Atheism is Scientifically Impossible

Originally posted by Maddogkull
something after death, because life makes no sense without purpose. That being said,

If our individual purpose was greater than copulating. I also have the opinion that we exist somewhere after death, but I'm still an athiest because I don't believe in god.

None of us know.

On the bright side we'll all find out eventually.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Most Atheist believe there is no God. It can not be proven either way. Therefore it is a belief by definition.

It's irrelevant what other beliefs an athiest has. The only necessity to be an athiest by definition, is to lack the belief in god. Athiest's don't have to believe either way.

Agnostics still disbelieve in god, as well as believing god's existence is unknown or unknowable, therefore agnostics are also athiests as well.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Absence of a belief is Agnosticism not Atheism. An Agnostic accepts the fact they do not know, and have no belief.

An agnositic assumes there is something unknown or unknowable, therefore is believing in that assertion.

An absence of belief in God does not mean the same thing as an absence of belief.

An absence of belief in god is athiesm, and anyone (including agnostics) with that absense of belief are athiests.

When you said "absence of belief" at the end of that sentence - it's meaningless because a belief can be anything, even pixies at the bottom of the garden. It's impossible to define anyone as having an absence of all beliefs or opinions.



[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

That, for me, is enough to give up my atheistic beliefs - it's well within the realm of critical thinking and accountable evidence.

reply to post by m0r1arty



So now that you beleive there is an invisble man in the sky, what exactly are you going to do with it ?

How do you move on from here ? You met him yet ?

What if this invisble man in the sky that designed your DNA, just happens to be an alien fom another planet that is a little smarter than you, will you call him god ? Will you worship him and salughter a few chickens in his name ?

If your'e new found friend happens to have DNA did he create it himseld or did it evolve ?

You poor confused believer. You have so confused evolution and abiogenesis that I don't know where to start. And that ignorance of the subject matter dooms your thesis.
Darwin's Origins of Species didn't speak to the beginnings of life on earth - only to how life changes. The predecessor theory to abiogenesis, called spontaneous generation or equivocal generation was formulated by Aristotle. ^ André Brack (1998). "Introduction". in André Brack. The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 9780521564755. assets.cambridge.org... Retrieved 2009-01-07. "Aristotle gathered the different claims into a real theory."
Totally apart from natural selection, he did remark once that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis was primarily the work of Alexander Oparin, J. B. S. Haldane, and Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago who did the famous experiment that drives all fundie creationist cretins bat-dung crazy.
Go ahead and cling to your pre-bronze age superstitions and deny science. However your confused bufoonery can be contagious and some poor unsuspecting reader might really believe that evolution has something to do with the initial appearance of life on this earth.
And this is one scientist who believes that no intelligent designer is either necessary or exists.



[edit on 14-3-2010 by 4nsicphd]

reply to post by bwinwright


I just love (/sarcasm) when peoples post 'WE.' As if the entire universe unanimously agrees with everything they say! WE don't know JACK! WE only know what you posted in your OP with ZERO EVIDENCE in any form of outside sources. Basically, IN YOUR OPINION!

FIRED!

Chrono

reply to post by bwinwright



You believe atheism is scientifically impossible, therefore we have to view the evidence available and apply it to your hypothesis in the attempt to develop a working theory.

I don't believe in god and am therefore an atheist.

So we have one atheist and this immediately invalidates your hypothesis, if we are talking scientifically and applying the scientific method.

Thank you and goodnight

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


so, in other words you are saying that the OP's premise is flawed.



I got that ages ago.

You could prove to me beyond all possibility of doubt that god exists, and it would not change the way I live my live in any way. If I were to be dragged before him for judgment after I die, I would tell him that he can like it or he can limp it. If that means I get sent to hell, so be it. I once suffered with four impacted wisdom teeth and no painkillers for four days until my appointment to get them removed. Hell CANNOT be worse than that.

Of course, Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection is just that, a theory, which has now been scientifically proven to be false.

I found this to be the most amusing excerpt.

Natural Selection is a theory simply because in science - nothing can be proved correct - everything is by default a theory, it can only be proved wrong scientifically - never correct.

The entire idea of a 'scientific fact' is part of the disinformation campaign regarding science. Science doesn't have facts, it has evidence - it doesn't supply truth - it supplies models or theories.

Those who wish to make science into a belief system, to use it as a form of latter day religion use the terms, scientific fact and truth.

