The debate "Open discussion for everyone toward atheist to ask them questions. not to trash on them though" was started by
October 4, 2016, 11:27 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 20 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
TheExistentialist, Ahmad, neveralone, phantrash55, ProfDoke, makson and 10 visitors agree.
monikofos and 4 visitors disagree.
I'm surprised no one jumped on this since a) u get to ask any question and surely people have questions and b) there is so much activity on religious ones why wouldn't there be on a lack of one?
I didn't want to start going into controversial topics here, I really just wanted to see if we agree on what the word theory meant. it was the end, not leading into something.
that's stupid. it's obviously real.
understanding that a scientific theory isn't a guess is the end. it's a very important concept that leads to a lot of issues. for example my thread about politicians who say: "I'm not a scientist but...." got called stupid, but if the topic is about science, then shut up and let the experts speak.
it was in reference to climate change denial being spearheaded by (imo) traitor senator McConnell who has decided to protect the profits of the oil industry (which is contributing quite heavily to his and other right wing campaigns) while dooming the resources and future of the people of this nation, as well as contributing to the global problem that is steadily becoming very very bad.
people think it's a theory, therefore whatever, but they are just ignorant.
OK I understand that part but I'm was wondering where ur leading this up to
because you said
"in simple simple terms a theory that science says COULD be possible. but still is being looked at before it can become a law."
which was not accurate. I wish I could copy paste the definition from the link but this app sucks when it comes to copy and paste.
to summarize, it's well tested, fact based, and an accurate description of how our world works. not a maybe.
very interesting. so why are we on this a line of reasoning?
and has passed those tests.
a hypothesis is what u think is going to happen but haven't tested yet while a theory like u said is tested constantly.
I bumped up a thread on global warming and my proof of its man made source which I believe is iron clad. I can engage on evolution as well, but on the theory vs law:
everything in science is still being looked at. every theory every law.
a theory does not become a law. a law is part of a theory usually a single sentence or mathematical equatiob. gravity is a theory that has the law of gravity in it. Google the law of gravity. you will literally see (m1*m2)/d. the sum of 2 masses divided by distance. that's it.
if you Google the words "scientific theory" it will tell you something like "a well established and repeatedly tested idea. something that has already passed every test put to it (but forever subject to more as everything ways is.) gravity the theory, could probably fill several college textbooks with confirmed and well tested information, including the law of gravity. Gravity is a theory, but no one would consider it a guess.
can you identify the difference between your definition of a theory with the definition of a hypothesis? because that is the primary confusion people have with the term scientific theory.
I treat them like they can be very likely especially if most people agree with it but would need to check it out myself. I don't like to take someone's word for it.
Global warming is possible. I think it's real and should be under watch. evolution is something I kindof agree with. yes I think we evolve as we go but I don't believe in how it says we began.
in simple simple terms a theory that science says COULD be possible. but still is being looked at before it can become a law.
I'm asking if the words "well established scientific theory with international scientific consensus" means anything, or do you treat theories as a layman would, meaning a guess that could easily be wrong.
global warming and evolution are 2 examples of well established scientific theory with consensus, that among some circles in America, are controversial, so yes, those included.
also what you believe the words "scientific theory" mean... which I believe far too many Americans don't understand.
just to imply a higher power and mock seems like a good word because I was frustrated at the time. and r u asking if I believe that there is a thing like global warming and evolution?
what I meant to ask with my question was, do you agree with established scientific views. particularly politically controversial ones like evolution and global warming.
I remember earlier on you mocked people who believe "everything is just a collection of atoms"
no worries on the word mock, couldn't find a better one, you weren't disrespectful or anything, but I was wondering if you were mocking the fundamentals of atoms, or were you stressing the word "just" to imply a higher power that created them.
I never said science was the problem I love science I actually want to be a scientist. but science can be used to do harm. like a nuke.
The line of questioning regarding Zeus comes from Dawkins. He uses the "atheist" to Zeus argument to get people to relate to atheism. Since the denial of one God is the same as the denial of another God, it serves to demonstrate that a disbelief is not the same as a belief. It used to be that the argument looked more like "do you have faith that Santa Claus doesn't exist". This line of reasoning however, tends to put the theist off since they often find it offensive to compare their God to things like unicorns, santa, tooth fairy, etc.. This leads to the theist perceiving the atheist as being condescending of their view and thus the debate is usually stonewalled. I wouldn't get too hung up on the terms used here, but rather look at the intent of the argument.
As far as faith goes:
I think it's useful to distinguish between two types of faith. There is the kind of faith you have in yourself, in humanity, in science, etc... meaning that you have a certain expectation of behavior, excellence, reliability, etc... Then you have faith like you do in religion. This type of faith allows you to make a truth claim about a subject for which there is insufficient evidence or an inability to gather evidence that would usually be necessary for truth claims.
