Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If it’s just something science hasn’t explained yet then it isn’t religion. Religion deals with the supernatural, whatever is beyond the natural, observable world. As soon as something becomes a subject science can describe, explain and account for it isn’t religion any more, it’s science.

But science can only explain the observable, material world. No matter how much science expands and improves, it will never be capable of looking past the material world.

Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically, yet are the foundationary base of all sciences. Most multiverse theorists deal with things that can not yet be tested, and can quite possibly never be so, yet are often times well respected mathematicians and astrophysicists.

I don't understand the thought that a god could not be explained scientifically with enough advancement in how we observe our universe.

The point is that you can have one, neither or both. Just like I can be a fan of horse racing and also a fan of beer.

I think we need to separate acknowledgment of possibility and acknowledgment of acceptance. A scientist could and should be able to acknowledge the possibility of a god, even without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible. Skepticism and disbelief can do good, but thats not Atheism, Atheism is irrational and reactionary denial.

That's not true; it's perfectly possible to be an atheist who acknowledges the possibility of a god without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible.

It's what's usually called "weak atheism", and is probably the most common kind. Most weak atheists are agnostics as well.

sebster wrote:Religion deals with the supernatural, whatever is beyond the natural, observable world. As soon as something becomes a subject science can describe, explain and account for it isn’t religion any more, it’s science.

Very true.

But science can only explain the observable, material world. No matter how much science expands and improves, it will never be capable of looking past the material world.

Also very true.

The thing I am getting at is this: Science and Religion are words that humans created to label things. Just like good and evil.
Maybe, bare with me please, they are all different extremes of the same concept. They both deal with understanding things we don't understand...

A caterpillar doesn't understand our meaning of metamorphosis. It just goes along doing its thing, and then one day it is a butterfly. It has no concept of caterpillar, or butterfly. It only knows "I am"... YMMV


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Skepticism and disbelief can do good, but thats not Atheism, Atheism is irrational and reactionary denial.

A word about blanket statements:

It's an all-encompassing statement, that is not strictly true. For example: 'Everyone likes ice-cream'.

In this example, although a lot of people like ice-cream, there is always a chance that some people do not.

Another example would be to say, "Everyone hates her". If the person is not very nice, this may be partly true, but maybe her Mum still loves her!

*IF* there is an invisible sky wizard who loves all his special unique snowflakes of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves) that's fine and dandy.

Mathematics can describe how things happen far better than 'a wizard did it'. Math can be checked, confirmed, proven and disproven by people who aren't wizards. The rest of us mere mortals have to be satisfied with a salesman who swears a self-referential book is true...or math.

I'm pretty certain nobody has gone to war for the 'one true math'. Nobody has been burned as an abomination in the eyes of the math. Medicine isn't (maybe) a sin in the eyes of math . Crazed mathmeticians don't insist the world is young, or dinosaurs are a trick or 2+2=5 (excepting for very large values of 2 thus requiring wizards)

However: If believing in the sky wizard(s) of your choice makes you happy, please feel free to observe the same possibility that you're wrong you expect out of Athesists.

as for evil:

Deep Fried Twinkies/candy bars....

Oldgrue wrote:I'm pretty certain nobody has gone to war for the 'one true math'.

You, sir, are ignorant of Cubic Creation.

-1 * -1 = -1

Orkeosaurus wrote:You, sir, are ignorant of Cubic Creation.
-1 * -1 = -1

Only when 1 is an imaginary value (see also the very large 2, and its respective wizard.)

Evil can encompass many things. What springs first to my mind is the tearing down of someone else in whatever form, be it robbery, murder, slander, etc. for whatever gratification it gives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:I'm pretty certain nobody has gone to war for the 'one true math'. Nobody has been burned as an abomination in the eyes of the math. Medicine isn't (maybe) a sin in the eyes of math . Crazed mathmeticians don't insist the world is young, or dinosaurs are a trick or 2+2=5 (excepting for very large values of 2 thus requiring wizards)

Math and science have also given us nuclear and biological weapons, capable of eliminationg all life on the planet, among other insturments of death.

Oldgrue wrote:If believing in the sky wizard(s) of your choice makes you happy, please feel free...

/sarcasm = true
/alt ego = Rorschach
Wizards? Hurm... I thought we were talking about butterflies. Pretty butterflies.
/alt ego = off
/sarcasm = false

As for evil:

Deep Fried Twinkies

QFT However, I think funnel cake is the epitome of what is good and righteous. Especially with strawberries and whipped cream

tblock1984 wrote:
Wizards? Hurm... I thought we were talking about butterflies. Pretty butterflies.

