Question for the Atheist

There are those who see science as definite proof of one thing or another and accept science as the ultimate answer.
Here's some reasons why maybe you shouldn't and perhaps with a little reading, you may better understand science ... even if science doesn't fully understand you ...
Scientific Proof Is A Myth
Where’s the proof in science? There is none
Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”
If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong
Forget what you’ve read, science can’t prove a thing
Craig’s List: What Science Fails to Explain
 

MarkD said:
The dictionary can no more be an authority on what god is or the role it plays in people’s lives any more than the Bible or any other book can.
Click to expand...

It defines the word. That's all. To discuss the topic we need a common understanding of what the word means. Without that it's all cross-purposes and nonsense. If you can't define what God is, then how can you know you've found him? The Bible is but one so called "holy" books. Christians happen to have chosen that one to believe in, but I wonder how many have actually read the texts from other religions?
 
Naturally said:
There are those who see science as definite proof of one thing or another and accept science as the ultimate answer.
Here's some reasons why maybe you shouldn't and perhaps with a little reading, you may better understand science ... even if science doesn't fully understand you ...
Click to expand...

Again, a gross misunderstanding of what science is. Of what the process is. It's an evidential basis for belief. A repeatable platform to accept knowledge. That is all.
 

I am an Agnostic. While I don‘t attend church, I accept that the Universe is vast beyond our understanding, and anything is possible in this eternal vastness. God or not I respect religion as the foundation of humanity’s organization and sense of morality.
 
VaughanJB said:
It defines the word. That's all. To discuss the topic we need a common understanding of what the word means. Without that it's all cross-purposes and nonsense. If you can't define what God is, then how can you know you've found him? The Bible is but one so called "holy" books. Christians happen to have chosen that one to believe in, but I wonder how many have actually read the texts from other religions?
Click to expand...

So for those who think god is merely a word, a dictionary will be fine. For those who have first hand experience with whatever it is, a dictionary description won't do. That is because they have something against which to measure what any book may say. Language notoriously falls short where the sacred is concerned. Wishing to contain the conversation within conventional definitions is just a way make it subservient to what people think when what we experience far surpasses what can be conceptualized or said. That's why we have music, poetry, narrative and art generally.
 
VaughanJB said:
a gross misunderstanding of what science is. Of what the process is. It's an evidential basis for belief. A repeatable platform to accept knowledge
Click to expand...

No, science is the best means we have for determining empirical truth. But people also know music, have insight into myth, are transported by beauty and get humor. All of that is implicit knowledge which, like icebergs, is mostly submerged below the surface of what we can say explicitly.

In other words, there definitely is a way to do science but that way only applies where it does and only determines a certain range of knowledge. It shouldn't be used to triage what claims should be taken into account unless one wants to only pay attention to the surface of objective things and toss out Shakespeare along with the Bible or just trivialize them to the point that they can offer you nothing. We are subjects as well as 'objects' of other people's experience.
 
Last edited:
MarkD said:
So for those who think god is merely a word, a dictionary will be fine. For those who have first hand experience with whatever it is, a dictionary description won't do. That is because they have something against which to measure what any book may say. Language notoriously falls short where the sacred is concerned. Wishing to contain the conversation within conventional definitions is just a way make it subservient to what people think when what we experience far surpasses what can be conceptualized or said. That's why we have music, poetry, narrative and art generally.
Click to expand...
A god, a deity is not the same as God. A tomato can be a god for someone. A god is something worshipped, believed by the worshipper to have power. It's like the word 'truth'. There's the Big Truth, and then there's Hitler's truth which is different than Churchill's.
 
My original view of god included omnipotent, omnipresent, all seeing and all knowing. This could very well be as it cannot be proven, People claim messages from god whether fact or fiction messages cannot be proven even with spiritual oversight. I do not trust so called men of god as they are no better or worse than you and me, and do not deserve your trust based on formal title.
I stopped believing that was once fantastic and spiritual by questioning faith and belief as real simply by believing for things to materialize.
I believe a person’s emotional sensitivity can impact feelings of faith and spiritual interactions to come across as godly encounters of the unexplained.
 
VaughanJB said:
It defines the word. That's all. To discuss the topic we need a common understanding of what the word means. Without that it's all cross-purposes and nonsense. If you can't define what God is, then how can you know you've found him? The Bible is but one so called "holy" books. Christians happen to have chosen that one to believe in, but I wonder how many have actually read the texts from other religions?
Click to expand...

We kind of do really but it doesn’t seem possible to be sure any two people actually have the same notion in mind. There isn’t any thing one can point to, and what people do point to -like the cross or Bible- usually have more symbolic significance than anything else.

