Atheists aren't stupid and don't falsely believe in false gods. Since the laws of physics cannot be altered, the existence or existence of a God would be irrelevant.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I'm a gnostic pantheist and I find way too many atheists to be rather arrogant.
Quote to ponder:
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." -Nikola Tesla
Arguing over an issue that depends entirely upon one's blind faith is as pointless as it gets. If I wanted to play devil's advocate, and I don't so don't bother answering, I'd ask who made the laws of physics? Don't know? Hmmmm.
What was going on before they created the laws of physics? Did things float before Archimedes created buoyancy? There’s a difference between inventing and discovering 🤷
I get it! Like you, I’ve listened to less-informed, self-declared atheists explain how they won’t walk downstairs alone b/c they’re afraid ghosts, too.
But why? Why are there so many atheists defending their beliefs with the zealotry of a Christian bible thumper?
Or the Spanish inquisition? Serious
I am going to guess that they are vehement in their opinions because they hope if people stop believing in any God, they will stop killing people who do not believe in "their" God.
Interesting!Yet the opposite seems true, short and near term. Humans have always had a god. Our psyche is coded for it. Native Americans, forced to give up their centuries old beliefs, fell into an abyss.
A rise in narcissism imo follows the pattern of men becoming their own god but w/o guardrails
Yes, humans do seem to feel a need to create their gods in their image. But the question I was attempting to answer was why atheists seem to be so outspoken in their opinions. I just offered one possible reason. I happen to like Ricky Gervais, he doesn't preach it, but he will answer questions.
Side note: I'm positively surprised by this thread It's so good we can have different opinions and respect each other. I tried it once on Reddit. Half of you would get shadow ban the other half would sing in a choir.
It is the job of physicists to change the "laws of physics." The underlying physics may or may not change, but the "laws" do.
Atheism is as much as matter of faith as belief in a particular god.
It has tended to be a lot more rational and a lot less destructive than religious faith, though.
Definitions.
In my experience the "laws of physics" are mathematical interpretations of the underlying mechanisms that take place in the universe, as we currently understand them.
The goal of physicists is to refine those interpretations to correspond with observations.
Physicists don't "change the laws of physics." They discover laws of physics. The constants of physics don't change though the understanding of those laws might.
The assumption that "The constants of physics don't change" is not demonstrated. (A negative is difficult to prove.)
The physics is what is, the "laws" are mathematical descriptions of what is currently understood about what is observed.
While they do not believe in “false gods” as you say they do get ahead of the data. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. The laws of physics cannot be altered but what we have distilled are not “laws” they are a best understanding of the universe. In science agnosticism is as far as one…
should go. If you are an atheist one should be agnostic in matters of science, if one is of a faith agnosticism is where they should be in science. The reason it is a belief structure is it takes the our understanding of only 5% of the universe and from that derives “laws” that are…
Treated as absolute. If you turn in a test with only 5% of the questions answered and from that declare “laws” it is simply not science. Anything less than agnosticism in science one can twist conclusions to fit a belief. IMO the debate is absurd and unscientific at its core.
Religion has no place in science and science has no place in religion. It can be a discussion but not a conclusive debate nor should it ever be treated as such.
5% of the universe is baryonic matter. 95% is Dark Matter and Energy. While “Dark X” sounds. Better than “we have a serous measurement problem with our current understanding” that is how much current physics cannot be explain at the very least.
I assumed you were refering to dark matter yeah.
Well, as you point out it's a lack of understanding, nothing to be ashamed of. Science is about giving explainations and constructing models that represent reality as close as we can, given our understanding of observed phenomena.
Ofc the 95% of dark "stuff" could very well be another thing altogether and not exist, being that the universe is e.g. rotating or gravity doesn't work as we think.
We can't know for now...
The double slit experiment. Google queries the multiverse. Science: eternity is Now. To believe there isn't a God and that you aren't both part of it, and it, as a result; that's not inconsequential. That's a self-own of majestic proportions. We don't fall out of this system. We are immeasurable.
Atheism is literally not-theism, which is a rejection of any and all belief systems. Anyone who considers it a belief system has had their understanding of truth severely crippled by social media brainwashing using pictures of text just like this post.
