Atheism...the religion of...science?

[hero]

It`s relevance to living life is that it can help one determine thier own standards.

Atheistic people do not have their standards handed to them for the most part, they discover or create their own.

Science is sometimes a tool to help define those standards, it is not the standard itself.

To say that atheists in any way mold a belief of unbelief with the common tool (science) would from simple deduction imply that their is a common belief in not believing, and its connection comes from science.

 

[linwood]

So what is the standard? If science isn't the standard, then to what are we comparing?

The standard is different for every rationalist.
There is no single universal standard of what one believes and what ones morality consists of if they do not follow any religious doctrine.

They make it up themselves for their own reasons.

Science can help a person come to that standard as can nature, parnethood, your mother, your friends, your society, every and any "thing" that one can percieve can and does play a part in determining ones own standards.

Here`s the part that many will really not understand.

Those standards are subjective for the rationalist, they change as experience changes.

It`s truly beautiful.

 

[linwood]

To say that atheists in any way mold a belief of unbelief with the common tool (science) would from simple deduction imply that their is a common belief in not believing, and its connection comes from science.

Now your just refusing any input other than your own incorrectly pre-conceived ideas.

I have already stated that many atheists know nothing of science and scientific method.
I myself have been an atheist since birth, yes,, since birth.
I didn`t even begin to truly explore how the natural world and science could effect my worldview until a decade ago yet I was still an atheist.

How can that be if what you say is true?

 

[hero]

The standard is different for every rationalist.
There is no single universal standard of what one believes and what ones morality consists of if they do not follow any religious doctrine.

They make it up themselves for their own reasons.

Science can help a person come to that standard as can nature, parnethood, your mother, your friends, your society, every and any "thing" that one can percieve can and does play a part in determining ones own standards.

Here`s the part that many will really not understand.

Those standards are subjective for the rationalist, they change as experinece changes.

It`s truly beautiful.

I agree that it is our surroundings that shape our personalities, and fully understand the beauty of the difference of personalities. That is why I believe God gave us free will, but more too the point. Their are standards that unite us all. The concept or standard of right and wrong that everyone has and knows. Even completely remote civilizations.:jiggy:

 

[linwood]

Their are standards that unite us all. The concept or standard of right and wrong that everyone has and knows. Even completely remote civilizations.:jiggy:

No.
Thats my whole point.
My concept and standards for right and wrong are not exactly the same as yours.

Morality is subjective.

Completely remote civlizations are in no way identical in morality as those in my society.

Those in my society cannot agree on any objective moral standard.
Thats why we have the abortion debate, the capital punishment debate, the ten commandments debate, the intelligent design debate. and hundred of other disagreements.

There is no single moral standard for anyone.

 

[hero]

Now your just refusing any input other than your own incorrectly pre-conceived ideas.

I accepted your input, but denied it as true. I use logic to test logic, it is not a new concept. The idea was not pre-conceived, but is a thought that suits logic in philosophy.

I myself have been an atheist since birth, yes,, since birth.

Giving your statement concering experiences shaping personality, this doesn't fit in with logic...is it a hyperbole?

I didn`t even begin to truly explore how the natural world and science could effect my world view until a decade ago yet I was still an atheist.
How can that be if what you say is true?

The group of atheists I've been talking about from the beginning where the ones who used science to shape what they believe, so it is entirely irrelevant. And thus I believe that you fall into the other catagory of atheists that I described, the ones who use science to try and prove a religion that they dont believe in wrong, when in truth they only wont to prove it to themselve and see what they want to see. Of course no one would view themselves as such, so please give it consideration before your next reply.:jiggy:

 

[spookboy0]

The standard is different for every rationalist.
There is no single universal standard of what one believes and what ones morality consists of if they do not follow any religious doctrine.

They make it up themselves for their own reasons.

Science can help a person come to that standard as can nature, parnethood, your mother, your friends, your society, every and any "thing" that one can percieve can and does play a part in determining ones own standards.

Here`s the part that many will really not understand.

Those standards are subjective for the rationalist, they change as experience changes.

It`s truly beautiful.

