Questions for Atheists

I've never heard an atheist argue that physics does a great job of explaining everything, and I've never heard a physicist argue that physics does such a great job of explaining everything. It does a great job of explaining a lot, but certainly not everything!Atheists are just people who don't believe in any gods. They existed long before modern physics, in fact, they've probably existed for as long as humanity has existed. Definitely, in fact, because new born babies are atheists. I suggest that, rather than spending energy trying to make other people think, you expend that energy on thinking a bit more clearly yourself. Find out what atheists really are as well.

Child, if you want to quote someone, make it exact, and give the complete context.There's one thing you need to understand about atheists. They are people who lack belief in any gods. They are not defined by anything else. They share no unified politics or philosophy or reason as to why they don't believe in gods. Are you capable of understanding this simple point? I'm an atheist. People don't really need a reason not to believe in supernatural propositions for which there is no evidence. Lack of belief in gods is like lack of belief in fairies or elves. Think of all the gods of all the religions that you don't believe in, and ask yourself, do you need reasons not to believe in them? I was born an atheist.What point? You seem to be trying to make some point about atheists without knowing what they are, and you seem to think that Richard Dawkins is the only scientist in the world who believes that physics explains everything (he would laugh at the idea, like any other scientist), so why should I start giving personal details to someone with the apparent wisdom of a 10 year old?

I think that the question of whether physics does explain everything and whether it potentially could are very different ones. OpenMind uses "does" rather than "can" as his chosen verb.For me, the answer to "does" is an obvious no, and the answer to "can" is that we cannot know the answer.Like you, science is not the reason why I don't believe in gods, and I see nothing in our current scientific knowledge that is incompatable with the possibility of the existence of gods. Or fairies, for that matter.

As I've pointed out, what we understand now, and what we might be capable of understanding in the future, are two very different things. We cannot know how thorough our future understanding of the universe can be. Nosy Ned, further up the thread, already pointed out that you were headed for a God of the Gaps argument.These are boringly common and profoundly irrational arguments, so common that that's the second time I've put that link in today. They're brought up by theists desperately attempting to justify their faith and desires. Basically, the "gaps" are gaps in human knowledge where you can, with sweet and naive wishful thinking, attempt to insert the God of your choice.If it will ever be possible to understand everything in the long distant future, our distant descendents will be spared from these daft arguments at last. Heaven on earth it'll be!

If you were honest, you could just do a bit of self-analysis and come out with something like:"I don't like Dawkins because he offends my desires for a comforting imaginary friend." If you want to make such assertions, do feel free to back them up with quotes giving the reference for the quote and the complete context.Now. Let's have a list of Dawkins' fallacious claims, just to show us that you're not a Christian liar. I'm not a "Dawkinsite", and I haven't read most of his work, so I'll certainly agree if you find the ones you claim exist.As for science supporting atheism, it doesn't really. What it does is clash with obviously false gods and creation mythologies that describe non-existent universes. Tell me, thinking Mike, why is it that Brazil is a predominately Catholic Christian country, and Egypt is majority Sunni Muslim country, and the U. S. is a majority Protestant Christian country, and India is a majority Hindu country, and Iran is a majority Shia Muslim country, and I could have said exactly the same thing about all those countries 100 years ago, and I can tell you that the same will apply to the children born next year in those countries when they are 20 years old, in 2030.Concentrate your wizard theistic thinking brain on all that, try being honest with yourself, and tell me where the brainwashing is really going on. Who is it taking young children as soon as they can speak, and indoctrinating them with mumbo jumbo?

Evolution may well have caused many people to "forget" supernatural explanations regardless of abiogenesis, as it cuts across the creation mythologies of many religions on its own. Claiming that is not the same as claiming that science supports atheism, although it would be true to comment that there's a correlation between increases in scientific knowledge and increases in atheism.If you want to claim that someone is making fallacious arguments, you really ought to present precise quotes in their context, as I said in the other post.The third world, where there's not much science going on, is the fortress of both strong theism and high infant mortality rates, after all, isn't it.Did you get my point about brainwashing?

Percy, sometimes I get the impression that you're looking forward to bequeathing this site to your great grandchildren, so that they can carry on discussions about whether or not there was a world wide flood around 4000 years ago into the 22nd century. I know the science education issue is dear to you, but the thing standing in your way is superstition, and it has to be tackled head on. You may cringe at Dawkins' anti-theism partly because you're a theist, but mainly I think because you see it as counter productive. But Christians have been attacking science heavily, particularly in the U.S., long before Dawkins came on the scene, as you know, and they will continue to do so until they're so reduced in numbers as to be a spent force.If religion is attacked head on, and made to defend itself against accusations like psychological child abuse (indoctrination), then it will have less time and energy to expend on trying to expand its operations into the science class.Look at it this way. The likes of Dawkins want to shift the battle ground from the science class to the Sunday school, so the question won't be should "controversial" biological theories be taught in science class, but should children be being taught that scriptures that encourage genocide and torture are "holy" and "true" in schools, Sunday schools, or anywhere.Start a loud debate about whether or not stoning to death religions are a good idea, and the creationists might be forced to shelve their plans about invading the science class because they'll be too busy defending indefensible scriptures.A bit off topic, but, coming on topic, it's a bloody silly O.P. anyway.

Wrong. Why don't you find out about what you're talking about? Atheists are defined only by their lack of belief in gods.Some Buddhists and some Animists are atheists, for example.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Ironically, I'm currently arguing on another board with a guy who's criticising Dawkins for not covering sophisticated modern (liberal) theology (wankery that isn't even about "God") in "The God Delusion". The book is actually very populist and accessible, and Dawkins tends to use the word "God" in a way that the religious right would understand, which upsets my opponent, who insists that God is "ineffable" a great word to describe something non-existent, IMO .Write a book implying that the majority of the population is delusional, and the criticism is bound to pile in from all angles!Speaking of wankery and criticism, have you seen the fleas? Scroll down page for a laugh!

Just a helping hand to open the minds of young Open Mind and anyone else who wishes to make up things about what atheists do and don't believe. My emphasis.

quote:

---

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.

​

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

---

Atheism - WikipediaPlease note the broad definition including: "absence of belief in deities". Babies are atheists.