Christians don't believe in the Greek gods. Hindu don't believe in Shinto Kami. Atheists are defined by that same lack of belief, we just treat all religions equally and don't arbitrarily make exceptions for someone's magic sky daddy.
Sounds funny but when you dissect it and take a definition of hobby you will get it that not playing golf is not a hobby but a rest. Hobby is an activity not a lack of it. Belief is conviction without proof.
It’s a belief that there are no gods. And see how quickly you jump to defend your ‘none belief’ belief. It’s funny and atheist never see it, it’s a weird blind spot but most universal. BTW I’m neither, I’m just waiting to the end to see what happens. Lights out or harps on cloud, idgaf.
Do you have a belief system built around not believing in cyclopses? It’s the same. Atheists don’t believe in gods like you don’t believe in cyclopses. I don’t understand the necessity of “god” people claiming atheists have a belief system. They don’t.
Provisional science cannot claim authority over reality, at best it can only provide fuzzy hints. Science is a game of "let’s pretend," played with symbols and sensors. Its power lies in utility, not truth. To mistake physics/maths for reality is to worship the finger pointing at the moon.
Subtly operating are some uninvestigated beliefs around, scientism, knowledge and what is possible. Its a kind of hubris in our own ability to parse and discern relaity that ultimately blinds us. You end up not being able to see beyond what you've seen, locked into your own conception of reality...
Everyone has a system of beliefs, whether you personally call it that or not. You believe in what you believe in. Do you believe in reality? That is part of your system of beliefs.
Gods and religions are human constructs designed and created to control the masses through fear of the unknown and guilt for being human. No evidence of any god has ever been presented that proves its existence.
The laws of physics CAN be altered. Just come up with a better explanation of a phenomenon, get it peer reviewed and - bingo - the "laws" change. (Unlike religion which preserves antiquated dogma.)
Interesting point. What you say is correct, but then we don't call them Newton's Understandings Of The Laws Of Motion, Boyle's Understandings Of The Laws Of Fluids, etc..
"If a 'religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one." - John D. Barrow, The Artful Universe (1995).
While technically true, as an atheist that does not share many doctrines of Athiesm, I can tell you that, practically, Atheism does have doctrines. This post, for example, presupposes both metaphysical (materialist) and epistimological (rationalism) positions.
They are sure God does not exists - without being able to prove it. That's what doctrine is. They do believe like others. I'm fine with it but they look funny thinking they are smarter. We all know next to nothing.
Wrong. We are not sure “god” does not exist. It’s that We have seen no evidence “god” exists. Just like we have seen no evidence minatores exist or Pegasus exists. Show me evidence. “Faith” is not evidence.
Exactly like this. I only believe in God. It means that I don't know but I find it much more probable that he exists. Faith is not a science. It's a feeling.
"Lying churchies" sounds fine for me. Churches did a lot of harm to people. Reason is that churches are made of people and people do bad things. But calling them all "pathological liars" is a prejudice just like racism, sexism, antisemitism, homofoby etc. I would never say that about atheists.
Materialism (by which I mean the belief that only the physical world exists)
And
Rationalism (the belief that reason is the universally best (or only) way to give true accounts of things in the world)
If members of a group routinely ascribe ideological positions to the group as a whole (as atheists frequently do with Materialism and Rationalism) like the OP did and never, or VERY rarely, get push back from members of the group, I would consider that a belief held by the group. Is that weird?
Like I said, I am an atheist. And because of that, look how easily (unconsciously?) he ascribed to me and all other atheists the ideological positions of materialism and rationalism.
That's what I mean by a doctrine
atheists are playing a dangerous game by turning any potential deity into a hater that would totally fuck with their soul, agnosticism is the safest play here 'cause worse you can get is something like limbo
yeah it must suck getting hit by a ton of rocks, though i think that would still be better than being skinned alive by a witch doctor. religion really does make the craziest shit happen if you believe it hard enough
it's less mean than atheism; difference between "i'm too good to follow a deity like you, i don't believe you even exist" and "i'm just a mortal idk wtf is going on i have no idea if you are even real just trying my best"
It’s not that - it’s simply ‘I don’t have a belief in God’ (A= w/o, Theism = belief in god). You may come to the conclusion for various reason (inc the agnostic‘ I am too puny to know this’)- but the result is the same.