I’ve heard “god” described as an un-word, a placeholder for something that comes into focus more and more over the course of a lifetime. It isn’t easy to pin down. As with quantum mechanics, if you think you understand, it is something else you’ve understood.
 
The idea of "God" being an un-word is quite intriguing. It suggests that our understanding of God evolves as we grow and experience life, and that it might never be fully graspable in a concrete, tangible way. This aligns with the philosophical idea that some concepts, like the divine, might be inherently unknowable or beyond human comprehension.
 
Naturally said:
There are those who see science as definite proof of one thing or another and accept science as the ultimate answer.
Here's some reasons why maybe you shouldn't and perhaps with a little reading, you may better understand science ... even if science doesn't fully understand you ...
Scientific Proof Is A Myth
Where’s the proof in science? There is none
Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”
If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong
Forget what you’ve read, science can’t prove a thing
Craig’s List: What Science Fails to Explain
Click to expand...

Certainly science is t about proof. Only math and logic trade in proof. As Vaughn said, science is about degrees of evidence and the best supported conclusion. The current consensus best theory is always open for revision. Not something easily done but always possible. The objectivity of science is its strength.
 
MarkD said:
Certainly science is t about proof. Only math and logic trade in proof. As Vaughn said, science is about degrees of evidence and the best supported conclusion. The current consensus best theory is always open for revision. Not something easily done but always possible. The objectivity of science is its strength.
Click to expand...

The strengths/benefits of science ...
Improved quality of life
Economic prosperity
Environmental protection
National security
Safer workplaces
New technologies
Deeper understanding of the universe
More effective and efficient industries
Greater global cooperation.

The "Ten Commandments" of science ...
Attention to detail
Never quit
Be creative
Get organized
Be passionate
Perseverance
Think critically
Have a good work ethic
Be independent
Take risks.
 
Last edited:
Showing results for did darwin believe in god?\
Search instead for did darwin believe in gopd?\





On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.
 

Attachments

  • 1710404997579.jpeg
    1710404997579.jpeg
    2.3 KB · Views: 0
As we humans continue vigorously at times to explore all the sciences ; slowly build better 'ships' that may one day reach Mars with humans aboard ; we are gradually and slowly and painfully learning 'new chunks' of science and physics etc. It's commendable when we see the advances in technology and the healing of wounded bodies with new sciences! But it has taken a long time from the beginning of homo sapiens appearance [whenever that was?] to now and will I believe continue at no greater speed although we may imagine it is doing so?

I find it rather strange that despite one or two kept secrets we still seem to be alone in this part of the universe anyhow and for some strange reason are never visited by any other species outside of our own spheres? However I still marvel at our very existence in this part of the universe ; this small part! If I should die next week you'll never realize but I will try to get a message back! and so it will be either the end and I will go up in a puff of smoke or/and rematerialize in another form in another part of the universe - all options are open. I remain open to all possibilities!!

ps: look forward to meeting Mr Darwin perhaps?
 
It's no 'strange' reason that we appear never to have been visited by beings from another part of the universe. I'ts a matter of time and distance.
There would have to be beings with advanced technology and the inclination to travel for hundreds of years - even at near light speed - to visit this insignificant little planet with its warlike inhabitants. Why would you bother.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
If you believe in a deity, then you believe in a deity. If you do not believe in a deity, then you do not believe in a deity. This is not a hard concept to understand. There is no proof a deity exists, and no proof it doesn't. As long as one's beliefs do not infringe on the rights and beliefs of others, who in the hell cares what one believes.
Click to expand...

Deity is not a well defined term and people are likely to understand it in different ways. That there is a dictionary definition isn’t much help when we’re not talking about anything concrete.

I don’t have any use for that term but whether or not I think such ac’thing’ exists depends entirely on what is being talked about.
 
MarkD said:
Deity is not a well defined term and people are likely to understand it in different ways. That there is a dictionary definition isn’t much help when we’re not talking about anything concrete.

I don’t have any use for that term but whether or not I think such ac’thing’ exists depends entirely on what is being talked about.
Click to expand...
:) I don't know, I thought I understood the word.
Deity: a god.
Deist: belief in a god or gods.
Theist: belief in the one supreme being, our creator.
Maybe I'm wrong, I wouldn't put it past me.
 
MarkD said:
We kind of do really but it doesn’t seem possible to be sure any two people actually have the same notion in mind. There isn’t any thing one can point to, and what people do point to -like the cross or Bible- usually have more symbolic significance than anything else.

I’ve heard “god” described as an un-word, a placeholder for something that comes into focus more and more over the course of a lifetime. It isn’t easy to pin down. As with quantum mechanics, if you think you understand, it is something else you’ve understood.
Click to expand...

