An atheist is someone without the belief in the existence of a deity. That's all.There's no dogma.
Isn't it strange how this needs constantly repeating, sometimes again and again to the same people...
An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.
Indeed. Even in god.
All you have to do is produce evidence. To date, nada.
The you've fundamentally misunderstood one of those two terms.Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn't be further apart.
Perhaps dogma is the wrong word, although I suppose it depends of what definition of dogma is being used.
I know a number of atheists who are black and white in their thinking, intolerant of other peoples views, arrogant and actually don't bother to question everything. What does this remind me of? Religious extremism.
The definition of atheism and what actually passes as atheism can be quite different.
That's not atheists, that's people generally.
I think some "dogma" exists. This only because of what I read in an article when that atheist worship organisation started, the one linked on one of the threads. The journalist asked what the attitude of the local church was - if I recall correctly - they said quizzical interest. They then went onto say they had received criticism from fellow atheists who said they were doing it all wrong!
An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.
Indeed. Even in god.All you have to do is produce evidence. To date, nada.
Once you believe in a god, you cease to be an atheist.
Atheism is questioning everything.
I know a number of atheists who are black and white in their thinking, intolerant of other peoples views, arrogant and actually don't bother to question everything. What does this remind me of? Religious extremism.The definition of atheism and what actually passes as atheism can be quite different.
Atheism the not believing in the existence of god, no more no less. Questioning everything or intolerance or arrogance or posting on this kind of thread are optional.
Without whom (IMHO) this culturally popular debate would not be happening.
Hahaha.. it was going on long before Dawkins was born!
Dogma for atheists would appear to be the insistence that religion only exists as a means to explain the existence of the universe, in opposition to science.
Once [s]you believe in[/s]there's evidence a god, [s]you cease to be an atheist[/s] atheism becomes redundant.
Richard was once asked - "What if you died and met god?"
He replied - "Well I'm sure we could sit down and have a nice interesting conversation about where the god fits into our understanding of a quantum universe, and then I could just move on to the next thing of interest..."
Rather than "Oooh god, you are so big, we're really impressed down here" or anything of that nature.
In my understanding, what you're describing there is agnosticism - atheism is the staunch belief that there is no god and is not inquiring. Simply saying "prove it" is being an arse rather than being inquisitiveDogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn't be further apart.
You may say that's semantics but then the whole of this thread is pretty much based on exactly that
Hahaha.. it was going on long before Dawkins was born!
Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks for stating the obvious.
My point is that the sudden explosion of the argument into the mass culture is arguably traceable back to "The God Delusion" as the trigger for the sudden widespread interest/participation in the argument, as opposed to it's previous fringe status.
Don't quite understand what the "hahaha" is about. Perhaps you're attempting condescension.
Simply saying "prove it" is being an arse rather than being inquisitive
Saying "what is your evidence" is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect.
It's just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.
atheism is the staunch belief that there is no god and is not inquiring
There's nothing staunch about it.
It is simply the absence of belief; it says nothing about the strength of the lack of belief, or the effort going into changing that belief.
miketually, as I said, I believe you are describing agnosticism and that atheism is the [u]belief[/u] that there is no god
scaredypants, it is semantics, and many words have two similar meanings:
atheist
Noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
[url] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist [/url]
agnostic
Noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Going back for a moment to 'atheism' - Merriam-Webster also give the archaic definition:
Definition of atheism
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Although theist vs atheist discourse and debate is inherently fraught with many problems - I do find that not having singular, agreed-upon definitions to be one of the most needless stumbling blocks. Humans eh?!
That's my point - though, which of those implies an inquiring approach, particularly when further down its page is the following:
"This word was actually invented by a specific person and then successfully entered the language. It was coined by the Victorian biologist Thomas Huxley (1825–95) to describe his own beliefs: he did not believe in God but did not think one could say for sure that God did not exist"
?
Saying "what is your evidence" is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect
So what if the person says "I [i]believe [/i]there is a being etc etc"? How do you respond then?
That's my point - though, which of those implies an inquiring approach...
Not sure that the current dictionary definition of 'atheism' is (or indeed should be) so narrow that it concern itself with how either 1. Non-belief or 2. Disbelief is arrived at by any given atheist? Surely that varies from individual to individual? An atheist could be characteristically enquiring or, on the other hand, completely not. The only defining commonality of atheism is the not believing in deities thing.
Likewise, the archaic terms 'ungodly' and 'wicked' are not now such useful (or honest?) descriptors in a secular society.