Ridiculous religious oppression is foisted on Americans by fanatics trying to force everyone to practice their personal religious beliefs. These proselytizers ignore the fact that our Constitution outlaws their efforts: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . “
Our consciousness is limited by our inability to conceive of the limits of our consciousness, to the extent that there are any. Our imaginings are real, but are they “factual” without observable verification? Geez, I dunno.
We don't even understand why a foetal heart begins beating. I'm not messing with the universe or the existence of God. I will say that I believe in a higher power. Is it God? I do not know. No one - despite their belief or unbelief - knows.
oh, and this would basically answer your question "what causes the first heart beat". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537140/
just like any other cell, muscle cells react to signals.
"I know", two words that not even the most unreasonable scientists would dare to utter when discussing such an indisputably complex topic. You sound like an arrogant pre-teen going through the rebellious obnoxious phase of knowing more than anyone on the planet and to have ever lived. You'll learn.
I was religious as a teen. I spent a decade vigorously defending belief in god using every single argument you can imagine. But the more time you spend exploring the complexity of the topic, the more you realize that every single line of argument ends with the same conclusion. God doesn't exist.
> used chatgpt to quickly provide a (wrong) answer
> "its just simple science bro how do you not know this? its just so basic, educate yourself and dont talk before you know the really simple thing"
I'm sorry but do you actually know anything about bioelectricity? Because it seems to me that you're justifying (a) god's existence based on missing information.
Do the laws of physics apply to non physical objects? Seems ignorance and stupidity are travelling faster than the speed of light. Richard Dawkins extended evolution to memes.
Yes, of course. Laws of physics apply to energy, to time, forces, which you would not construe to be physical objects. Quantum physics takes it a step further.
This is rudimentary and the other fellow doesn't deserve that criticism.
Maybe? Collapsing the wave function and all that, maybe could be applied to stupidity? When observation instantiates a potential could that apply to other observers? I'd have to ask someone
No, any god. Because the word "god" implies some consciousness, some being-ness, some intelligence, some anthropomorphic properties of some kind. Energy and light lack the clearly implied anthropomorphic properties required of a "god".
That's the neat thing with religion though, everybody gets to make it up as they like! So decisively no, those properties are purely what YOU think a god should entail.
Your experience of God is a self-help book which tells you how you should approach life? And by "experience" I guess you mean "I imagine God existing and it makes me feel good"?
One could argue that purple is green but that doesn't make it true. And again with that phrase "experience of God". What does that mean? Why call God an experience?
Absolute atheism - the rejection of ANY god / supreme being - is as much faith-based as any religion.
My position is that there is no evidence that any of the proposed versions of god are correct, and in general there is a WEALTH of contradictory evidence to suggest that they are all bullshit.
The only honest answer, likely for eternity, is “I don’t know”. Claiming there is no God in a definitive manner is just another form of “faith”. Claiming it doesn’t matter is also jumping to conclusions. How do you know it doesn’t matter? What about physics makes it the final frontier of cognition?
It's not. Probability stands that there isn't such a thing & that all things have a more practical origin. Particles from gravity ect. Faith defines as beliefs that don't demand evidence. If what you believe requires evidence it ceases to be "faith."
I know enough about science to know that even the notion of “probability” is mysterious. It’s certainly not “conclusive”. Furthermore, the unknown universe is far greater than the known universe. Not knowing is fine. Asserting knowledge where you have none is ignorance or… faith.
If you believe in Physics, you can not believe in God.
The planet Earth is just a tiny stoneball in the endless and steady changing universe and in 3 billion years, it will be eaten by the star we call Sun. Other stars form in this moment as same as planets with life on it.
Science has yet to create human life from [next to] nothing. It’s arrogant to believe we as humans have all the answers. It’s a choice between believing we’re the result of a very random meaningless set of events or a divine creator.
So you’re in the “random set of meaningless events” camp, or is there a third option? Seems to me that once you assign meaning to our collective existence, you have to ask the source of that meaning. You at least become a Deist.
