Debate and Discussion

What is the point...
El Cid at 6:10AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
ozoneocean
No Arteestx, Spang's version is more correct I'm afraid.

It's fairly obvious really, just think about it- Atheism exists only because religion does. But religion doesn't need atheism to exist… In fact atheism is less like an opposite to religion and more like an unusual subset.
-Here we have our sports players, there are the baseball teams, the cricket teams, soccer, chess, basketball, motor racing etc. And over in the corner there are the ones who think all competition is inherently false.
You wonder why they care either way…

Agnosticism doesn't rely on the existence of either.

If atheism exists “only because religion does,” then it would hold equally true that religion exists only because atheism does. If atheism is an opposition of people's learned religious beliefs then religion is an opposition of people's naturally born lack of belief. You're assuming that people automatically are born with the notion of religion and that they must actively reject it, which is just incorrect. Atheism is not defined as the opposition to religious belief, but rather the lack thereof; a godlessness. In that case, we're all born atheists. Animals in nature are all atheists. Agnosticism requires the knowledge that you have options to choose from.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
ozoneocean at 7:12AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
El Cid
You're assuming that people automatically are born with the notion of religion and that they must actively reject it…
lol!
No it's not. We've been over this before, even in this very thread man, I'm not “assuming” some silly natural belief in religion or anything else. Atheism is the conscious rejection of a belief in gods, you're confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Something pretty common these days -_-
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
El Cid at 7:46AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
ozoneocean
lol!
No it's not. We've been over this before, even in this very thread man, I'm not “assuming” some silly natural belief in religion or anything else. Atheism is the conscious rejection of a belief in gods, you're confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Something pretty common these days -_-

Putting smileys on your post and trying to play the smarter-than-you card doesn't work unless you have a really good argument. Otherwise, you just come off looking like a jack-ass. The definition of atheism varies quite a bit depending on which dictionary or encyclopedia you consult, but the common theme is that it involves a lack of belief in deities of any sort. The active rejection of or opposition to religious belief is not necessarily a requirement. One without any notion of god one way or another would then be an atheist. Agnosticism is an uncertainty of god's existence or of the nature of God, meaning indecision, meaning you are aware of options.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
SpANG at 7:55AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
The completely faithful believe that God runs everything and that nothing is left to chance. So when the easily explainable or even the hard to explain phenomena occur, they are covered.

Atheists can explain away a lot of things with science, and I tend to agree with a great deal of it. However, there are some very hard to understand occurrences out there that even science can't explain (such as DARK MATTER, or the question “if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into?” ). But an atheist's faith in science leads them to the conclusion that science will eventually explain it.

I not only believe that atheism is the flip side of faith, I also believe that atheism is unwaivering faith in science.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
El Cid at 8:13AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
SpANG
I not only believe that atheism is the flip side of faith, I also believe that atheism is unwaivering faith in science.

You hit the key word there: FAITH.

A lot of self-proclaimed atheists know as little about science as they do about religion. They blindly accept their beliefs on the authority of scientific texts just as a religious person accepts things blindly on the authority of their holy texts. They both rely on faith. However, in defense of the atheists, science has delivered on a lot more of her promises than religion has, and scientific studies are subject to intensive peer review. Science has its limitations, however, which is to me even more evidence of its validity. Religion claims to know that which cannot be known, considers itself above review, and offers no evidence to back up its claims. The two have their similarities, but I just can't put them on the same playing field.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
ozoneocean at 8:18AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
El Cid
smarter-than-you
That's me. ;)
I celebrate it. ;)

Besides, I suckered you into thinking I was religious without me even saying I was. I LOVE doing that in these threads.

And Spang is right again in the faith in science statement. I'm more agnostic than atheist- and most good scientists approach things with an agnostic frame of mind.

—————–
There's no duality between science and religion. This idea that there are atheist scientists VS naive religious people is a conceit. Religion and science is as mixed as everything else in our culture and always has been.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
El Cid at 8:32AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 973
joined: 5-4-2009
I don't believe I ever made any assumptions about your religious affiliation whatsoever, Ozone, and I've already stated earlier that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, for the exact reason you've posited. So, welcome to the club.

As for Spang's position, he's welcome to it, but I've offered some pertinent counterpoints worth addressing. Science and religion have different standards of evidence to match, which would in my opinion give greater standing to a scientifically supported explanation than a religious one.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
ozoneocean at 8:51AM, June 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
There's still the idea that religion and science have some competition in explaining things. Explanations aren't really what religion is about, despite perceptions, that side really is the job of science.
They're quite different things, but still complementary in many ways. The didactic aspect of religion is the feeble stuff kiddy atheists grab a hold of and crazy religious people preach about. It's surface though.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
lastcall at 4:58AM, June 6, 2009
(offline)
posts: 1,358
joined: 11-3-2007
Dojo
What is everything we experience made of? Electtrons.

No no no…I think you mean midi-chlorians. ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:28PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved