• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The New Definition of Atheism

code1211 said:
Did you work using a process involving a 12-Step Program?
Click to expand...

Yes, some people were in AA, and I used to drive an amputee to his meetings and wait for him. It was quite fascinating. I remember one convener stating that it doesn't matter what form the higher power takes, for it could be the number 12 bus into town for all the difference it made.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
About this definition of Atheism that desperate atheists are trying to peddle - you do know how ridiculous it is to encroach on agnosticism - claiming to be both!

But there are some who think they got the smart answer: they cite that atheism is simply "lack of belief."
Now, that, is truly laughable!


Why? here:











You folks go through all these complicated explanations getting yourselves twisted like pretzels......:lamo


...............................if you don't believe God exists - why don't you just simply own it? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Why do you care?

Live and let live
 
NWO_Spook said:
At least historical events can be backed up with physical evidence in many cases. We don't have such evidence for the existence of gods.
Click to expand...

Except of course the universe, I think you overlooked this detail.
 
it's just me said:
Science does not generate "truth", it sometimes generates facts. And science is not based on "evidence", it is a methodology, the evidence is generated from practicing the method. Furthermore, nothing is ever "settled", I've lost count of the things people once thought were "proven" that are no longer believed. In 100 years people will wonder how we could be so stupid as to think some of the things we think today.
Click to expand...

Well said and sadly too often overlooked by the modern scientism saturated world, here's a superb example form James Burke's TV series The Day the Universe Changed



The first 1:40 seconds is all that you need:
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well said and sadly too often overlooked by the modern scientism saturated world, here's a superb example form James Burke's TV series The Day the Universe Changed



The first 1:40 seconds is all that you need:
Click to expand...


In another lifetime I was a chemist, just a garden variety industrial chemist, although I'm sure someone will tell me I wasn't because that's what they do here. I never thought to call myself a "scientist" although I certainly employed scientific method. I am often amazed by the claims people make here and it makes me wonder what they really know about science.
 
it's just me said:
Science does not generate "truth", it sometimes generates facts. And science is not based on "evidence", it is a methodology, the evidence is generated from practicing the method. Furthermore, nothing is ever "settled", I've lost count of the things people once thought were "proven" that are no longer believed. In 100 years people will wonder how we could be so stupid as to think some of the things we think today.
Click to expand...

Nothing produces truth because there is no such thing as truth. Science does not generate evidence, it gathers evidence and tests it. Science does come to general conclusions that do not change radically. Science does not claim to prove anything. You can't name one example of something that science concluded that is no longer true. Name one thing that you think people will find stupid in 100 years because of scientific conclusions. There are many more examples of superstitions, popular beliefs, religious beliefs that science has shown as wrong.
 
it's just me said:
In another lifetime I was a chemist, just a garden variety industrial chemist, although I'm sure someone will tell me I wasn't because that's what they do here. I never thought to call myself a "scientist" although I certainly employed scientific method. I am often amazed by the claims people make here and it makes me wonder what they really know about science.
Click to expand...

That's interesting to me, I always found chemistry quite interesting but never took that further after school, physics and electronics and later software design is was caught my imagination when I was younger.

From debating/arguing with people on internet forums about these kinds of subjects for probably thirty years, I've come to realize that there is a huge problem in education regarding the foundations of science.

James Burke whom I cited above, is perhaps one of the best educators on science, its history and development, he makes it quite clear that scientific progress owes a great deal to accident, trial and error, necessity, commerce.

The much lauded "scientific method" touted by so many atheists is such an artificial way of describing science too, the scientific method is not what drives science, it comes much later after wandering down blind alleys, speculating, supposing, pursuing dead ends, developing unconventional ideas and so on.

These activities get little attention in education which instead misrepresents science as some formal process that gradually increases our knowledge - if only we follow "the method".

A lot of atheists I encounter would do well to educate themselves on the history of science and the biographies of scientists, they'll develop and insight that our dry, dull, education system has lost track of.
 
devildavid said:
Nothing produces truth because there is no such thing as truth.
Click to expand...

So therefore your assertion "there is no such thing as truth" cannot be true David, can it? (You make this too easy for me sometimes).

devildavid said:
Science does not generate evidence, it gathers evidence and tests it.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense David. Consider CERN and the huge volumes of data each experiment produces, that carefully crafted human experiment does indeed generate evidence, "gathering" evidence implies a passive collecting whereas generating evidence implies an contrived, active participation in processes that produce data otherwise hard or impossible to access.

devildavid said:
Science does come to general conclusions that do not change radically. Science does not claim to prove anything.
Click to expand...

What does "Science does come to general conclusions that do not change radically" mean? what does "radical" mean here in the context of scientific discovery?

devildavid said:
You can't name one example of something that science concluded that is no longer true. Name one thing that you think people will find stupid in 100 years because of scientific conclusions.
Click to expand...