My clear and incontrovertible evidence that the christian god, as bumblingly presented in its much-edited, much mistranslated bible, does not exist is that accepting that deity means accepting a god whose priests are allowed to rape children.
The existence of God is irrelevant yes, whether a god exists or not makes no difference in the lives of us humans, however if there is a god, by all accounts God would be everything you see in the world including light, vacuum, and matter dark or otherwise, even including ourselves as observers
With the notable exceptions of several schools of gnostic atheism, such as deism, I agree. As a spiritual humanist/chaote it can be fun when Godzilla exists. 😁
At the end of the day you have no way to prove your case. So Atheism is in fact a "belief" you are taking on "faith" that you are right & everyone else wrong.
Sure the laws of physics. You assume humanity knows them all. Another "belief".
I don't believe anything, and I don't care if you do. I don't discuss it with the people in my life. They - and you - are free to believe what you like. There is no faith involved on my end.
No, that's YOU that has no evidence, and YOU can't imagine folks that aren't indoctrinated sheep like yourself, so all you do is project your own actions on those that want nothing to do with your lies.
As a Biologist, I've learned that having NO answer if there is or isn't a God is the right answer. Accepting "I don't know" is more factual.
Science didn't prove how Universe started, they said it's nothing, but it's also an explosion = a force = an energy = all energies came from another form.
This is well stated and true... Accepting that we don'e know is more factual. The unknown isn't just a placeholder or empty space. It's something one must have a sense for lest the endleslly trade one belief for another, cirlcling truth but never arriving...
Sorry god is the ultimate placeholder for “I don’t know “ science observes reality and attempts to fill in the gaps of human knowledge without the need of gods
Not quite but I do understand why you might think that. Many have relegated God in the gaps of our understanding which seems to make God shrink as we learn more. However that’s a failure on our part, we’ve imagine God (improperly/impossible) instead of encountering God.
One might look at martial arts and think it’s just funny movements or fighting. Yet if you get involved in the practice you will uncover a depth you couldn’t have conceived. Spiritual practice is much the same.
There is a real and powerful paradigm shift in experience that comes from opening to the unknown… not to know it, or fill it with understanding later but to simply rest in it. God is someone we can meet and is quite obvious in the stillness/silence of our being.
Imagination would still be something of the mind, in line with concepts and ideas. So no you won't find God there either...
The key here is there is more to reality than our thoughts about it. There is reality itself unmitigated by cognition. It is here that we can meet ourselves, and God...
You've abandoned parsimony, you're no scientist. If something has no supporting evidence, the best default hypothesis is that it isn't real. I've seen no evidence Bigfoot is real, it's more factual to say it isn't real than to say I don't know. Stop lending credence to imaginings.
Prove Bigfoot isn't real. Prove Zeus isn't real. Prove any of a nearly infinite number of imaginings aren't real. Can't? What're you, an atheist? Human history has long believed many incorrect things, longevity of (constantly changing) beliefs means nothing.
Because people used God as reason for things they didn't know. From what's beyond the ocean, to why do plates move, God was the default answer until science found the real answers.
Also, which of the many Gods people believed in over thousands of years is the real one? Belief isn't proof.
The premise of science is to assume to be wrong until proof emerges.
The difference to religion is that science is comfortable with a state of not knowing and does not invent something to explain what we lack knowledge of.
It is not the task of science to prove or disprove God, as science makes no claim.
Science simply insists on evidence for any claim. And since religion claims God exists, it is up to religion to show solid evidence or accept that their claim cannot be taken seriously. That's really it.
Indeed your are correct science needs indisputable proof. You have to be able to replicate a hypothesis or theory to support your claim through documentation.
True that's with all religions. A god, gods or God is used to explain phenomena. Proof of a god isn't about tangible proof. That's not the point of claiming there's a god.
It doesn't make sense to tell someone you have proof unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt your theory.
So, what is the point of claiming the existence of something. then?
If we allow claims of existence without proof we are simply evolving into fact free mysticism.
If one claims a god exists, I expect supporting evidence. Otherwise I can't consider the claim at all.
