Immortal said: Jay520 said: 1.) How is atheism close-minded? 2.) This thread wasnt sincere, no. It was more to demonstrate how impossible it is to discover the religion that praises he actual God. Check out this video. I have had this argument many, many times with no real result in terms of my understanding the atheist point of view or the other way round, but since you're the first person to not be at all agressive about it, I guess I should try. Basically, atheism, which I'd define as the belief that religions are "incorrect" (or, more often, that they can't be proven and so on along the lines of the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea) isn't really close-minded in itself. What I think is close-minded is the ideology shared by most/all atheists (which, given your objections, seems to include you) which is empiricism to the extreme (basically, "science FTW") and doesn't allow for any room in terms of thinking philosophically. In fact, most atheists deny philosophy as "existential crap" because it easily equates science and religion as far as "correctness" goes. Science involves at least a few assumptions/axioms that can deal with ideas such as "what if we're all dreaming/in a virtual reality simulator? Anything can happen then and scientific laws mean nothing !" Since we have to say no to that simply because we refuse to believe it, we're using an argument that any religious nutjob could use to justify his argument. Something tells me I'm doing a horrid job of getting my point across, :O. Basically belief in science = belief in gods/God/ghosts/Flying Spaghetti Monster in terms of correctness. So believing only in science and actively disbelieving (not sure if that's a word) in others is close-minded and just a little hypocritical. If you're an atheist who doesn't really believe in science either, then I've got nothing, really, so that's why atheism as a whole isn't anything I could argue against. Oh, and that video just seems to not properly understand the idea of most religions. There's tons of responses to that argument, but, I mean, haven't you seen all those religious liberals these days? Lots of people nowdays are quite fine with other people having different religions and don't think that they're going to hell. Quite possibly, all those paths are going in the right direction.

Atheism doesnt strictly involve the belief that religions are wrong. It's more associated with Gods than religion. And even then, atheism is not the belief that Gods don't exist. In its broadest sense, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. A person can lack the belief in Gods, without believing that Gods don't exist. Now of course, strong atheists believe that Gods don't exist, but I don't fall into that category.

Atheists like myself follow the idea that there is no valid justification to believe in a God(s) existence. This doesn't mean we believe that Gods don't exist. No, its perfectly possible that there are Gods and its possible that there aren't any. At the moment, there is no justification to believe either way. Atheism, to put it broadly, is simply the lack of belief.

I really urge you to check out the following video as it articulates my opinion much better than i can. it really is a fantastic video and if you like it, you should check out more videos from the author.

Netyaroze said: @VXIII No ,cause and effect apply only to the macroscopic world. They do apply to the quantum world by statistics only and are not strictly causal. ... ...

If you're still around, I was hoping you could explain this sentence, or provide a link about the subject.

Jay520 said: Atheism doesnt strictly involve the belief that religions are wrong. It's more associated with Gods than religion. And even then, atheism is not the belief that Gods don't exist. In its broadest sense, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. A person can lack the belief in Gods, without believing that Gods don't exist. Now of course, strong atheists believe that Gods don't exist, but I don't fall into that category. Atheists like myself follow the idea that there is no valid justification to believe in a God(s) existence. This doesn't mean we believe that Gods don't exist. No, its perfectly possible that there are Gods and its possible that there aren't any. At the moment, there is no justification to believe either way. Atheism, to put it broadly, is simply the lack of belief. I really urge you to check out the following video as it articulates my opinion much better than i can. it really is a fantastic video and if you like it, you should check out more videos from the author.

Oh, that's why I stated like twice that I can't argue against atheism. I mean, that would also argue against any belief at all so it wouldn't defend religions in the least. I'm just generalizing the attitude of most atheists. My experience could be off, but the vast majority of atheists are "strong atheists", against whom I think my argument is valid. The way you describe your beliefs, I think you'd more accurately be an agnostic by my definition. And agnositicism, to me, is basically the best place to be, alongside being a "religious liberal", as I previously mentioned. This simply seems to be a difference in definitions then, since I define atheist as you define "strong atheist" and I'd define you as agnostic if you don't actively disagree with God/gods. Really nothing to discuss here, then.

Also, for the video, I really knew most of that already. And, without checking it thoroughly, I'm quite sure I can't disagree with any of the points made there. It's just the subtext that I vehemently disagree with. The fact that the people with supernatural beliefs were the ones making all the accusations (especially, the "you're a lesser person" part, xD) seemed silly and not accurate for the reality I know. I probably have a weird experience, but I have seen a far higher proportion of atheists being "strong atheists" who impose their assertions onto everyone than religious/superstitious people who do the same. Mainly because you're rather an extremist if you're religious and you tell people their beliefs are wrong while it seems to be the norm for atheists to be contrarian so their beliefs being stuffed down everyone's throats is more acceptable.

Immortal said: Jay520 said: Atheism doesnt strictly involve the belief that religions are wrong. It's more associated with Gods than religion. And even then, atheism is not the belief that Gods don't exist. In its broadest sense, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. A person can lack the belief in Gods, without believing that Gods don't exist. Now of course, strong atheists believe that Gods don't exist, but I don't fall into that category. Atheists like myself follow the idea that there is no valid justification to believe in a God(s) existence. This doesn't mean we believe that Gods don't exist. No, its perfectly possible that there are Gods and its possible that there aren't any. At the moment, there is no justification to believe either way. Atheism, to put it broadly, is simply the lack of belief. I really urge you to check out the following video as it articulates my opinion much better than i can. it really is a fantastic video and if you like it, you should check out more videos from the author. Oh, that's why I stated like twice that I can't argue against atheism. I mean, that would also argue against any belief at all so it wouldn't defend religions in the least. I'm just generalizing the attitude of most atheists. My experience could be off, but the vast majority of atheists are "strong atheists", against whom I think my argument is valid. The way you describe your beliefs, I think you'd more accurately be an agnostic by my definition. And agnositicism, to me, is basically the best place to be, alongside being a "religious liberal", as I previously mentioned. This simply seems to be a difference in definitions then, since I define atheist as you define "strong atheist" and I'd define you as agnostic if you don't actively disagree with God/gods. Really nothing to discuss here, then. Also, for the video, I really knew most of that already. And, without checking it thoroughly, I'm quite sure I can't disagree with any of the points made there. It's just the subtext that I vehemently disagree with. The fact that the people with supernatural beliefs were the ones making all the accusations (especially, the "you're a lesser person" part, xD) seemed silly and not accurate for the reality I know. I probably have a weird experience, but I have seen a far higher proportion of atheists being "strong atheists" who impose their assertions onto everyone than religious/superstitious people who do the same. Mainly because you're rather an extremist if you're religious and you tell people their beliefs are wrong while it seems to be the norm for atheists to be contrarian so their beliefs being stuffed down everyone's throats is more acceptable.

Fair enough. It doesn't really matter to me which term you associate me with. As long as you clearly and thoroughly understand my beliefs & lack of beliefs, I don't really mind which term you call me.

I agree with you about strong atheists. I don't think anyone is qualified to say what doesn't exist in the universe. I don't know if there are more strong atheists vs soft atheists. You could he right, I won't argue against you. I don't think there's been any studies or experiments in that sort of thing.

I guess the second paragraph of your post really depends on each individual's experience.

And btw, what are your beliefs?

assuming religion can be correct...which i really doubt

VXIII said: Netyaroze said: @VXIII No ,cause and effect apply only to the macroscopic world. They do apply to the quantum world by statistics only and are not strictly causal. ... ... If you're still around, I was hoping you could explain this sentence, or provide a link about the subject.

 

It means that subatomic particles do stuff sometimes which they shouldn't do. Like not travelling on a certain path. You can only calculate the probability of said particles behaving in a certain way. But you can not give a 100% prediction. Particles seem to do what they want. If they would behave strictly causal like a Golfball you could give an exact prediction how they will behave but you can calculate the probability.

