By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pearljammer on 22 August 2011
Edit Thread
starcraft said:
TWRoO said:

I think Athieism is a belief that organised religion is detrimental to society, it's ironic that the proper 'hardcore' athiests are basically part of a religion themselves. (Not to insult all athiests though, as I have a friend who is an athiest)

Personally I am agnostic, but I have a problem with what you said. People who believe the universe was not created by a higher being do not believe it was created out of nothing, rather that it is unknown what came before. (In science matter and mass itself is just a concept, a force. And atoms themselves would not have mass, or be matter if it were possible to break them apart. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=74297 as such there was not neccessarily such a thing as density before the big bang)

Science is a subject that strives to disprove itself, should scientific study find that a higher being[s] exists and created the "big bang" or in some way created the universe as we know it, then that would then be the belief of science also.

Athiesm is the belief that there is no higher power, although I'll grant you that doesn't necessarily mean that all athiests believe in science, as I implied.

My point stands.  One cannot say "I've no idea what the truth is" whilst simultaneously claiming someone else's truth is crazy.  At least, that is not a reasonable claim.

IvorEvilen said:

(On a side note...) Remember guys, it takes at least as much faith to believe in science or any other belief that you may have, so calling someone insane for being religious is not a very intellectual response. In fact, I am sure it would make others, with similar beliefs, upset with you as well.

I should preface this by saying that any reasonable atheist is not with absolute certainty that there is no deity (especially an intervening one) anyone claiming so is blinded by arrogance; however, we say that the likelihood of it being the case is similar to that of unicorns existing -impossible to ever falsify, yet incredibly unlikely.

@starcraft: Sure they can. It's rude and perhaps over-generalizing, but they could do so without being hypocritical. If one only derives truth from conclusions based on data, they could categorically call a truth solely based on conclusions, sanas data, as 'crazy.' (though I think doing so is both condescending and insensitive)

@ IvorEvilen: There is a large difference between the beliefs of a theist and an atheist. An atheist belives in the absence of a god due to lack of evidence. A theist believes in a god in spite of a lack of evidence. One is making a positive claim while the other is negative.

It does not require as much faith to not believe that Zeus created the universe as it does to believe that he did. An overused analogy, I know, but it does drive home the difference between the two stances.

When Pierre-Simon Laplace, one of the greatest minds in history, had gone to Napolean to show his works on the universe, Napolean questioned "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace responded "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Starting with a conclusion and having it fit whatever model compared to reading data and making approriate conclusions are two wildly different things. It's a gross overstatement to say that they require the same amount of faith - or that one requires faith at all, really.

 

My intention here isn't to insult anybody (I really hope I haven't) or to incite debate of existance vs non-existance, just simply to falsify the idea that science requires just as much faith as religion.

JoelCool, if you feel my post has treaded far too much off-topic, let me know and I will delete it.