So if I say, "I believe in science", what is really meant is that: I believe the process of science will lead me to correct truth claims about the nature of the universe that I live in.
If I say "I believe in Aliens", what is meant is that: while there is insufficient proof to make a truth claim about aliens, I think their existence is likely.
I would argue that the latter is more akin to religious "faith", while the former is a colloquial term that's more diluted. Although I think most religious people would even disagree with this equivocation on an intuitive level.
I think it's more useful to confine faith to religion in these types of debates and confine science as being nothing more than a process. It serves to distinguish truth claims from opinions, from faith claims. I would say that opinions aren't necessarily based on faith either. It doesn't take faith to have an opinion on art, music, etc... an opinion is simply a non-quantifiable statement of agreement/disagreement while faith is a truth claim in the absence of evidence to support the claim.
Science is simply a tool used to gain information and explanations about our natural world. Science is not the problem. Thats like saying I like math but as long its in good hands
I don't think my views have changed much. My views have been fairly refined on the subject. I think it's worth noting, as an atheist, I'm confronted quite often by religious people and having to defend my views quite often. I try to steer away from these conversations in my day to day, but often times the issue is pressed and I've figured out how to respond to most of the usual inquiries.
I have done a few debates on debate.org, but this app has changed my "form" if you will. Rather than focusing on form and rules, it is sometimes beneficial to simply converse rather than debate. Although; sometimes it is fun to simply lock someone's argument down by using logical rules.
I'm saying I like science as long as it's in good hands but I also know science can be used for bad.
how do you keep science from bad people?it's openly published to ensure all people have access, and also for peer review.
smart people who will do good and not just mess the world up more.
what do you mean right hands?
I think it can and should if in the right hands help everyone.
what are your views on science?
I can accept ur def. better than the other anyways. u know I figured that people would jump into this at leat as much as the Christian debates but no one is. and how is it that people are even agreeing and disagreeing with this thread?
atheist means you believe in no god. not a specific one.
you are not atheist to Zeus and theist to Jesus. you are just "theist".
who happens to be Christian.
I disagree in a diff. debate somone asked if I was atheist to Zeus which in that way I am.but I still got the answer so next question. how is it that by being atheist u don't have faith so in that way u can't have an opinion on things because opinions are based on what u believe because opinions can be wrong.
that's like finding out someone lives is Cleveland and then asking them if they also live in Ohio.
oh, didn't get your question.
if you know he's an atheist, why would you ask his religion? you already know the answer.
I wasn't I just am saying that it is possible like many theories out there.
please don't turn my random guess into a gospel. it isn't even the most popular guess out there.
sounds possible to me.is it proper to even ask what religion atheist believes in since they need evidence
logically speaking, in the beginning something had to have always been there or came from nothing. so my best GUESS (wish I could underline too) is an ever existing megaverse pictured as a bubbling sea where each bubble is a universe with its own spacetime.
just like the argument of odds of a planet being in the goldilocks zone and sustaining life is slim, but there are sooooo many planets, it is practically inevitable, the same goes for: what are the odds mass values and expansion speed of the universe and particles have to be perfect for matter to form, with so many bubbles/universes, it is inevitable that 1 or maybe many many more, will get it right.
of course that is just a complete guess based on limited logical thought and not mathematics or knowledge.
to be human is to make mistakes. technically we aren't supposed to be condescending but not all seem to get that sadly. I apologize for any Christians who condescending I have had that happen to me but with a dif. religious group. no one likes it. so what in ur mind started it. or really what theory do y believe to be most likely?
I try to avoid discussing religion with ordinary people on the street unless I'm in a relevant intellectual setting, or they try to engage me.
if someone tries to approach me with a religious message in a condescending manner, they don't usually like my retorts.
some of my views have shifted, but not really regarding religion. this used to be my favorite subject a long time ago so my views are pretty developed. not to say that they can't change, but I've heard many of the opposing points already and have already adapted my views/answers.
what about u have any of ur views changed as u have been on this app?
when ur questioning us I think that should be encouraged because that will either break ur faith or make it stronger. I have delved deeper into my beliefs because of this app in the short time I've had it than in all my life combined. and I would say I'm better now than I was then. I've found new ways to describe my views and better understand others. so I would say my faith has strengthen overall.
that's fine. I think I understand what u mean
I think often times the mere questioning of a religious belief feels like an attack even though it isn't an intentionally malicious act (although there are a$$holes under the atheist umbrella that are offensive for the sake of being offensive... Just like any other community). For so long, religion was the default position and for the sake of civility inter-religious debates were off the table (I.e.a Christian wouldn't usually try and persuade a Muslim of the validity of Christianity over islam). With the growth of atheism (the fastest growing minority in the US, and a majority in some European countries) that taboo is somewhat suspended. So more religious people are having their beliefs confronted or challenged and often times that alone can feel like an attack since the conversation is usually pretty one sides (with regards to who's ideas are being challenged). Atheists have the advantage of facing the religious point of view on a daily basis and are thus very familiar with the rhetoric, the ideals, and how to maintain their views. I feel like this is a fairly new experience for most religious people.
no, it means that atheism isn't a doctrine/philosophy, its a rejection of one.
you wouldn't say that there are sects of non-Zeus believers, or non-Odin believers.
