Was atheism invented?

[Dave Watchman]

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

Why are you against atheism?

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration.

But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?)

But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on.

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
​

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is not proof, evidence and what not!!!

You're correct.

 

[sun rise]

From a non-dual perspective, both atheism and theism exist in the illusion of duality. And if we want to go further even duality and non-duality do not exist And even existence and non-existence is dual not one. But tail chasing can be fun:

 

[Revoltingest]

Who do you mean by "we"?

"We" atheists.
Not believing in gods is the one thing we have in common.

 

[Revoltingest]

From a non-dual perspective, both atheism and theism exist in the illusion of duality. And if we want to go further even duality and non-duality do not exist And even existence and non-existence is dual not one. But tail chasing can be fun:

Mumbo & jumbo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"We" atheists.
Not believing in gods is the one thing we have in common.

No, not really. Only those who use your definition. There are other atheists.

 

[sun rise]

Mumbo & jumbo.

Make tasty gumbo.

 

[Revoltingest]

Make tasty gumbo.

Gumbo good.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

Why are you against atheism?

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration.

But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?)

But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on.

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
​

Peaceful Sabbath.

The problem is, a hypothesis really does need at least something to justify its very existence. If I were to hypothesize that double-rooted carrots (which are real), left to their own devices and not plucked out of the ground to die, would eventually pull themselves out of the ground and walk around, everybody would ask me, "what possible reason could you have for such an inane notion?" And if I were to respond, "I don't need any reason for my hypothesis," thinking people would try to stay away from me, in case I get any other weird ideas.

That's the problem with God. What is the actual basis for the God hypothesis? "There's stuff, and we can't explain that. Therefore there must be a stuff-causer." Now, that may be an okay hypothesis, but you know utterly zilch about that stuff-causer. And yet, we call it God, and wonder-of-wonders, every god ever imagined by we naked beach apes has become in every sense "a person," a being with intelligence and purpose. And there is no reason whatsoever for that hypothesis.

And that's why we atheists keep our distance, in case theists get any other weird ideas.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

Why are you against atheism?

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration.

But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?)

But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on.

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
​

Peaceful Sabbath.

Apparently his prize in physics doesn't extend to other areas.
I don't believe in things that lack reason & evidence.
Nothing unscientific about that.

 

[firedragon]

"We" atheists.
Not believing in gods is the one thing we have in common.

Not all atheists. close to 20% of atheists at least in the U.S are actually theists because they believe in some kind of divinity.

 

[sun rise]

Not all atheists. close to 20% of atheists at least in the U.S are actually theists because they believe in some kind of divinity.

An to some, there's 'weak atheism' or agnosticism. So some atheists aren't really atheists in the strict sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all atheists. close to 20% of atheists at least in the U.S are actually theists because they believe in some kind of divinity.

Someone might tell them they're not atheists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If a person didn't know that God exists, he would have to be forgiven for all of his sins, but since everyone knows that He exists ..

I do not know if any God or Goddess exists, I have seen no evidence for it. Also since I do not believe in existence of God, I do not require excuse from any one.
Why are you trying to speak for people who do not believe in existence of God or Gods? They will speak when necessary as I have done.
Mikkel the Dane also does not know if God exists.

 

[firedragon]

Someone might tell them they're not atheists.

Absolutely. Yet, they call themselves that, and identify as "we" with you. Now you may not consider them as "we" but you wouldn't know who to not.

 

[questfortruth]

I don't believe like you do.

You don't believe like me? I do not think so. I believe and know, that word God is found in many places of this fallen world. For example - Coran, Bible, Tora, Vedas. Do you believe this fact?

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely. Yet, they call themselves that, and identify as "we" with you. Now you may not consider them as "we" but you wouldn't know who to not.

Perhaps they just want to belong to the popular crowd.
Everyone knows that atheists are all fun loving & good looking.
(Of course, they haven't yet met me.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't believe like me? I do not think so. I believe and know, that word God is found in many places of this fallen world. For example - Coran, Bible, Tora, Vedas. Do you believe this fact?

No!

 

[Aupmanyav]

It has no deep motive, and Dawkins isn't no where near the "head" of the group. There are thousands of people who don't believe god-they are atheists and never heard of Dawkin. I personally don't even like the guy.

Dawkins at al. have come only yesterday. India has a long history of atheism. As I mentioned, the oldest mention is in RigVeda which is about 3,000 years old. Then we had Buddha, Mahavira, Charvaks, Ajivakas, who were atheists, around 2,500 years ago. By the beginning of Christian era we had atheist philosophies like Samkhya (Nireeshwarvada - opinion that there is no God) and Vaisheshika, the Indian atomic theory of Kanada which also refuted existence of Gods. So, you cannot say that atheism has no history. It has a long history in India.
I too have read nothing by Western atheists except a book of essays by Bertrand Russell (which I liked very much). My atheism is rooted in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies.
Lastly, I am a practicing Hindu atheist. I believe in Advaita (non-duality), and my belief is closely related to the latest in science.
In this way, much of what you have said is your opinion and does not apply to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps they just want to belong to the popular crowd.
Everyone knows that atheists are all fun loving & good looking.

Not me, I am not fun loving & good looking.