Those who adhere to the principles of science know it only means a mind open to all evidence - one that resists the formation of beliefs - but rather postulates with empirical evidence as a basis.

That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - true science does not form beliefs - merely it demands attention to detail, and inclusion of evidence.

Atheism is also a belief.

From a scientific perspective - we simply have little to no evidence to support the idea of any monotheistic deity - but it cannot be disproven by science - because that is not what science does.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Absence of a belief is Agnosticism not Atheism. An Agnostic accepts the fact they do not know, and have no belief.

An agnositic assumes there is something unknown or unknowable, therefore is believing in that assertion.

An absence of belief in God does not mean the same thing as an absence of belief.

An absence of belief in god is athiesm, and anyone (including agnostics) with that absense of belief are athiests.

When you said "absence of belief" at the end of that sentence - it's meaningless because a belief can be anything, even pixies at the bottom of the garden. It's impossible to define anyone as having an absence of all beliefs or opinions.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

Agnostics are not atheists - saying that makes you look simple minded.

Agnostics may think the answer is unknowable, or they may think there is evidence on both sides - so are unwilling to form a belief one way or another.

The thing that agnostics do not share with atheists or the religious - is a belief that they know the answer.

Agnostics don't presume to know the answers - but they are usually willing to discuss possibilities and look at evidence.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Amagnon


Hi!

I'm an atheist i do not believe we were consciously created by anything....

Yes i'm willing to debate n challenge anyone.

Peace

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I would reckon that only a few scientists really think that the complexity of DNA requires a creator. They might find the DNA complex and incredible and muse about the chemical processes that brought it into existence but I don't think many of them believe it was magically conjured by some spooky skyman. Even the ones that believe in a God probably don't think that God used magic to bring about life.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by bwinwright


Ahh...a deep thinking and contemplative Theist! Normally a contradiction in terms, i find.

Your post carries the tell tale signs of a deep and introspective mind. Congrats.

It's such a pity therefore that your proclivity to please those who have conditioned you, has overridden your own deep rooted sense of utter astonishment that people actually refrain from tittering, when confronted with these fairy tales of deities and omnipotent supernatural gods or god.
Somewhere, in your private contemplative moments, you do..don't you.

The conditioners will call this type of thinking a crisis or lapse of faith. They'll seek to dissuade or deviate this thinking. Of course they do. They'll use pseudo-psychology (a bit like i'm doing now, only much more practised) to again bring you back under control, and you will feel much better..almost immediately, because they'll give you the approval you know you are entitled to. Of course, you won't recognise this fact, you'll simply equate the warm feelings of acceptance with the love of an imaginary deity.

This is how the human race has been emotionally shackled and subjugated since time immemorial, only the names have been changed down through the millennia to protect and disguise the method of control.

Sorry, but religion is a mental illness, propagated by human beings with a lust for power and control.

Atheism and theism are both human constructs, and both are subject to the vagaries and foibles of their constructors. You know this. I know you do.

Being human and possessing a mind capable of leaps of intellect and deep seated knowing, we can dream of pretty much anything and make it real, given enough drive and determination.

Given the scope and potential for all things within the theorised Multiverse we inhabit, if humanity continues, in whatever form we ultimately take, there exists a distinct and not altogether unlikely possibility that we, ourselves are in fact what humanity presently considers 'The creator'. We may be the progenitors of not only ourselves, but of all entities carrying the DNA molecule.

I don't need to tell you to stop and think about that for a moment...it's already moot, you have thought about it, and you sense the point, even before you've read this sentence...Oh, you'll scoff and wince in incredulity as an automatic response to the challenge to your programming, but already the possibility is being mulled over by your Psyche...you'll reason it is an absurd heretical impossibility, and consciously conclude it's meaningless drivel. You'll probably want proof..won't you. The proof is the same proof offered to you by your conditioners and programmers. Look around you, the DNA molecule is everywhere. It's a beautiful declaration of a creator's hand in all things vital, intelligent yes, but not an omnipotent deity. It's us..in a few thousand years, a few hundred thousand years, or a few million years.
Time is another human construct, so timeframes are unimportant, only that at some point, we will seed ourselves and every other living thing retrospectively.

The only requirement from you and every other sentient being for this to be so..is faith.

All of the above came from my mind as i typed. It's rough and full of inconsistencies and outlandish statements and claims, yet it is now in your mind..brought alive by your unconscious reasoning and personal need for a knowledge of purpose and place.

