.

The Buddha was reffering to some type of holy life, spiritual life, nothing to do with God(s) at all.

Doesn't seem like it, look at innumerable posts, it has atheists going offtopic into how religion is fantasy when there's no connection at all in the post.

 

That's the sound of it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am sure theists use the same judgement for extravagant claims of which there is no evidence for - Do you know worshippers of the celestial teapot are wrong? I know claims of the celestial teapot are BS. Do you?

There may also be a celestial teapot circling the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It just so happens nobody wishes there to be a teapot in orbit of the sun. We do however, want there to be a soul, an afterlife, or a god. Just because we wish these things to be true doesn't mean they have any more chance of existing than the celestial teapot - which of course, doesn't exist.

There can be no evidence gathering of a celestial teapot either. So to hypothesis of such a thing is totally irrelevant before real evidence of such a phenomenon is shown. There can be no evidence gathering for something that doesn't exist of course...

Yes, the reason for that is that if we didn't, we would be inventing things from nothing. I think scientists will leave that to religion.

Science and knowledge are progressive tools. Not that I'd expect someone of the abara-cadabera religious persuasion to understand that important fact.

Because at least science - despite its fallability - gives us a certain degree of evidence that gives something credability. With religion there is simply none.

 

The difference is that the credibility of the celestial teapot can be traced to an atheistic philosopher (Bertrand Russel?) who was using it as a straw man and that the direct perception of god is traced to saintly persons

Once again, there are claims of direct perception of god, and no such credible claims for the celestial teapot (on top of this there are even claims for processes that enable one to come to the platform of direct perception of god by persons who have achieved that perception - quite distinct from the celestial teapot)

Its an established fact of knowledge - one who contravenes the methodology cannot perceive evidence - the attempt to circumvent this requirement by saying that it does not exist and therefore the methodology does not exist is circular

once again, you assume that the persons claiming direct perception of god are actually perceiving nothing - it requires much more fo ryou to establish your viewpoint than statements of confidence, just like a highschool drop out requires much more than statements of confidence to declare that electrons do not exist.

spiritual life is also progressive - it explains the variety of levels practioners are on

all of the credibility of svcience rests on methodology or faith in persons who have applied the relevant methodology - a person who violates both these requirements has no access to the benefits of knowledge

 

Athiests like Dawkins do not believe that theism is 100% wrong, however, the God theory has as much credibility as the celestial teapot theory, that is to say, very small. That the God theory comes from persons with a saintly reputation is irrelevent. Scientific fact does not depend on who discovered it, but the theories themselves. A theory from a scientist with a good reputation never gets accepted as fact simply because of their reputation. What the reputation means is that their hypothesis or theory is more likely to be the correct one, due to past performance. That doesn't mean they it shouldn't be checked.

Direct perception is a fine method of collecting data, but if it cannot be confirmed by others, it is suspect. The God theory contains certain suppositions that can be tested through observation.

-If God is the supreme designer, why do animals contain all sorts of flaws that could only occur through evolution of existing parts.

Since animals do contain many imperfections that could only be explained by evolution, then evolution is the more likely theory. The best religion can do is say that God started the process going, and never personally designed any creature.

In addition, there are many social reasons why religion would exist and persist. As a means of social control, to reinforce order and hiearchy. As an evolution from primitive myth. As a common language of metaphor. As entertainment. As an excuse to have holidays.

 

spidergoat

Given numerous eg's of dawkins evangecial atheistic preching such as http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1210040&postcount=1, this idea seems difficult to entertain.

I don't see why it is irrelevant - if a scientist lays claim to an observation and provides the methodology for coming to that observation, are both the scientist and the moethodology bogus because of the claims of a person who is in ignorance of both the observation and the process?

and without being a scientist how do you propose to check it?
Ask the lay man to find any errors with the krib cycle and he probably couldn't even detect if it was upside down or not.

Aren't emprical claims accepted/refuted by means of direct perception?
Isn't that what distinguishes an empirical theory from an empirical fact?

All sorts of flaws? - I can hazard a guess what you are referring to but maybe you should explain what these "flaws" are before I respond

I don't know how you can make this statement unless you are currently omniscient. This is the strange dichotomy of empricism - on the one hand it is advocated that nothing is 100% certain and on the other the parameters of the "unknown" are drawn up to determine what is possible and what is not.

This is all a tentaive claim - after all, even if you accept that religion is a direct influence of the perception of god, it would be inconceivable how it could exist without bearing a social influence as you mentioned

 

That's because you fail to understand Dawkins' arguments, or you never read them.

This is an argument from ignorance. Anyone with an interest can check it out without first adopting an unswervable faith in the answer.

The remnants of limbs within whales, solutions to anatomical problems that are less than elegant, since they derived from parts previously adapted for other functions (the panda's thumb). In all kinds of animals, there exist legacies of their previous forms. These would not exist if a designer designed them from scratch.

There is yet no other theory which explains these anomalies. Evolution is %100 percent certain. There are still unknowns about it, but they do not lie in the fact of evolution itself. This doesn't mean that the God theory is 100% false, but it certainly puts a dent in the functions it was meant to explain.

 

I am familiar with dawkins arguments - if you think that you can use them to indicate the field of objective neutrality I would argue that it is you who are not familiar with them

So anyone can check out the krib cycle without becoming familiar with the methodologies and theoretical foundations of organic chemistry?
I doubt you could even find 1 in a 1000 persons who have a professional interest in science outside of organic chemistry (eg geologists, anthroplogists, astronomers etc) who have the capacity to perform the necessary proceedures and observations to confirm this experiment simply by being given this diagram

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“

Or alternatively it could indicate that the designer uses several "blue prints" for the millions of varieties we see before us
“

No other theory given the premise that god doesn't exist, yes. Although I can guarentee that more theories will pop up as time goes on - that is the nature of empirical theory - its kind of unlimited

Once again you are entwined in the amazing contradictory meshes of empiricism to come to the point of 100% in your mind

 

No. But theoretically anyone can learn organic chemistry without having to adopt a particular faith about it. In other words, it is observer neutral.

 

Unless one had faith to begin with one wouldn't go through the austerity of learning organic chemistry.
At the point of direct perception (ie several years of studying chemistry at a university level) one no longer requires that faith because it has become realized knowledge

Theoretically anyone can also directly perceive god, but practically the can't for the same reasons that hardly anyone can directly verify the findings of the kreb cycle