In my experience it is pointless to convince an atheist there is a god. This goes into the discussion of religion, which is different from science which needs a hypothesis, thesis, and supporting contrast.
People create dogma which is not true faith. Faith has no proof. Religion is not science.
Your last sentence is the essence of it all. Religion is not science.
It doesn't explain nature or how the universe works.
I'm OK with that.
If faith makes people want to be better, all the power to them.
But the moment religion tries to force itself onto others, I've got a problem.
Listen, I’m not really shitting on atheism here but I do think its kind of interesting that “the laws of physics cannot be altered” is as untestable a statement as “God created the universe”
Pure atheism might be free from faith, but in practice atheists rarely commit to skepticism completely.
Christians never require evidence to believe anything. Someone that requires evidence for their conclusions doesn't qualify as a person of faith. If evidence holds no sway its faith. Thats the difference!
I think I mean to illustrate that taking things on faith is something we all do many times a day, and that its so unavoidable OP included an unfalsifiable belief as a pivotal part of their denouncement of faith in god.
I don't do that. Every position makes me think back to what evidence supports this or that. It sounds like a bit of stereotype to assume that all atheists denounce beliefs based on anything(unfalsifiable or otherwise). There's no athiest bible that outlines how athiests think.
The existence of dark energy is argued for by some scientists based only on the interpretation of certain observations others argue for its non existence based on the same set of observations.
My belief in the existence of God is based on what I have observed in the world around me.
Well you are claiming that God does not exist whereas I am just stating my belief it is not up to me to prove or justify my belief to you or any one else any more than you have to prove the existence of dark energy.
Life is carbon chemistry, thoughts are data processing, existence is just true and false. None of these things have any relation whatsoever to god. Wishing and hoping that they're connected to god doesn't make it true.
Got it. If I'm ever accused of pirating software, my defense will be "Can you prove that the code didn't appear on my machine through a natural process and not by theft?" (BTW, our bodies are just as much a machine as a laptop is.)
Imagine you have two polar chemicals, A and B, which act like magnets. Take a while bunch of these two and mix them together, and they will stick together, north pole to south pole, but the sequence order could be anything, ABAABAB, BBBAAABA, etc.. This is binary code, arising naturally.
Does consciousness exist?
Yes.
Does consciousness create?
Yes.
Is consciousness a physical entity?
No.
Does consciousness inhabit physical entities?
Yes.
Atheists merely believe that a Creator doesn't exist, but beliefs are a poor substitute for actually knowing and for people who fall short.
This is why I recommend a degree of agnosticism in science. We may never have the answer either way but such a statement has an element of confirmation bias. There a more things that I can imagine that I don’t know yet I operate in this life quite well overall.
That does not mean I have all the answers. But it does call me to be curious about what I do not know even if I may never know the answer. Just because what I know works does not mean I don’t have an entire universe or knowledge to explore in my interest in science.
Ah, another fallacy proving God proves religion. That a God existing it somehow proves any particular religion correct. People who seek God in science to prove religion IMO could be argued as engaging in idolatry.
Let’s put it this way. I am not claiming I have the answers, I am saying I am curious about them. Atheists do say have the answers, who is more scientific?
God of the holes say he is in there, I am saying he can fit and we are not good enough at science one way or another. There is dogma in politics, faith, and science atheists have dogma to: there is no god. “There is no proof of God therefor there can be no God”…
The only way for consciousness to experience the physical dimension is by creating a physical vehicle (a body) to live within, i.e. mind inside matter. The body also has its own physio-logical body-mind, such as instincts and feelings or regulating body temperature and breathing...
Mind and matter are obviously different entities. No scientist has ever located the source of consciousness in the brain or body or anywhere else in the universe with their limited contraptions such as microscopes and telescopes because the scientist looks outwardly at matter, not within himself...
It’s quite the opposite. As far as we can tell its an emergent property of the brain, and physical manipulation of the brain can change the consciousness. A shock in the right place can make you fall in love or learn. A poke in the right place can wholly change your personality forever.
The supposed laws of physics are merely pattern recognition. Causality is semantic. Physics proposes events are ontologically probabilistic, contradicting the principle of causality. Reducing concepts to things discards meanings, leading to indeterministic, incomplete, and inconsistent theories.
