Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Viviane
    Not relevant since I said discovered, not calculated.
    Facts are relevant, whether you like it or not. The fact is, there was strong reason to believe the CMBR existed prior to it's discovery. You not know knowing or mentioning that is irrelevant to whether or not it matters.
    Agreed, but my point is that there could be things that can interact with nature without being testable (at least not yet). Therefore it could "interact with the universe."
    So then it IS testable and discoverable. You've managed to render your own argument moot. Congratulations.
    How science deals with God, fairies are not the real issue are they?
    Why wouldn't they be? Why would god be any different?
    I know, but I was correct was i not?:
    So far, not very much and no on the specific issue.
    No, where did you get that idea from? I specifically said:
    From your own words, specifically, "I did not have..." If you don't have something, you are lacking it. Thanks for proving my point. Babies are atheists.
    Cocky aren't we?
    I've enough cock for both of us.

  • Viviane
    No, it means that you don't know/are not certain. If 100% is certainty than 0% "I don't know". Since baby's don't know, they are Agnostic.

    It exactly means that. You can't know whether or not you know something unless you've thought about it. Babies can't do that and they lack a belief in god(s), therefore they are atheists. Try again.

    No, I still affirm that to lack belief in something you need to know what that something is..

    You've already admitted you lacked belief in magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt before you knew they existed, so you've already confirmed yourself wrong. Do you need to know what a merkin is to lack one? Do you need to know what a digeridoo is to lack one? In what sense is it required to know what something is to lack it?

  • Viviane
    Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?

    If they lack a belief in god, then yes.

    I am not sure if babies can "know", if they can't. they would not be considered Agnostics either.
    I think they might but I am not sure.

    They are atheists. Atheism deals with what you believe. (a)Gnosticism deals with what you can know.

    IMO you need to be able to know, to not know. So no.

    Your opinion is wrong. Atheism deals with belief.

  • datto

    My noob understanding is science deals with scientific modeling

    models might not be certain. It can be challenged if there is a better scientific model. That is why science is always open and can never be absolutely certain.

    The best fit model is called reality. The current best fit model in science is the Big Bang theory.

    I personally thinks that science did not totally rejects the idea of god (not personal god). it's just that they put aside the idea and the room for god is getting smaller. IMHO science is agnostic atheist.

    Btw, i don't know which category i fall into but i CURRENTLY do not believe in any god.

  • _Morpheus
    My dog believes i am god so she is technically not an atheist.... She is also wrong, of course, but who am i to dissuade her of the notion...
  • Qcmbr

    "I don't understand why almost all the threads that run the longest on this site have to do with atheism/theism debates"

    In our pointless world we all generate meaning from our worldview. Joy, anger, fear, all are channeled and focused by what we believe and our responses informed and mediated by it. For some it is family, others it is work but for most it is religion and god(s) - it(they) provide purpose when none exists, they cause society to build pyramids and to hand over scarce resources to men in dresses and give in return peace, hope and devotion. These discussions are so important because they are so fundamental to who we are, what we do and why we do those things in our brief, flickering existence.

    I understand the love of faith based magic thinking. It is an exhilarating drug with easy highs and sumptuous lows. It is glorious, however, like all ideologies (Nazism and Stalinism are two easy examples) the cost to the individual can far exceed the collective benefit. For those of us who are outside religion it is easier to see the long term cost of a faith worldview (ultimately by providing false but comforting answers it stifles our ability to look for or generate novel meaning that may better meet our needs - a bronze age, mystic cult is not suited to a technological and scientific community.)

    This debate and the millions that will follow are our collective way of un-ravelling and discarding millenia of magic based culture and replacing it with fact based humanism.

  • freemindfade

    Correction. They start as atheist vs theist. The theist is quickly devoured and the atheists and agnostics turn on one another in a philosophical debate about debating and words that by their very nature a varied and founded in a theological world.

    The problem is the word GOD. As soon as it is used, a huge leap is made, this is undeniable. Atheist say they don't know and don't believe because historically the role filled by "God" known or unknown, has been explained away through knowledge, and this is likely to continue on. The that word in of itself if inflammatory and should have no place. If you don't say god no one has to say atheist.

  • _Morpheus

    Damn we only got 21 pages on this thread.... Come on people! We can do better.

  • cappytan

    Interestingly, the title of this thread can use all the same characters, yet convey a message I also agree with.

    Labeling one self a "theist" is Unscientific.

  • freemindfade

    _Morpheus how dare you deny the existence of my god Dionysus, why just last night I drank a bottle of wine!

    May the desert god YAHOOHOOY smite you with piles!

Share this