If i'd had centuries to perfect and disseminate the above, and could convince a handful of people of it's validity, who then programmed their progeny, who programmed theirs, the prevailing Earth theology would consist of something very similar.

Can you see how this all works? I know you do..and you do too.


[edit on 14/3/2010 by spikey]

[edit on 14/3/2010 by spikey]

Everything that has ever existed was not an accident.

If you wish to argue this, do it within yourself.

There you will find the answer.

reply to post by john124

On the bright side we'll all find out eventually.

Atheism I've never understood how it makes any sense. Called it ridiculous, laughed at those who claim it. Now , recently, I admit I
have at least found something about atheists I can respect. You do have to have some good size cahounnes, to think that far out the box.
The text I quoted of yours proves that. Stuborn, maybe , i don't know.

reply to post by Amagnon

Agnostics are not atheists - saying that makes you look simple minded.

On the contrary, it shows that I've thought about this subject matter, and that some of these thrown around labels can be independent or dependent of each other.

You may have your own defined opinion on who is what, but the logical meaning of each term cannot be changed when interpreted literally.

Your own misguided approach to understanding what athiesm is, appears to be causing you to lash out and make a pointless & distasteful comment.

Agnostics may think the answer is unknowable, or they may think there is evidence on both sides - so are unwilling to form a belief one way or another.

Thinking it's unknown or unknowable is making an assertion.

Anyone disbelieving in god is an athiest. You disbelieve because you don't believe. The same for every religion, including christianity. Whether you then believe god is unknown or unknowable is then making an assertion (but not changing the fact that you still disbelief in god).

The thing that agnostics do not share with atheists or the religious - is a belief that they know the answer.

Ah well, you are making an assertion that something is unknown or unknowable. That is your answer that you claim to know.

Logically everything remains null until an answer is given, i.e. disbelieving spaghetti monsters, but to say their existence remains a mystery and they're unknowable is to make an assertion beyond the null! But that would still make you a disbeliever of their existence until you decided to believe in them. Therefore to make an assertion that a spaghetti monster is unknowable is by nature also disbelieving the true believers assertions - who believe in them categorically.

Agnostics don't presume to know the answers - but they are usually willing to discuss possibilities and look at evidence.

That's your opinionated analysis without any substantiated facts or proper use of terminology. People who aren't agnostics, but are athiests certaintly do look at all of the evidence, and the evidence of that is abundant.

Because athiests are generally more logically thoughtful (whether agnostic or not), they are more likely to disregard flawed evidence that requires faith or a pseudo-scientific approach.

So to sum up..... athiests are everyone who isn't a theist, and athiests often have other opinions or beliefs; such as belief in ET; dancing pixies at the bottom of their garden; or even that a deity is unknowable.

The idea that all athiests are boring people without imaginations and with closed-minds is a myth that thiests often propagate with the other gibberish they almost constantly spout !

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

reply to post by seanizle


I'm sorry seanizle, but your post is frankly pretty poor.

Judging by the typically and deliberately cryptic and terse style of statement and also your avatar, i'm assuming you're a theist.

Why would people who wish to argue your theories do it only inwardly? Could it be that religious programming works more effectively on isolated and emotionally separated and detached people?

All individual thought originates from within, therefore if as you say the answer were to be found within ourselves, atheists and agnostics already have the answer and it's not the answer you appear to advocate. Think about it.



[edit on 14/3/2010 by spikey]

reply to post by spikey

The conditioners will call this type of thinking a crisis or lapse of faith. They'll seek to dissuade or deviate this thinking. Of course they do. They'll use pseudo-psychology (a bit like i'm doing now, only much more practised) to again bring you back under control, and you will feel much better..almost immediately, because they'll give you the approval you know you are entitled to. Of course, you won't recognise this fact, you'll simply equate the warm feelings of acceptance with the love of an imaginary deity

Hey spikey How's it going. So you're the smartest guy in the world right?

Just a question with a limited answer of Yes or No. With no explainations after the answer. K? course you don't have to answer at all if you like.

Spikey Do you believe you have a soul. yes or no.

The fact that ANYone flagged or starred this thread really made me depressed tonight. Thanks a lot. It's one thing to believe in nonsense. But to push it onto the unwitting is just low.

Let me make it simple. Our experience is inherently subjective. The OP is speaking of objective reality.We have virtually no way of experiencing objective reality. Hence, stating anything as the one true ultimate reality is ad hoc and intellectually dishonest.