The laws of physics are unalterable you are confusing the fact that all the laws are not presently known with the concept that they are alterable. As new information becomes available we refine the laws of physics and fill in the gaps in human knowledge. Nothing special no gods needed
Claiming there are unalterable laws that we just haven't discovered yet is just another version of faith. A comforting idea but we can never have hard evidence of it
Lmao so you presume that we know all the laws of physics and how the universe works? You think not knowing how things work is faith rather than ignorance? Please tell me more as I need a good laugh
Um your the one presuming that there are unalterable laws. There may be there may not be all I'm saying is we can't know for sure all we can know is how the observable universe behaves now and even that is skewed by our observation
And the evidence for "the laws of physics cannot be altered" is what??? Isn't the inalterability of the laws of science more of a working hypothesis of modern science rather than something it can prove? Certainly a reasonable hypothesis given science's explanatory and technological successes.
Unalterable laws is not a hypothesis of science. The laws of gravity for example are just a collection of observed behavior - stuff dropped in this manner has fallen the same way every time we've observed thus far for example. If things start happening differently however unlikely law is right out
As a non-believer, I have come to dislike the atheist label. Too many people who take that label are militantly anti-religion and that IS a belief. You believe all religion is wrong and therefore should end. That is your personal philosophy.
Right. Don't call yourself atheist but agnostic. I'm believer, but we both don't know. My belief isn't knowledge. I won't tell you I know God exists. I will only tell you it helps. Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people". Vonnegut explained that opium was the strongest pain killer back then.
Doctrines aside, it seems like the New Atheism is a culture, and one that is inclining further to the right with its main exponents. It can display a virtually religious fanaticism about pop culture (GamerGate and its aftermath starting with online skeptic forums), and form sci-fi/conspiracy cults.
I’m not an atheist and definitely not Christian. I am human and take the hate of Christianity in the US as a good indication to look elsewhere for empathy, a community and guidance. I really hate the holier then thou group who thinks their hatred should be shared. Think Mike Johnson.
FYI Just in passing, there are several forms of Atheism one of which is refraining to believe in gods. Strong Atheism for example affirmatively declares that there can be no God.
I'm confused that your 'Atheism does not mean "no gods" ... simple as that' rejects Strong Atheism which you nevertheless acknowledge as a form of Atheism. In that case it's unclear what your point was.
I apologise if I misspoke. All I was trying to say was that the only fundamental thing atheism needs to be atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It doesn't need positive disbelief. It can include that, but from an etymological and philosophical standpoint, it doesn't have to.
Parsimony would argue the realm of human imagination is nearly infinite, so not believing in some imaginary thing that has no evidence should be the default. Or are you part of the "Bigfoot doesn't exist" church?
Agreed, should be the default. I'm an agnostic (no proof) atheist that tells my religious friends that I believe in the universe, which has no purpose and has no one at the helm. Helps me connect with them as a believer in something rather than someone.
Is it proper etiquette to move this to a Chat?
I prefer this definition:
- Being unsure if there is a religious God who does interact and interfere with "his creation" (e.g. through miracles, prayer, etc.) makes you agnostic.
- If you reject that idea outright, you are an atheist.
This argument is absurd. When a theist accuses atheism of being a religion the correct rebuttal is that all religion is founded in mysticism, i.e. the belief that there's something beyond the material (spiritualism), and atheism outright denies that and only accepts materialism.
You don't believe theism is false, okay, if theism is not false as you believe, it must be true.
So that said..
You don't believe in theism
being what exactly?
Considering that you have already discounted theism as being false, what else could it be?
Not having a belief in something is not the same as disbelieving it. Disbelieving is a conscious, active decision - I don’t have the capacity to disbelieve an infinite amount of impossibilities.
I claim that love and creativity exists, but science has not been able to provide any supporting evidence for this claim - it is simply a subjective experience of an individual. Do you reject my claim?
Given the size of the universe. 200 billion - 1 trillion galaxy's. We have yet to explore and know what is within our own ocean. The possibilities for what we are and come from is endless until we literally know it all. To trust one book written 2K years ago is intentional blindness.