This pretty much encompasses one of the key differences between believers, and non-believers. Believers aren't thrown at all that they can't define who/what God is, who accept the supernatural (such as never having a beginning). Whereas non-believers are curious, and want some kind of solid evidence before believing. I'm uncomfortable throwing my life into a belief that I can't know with any certainty, is actually correct.

MarkD said:
No, science is the best means we have for determining empirical truth. But people also know music, have insight into myth, are transported by beauty and get humor. All of that is implicit knowledge which, like icebergs, is mostly submerged below the surface of what we can say explicitly.

In other words, there definitely is a way to do science but that way only applies where it does and only determines a certain range of knowledge. It shouldn't be used to triage what claims should be taken into account unless one wants to only pay attention to the surface of objective things and toss out Shakespeare along with the Bible or just trivialize them to the point that they can offer you nothing. We are subjects as well as 'objects' of other people's experience.
Click to expand...

What about music can't be studied, tested? There are thousand upon thousand papers on various aspects of music. And why would you have to toss out Shakespeare? Understanding them implicitly doesn't trivialize them, it adds the depth which you talk about. I listen to music every day, but I know a musician who obviously knows more than I do about technique, and how sound is made. He's just a bit deeper into it than I am.

MarkD said:
So for those who think god is merely a word, a dictionary will be fine. For those who have first hand experience with whatever it is, a dictionary description won't do. That is because they have something against which to measure what any book may say. Language notoriously falls short where the sacred is concerned. Wishing to contain the conversation within conventional definitions is just a way make it subservient to what people think when what we experience far surpasses what can be conceptualized or said. That's why we have music, poetry, narrative and art generally.
Click to expand...

Who said God is only a word? Words have meanings, and it's the meanings that attempt to describe what is meant by the term. For example, humans are infinitely complex, they're not just a word. The reason we need to have a definition is so we can ensure we're talking about the same thing. That we have agreement on what we're discussing, that's all. It's not containing the conversation, it's simply having an agreement on the topic.

Experience has a definition, but of course, there's a lot more to know about experience that simply that.
 
gruntlabor said:
:) I don't know, I thought I understood the word.
Deity: a god.
Deist: belief in a god or gods.
Theist: belief in the one supreme being, our creator.
Maybe I'm wrong, I wouldn't put it past me.
Click to expand...
Most people like to talk about whatever god(s) especially critically, but know little about the basic general subject beyond vague simplistic ideas arisen experiencing their own religion. So here am giving members a chance to understand what the term "god' means. Read these summary Wikipedia articles:

God - Wikipedia
God in Christianity - Wikipedia

Where I diverge from others that is a huge issue, is in respect to my Christian god's powers as in omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. For this person, in the universe we find ourselves within with its phenomenon, physical actions without forces is impossible, illogical, nonsense, like magic.

Omnipotence - Wikipedia

The Christian God of the Old Testament, never defined his powers beyond vague words like "almighty". But that didn't stop religions in following centuries after Jesus from creating a long long list of magical powers with their imaginations running creatively amok, as in god can do anything without limits. That was because some Middle Ages philosophers might say an entity isn't a god if such has limited powers. So now we have Christian denominations with all manner of creative god without limits powers imaginable often for self serving reasons of having more followers. And worse because they feared simple people might not believe their dogma interpretations, they invented inerrancy of the Bible, an utterly ridiculous position.
 
Last edited:
Though I am an atheist, I realize that I do not stand on the firm basis of conviction, absolute certainty. Because some supreme being from the universe can probably come to us and it will turn out that believing people will be more right than we are. That's what atheist scientists have been writing about. Ants don't know that humans have smartphones and satellites.

I agree, let the supreme being be Jesus, Allah, Odin, or even his alcoholic son, Thor. The main thing is that we don't get Thanos. :confused:
 
The Christian God of the Old Testament, never defined his powers beyond vague words like "almighty". But that didn't stop religions in following centuries after Jesus from creating a long long list of magical powers with their imaginations running creatively amok, as in god can do anything without limits. That was because some Middle Ages philosophers might say an entity isn't a god if such has limited powers. So now we have Christian denominations with all manner of creative god without limits powers imaginable often for self serving reasons of having more followers. And worse because they feared simple people might not believe their dogma interpretations, they invented inerrancy of the Bible, an utterly ridiculous position.

I completely agree. This is one my pet peeves regarding Christianity and the all powerful god. It was frightening to step away and deny the Christian god because of what I interpreted as due punishment from god, and I am still here. This leads me to believe the Christian god is BS and is not out to get me for turning my back from Christianity and what I grew up to believe. What racket Christianity is scaring people they are going hell if they don't believe in god or Jesus. Coercing followers to tithe, read the bible and pray to gain a deeper foothold making believers dependent on god or else face the fear of god's wraith for not doing as they are told.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top