I'm not talking about what people believe in. Something can be there, whether or not someone believes in it.

Another thing, there has to be some sort of Being behind all of this. How could there not be? (not pointing to any specific religion here). If there is a true "right" and true "wrong," to what standard are we comparing those truities? If a true "right" and a true "wrong" are as far this universe can go, then there must be something outside of this universe that's monitoring or whatever. It could be a type of aliens (the ET type, with the glowing fingers that freak everybody out). It could be a Deity, or many deities. We will never know for certainly certain, but we can use what the Creator(s) has/have given us. Like an architect can't be a wall in the house he builds, Who/Whatever created this universe can't actually, physically be here.

Then again, if time did it, and we have no purpose, oh well; time goes on.

 

[hero]

No.
Thats my whole point.
My concept and standards for right and wrong are not exactly the same as yours.

Morality is subjective.

Completely remote civlizations are in no way identical in morality as those in my society.

Those in my society cannot agree on any objective moral standard.
Thats why we have the abortion debate, the capital punishment debate, the ten commandments debate, the intelligent design debate. and hundred of other disagreements.

There is no single moral standard for anyone.

I am not saying that moralities are the same that is where the difference of personality comes in. But they have the same standard. Like if you borrow something it is considered right to repay. Such sayings as you scratch my back i'll scratch yours. If someone is nice to you it is customary to return kindness. Such is not just manners, but the origins of manners. Your subjectivity is what forms your difference of opinion concerning right and wrong. Everyone knows they did something they wish they hadn't have done for moral purposes. But allowing ourselves to do wrong without concience has created a tolerance for what people see as wrong, thus ruined mans clarity of it. They have the same basis. Love, faithfullness, and selflessness. Find someone who sees these as bad things, who you agree with, honestly.

 

[mr.guy]

Like an architect can't be a wall in the house he builds, Who/Whatever created this universe can't actually, physically be here.

Why would an architect build a house he can't get into? (To get a little retro), where does the architect live while he builds his house?

 

[mr.guy]

By the way, this thread...is a scream; a supremely surreal experience. Don't stop!

 

[linwood]

I accepted your input, but denied it as true. I use logic to test logic, it is not a new concept. The idea was not pre-conceived, but is a thought that suits logic in philosophy.

You used logic to test belief.
You cannot come to a universal understanding of anyones beliefs using logic.
Trust me, I`ve tried.

Giving your statement concering experiences shaping personality, this doesn't fit in with logic...is it a hyperbole?

No, it`s a factual statement .
I`ve never held a belief in any deity, therefore I`ve always been an atheist.
I don`t see how that statement is influenced by how my personaility or worldview has been molded.

The group of atheists I've been talking about from the beginning where the ones who used science to shape what they believe, so it is entirely irrelevant.

This may be our problem.
This is the first time I`ve seen you specify a "particular" group of atheists.
Your beliefs about atheists may very well hold true to a "particular" group but they do not hold true concerning atheism as a whole.

And thus I believe that you fall into the other catagory of atheists that I described, the ones who use science to try and prove a religion that they dont believe in wrong, when in truth they only wont to prove it to themselve and see what they want to see. Of course no one would view themselves as such, so please give it consideration before your next reply.

Hero, I have been considering it my entire life.
I live in a country and region packed full of religiousity I cannot help but consider it on an almost daily basis.
My worldview does not come lightly and it is obvious by your posts that you do not understand it.
It`s also obvious that you do not understand it because you refuse to understand it.
Something is not true merely because you believe it to be.

I'm not talking about what people believe in. Something can be there, whether or not someone believes in it.

It is also true that someone can believe something is there when it is not.

If there is a true "right" and true "wrong," to what standard are we comparing those truities? If a true "right" and a true "wrong" are as far this universe can go, then there must be something outside of this universe that's monitoring or whatever.

I`ve already stated that there is no "true" right or wrong.
People decide what is "right or wrong" for themselves one way or another.
My moral code is not the same as yours.