No. The conventional laws of physics break down past the event horizon. That doesn't violate the laws of physics for anywhere else in the universe. It simply means we do not yet understand the set of laws particular to black holes.
And for all we know, those holes lead somewhere where the laws of physics maybe broken as we know them.
Our limited understanding doesn't mean they CAN'T be broken. It means we don't know enough to be certain of that.
Even now our understanding of dark matter (The building block) is changing.
Religion is a $1.5 trillion dollar market in America. It's aimed at the poor and ignorant. I'm an atheist and a humanist. Imagine what $1.5 trillion could do for poverty every year.
So many things wrong with that statement. There's stupid people from every ideology. Atheism is not more or less prone to stupidity. You can say "the aliens told me there is no god" & while that is an atheist position, its not a logical one. No more dumb than those that believe in the invisible man.
The trouble is that Christians actually belive their God can and does change the laws of physics. They're observably wrong in every possible way, yet fully believe it. Because they have suffered a psychotic break from reality, called "faith", which likely cannot be treated.
I'm with Stephen Fry on this one. Even if you were able to prove god exists, I refuse to worship such a cruel capricious narcissistic being. Demands worship but creates a world full of evil - see deporting babies and children with cancer. What is the purpose of the mosquito?
Out of the thousands of gods dreamed up on the planet, they only believe in the one that is usually tied to their region, or what their parents believed in, but reject all other gods.
Atheists just go one god further.
If there was a god, wouldn't there only be one?????
Thumpers always try to tie in atheism with their nonsense claiming that we "believe" that there is no god, while it is simply a LACK of belief instead.
Comments
Quote to ponder:
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." -Nikola Tesla
atheists of that kind
and
ideological sect-alike antitheists who live for fighting against all that looks like religious/theist.
But why? Why are there so many atheists defending their beliefs with the zealotry of a Christian bible thumper?
Or the Spanish inquisition? Serious
:)
Religion has always fcked people up. At LEAST we had sep of church and state before REPUGNICANS!!
Gawd help us all now!!!!!
A rise in narcissism imo follows the pattern of men becoming their own god but w/o guardrails
Never seen this acct before…
Synchronicity!!!!!!! (Spooky)
;)
https://bsky.app/profile/producrgrl.bsky.social/post/3lnw3dktduc2a
Atheism is as much as matter of faith as belief in a particular god.
It has tended to be a lot more rational and a lot less destructive than religious faith, though.
In my experience the "laws of physics" are mathematical interpretations of the underlying mechanisms that take place in the universe, as we currently understand them.
The goal of physicists is to refine those interpretations to correspond with observations.
Physicists don't "change the laws of physics." They discover laws of physics. The constants of physics don't change though the understanding of those laws might.
The physics is what is, the "laws" are mathematical descriptions of what is currently understood about what is observed.
Religion does not allow for such adjustments in the light of new knowledge.
That would make His existence pretty damn relevant, wouldn't it.
Well, as you point out it's a lack of understanding, nothing to be ashamed of. Science is about giving explainations and constructing models that represent reality as close as we can, given our understanding of observed phenomena.
We can't know for now...
...
A belief system is a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code.
Atheism is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
This is not hard: Atheism is the absence of, indifference towards, disregard for, or incapacity for belief.
It simply isn't belief related.
They can still have compassion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM
a = without or not
theos = god
a-theos
The burden of proof lies with the person stating that something must be true or exists.
And, because you're pathological liars, you just project your own indoctrination on them.
And
Rationalism (the belief that reason is the universally best (or only) way to give true accounts of things in the world)
Atheists are not a church, political party or other group. We do not have meeting. We do not have any set of rules, credos or doctrines.
That's what I mean by a doctrine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21052/#A5123
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/heart/heart-beats
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537140/
just like any other cell, muscle cells react to signals.
> "its just simple science bro how do you not know this? its just so basic, educate yourself and dont talk before you know the really simple thing"
I didn't use chatgpt. We had this in Highschool...
This is rudimentary and the other fellow doesn't deserve that criticism.