The Stay Puft Marshmallow man...

Cheshire cat...

Muffin... blueberry?

Dammit Jim... I am sorry to say that you are color blind.

Oldgrue wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You, sir, are ignorant of Cubic Creation.
-1 * -1 = -1

Only when 1 is an imaginary value (see also the very large 2, and its respective wizard.)

-1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1 and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres.

Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites.

Wrexasaur wrote:Dammit Jim... I am sorry to say that you are color blind.

Make sure you tell the captain his legs are made of rubber

I see it more like a programmer than a wizard. A programmer that doesn't really like property strings, yet the code he is writing has property strings within property strings.
As he troubleshoots the universe, he mumbles something about 42.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically, yet are the foundationary base of all sciences.

The relationships described by mathematics exist physically, in much the same way that the cell described by the information which we collect on it exists physically.

tblock1984 wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Dammit Jim... I am sorry to say that you are color blind.

Make sure you tell the captain his legs are made of rubber

I see it more like a programmer than a wizard. A programmer that doesn't really like property strings, yet the code he is writing has property strings within property strings.
As he troubleshoots the universe, he mumbles something about 42.

One of my favorite (and classic) eyetricks. Man... my eyes are bugging out after that last one .

Jesus wants some of this cookie too...

ShumaGorath wrote:Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically

I have two words:

Mandelbrot
Broccoli

Relapse wrote:

Math and science have also given us nuclear and biological weapons, capable of eliminationg all life on the planet, among other insturments of death.

QFT. And while people have gone to war over religeon, we have also gone to war over polotics. Moreso than religeon. Polotics? Polotics??? We're dying for this guy-? And other like him? It sounds just as ridiculous as dying for what you might actually believe in.

tblock1984 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically

I have two words:

Mandelbrot
Broccoli

Yep.

Where did we find math, if not in nature?

ShumaGorath wrote:Define the material world, mathematics don't exist physically, yet are the foundationary base of all sciences.

Mathematics do exist physically. When you have three apples, and add two more you have five apples. This is an observable, repeatable thing and therefore a scientific thing.

We can't observe and repeat 'God' or 'miracles' and so we call them something entirely different. We call them religion, and we accept religion as an entirely legitimate school of study, but one entirely separate to science.

Most multiverse theorists deal with things that can not yet be tested, and can quite possibly never be so, yet are often times well respected mathematicians and astrophysicists.

The idea there's something speculated in science and not yet proven therefore it's got some equivalency to religion is just wrong. Multiverses and other speculative physics theories have taken established scientific principles and expanded on them. At present these theories remain largely untested (due to current knowledge, technology and funding levels) but the the point is that we aim to test these ideas, and will not accept them until they've been properly examined.

On the other hand, religion doesn't aim to test null hypothesis. This is not a criticism of religion, it is simply not how religion works, because it has nothing to do with what religion aims to achieve.

I don't understand the thought that a god could not be explained scientifically with enough advancement in how we observe our universe.

A God that is explained and defined through science, the study of the material world, stops being outside of the material world, and stops being God.

I think we need to separate acknowledgment of possibility and acknowledgment of acceptance. A scientist could and should be able to acknowledge the possibility of a god, even without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible.

Of course the scientist can believe in God, just as the devout can be a really good chemical biologist. The point is that science and religion are not in conflict, because they are simply different things.

Skepticism and disbelief can do good, but thats not Atheism, Atheism is irrational and reactionary denial.

Whereas that is quite dismissive on your part. Christians believe in God, and they are free to believe because it is their personal point of view, and they should never be required to say 'I believe in God but in order to be tolerant I should acknowledge that I’m wrong’.

An atheist is just holding to his own point of view, that there is no God. He is no more required to add personal disclaimers about how he might be wrong than the Christian is.

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's not true; it's perfectly possible to be an atheist who acknowledges the possibility of a god without personally accepting it as either likely or particularly plausible.

It's what's usually called "weak atheism", and is probably the most common kind. Most weak atheists are agnostics as well.

Except "Weak Atheism" is just a faux term used to distance ones self from the actual meaning of the word. "Weak atheists" are agnostics, they just want special treatment under the blanket terminology of Atheism because it affords them special bitching privilege for being persecuted by the religious. There is no such thing as "weak atheism".

a⋅the⋅ism  [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Dictionary.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Websters.

The "strong" vs. "weak" distinction did not come into common usage until the early 1990s.[citation needed] The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.[2]

Wikipedia.