I'm an agnostic/atheistic Humanist (cumbersome, yet accurate) and like to think I have a (often ridiculously) enquiring mind. In fact up until 30+ (as a self-described 'Pagan') I believed in many curious things which further enquiry lead me to doubt and ultimately discard. I find the Universe/existence massively mysterious and wonderous, and seem not to shut the door on ongoing enquiry, even if it means I have to reconsider my currently held beliefs about what is and what is not human invention.
So what if the person says "I believe there is a being etc etc"? How do you respond then?
Is the answer give it a special position in society and then teach it to all children whilst insisting that anyone who objects is intolerant and militant?
Saying "what is your evidence" is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect.It's just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.
THIS
Is the answer give it a special position in society and then teach it to all children whilst insisting that anyone who objects is intolerant and militant?
WTF are you on about?
You think I'm saying anyone who is atheist is intolerant and militant?
It's just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.
There's nothing wrong with that question. However insinuating someone is stupid because they don't have any evidence, that's not nice.
say homeopathy then we would rightly call the folk stupid.
Allow me to get in touch with my inner Molgrips for a moment:
We wouldn't say the folk are stupid; rather, that the belief is.
Hmm yes but the efficacy of homeopathy is firmly within the realms of science. (Placebo effect notwithstanding). In other words, it's knowable. If you give someone a homeopathic remedy, then it has a clear verifiable effect.
This is not so with the question of the existence of God. And as we have been told, this does not matter.
This is not so with the question of the existence of God.
How about unicorns?
Hmm yes but the efficacy of homeopathy is firmly within the realms of science. (Placebo effect notwithstanding). In other words, it's knowable. If you give someone a homeopathic remedy, then it has a clear verifiable effect.
One might substitute the word 'homeopathy' with 'prayer', and the statement holds?
the efficacy of homeopathy is firmly within the realms of science
are you saying the origins of the universe , the laws of physics and how we were "created" are not within the realms of science?
Is the question of whether we have a "soul" not part of physiology or anatomy?
are you saying the origins of the universe , the laws of physics and how we were "created" are not within the realms of science?
What happened before the big bang?
What caused the big bang?
What is outside the universe?
Why is the universe here?
Why are the fundamental constants what they are?
Why does anything exist?
One might substitute the word 'homeopathy' with 'prayer', and the statement holds?
Perhaps, I dunno. I have my own thoughts about metaphysics which may or may not include God; I have strong views on how we should behave to each other; but I do not know what prayer is meant to be. Asking God to make you well when you're sick seems a little odd given that God should've had a hand in making you sick in the first place? I don't understand.
ah the molly side step shuffle
are you saying the origins of the universe , the laws of physics and how we were "created" are not within the realms of science?
Are they science questions or not?
I do not know what prayer is meant to be. Asking God to make you well when you're sick seems a little odd given that God should've had a hand in making you sick in the first place? I don't understand.
After my mum was diagnosed with cancer last year, our vicar said he'd pray for her. I'm not sure what he thought that would achieve, but I chose to interpret it in the same way as if he'd said he'd be thinking of us.
Given that a committed member of the church had very recently died of cancer, I assume he didn't think the prayer would make any difference to my mum's survival chances.
As it happens, she seems to be cancer-free, which is nice, but I doubt it had anything to do with the prayer.
I chose to interpret it in the same way as if he'd said he'd be thinking of us.
That makes sense.
It's the 'I'm sitting an exam today pray for me' or praying before the start of a football match. I'm no expert but I think God's probably going to sit back and see how well you've trained to take advantage of the talent He gave you, rather than make you his favourite over the other guy just because you prayed.
she seems to be cancer-free, which is nice
This is good, regardless 🙂
Are they science questions or not?
It wasn't a side step, I was countering your point. Yes, those are science questions, however they don't answer everything. I suspect SaxonRider would say they are different epistemic categories.
What happened before the big bang?
What caused the big bang?
What is outside the universe?
Why is the universe here?
Why are the fundamental constants what they are?
Why does anything exist?
I have no idea but I wouldn't try to make up an explanation.
Also,
"We don't know (yet)" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
I have no idea but I wouldn't try to make up an explanation.
Not even if it made you feel good? I think many Christians would also admit to not yet knowing for sure - but they believe something. Don't see a problem.
We should enter a race with the team name as STW Theological Society; the slogan on the jersey should say "That is a different epistemic category".
"We don't know (yet)" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Indeed. Something that really delights me is living in age when not only do highly intelligent people regularly find explanations for hitherto unexplained phenomena, they also find ways to explain these things to relative dullards like me.
Not even if it made you feel good?
No certainly not. That's pathetic.
