Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the definition of an atheist is not believing in God, then I would consider myself an atheist starting today.
However, I am afraid I cannot because the definition of "God" is vague and abstract. Even Christians are not united on what or who God is. You will get many definitions of what God is. I give God 2 definitions: God is Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) in human form and God is pure spiritual energy. I've read on this forum that there are atheists who can agree with the second definition but argue over the first one.
These are very narrow definitions. There are and have been many thousands of gods invented by humans.
Quote:
Atheists rely highly on the idea that God cannot be proven by science, which I believe is true but I believe it is an idea that should not even be debated on in the first place. In order to prove something with science, it must be defined. Example: prove that a german shepherd dog is furry. We all know what a German shephard is so the "something" is defined. It is a dog. We can touch the dog to see it is furry.
I have no idea how science can be used to prove something that is not defined. Science can be used to discover things. But again, oftentimes, there is something defined.
If it shouldn't be debated, then why are you debating it?
'Science' isn't trying to disprove god. Science has nothing to do with god.
Science find explanations for the world around us based on repeatable evidence. The gradual replacement of explanations for things once explained by god, now explained by science, is incidental.
I suppose there are different definitions of God, but none that suggests I'm not an atheist. In the same way, there may be different definitions of atheist, but to elaborate a little further about what it is to be an atheist, the following about what an atheist believes sometimes comes in handy...
"I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.
I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest.
I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality.
I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws.
I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.
I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world.
I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.
I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.
I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell.
I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma."
Yes, and luckily, religious people love to tell us what their concepts of their gods are. It's like, their favorite thing to do.
'He is a powerful being who created the whole universe'... okay, well, we have no actual evidence of that, therefore there is no reason to believe that is a real thing. We're not necessarily saying that isn't possible, but that we don't hold that belief, because there is no observation-based or otherwise convincing reason to.
Claims are cheap. You can claim whatever nonsense you can imagine. But as soon as you start defining the claim as something that is actually testable and falsifiable, then we can start investigating the claim, via observation/reason/the scientific method, etc.
Where atheists and theists collide is that specific belief. Atheists find it unnecessary to believe in a deity due to lack of evidence. Theists believe that lack of evidence is not necessary to believe in a deity. Simply put, theists believe that there is evidence to prove Jesus (Yeshua) existed and Jesus's followers witnessed something science cannot prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Gods, plural. But you also accept gods could exist, which would make you an agnostic. And if I understand your position correctly, you believe theism is more probable, which would put you on the agnostic theist side of the spectrum.
As of the current moment, agnostic theist would be a precise label to identify my current beliefs. I still consider myself Christian and respect and practice Christian beliefs. I am one of those people who says "I am Christian but am not completely certain what happens after we die."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
These are very narrow definitions. There are and have been many thousands of gods invented by humans.
If it shouldn't be debated, then why are you debating it?
'Science' isn't trying to disprove god. Science has nothing to do with god.
Science find explanations for the world around us based on repeatable evidence. The gradual replacement of explanations for things once explained by god, now explained by science, is incidental.
lol I am debating it for the same reason atheists do. They strive to defend the idea that God does not exist. For some reason, the idea of people still believing in God still baffles many atheists. I've seen so many atheists both on and of this forum discussing how science disproves God. I am defending the idea that it is utterly pointless to put "science" and "God" as well as the word "evidence" (all three words) in the same sentence together.
Where atheists and theists collide is that specific belief. Atheists find it unnecessary to believe in a deity due to lack of evidence. Theists believe that lack of evidence is not necessary to believe in a deity. Simply put, theists believe that there is evidence to prove Jesus (Yeshua) existed and Jesus's followers witnessed something science cannot prove.
As of the current moment, agnostic theist would be a precise label to identify my current beliefs. I still consider myself Christian and respect and practice Christian beliefs. I am one of those people who says "I am Christian but am not completely certain what happens after we die."
lol I am debating it for the same reason atheists do. They strive to defend the idea that God does not exist. For some reason, the idea of people still believing in God still baffles many atheists. I've seen so many atheists both on and of this forum discussing how science disproves God. I am defending the idea that it is utterly pointless to put "science" and "God" as well as the word "evidence" (all three words) in the same sentence together.
With all due respect, it's more than about one specific belief where atheists and theists "collide."
In addition to more than a few differences, there is the one very important difference in terms of what constitutes sound reason and logic. To the point that many a theist will argue their beliefs are not based on sound reason or logic. Let alone facts and proofs that properly support their belief(s). This along with perceptions and actions about others who don't share their same belief is considerably different too. Moral judgements about these differences and the consequences.
About many things, theists don't simply rely on faith to draw their conclusions. When buying a car from a used car salesman for example. When considering what a doctor explains about what's ailing their child. When looking both ways before crossing the street. When it comes to a belief in a god, however, all those normal ways of assessing the facts, reason and logic for guidance go "right out the window." Atheists are generally not inconsistent or contradictory that way. This among the many differences that can cause an atheist to scratch their head about religious thinking more than just a little.
From an atheist's perspective, it's not pointless to put science, God and evidence into all one needs to consider when drawing conclusions of consequence like this one. It seems it's only theist thinking that always wants to take certain important considerations "off the table" for obvious reasons. Consider all there is to consider, and the theist position becomes quite suspect at best. Doesn't hold water, and this is perfectly fine to the theist's way of thinking of course. Not so much for the atheist.
I have a hard time understanding how someone who is a Christian can also be an agnostic theist, but this is also typical of theist thinking. The facts, reason and logic don't really matter when it comes to what theists choose to believe.