Weak atheism is agnosticism practiced by people too stupid to understand the foundations of their own beliefs.

A God that is explained and defined through science, the study of the material world, stops being outside of the material world, and stops being God.

Thats not necessarily true. Within the same context of string theory or simpler chaotic formation theories most scientific thought on the subject of multi dimensiality (sp?) posits that different realities have different physical laws that govern them. Given the religious concept as a god existing beyond natural law and the scientific concept of realities that exist and function beyond natural law I fail to see a particular difference in effect. As I had said before about mystical traditions, the foundations may not be scientific, nor may they be particularly sensical, but outright dismissal of them simply because of their nature (as is atheist practice) is both unscientific and foolish. The burden of science is in testing. What can not be tested can not be disproved (as nothing can ever be proven, all fact is simply yet to be disproven), thus rationally the right course of action is just to accept the possibility, but put effort and thought towards more reasonable courses of action, and just get on with your day. When you spend time arguing against the unknowable you stop acting rationally, the best argument in such a situation is the one not had at all.

To get back around to what started this whole conversation, this is specifically what makes Dawkins a tool. He has the argument, and instead of framing it in a context of kind scientific enlightenment he attacks people on their belief structures, which only strengthens the radical elements of his opposition. He's doing his job badly, and he's selling a lot of books doing it. He's a shill.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And in your own example you can see why I'm right.

Disbelief in the existence != the doctrine that there is no

Both are forms of atheism, only one makes a statement of absolute knowledge.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't understand the thought that a god could not be explained scientifically with enough advancement in how we observe our universe.

A God that is explained and defined through science, the study of the material world, stops being outside of the material world, and stops being God.

Strictly speaking, there isn't any explicit need for God to be a metaphysical being. Sure, that's how we categorize him, but there's no reason we couldn't do away with that part of the definition or simply revisit the meaning of the word 'metaphysical'. A few philosophers working in materialist metaphysics have tried to do just that by essentially setting up the metaphysical as something which exists beyond unaided, human perception. Its an interesting idea, though obviously not a popular one (most materialists are materialists because they want to escape the problems of metaphysics).

Its also worth noting that proving the existence of God through scientific process doesn't necessarily cut off religious access to it. After all, most of human activity should be pretty easily categorized if we're simply looking at the nominal methods of behavioral description assigned to all other animals. However, the fact that said categorization is necessarily affect by the very behavioral patterns its attempting to describe there will always be a degree of unnecessary complication. We assign needless weight to the 'meaning' of our activity even though, from a scientific perspective, its really quite meaningless. Simply knowing what something is only serves to limit the number of acceptable meaning which can be attributed to it. Just look at the degree of romanticism applied to the universe by many (most?) physicists.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And in your own example you can see why I'm right.

Disbelief in the existence != the doctrine that there is no

Both are forms of atheism, only one makes a statement of absolute knowledge.

Not really. A doctrine is only a belief. One is simply "organized" and the other is not. Whether it's a handful or a bucket it's still just sand.

Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist

Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Weak atheism is agnosticism practiced by people too stupid to understand the foundations of their own beliefs.

Atheism and agnosticism do not have any necessary connection. One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement of knowledge.

A strong atheist believes there is no God, and may or may not believe that we can prove his non-existence. If he does not believe that proof can be put forward, then he is also an agnostic.

A weak atheist does not believe in God, and may or may not believe that we can prove his non-existence. If he does not believe that proof can be put forward, then he is also an agnostic.

You can also be a pure agnostic by rejecting the truth value of statements of belief with respect to the metaphysical, though you would also have to draw on logical positivism in order to account for the objection from emotion.

A weak atheist does not believe in God, and may or may not believe that we can prove his non-existence. If he does not believe that proof can be put forward, then he is also an agnostic.

Yeah. I typed and retyped a couple of responses to that, but I suppose that Agnostic itself is too specific a term to be the blanket term it could be. Though inventing "weak and strong" ahtheism rather than simply saying agnostic atheism seems to be more of a chosen mix of terms to give strength to the irreligious movements rather than any real attempt to actually expand and more accurately portray the way people believe (as is supported by the methods those terms were originally introduced).

I'll bow out of the semantics debate, you've got me pretty concisely there.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.

Different words, and different languages. Atheos and Atheist have a common etymological root, but have no more in common in terms of meaning than gnosis and knowledge.

Also, historically there was no term for those who didn't care, or weren't sure. You either believed, or you didn't. Agnostic is a modern term.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not really. A doctrine is only a belief. One is simply "organized" and the other is not. Whether it's a handful or a bucket it's still just sand.

