uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Explain why think it does. 
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science doesn't belong to atheism
- Thread starter uberrobonomicon4000
- Start date
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Great, we agree science doesn't belong to atheism so atheist can stop acting like they are hot stuff now. Since it takes little to no brains to be an atheist.
ArcNinja
Member
I still can't tell if you're trolling or not...
But if you aren't, I would have to respectfully disagree. Atheism for me is acknowledging that an omnipotent being probably does not exist, and that I should rely upon science rather than religion to explain why things are the way they are.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Great. It has nothing to do with trolling and has nothing to do with science. Care to stay on the topic or totally avoid it?
I don't follow. I thought you were speaking against the common fundamentalist assertion that science necessarily promotes atheism and that scientists are thus all atheists.
Now I'm confused. What contention are we discussing here?
As for atheism and brains, as the epistemic default position, of course atheism requires no brains.
Gerbils aren't known for being very bright, for example, yet they are all atheists.
So, what's your point?
Now I'm confused. What contention are we discussing here?
As for atheism and brains, as the epistemic default position, of course atheism requires no brains.
Gerbils aren't known for being very bright, for example, yet they are all atheists.
So, what's your point?
ArcNinja
Member
I gave you a legitimate answer, or so I thought.
Skwim
Veteran Member
But they are hot stuff, so what's wrong with acting like it?
Now that is a brainless remark, Hmmmm, Does this mean you're an "uberrobonomicon4000 atheist"?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
That's not what it means to almost...everyone.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s).
What the OP meant though, as far as i understood, is that you don't have to be an atheist to acknowledge science.
Last edited:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
^ This. Frubals due.
Right. These kind of threads bug me. Vent time.
Atheism does not mean "accepting science rather than religion" - there are atheistic religions.
Atheism does not mean "accepting truth over falsehood" - there are atheists who live in dream worlds.
Atheism does not mean "avoiding superstition" - there are superstitious atheists.
Atheism does not mean "accepting only science" - there are atheists who reject many fields of science, and many theists who accept it.
Atheism does not mean "being smarter than those theists" - there are atheists who are incredibly moronic.
Atheism does not have a monopoly on science; those who think atheism somehow means being more honest are laughably dishonest and ignorant.
Atheism does mean "not believing in god/s". Nothing else. At all.
Theism does not mean "accepting creation myths" - many, many theists reject them; some religions lack them.
Theism does not mean "opposing science" - most theists are happy to accept science.
Theism does not mean "being superstitious" - unless that person deems "superstition" to be anything they personally disagree with, in which case, they're douches.
Theism does not mean "hating on the gays" - there are GBLTQ theists, and straight supporters of the GBLTQ community.
Theism does not mean "having a lower education" - there are doctors, PhD holders, people with masters degrees, and more at my church alone.
Theism does not mean "not thinking for yourself" - theists frequently do decide on their own beliefs.
Theism does not have a monopoly on science; those who think theism somehow means being more honest are laughably dishonest and ignorant.
Theism does mean "believing in god/s". Nothing else. At all.
Now, everyone shut up and dance.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
And theists who are incredibly smart.
[youtube]2Abk1jAONjw[/youtube]
Lady Gaga - Just Dance ft. Colby O'Donis - YouTube
Musty
Active Member
Explain why think it does.
It doesn't belong to anything. It does however have less cause for conflict with atheism/agnosticism than it does with theism because atheism/agnosticism lack unproven dogma's about the natural world.
Science belongs to all of us....Buddhists & nudists, Bible thumpers & bungee jumpers, atheists &
Islamists, apparatchiks & hot chicks, straights & their mates, gays & gayliens (gay aliens), etc.
Islamists, apparatchiks & hot chicks, straights & their mates, gays & gayliens (gay aliens), etc.
While I would disagree that gerbils are atheists, that is a semantic argument that might best be deferred to a more substantive thread.
Meanwhile it should be obvious to all that gerbils, who are indeed not known for being very bright, are nevertheless incapable of petty anti-atheist temper tantrums. We can thank the OP for putting these friendly rodents in a relatively positive light.
To be frank its utterly absurd to speak of science belonging to atheism, even cynically, when basically its just no belief-as-faith in gods. Science is just science and isnt owned by dogma of any fashion. God-believers can and do argue to their beliefs from scientific principles, the BBE, for example, just as those without faith argue from evolutionary theories etc.
Your second sentence is just an inflammatory remark, a sweeping statement, which Im sure you know to be arrant nonsense.
Do I owe you back rent on my borrowing it?
:no: You own science, too.