I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you? It can only tell us the consequences of some other set of initial conditions. Which are the consequences of other initial conditions, and so on. But why? Why any of it?
Interesting to note that Christianity doesn't answer this either - why does God exist? I'm just giving it as an example of a question that science can't answer, and perhaps nothing can.
I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you?
I really don't know. I agree it might seem unlikely but science has surprised us with many discoveries in a pretty short space of time. One thing I'm absolutely sure of is that religion doesn't have the answers to those "big questions".
Previous big bang.molgrips - Member
What happened before the big bang?
Too many unknowns and we will Never know.What caused the big bang?
There is no answer as in not important.What is outside the universe?
This is not important for the short life span of human beings.Why is the universe here?
ImpermanenceWhy are the fundamental constants what they are?
They exist because they have to due to the previous cause. 😛Why does anything exist?
[b]They will NEVER find the answer no matter how they try.[/b]molgrips - Member
I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you?
I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you?
Maybe not. Maybe there isn't a reason. So what? Again, "we don't know" is a perfectly viable position.
"But whhyyyyyy?" is human nature, just look at your average five year old. Religion is pretty good at filling this gap in knowledge - to be fair, it's pretty good at making up any old shit to fill any and all gaps in knowledge until we prove otherwise - but it's nothing more than an answer of convenience.
And, it's often not a particularly satisfying answer. "God did it" doesn't actually answer anything, it just displaces the question.
[b]I would rather scientists focus on things like teleportation or hover car[/b], which are much more useful then trying to find out the origin of the universe ... what a waste of time.
Invent teleporting machine and hover car please.
Beam me up Scotty!
indeed why i lost faith in primary
If god made me who made god...the unanswered unknowable question remains unanswered
Furthermore it raises serious issues/ more unanswerable questions where we cannot prove some of its assumptions.
What is my soul - how doe this non physical - for it can transcend death - interact with my physical body what translates for it - why can we not find it, why can we not prove god etc. God is a crap answer that worked 4000 years ago when we thought the earth was flat and we had no idea what elements were or why 29 ers were better than 26 ers.
Today its a rubbish answer* enduring but rubbish.
* its so rubbish even most of the followers dont think creation is true. It can no longer convince the flock let alone the rest of us. Their faith is waning.
I agree it might seem unlikely but science has surprised us with many discoveries in a pretty short space of time
It's impossible. Science can break everything down to fundamental laws based on fundamental constants. It can't tell us why those constants have the values they are or indeed why reality exists, because there is no concept other than reality in which to formulate an answer that isn't self referential.
Again, "we don't know" is a perfectly viable position.
It is, yes.
"God did it" doesn't actually answer anything, it just displaces the question.
That's exactly what I said a few posts ago. The only logical conclusion then when faced with a unanswerable question is to pick an answer you like. I think that's checkmate 🙂
The only logical conclusion then when faced with a unanswerable question is to pick an answer you like.
That's my point, it patently isn't. The only [i]logical [/i]conclusion is to simply accept that we don't know, that we don't have the answer. Some people just can't get their head around accepting this, which is one of the reasons religion can appear attractive.
Please invent teleportation and hover car ... 😛
Much more useful me say.
The only logical conclusion then when faced with a unanswerable question is to pick an answer you like.
No its to accept you dont know and say you cannot answer it anything else is to just guess wildly and risks being wrong which is ILLOGICAL.
The logical answer with schrodinger's cat is not to guess as you prefer it to be alive than dead its to realise out knowledge is incomplete as we dont know the answer.
Please go and study some logic.
read up on Godel and his incompleteness theoryScience can break everything down to fundamental laws based on fundamental constants. It can't tell us why those constants have the values they are or indeed why reality exists, because there is no concept other than reality in which to formulate an answer that isn't self referential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Please invent teleportation and hover car ...
I think you will find some pretty high level physics needs to be understood to get to the point of developing teleportation. That's why understanding the universe and how it works is important.
Plus, it's nice to know things innit?
slowoldman - Member
Please invent teleportation and hover car ...I think you will find some pretty high level physics needs to be understood to get to the point of developing teleportation. That's why understanding the universe and how it works is important.
Plus, it's nice to know things innit?
Honestly my dear slowoldman chap I was going to say (exactly what you just said but decided to say something else ... funnily) they have very high chance of accidental discovery of something else than trying to find out the origin of universe.
Ya, it is always nice to have accidental discovery but with regards to finding the origin of universe, I say let them get on with it and with all the brain cells available to them. But to say that science is the only truth ... I think we have a long way to go.
Beam me up Scotty!