 

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/cosmogony.htm

"First Cause, which states that there can be no effect without a cause.  Each event must have been caused by some prior event.

 

This completely logical sounding argument, which fully agrees with everyday experience, was the basis of Thomas Aquinas's "cosmological proof" of the existence of God.  But today we understand the nature of causation a little differently than in the 13th century.

 

Timothy Ferris, in his book "The Whole Shebang: a State of the Universe Report", says: "The doctrine of causation erodes considerably when applied to the subatomic realm of quantum physics, and therefore seems a dubious tool for understanding the early universe, when virtually all particles were subatomic.  (To construct even an atom in the big bang would have been like building a house of cards in a firestorm.)"

 

Strict causation, (if A then B), is not a concept applied in quantum mechanics (there is a 50% chance of A, and therefore a 50% of B), where the probabilities are said to be inherent in nature and not merely a reflection of our limited knowledge.

 

"Strictly speaking there seems to be, for instance, no such thing as a "cause" of the radioactive decay of a radium atom.... Similarly, there is in quantum mechanics no such thing as a strict cause of a particular vacuum fluctuation, such as the fluctuation that some versions of inflation theory postulate as the agency of creation... So strict causation may break down both in quantum physics and in considering the origin of the universe.  Possibly this is not a coincidence, but a clue that the quantum principle holds the key to understanding genesis." "

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

 

Cause and Effect is not flawless, in quantum physics everything is calculated in probabilities there is no 100% way to determin an outcome of a single event. That means its not strictly causal.

 

I will believe when I have sufficient evidence, just like with every other aspect of the universe in which I exist. Until then, count me as an Implicit Atheist.

Jay520 said: Fair enough. It doesn't really matter to me which term you associate me with. As long as you clearly and thoroughly understand my beliefs & lack of beliefs, I don't really mind which term you call me. I agree with you about strong atheists. I don't think anyone is qualified to say what's not out in this vast, enigmatic universe. I also don't think we can say if there are more strong atheists vs soft atheists. You could he right, I won't argue against you. I don't think there's been any studies or experiments in that sort of thing. I guess the second paragraph of your post really depends on each individual's experience. And btw, what are your beliefs?

That's good. You're far less argumentative about this subject than almost anyone else I've met (atheist or otherwise); that's quite impressive, :D.

And for the strong atheists part, I could obviously easily be wrong. At this point, I know that it's my bias thanks to experience in places like forums and school that makes me think it's the general case. It really would be interesting to see studies about this, even though the results would be horribly skewed depending on who does it and with what motive.

As for my beliefs, that's an infinitely complex area of thought that I'm not sure I'm smart enough to delve into. I desperately avoid being termed an atheist because, as I'm sure you can tell, I'm very much biased against them for the moment. Most of my beliefs comes from philosophical stuff which makes open-mindedness my key priority. My parents have basically raised me in Hinduism, with all the gods and reincarnation and such that comes with it. The thing, though, is that, as far as I understand it, Hinduism is basically a complex, chaotic set of ideologies that has very little that you need to believe in. I mean, to some extent, we only have so many gods because of "compromises" that have been made to stop conflict between people who believe in different gods. In fact, my parents insist that this is like the basis of the religion. Just as an example, Buddhism is generally considered a part of Hinduism by Hindus, even though most people see it as a separate religion or even a "way of life". If you go to a rural place in India, give a person a picture of Jesus and tell them he has something to do with the divine, they'll probably put it alongside all their other idols and paintings and pray to it daily. This actually rather fits my whole "open-mindedness" idea since it is open-minded to the extent of being beyond gullible (as that video showed, xD). But, you know, since it's about the divine and we're not actually gonna get around to getting any solid evidence till we're dead and gone, it doesn't really hurt that much to accept everything.

That said, I'm just a silly little boy yet and I hope to look back at this as utter nonsense in 10 years. What's important to me is that I don't start taking a belief too seriously and stick with it for too long. That would make me close-minded and then there wouldn't be any room for improvement.