At the same time, there is a good deal of truth in your comment. True that science cannot prove that Jesus existed (let alone is the son of God and performed the miracles that Christians tend to believe, including rising from the dead), but there are significant reasons certain beliefs such as these cannot be proven. To ignore those reasons is also something atheists have difficulty doing, while religious folks seem quite comfortable ignoring what doesn't fit their belief narrative. Have we ignored all that science HAS been able to prove contrary to what religious thinking had us believing before science came along? Should we not seriously consider the reasons science can't prove many things that maybe just maybe is because those things don't exist? Very hard to prove something exists that really doesn't in any case. That's for sure. Even the best science can offer now or in the future can't do that.
If someone believes there is evidence to prove Jesus existed, was the son of God along with all the rest, and says so, isn't it completely reasonable to ask what that evidence is? If so, why not share it? If not, why?
The answers to these sorts of questions also vary considerably between the theist and the atheist. Included among the other fairly significant differences that at least the atheist is not so quick to "sweep under the rug."
I've seen so many atheists both on and of this forum discussing how science disproves God.
I have never seen any atheist make this claim, so maybe you are reading something into their posts. Naturally, I may be wrong.
I think the implicit argument is that science removes the need to include a god, that no god is required, that naturalism alone provides an alternate to any god being involved. Even religious scientists for over 2000 years have argued for naturalism without including a god, preferring to believe that a god is behind it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiz02
I am defending the idea that it is utterly pointless to put "science" and "God" as well as the word "evidence" (all three words) in the same sentence together.
Why? If you have no evidence for a god, including evidence from science, that is a valid position for people not to believe.
The evidence from science is an alternative to a god doing it because it so far not required a god, and when it explains things, it does so better than a god doing it.
Science does not prove or disprove a god, it just moves the balance of evidence away from a god being responsible.
And before the usual rant from the usual science denying suspect, saying 'we do not know' is admitting you have no evidence
I think it depends on the starting points. If a person starts off saying God caused "A", somebody may argue back with scientific explanations. Then the believer will still be able to say "we don't know".
But if the conversation started off with "A" caused "B", which is a common conversation every day, chances are that God won't be brought up and nobody has to say "we don't know". So why is God brought up then? My guess is that it is an attempt to connect evidence to God in order to persuade oneself and others. That may be a sign that belief is not as easy to do without evidence.
Asteroid discovery suggests ingredients for life on Earth came from space
"Two organic compounds essential for living organisms have been found in samples retrieved from the asteroid Ryugu, buttressing the notion that some ingredients crucial for the advent of life arrived on Earth aboard rocks from space billions of years ago.
Scientists said on Tuesday they detected uracil and niacin in rocks obtained by the Japanese Space Agency's Hayabusa2 spacecraft from two sites on Ryugu in 2019. Uracil is one of the chemical building blocks for RNA, a molecule carrying directions for building and operating living organisms. Niacin, also called Vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid, is vital for their metabolism."
God is non-existent. There's no evidence at all to suggest a god had anything to do with life on earth. It came from space. There's the evidence.
Non-overlapping magisteria. A Supreme Being will of course have among its powers that of being undetectable by natural science.
Not that I believe in one, mind - but pretty much by definition, supernatural events (if such exist, which I rather doubt) are outside the realm of natural science.
Atheists rely highly on the idea that God cannot be proven by science...
I don't think they do, honestly. There's a disturbing undercurrent of theists trying to attack science that doesn't match with their belief system, and science-backers (some of whom are atheists) will of course point out the flaws in that thinking. But atheism is just a position of faith, and science doesn't come into play at all.
If the definition of an atheist is not believing in God, then I would consider myself an atheist starting today.
However, I am afraid I cannot because the definition of "God" is vague and abstract. Even Christians are not united on what or who God is. You will get many definitions of what God is. I give God 2 definitions: God is Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) in human form and God is pure spiritual energy. I've read on this forum that there are atheists who can agree with the second definition but argue over the first one.
Atheists rely highly on the idea that God cannot be proven by science, which I believe is true but I believe it is an idea that should not even be debated on in the first place. In order to prove something with science, it must be defined. Example: prove that a german shepherd dog is furry. We all know what a German shephard is so the "something" is defined. It is a dog. We can touch the dog to see it is furry.
I have no idea how science can be used to prove something that is not defined. Science can be used to discover things. But again, oftentimes, there is something defined.
Well, for Christians who believe that God is Yahweh who is, in turn, Jesus (even though Jesus never says this in the Bible) - then God IS defined.
We know that God is a specific entity, a singular being - and not some kind of amorphous "spiritual energy." Not only is Yahweh/Jesus defined, he is also described. Simply calling Yahweh/Jesus a "he" or "Father" is defining this God.
Plus, we can discern and extrapolate quite a bit of information about who and what this Yahweh entity is by his actions - none of which were morally good by our own standards (a huge reason why belief in this God requires a massive amount of cognitive dissonance).
In fact, Yahweh begins to define himself when he shamelessly admits that he's a jealous god - a trait all "perfect" beings should have, wouldn't you agree? Thus, to be more godlike, we should get super jealous of everyone around us - and murder people who get just a little too uppity.
However, because the Bible clearly defines this nasty creature Yahweh, he can easily be debated. EASILY debated - because the stories in the Bible are so horribly insane and contradictory.
As for God being this generic "spiritual energy" - then why call it God? Because even the dictionary defintions proclaim that a God is an actual being - and not merely energy. If it's spiritual energy, then why not call it spiritual energy? The word "god" has far too much baggage associated with it - and more often than not - comes with a religion filled with stoopid dogma and pre-conceived lists of people to hate, judge, and condemn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