It's not just a matter of organization, they have different implications of strength.

A disbelief in the existence of a deity doesn't carry the same weight that a doctrine that there is no deity does. You can not believe in something without holding it as doctrine that it's not the case.

I'll quote the chair example I posted earlier:

You can define faith in different ways. For instance, it could be considered faith to believe that when you sit on a chair it won't collapse and make you look like an idiot. Now, there's a good reason to have faith in this result; you probably don't know for sure that the chair you're sitting in is structurally sound, but they almost always are. And if the chair looks structurally unsound, you may discard your faith in it's strength.

You believe that the chair will hold your weight, because otherwise you wouldn't sit down. You pick what seems like the most probable answer and base your decisions on it. As you said, science can only disprove theories; however while you may know there is no absolute proof of gravity, you still believe in it, because disbelieving in it seems less logical.

Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist

Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah man, is my post already obsolete?

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this.

I don't really personally accept the validity of the weak and strong atheist terminology, and it seems in large people take the word to mean without theism, which isn't what the term means. Earlier in the thread the argument of "without theism" was used, and the actual origin of the word was glossed over. You weren't really doing that though, so I can see how it would be irrelevant.

A disbelief in the existence of a deity doesn't carry the same weight that a doctrine that there is no deity does. You can not believe in something without holding it as doctrine that it's not the case.

And yet, the doctrine that god exists and the personal belief that god exists are both religious. A doctrine is intrinsically a belief, it may be stronger owing to organizational structure, but it's not separate. One is the macro to the others micro. Levels of belief do not come into what separates belief and doctrine.

–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

ShumaGorath wrote:Given the religious concept as a god existing beyond natural law and the scientific concept of realities that exist and function beyond natural law I fail to see a particular difference in effect.

QFT!

As I had said before about mystical traditions, the foundations may not be scientific, nor may they be particularly sensical, but outright dismissal of them simply because of their nature (as is atheist practice) is both unscientific and foolish.

WTF?

Wiki wrote:Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.
Pantheism is the belief that the physical universe is equivalent to a God or Gods, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation.
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

I do believe in a pan-dimensional entity (the programmer chap I was speaking of earlier) that didn't create the universe, but was created with it. I do believe that it created us, as well as everything else.
I do not see it as an deity, but as an entity, equal to you and me. I do not worship it. I live in it, it is all encompassing (like the Force). Pan means "entire", and I think that everything is one. Much like Saivism.
But I don't see pan as a god or deity, I do not worship it, therefore, I am Atheist.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Atheist is an old historical term, it's not A-theist it's atheos-ist. Which is where a lot of people seem to be getting mixed up. It was historically used to categorize those that denied the existence of the gods, not those who didn't care or weren't sure.

Different words, and different languages. Atheos and Atheist have a common etymological root, but have no more in common in terms of meaning than gnosis and knowledge.

Also, historically there was no term for those who didn't care, or weren't sure. You either believed, or you didn't. Agnostic is a modern term.

Actually I believe heretic covered didn't care and isn't sure, though it's also a value judgement by popular use.

But I don't see pan as a god or deity, I do not worship it, therefore, I am Atheist.

Does it make you an atheist when you acknowledge the existence of a guiding force but argue against it's place as a god or deity? That really comes down to the terminology of a god, as such a being would most certainly be more powerful than anything out of most polytheistic religions. It's important too separate the idea of a god and the Abrahamal god, though then thats another entirely different discussion to be had. I'm honestly not sure if you would qualify as an atheist or not.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Though inventing "weak and strong" ahtheism rather than simply saying agnostic atheism seems to be more of a chosen mix of terms to give strength to the irreligious movements rather than any real attempt to actually expand and more accurately portray the way people believe (as is supported by the methods those terms were originally introduced).

You actually pretty well hit the nail on the head. The whole weak/strong divide was originally an attempt to force a yes or no response to the God question. However, its been clarified over time, and also had several holes poked in it. The most obvious one being the aforementioned rejection from agnosticism.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually I believe heretic covered didn't care and isn't sure, though it's also a value judgement by popular use.

A heretic is one who proposes to deviate from established dogma, while maintaining general adherence to the faith in question.

Pagan carried some of the same connotations as agnostic, but no longer has the same weight.

The idea of pleading ignorance with respect to God, especially in ancient world, would have been tantamount to pleading general ignorance (Socrates), as there was no real separation between knowledge of the physical and knowledge of the metaphysical. One lead organically into the other.