Perhaps it's useful to think of it this way:
You're an atheist in regards to every singly God out there except for one. The atheist simply takes that same stance, but includes one more. Your disbelief in Zeus doesn't shape your Christianity. Neither does a disbelief in any God shape the belief system of an atheist. It's simply a belief system that they've eliminated as being rational/viable/consistent/coherent (or whatever their justification for rejection might be).
also I believe a lot of people have a wrong idea of what an atheist is per say because all my life the atheist I met were constantly attacking my faith because they didn't believe in God.(which is confusing to me because it sounded like they were more angry at God than not believing in Him). but now I have had many debates with some atheist and I see that there neither for or against Him. they just prefer to stick with evidence.
Absolutely. Naturalism, agnosticism, and ignosticism are simply underlying rational for the conclusion "I don't believe in a God".
A disbelief in something however, is not a belief system. Since we all need some way to structure our belief systems, the term "atheist" is sort of meaningless in that regard (which is why I reject the notion that Atheism is a "religion"). It is much more useful if you ask an atheist if they're a stoic, a utilitarian, a nihilist, a virtue ethicist, etc.... Those definitions are much more descriptive and useful when describing a belief system than the term Atheist.
On a side note:
I feel that the misclassification of atheism as a belief system is the reason why many apologists/theists fail in their attacks on atheists when it comes to debates. Every time a theist/apologist makes this mistake they shield the atheist from attacks on their underlying belief systems. It is imperative that a theist figures out the operative philosophy and epistemological claims of the atheist before actually engaging in a debate. Without doing this step, the atheist is free from any critique of their belief system and simply has to focus on attacking the theist/apologist with relative immunity.
alright so ur saying that atheism is so malleable that there is no distinct enough lines to clarify them into sections?
one can even be a theist and a naturalist.
one who believes the universe is governed by discoverable, natural, universal laws... which were created by god.
there really is no way to categorize atheists, so the answer is: No, there are no sects in atheism.
to add to that, none of those categories are mutually exclusive. I for one can be a naturalist and an ignostic, an egalitarian and a humanist. even a theist can be a few of those categories such as humanist and egalitarian.
also, many of these categories are philosophical in nature and may not be commonly known. it is not like you were born and your parents told you "in this house we are naturalists!" Their beliefs are rooted in their thoughts and values, which are then applied to one or more of these categories. as opposed to religion where you are born to a sect or faith and then taught based on those traditions specifically.
I'm guessing this is a typo and is meant to say: "How many [sects] are [there] in atheism?"
If that is indeed the question, I'd like to point out that you can't really have "sects" as it applies to atheism. Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion, or political movement. There is no standard doctrine from which to deviate and thus you can't really have "sects" in the traditional sense.
I would say there are three distinct schools of thought when it comes to atheism however. These aren't really atheistic philosophies (that would be humanism, utilitarianism, existentialism, etc...) Rather these are claims about how one rationalizes a disbelief or lack of belief in God.
You can have the naturalists who deny a God based on the idea that it's in conflict with how we see the universe operate (i.e. natural events and physical laws shape our universe).
You can have the agnostic atheist who claims any knowledge of God is impossible (i.e. the nature of God, the existence of God, the will of God, etc...). This means that the agnostic atheist doesn't deny the possibility of a God, but rather denies the ability to know a God or of a God and thus a belief in such a thing is not rational (from personal experience only, this seems to be the stance most atheists take). The agnostic atheist usually bridges the epistemology with things like razors (logical shortcuts if you will) to come to a naturalistic world view.
You then have the ignostic atheists. Ignosticism is a claim about the nature of God. In ignosticism, God is rejected as a result of ambiguity. The general view is "every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God to be coherent". Meaning that because we have to make so many assumptions about a God to form a belief system around it is nonsensical. This is a softer stance in many respects as it doesn't necessarily mean the person doesn't believe in God, but rather sees the concept of God as meaningless and trivial.
On a side note; I welcome such discussions since I think there is a huge misunderstanding about the types of claims atheists make and how they come to their world view. It's easy to see how a religious ideology informs one's world view. Atheism however, doesn't have a doctrine to point to and say "here is how my view is shaped". You have to look atheism as a rejection of one view but not the acceptance of another. You have to probe deeper (are they a humanist, naturalist, utilitarian, existentialist, etc)
how many sec.s are their in atheism?