Watch the Burke clip, a student of Wittgenstein's said that people must have been stupid to think the sun went around the earth when every school kid knows the earth goes around the sun.

devildavid said:
There are many more examples of superstitions, popular beliefs, religious beliefs that science has shown as wrong.
Click to expand...

People believed that the sun went around the earth David not because they were superstitious or religious but because that's exactly what they observed, it was a very reasonable, scientific inference for them to make.

While we're here tell me, do you believe that the earth orbits the sun?
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
Nothing produces truth because there is no such thing as truth. Science does not generate evidence, it gathers evidence and tests it. Science does come to general conclusions that do not change radically. Science does not claim to prove anything. You can't name one example of something that science concluded that is no longer true. Name one thing that you think people will find stupid in 100 years because of scientific conclusions. There are many more examples of superstitions, popular beliefs, religious beliefs that science has shown as wrong.
Click to expand...

Tell me about your years in the lab.

I can't name one thing that science has concluded is no longer true? How about the sun orbiting the earth? Water canals on Mars?
 
it's just me said:
Science does not generate "truth", it sometimes generates facts. And science is not based on "evidence", it is a methodology, the evidence is generated from practicing the method. Furthermore, nothing is ever "settled", I've lost count of the things people once thought were "proven" that are no longer believed. In 100 years people will wonder how we could be so stupid as to think some of the things we think today.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is “settled science” in a macro sense. For instance, evolution and manmade global warming are both settled science in that they are both accepted as phenomenon that are real. That is not to say that the details of both don’t need tweaking, but the overall science is accepted.
 
it's just me said:
Tell me about your years in the lab.

I can't name one thing that science has concluded is no longer true? How about the sun orbiting the earth? Water canals on Mars?
Click to expand...

Of course science moves forward and there is gobs yet to be discovered. Man, with our puny little brains, will never know everything. But science continues to seek, and modern science with its extensive network of peer review, provided and excellent basis for understanding the mysteries of nature.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
That's interesting to me, I always found chemistry quite interesting but never took that further after school, physics and electronics and later software design is was caught my imagination when I was younger.

From debating/arguing with people on internet forums about these kinds of subjects for probably thirty years, I've come to realize that there is a huge problem in education regarding the foundations of science.

James Burke whom I cited above, is perhaps one of the best educators on science, its history and development, he makes it quite clear that scientific progress owes a great deal to accident, trial and error, necessity, commerce.

The much lauded "scientific method" touted by so many atheists is such an artificial way of describing science too, the scientific method is not what drives science, it comes much later after wandering down blind alleys, speculating, supposing, pursuing dead ends, developing unconventional ideas and so on.

These activities get little attention in education which instead misrepresents science as some formal process that gradually increases our knowledge - if only we follow "the method".

A lot of atheists I encounter would do well to educate themselves on the history of science and the biographies of scientists, they'll develop and insight that our dry, dull, education system has lost track of.
Click to expand...

Except that science does not provide even an iota of evidence for your God no matter how you try to stretch it to do so.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Depends on how you define science.
Click to expand...


sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
 
watsup said:
ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Click to expand...

Yes and you do not understand how to use it.
 
watsup said:
Simply making a statement does not make it true. Do you have any evidence that I do not understand it?
Click to expand...

Watsup, if you really think it is meaningful and constructive to say that "X is evidence of X" then please continue to do so but don't expect me to respect that.

The simpler way to say that is "X is X", that's all you're ultimately saying, inserting the word "evidence" in there is to misuse the word "evidence".
 
tosca1 said:
About this definition of Atheism that desperate atheists are trying to peddle - you do know how ridiculous it is to encroach on agnosticism - claiming to be both!

But there are some who think they got the smart answer: they cite that atheism is simply "lack of belief."
Now, that, is truly laughable!


Why? here:











You folks go through all these complicated explanations getting yourselves twisted like pretzels......:lamo


...............................if you don't believe God exists - why don't you just simply own it? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Actually it is the original definition of atheism. Atheism comes from the Greek: a (without) - theos (Gods). Essentially it means someone whose beliefs are without Gods. So an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't necessarily claim God doesn't exist.
 
G
distraff said:
Actually it is the original definition of atheism. Atheism comes from the Greek: a (without) - theos (Gods). Essentially it means someone whose beliefs are without Gods. So an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't necessarily claim God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Definitions are updated all the time depending on new information . Yes, that used to be the definition of atheist when it was theists who determined it, it when real atheists entered the scene, they demanded that it be updated in a more objective manner such that it did not ASSUME that there was a “God” in which to believe. And most reputable dictionaries have done so.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Watsup, if you really think it is meaningful and constructive to say that "X is evidence of X" then please continue to do so but don't expect me to respect that.

The simpler way to say that is "X is X", that's all you're ultimately saying, inserting the word "evidence" in there is to misuse the word "evidence".
Click to expand...


Actually, what you cannot do, it what you are trying to do, is to claim that X is “evidence” of Y! That is obviously an errant claim to make!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom