atheism

I readily agree, religion and science are two seperate and distinct things. Atheism, while not a traditional religion, is a form of faith. I believe there is no god. Can I prove he doesn't exist? No
Can you prove he does exist? No. Scientifically, something needs to be observable to fall within its reach.
Its interesting to consider that of all the people who believe in evolution, most of them hold religious views and believe in a creator of some kind. There simply aren't enough of us atheists to cover all the numbers for a majority.
As for the end of the universe, well , take your pick, heat death of the expansionary universe (the theory with the most support at this time) or the big crunch . The wimper or the bang ( ok crunch : ) Either way, adios universe.

I agree with most of what you said. My point of using the word "faith" to describe atheism was to make a distinction between atheism and science. I personally agree with you that atheism isn't blind faith. However, scientifically it is difficult to prove a negative. Also I was trying to point out for our creationist friends that atheism and science are not the same thing. There are many religious people in the scientific community (again why I pointed out atheism's limited portion of society. I think atheists and agnostics count for roughly 10 % of the population, but not sure on that figure) who, like you said , are able to distinguish between science and faith. Evolution is a scientific theory. It, in no way, tries to teach a philosophy of morals, nor does it say anything about the existance of a "creator".
I don't know about the other atheists on this board, but atheism was a personal choice. I was raised in a religious family, went to sunday school, the whole nine yards. However, I was always interested in science, even at a young age. I remember my favorite programs were the science programs about biology, astronomy, ect that were on PBS. By the time I was in junior high, I had already discarded the idea of a "correct religion". Through junior high and highschool, my study of history clearly laid out the religions of our world as political forces, both good and bad. In fact, much of the world's conflicts and hatreds seem to be rooted in religious beliefs. I have observed nothing in this world that gives any credence to the existance of a god. Though mostly agnostic at the time, I believed if there was an omniscient all powerful being, He ( I use the pronoun for conveniece only, since gender isn't neccessary for a non-biological organism. Heck, its not even neccessary for alot of biological organisms) sure would not have made such a menagerie of conflicting faiths.
Since then, I have come to accept atheism as the most logical choice and embraced it. It isn't always an easy path. The oblivion of non-being at death is a frightening aspect. In fact, I sometimes envy religious people their conformt of faith, even if I believe that it is self deception. However, I hate deception, even self deception, and can't bring myself to believe in mythology when there is no evidence in support of the existance of god.
I'd be happy to discuss my atheistic viewpoints with whoever is interested. However, atheism has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, so I don't know how appropriate it would be.

I will readily admit that atheism is a form of belief. I can't prove there isnt a god. Science can't observe anything before Planck time after the big bang. I can't prove an all mighty being didn't intiate the big bang. However, since we can't observe God, postulate theories and make predictions about "God", his existance is irrellevant from a scientific perspective. Since there is no observable evidence that points to the existance of a god, I doubt the existance of such a being. But, as I said before, I cannot prove that such a being doesn't exist. Hence, atheism is a belief. However, there is observable data in support of a universe that has expanded, and evolved ( not to be confused with biological evolution, which deals only with the change of species over time) according to natural proccesses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
DS: Are you are saying that God is such that He cannot be known by man or that He simply doesn't exist? Either way, you are claiming to know something about God. This claim to knowledge is inconsistent with your claim to be an atheist

​

---

I am in no way inconsistant. I stated that we have no observable evidence of a greater being, a god, or of planet eating turtles ravaging the cosmos. As there is no obsevable data in support of a god, I doubt in the existance of such a being. How can I have knowledge of something we have no evidence for?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
first answer this question: There are three basic types of agnostics. I wonder which kind you are.

​

The first says, `I don't know, but I wish I did.' The second says, `I don't know, and I don't care.' The last says, `I don't know, you don't know, and nobody can know.

​

QS: You skipped this question. Care to comment?