My position is that there is no evidence that any of the proposed versions of god are correct, and in general there is a WEALTH of contradictory evidence to suggest that they are all bullshit.
The planet Earth is just a tiny stoneball in the endless and steady changing universe and in 3 billion years, it will be eaten by the star we call Sun. Other stars form in this moment as same as planets with life on it.
We only say that "it was God" is not a good answer.
Creation requires time because it is a change of states, so God could not create time and space because time doesn't exist.
Anything not existing in time is existing for 0 seconds, so it doesn't exist.
Law of averages.
At the end of the day you have no way to prove your case. So Atheism is in fact a "belief" you are taking on "faith" that you are right & everyone else wrong.
Sure the laws of physics. You assume humanity knows them all. Another "belief".
You have the same problem as religions.
I am a self described agnostic deist. Neither for or against you.
You obviously don't mind making a fool of yourself.
That is why all your stated assumptions or claims about atheism are incorrect.
Science didn't prove how Universe started, they said it's nothing, but it's also an explosion = a force = an energy = all energies came from another form.
God isn’t an explanation
The key here is there is more to reality than our thoughts about it. There is reality itself unmitigated by cognition. It is here that we can meet ourselves, and God...
Some scientific claims on Big Bang, is that it started on nothing. Which still in contention. That's how science works.
For Bigfoot, you're searching for a concrete evidence of a species, like bones, not trying to prove that we came from nothing.
Where is the indisputable proof there us no god?
Proof is in belief for thousands of years.
Also, which of the many Gods people believed in over thousands of years is the real one? Belief isn't proof.
The difference to religion is that science is comfortable with a state of not knowing and does not invent something to explain what we lack knowledge of.
Science simply insists on evidence for any claim. And since religion claims God exists, it is up to religion to show solid evidence or accept that their claim cannot be taken seriously. That's really it.
It doesn't make sense to tell someone you have proof unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt your theory.
If we allow claims of existence without proof we are simply evolving into fact free mysticism.
If one claims a god exists, I expect supporting evidence. Otherwise I can't consider the claim at all.
People create dogma which is not true faith. Faith has no proof. Religion is not science.
It doesn't explain nature or how the universe works.
I'm OK with that.
If faith makes people want to be better, all the power to them.
But the moment religion tries to force itself onto others, I've got a problem.
Pure atheism might be free from faith, but in practice atheists rarely commit to skepticism completely.
My belief in the existence of God is based on what I have observed in the world around me.
Why does the beauty in the world prove a god, but not the horrors? How is beauty contingent on a god?
And as a scientist, it is up to us to prove the existence of things like dark matter or dark energy, or at least show strong evidence.
Tell me please, are you a Christian?
Yes.
Does consciousness create?
Yes.
Is consciousness a physical entity?
No.
Does consciousness inhabit physical entities?
Yes.
Atheists merely believe that a Creator doesn't exist, but beliefs are a poor substitute for actually knowing and for people who fall short.
In what sense does consciousness create?
Theism = belief in god(s).
Atheism = negation of the above.
Atheism does not mean "no gods". It means "no belief in gods". Simple as that.
Is it proper etiquette to move this to a Chat?
I prefer this definition:
- Being unsure if there is a religious God who does interact and interfere with "his creation" (e.g. through miracles, prayer, etc.) makes you agnostic.
- If you reject that idea outright, you are an atheist.
Any atheist who doesn't believe theism is false isn't an atheist by reason but purely by ignorance.
Atheism is an opinion.
Opinions are beliefs.
So that said..
You don't believe in theism
being what exactly?
Considering that you have already discounted theism as being false, what else could it be?
A God is either real or fiction.
It's okay if you can't make your mind up.
On any given proposition you can either accept it as true, reject it as false or withhold judgement on it.
Would it be fair to say you're in the third camp being noncommittal either way?
Our limited understanding doesn't mean they CAN'T be broken. It means we don't know enough to be certain of that.
Even now our understanding of dark matter (The building block) is changing.
It is such a weird and dishonest angle to take.
Obviously not beliving in something is not a religion.
I think it points out that they know what they believe is bullshit.
Atheists just go one god further.
If there was a god, wouldn't there only be one?????