I am not saying that moralities are the same that is where the difference of personality comes in. But they have the same standard. Like if you borrow something it is considered right to repay. Such sayings as you scratch my back i'll scratch yours. If someone is nice to you it is customary to return kindness.

No, morality does not have the same standard and that is obvious by looking across this world at the many different cultures.
Cultural input is a major standard for morality but not the only standard and cultures everywhere hold different standards of morality.

 

[painted wolf]

hmm... I know its been said before, but heck I'd thought I'd toss in my 2 cents.

I know many athiests who are quite poor at science... I am a "thiest" and from what I've seen of the culture around me, I'm a little better than the 'average' in science.
Science does not make one Athiest... Athiesm does not make one 'scientific'.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

You used logic to test belief.
You cannot come to a universal understanding of anyones beliefs using logic.
Trust me, I`ve tried.

So it's not a matter of you being able use logic in matters of religion/subjectivity, correct? The dilemma seems to be the lack of not being able to come to a universal understanding.

 

[spookboy0]

Why would an architect build a house he can't get into?

I meant that he can't become the physical wall or support beam or floor tile of the house itself. He can't morph his human-ness into wall or support beam or floor tile because of the way he built the house. Clearer?

 

[spookboy0]

I`ve already stated that there is no "true" right or wrong.
People decide what is "right or wrong" for themselves one way or another.

So how do you know if your standard is right or wrong? Saying that the statement "There is no true right or wrong" is right, to what are you comparing that bit of correct information? If it's false, again, to what are you comparing it?

What is it that makes people decide what right and wrong for themselves? If it's their own mind, what gave that mind the ability to choose right from wrong?

Something is in this universe that is not a part of this universe.

 

[hero]

You used logic to test belief.
You cannot come to a universal understanding of anyones beliefs using logic.
Trust me, I`ve tried.

Obviously you are seeing what you want to see. I was testing your logic, I was replying to your statement... I thought you dont have a "belief"? A statement that is nothing more than a statement, what brings you to your conclusions...in the same way that you would test the results of anothers experiments, you also must test yourself as too how in the world of philosophy you arrived to such conclusions.

No, it`s a factual statement .
I`ve never held a belief in any deity, therefore I`ve always been an atheist.

As much as I have heard from you about "truth" and evidense, I would have expected you to understand what a factual statement is. It cannot be proven. Nevertheless I understand your meaning...and "even that I refute." [/QUOTE-Iinwood] don`t see how that statement is influenced by how my personaility or worldview has been molded.
The statement is influenced by your world view because we have already discussed how you "mold" one. It is from experiences in life. When you were a baby, you had no experiences, no personality. [/QUOTE]

This may be our problem.
This is the first time I`ve seen you specify a "particular" group of atheists.
Your beliefs about atheists may very well hold true to a "particular" group but they do not hold true concerning atheism as a whole.

Again, you are not looking at the whole issue as well as the logic behind them. I was narrowing all atheist into 2 catogories...the other of which you even addressed.

Hero, I have been considering it my entire life.
I live in a country and region packed full of religiousity I cannot help but consider it on an almost daily basis.
My worldview does not come lightly and it is obvious by your posts that you do not understand it.

So if you consider it by what you see from other religious people, have you yourself looked into the meaning of the Christian doctorine? I'll be honest, Christians are the worst. They appear and often are the worst kind of hypocrites. Many have problems with judging the sinner instead of the sin. Please if you do consider it, ever, don't let it be on what Christians do. I almost stopped going to church because of "politics". Man is not what we believe in. Many do simply use the bible to feel good, or justified about the way they live their life. This is what turnes off so many people to Christianity. I hate it. I believe spookboy put it best when he said, "Hate the sin...love the sinner." I think i'll start a thread over the discention of doctorine. It really is foolish. Your world view has not been well represented. I have seen you make statements, but not so many make ones to back them up, thus I havent had any way to understand it. Perhaps though since we are a little off topic (maybe its just me) you should just PM me.

It`s also obvious that you do not understand it because you refuse to understand it.

Something is not true merely because you believe it to be.
Am not I the one preaching logic?