---

Course you could be in the atheist camp, in which those questions are meaningless. They have meaning to you because you believe in an all mighty being. However, if we take something, say, like Giagantic Pink Space Bunnies of DOOM that go around comsuming stars, we both probably can agree there is no such thing ( there is a possibility, but it passes the absurd, and has no proof to support its existance.) I could ask you about the Death Bunnies OF DOOM (we will call them DBD for short ; ) Well, how do you feel about the DBD's?
Do you say.......
a.)I don't know, but I wish I did.
b.)I don't know, and I don't care.
c.)I don't know, you don't know, and nobody can know.
or
d.)What kind of crack are you smoking? You need some mental help! (then shake your head, wish the person asking you such a silly a question the best, and go on your merry way.)

Best not to go down the path of absolute "right and wrong", since christianity can't make the same claim either.1.)Today, we agree incest is bad. In the old testement, it was a pretty common thing. In fact, the then commandments make specific reference to not coveting thy neibhors wife, but says nothing about having the hots for your sister.
2.)THE INQUISITION! Ain't it great! The INQUISITION! need I repeat?
3.)um Crusades... nasty mess that.
4.)In the good ol' days of the old testement, the people were commanded to stone non-believers ( I am sooooo happy I didn't grow up in a village like that). Now, while we don't see eye to eye, I doubt you want to crush my skull with a big heavy rock ( I hope : )
I'm sure I could find more, but the point is, morality is greatly influenced by social norms, even christian morals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thereis no luck in creationism. it happened and we know it happened. everything was given to us by god. evolution requires a lot of evidence to be proven, every step in the chain must be shown. Christianity wont give any evidence until its the apocalypse.

​

---

It is the very esssence of science to require evidence in support of theories. Evolution, being a scientific theory, requires a body of evidence to support it. Creationism requires only faith. If the only conclusive proof for christianity is the apocalypse, then what happens if it doesn't occur? (And by this I take it you mean divine intervention. Nuking ourselves into extinction or death due to a global killer sized astral body striking the earth don't count (these are both well in the realm of natural explanation. : )
Also, you seem to be confusing probabilities and statistics with luck. For example, the statistics on winning the lottery for any given ticket is vanishingly small. (I forget the exact number, but it is one in millions, a remote "chance of winning). However, so many people buy lottery tickets, that statistically, someone will most likely win. So, even though "you" may not win (bad luck, along with millions of others who bought lotto tickets and lost), probability is that someone "will" , and thus be " the lucky one". As you see, luck isn't about probability, its about assessing a qualitive attribute to a quantitave statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Nothing, that was the point of my post. Someone mentioned the inquistion and the crusades in an attempt to invalidate Christianity.

---

I wasn't trying to invalidate christianity, just point out that christian faith isn't composed of universal morals. What has been morally acceptable has changed over time, and depends largely on the society in which you grow up ( my whole point about the incest issue is that at one time it was acceptable, but later it wasn't. This seems a change in morality to me.) Also, religious institutions , christian faiths among them, have misused the word of god to commit atrocious acts. While we can most probably agree, both the inquisition and the crusades were historical events that actually had political moves guised in religion. However, both had ardent supporters (both in of the cloth and not) who felt their heinous crimes were morally justified.

Take, thou shalt not kill. Now, this is a good solid moral. However, what happens when you consider self defense? If someone comes into your home and is going to kill you and your family, are you not justified, morally, in taking the life of that person to protect your family? Have you acted immorally? Should you have done nothing and merely accepted the death of your family because you refused to fight back? It is not always possible to avoid conflict.
The point is, that there are moral guidlines, common to most cultures, however, many are dependent on the situation and the society in which they occur. Seppeku, ritual suicide, was an acceptable and moral way in Japan to expunge one's shame. However, suicide is generally frowned upon by judeo-christian faiths. Of course, then what about terminal patients living in pain? Do they have the right to end their own suffering? Or must they suffer till their body gives out on them? I know this is a sticky moral issue, and it is one that is currently a source of controversy in the US. Its not clear cut.