I`ve already stated that there is no "true" right or wrong.
People decide what is "right or wrong" for themselves one way or another.
My moral code is not the same as yours.

I smart man once said to me, "Something is not true merely because you believe it to be." I think you should listen to him, and listen to logic, which this statement lacks. If it is true...elaborate.

No, morality does not have the same standard and that is obvious by looking across this world at the many different cultures.
Cultural input is a major standard for morality but not the only standard and cultures everywhere hold different standards of morality.

Someone can know what is right and wrong and still not to whats right. Simply because the world reflects evil does not mean they are ignorant. Perhaps if you really think this is true you should do a study over it, because I have already seen it done.

 

[flupke]

Any time I have tried to debate with an atheist about religion, all I here is how and why science concludes and proves all that they debate for. Has it then become an atheist belief, or a means of defying God???

belief = accepting something without asking for proof

science = self-critical process, continually disproving previous theories and postulating stronger ones

=> science is NOT an atheist's belief

 

[hero]

belief = accepting something without asking for proof

science = self-critical process, continually disproving previous theories and postulating stronger ones

=> science is NOT an atheist's belief

be·lief
be·lief [bi lf]
(plural be·liefs)
n
1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
belief in an afterlife

2. trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
belief in democracy

3. something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true
4. opinion: an opinion, especially a firm and considered one
5. religion religious faith: religious faith

[12th century. Alteration of Old English gelēafa on the model of believe .]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

sci·ence
sci·ence [s ənss]
(plural sci·ences)
n
1. study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment (often used before a noun)
2. branch of science: a branch of science of a particular area of study
the life sciences

3. knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world
4. systematic body of knowledge: any systematically organized body of knowledge about a specific subject
the social sciences

5. something studied or performed methodically: any activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
treated me to a lecture on the science of dressing for success


[14th century. Via Old French from Latin scientia , from scient- , present participle stem of scire “to know,” ultimately “to discern,” from an Indo-European word meaning “to cut.”]
blind somebody with science to confuse or overwhelm somebody by giving an impenetrable explanation using technical terms and concepts
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

(blind somebody with science to confuse or overwhelm somebody by giving an impenetrable explanation using technical terms and concepts) This is what your trying...
Hey flupke, gotta admit it was getting boring without you to argue with. As interesting as your self-made definitions were, if your going to use literacy to prove a point, all i've gotta do is read copy and past. And so as to show no favoritism to any one defintion, I pasted them all. i didn't even know the blind bit would be in the dictionary...I guess science is the atheist religion.(joke) Nice to hear from ya, finally.

 

[flupke]

blind somebody with science to confuse or overwhelm somebody by giving an impenetrable explanation using technical terms and concepts
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

(blind somebody with science to confuse or overwhelm somebody by giving an impenetrable explanation using technical terms and concepts) This is what your trying...
Hey flupke, gotta admit it was getting boring without you to argue with. As interesting as your self-made definitions were, if your going to use literacy to prove a point, all i've gotta do is read copy and past. And so as to show no favoritism to any one defintion, I pasted them all. i didn't even know the blind bit would be in the dictionary...I guess science is the atheist religion.(joke) Nice to hear from ya, finally.

The history of where a word comes from is not the definition of that word.

And reading your dictionary-decisions:

1. dictionary writers are not scientists
2. science IS a self-critical process, but the dictionary writers maybe don't realize this. I you'd dig in real science literature, you'd see this.
3. reading your dictionary excerpts, it should be very clear to you that science and religion are fundamentally different ("studying the physical world" <-> "accepting a truth")

 

[hero]

The history of where a word comes from is not the definition of that word.

And reading your dictionary-decisions:

1. dictionary writers are not scientists
2. science IS a self-critical process, but the dictionary writers maybe don't realize this. I you'd dig in real science literature, you'd see this.
3. reading your dictionary excerpts, it should be very clear to you that science and religion are fundamentally different ("studying the physical world" <-> "accepting a truth")

Im more than considerably well read. The entire point was not to fiddle around with such definitions. I really like the analystic philosophy known as logic in this thread, and it does not rely on eyesight, but reason.