Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Everything is energy, particles/ sub atomic particles.
Therefore, if this god is an energy, it would measurable, testable, verifiable and so on.
Nothing in physics points to any deity in any way, shape or form.
if just for the sake of debate call this energy God unless you want to call it atom your choice.
didn't the slit test prove s that the energy, had some kind of intelligence?
(yeah, I know we can have another new debate on the subject of whats intelligence alone)
The 'slit experiment' demonstrates that light has two natures, wave-like and particle-like (carrying energy as photons).
Now if one performs the experiment in a way that is sufficiently sensitive, the interference pattern appears grainy, where an individual photon appears on the screen.
So essentially, single photons travel as though they are interfering with other photons, but is itself indivisible.
And matter also has this dual character; interference of electrons and atoms has been observed experimentally.
*edited* for a spelling and as cannot add an image for some reason.
As I read through your other post and responses, I seem to find a repeating pattern.
Please correct me I'm wrong but the core argument is that unless God can show undeniable prove under strict scientific laws for testing?
But then again science itself is a religious or cult if you ask the ousted ones.
plus science is riddle with mistakes and correction.
so how do you decide to which give credibility too since they both seem well, interesting?
@ Curious
" science itself is a religious or cult if you ask the ousted ones", ."...science is riddle with mistakes and corrections"
Well a cult or religion has a set of eternal immobile ideas that are considered the perfect truth and the explanation for everything in the universe. Religions are based on faith, which is believing without proof (or using as proof personal experiences that are not falsifiable.)
This is the very opposite of science. In science there are no eternal truths, everybody and everything is under constant scrutiny and contrasted with observed facts, hard evidence and experimentation to assert the validity of a given hypothesis or theory. Science does not rely on individual experiences but on repeatable and logical processes and, as such, it is always correcting itself as our knowledge of the world changes and improves. That changing nature of science is it great value. Practically every theory in science has kernel of truth that is passed on into the new theories that follow and, in this way, our knowledge of the universe slowly creeps to be a closer understanding of its complexity.,
So no, science is not cult or religion and their difference is what explain there is ONE science and thousands of religions.
(Edited for clarification)
Aperez241
how fortunate of me to have someone like you respond!
have a few question for you.
How understanding the complexity of the universe help us or in the near term future?
What is the point of gaining knowledge share it with a groups of peers only understood by a few?
I don't understand the comment "religious are base on faith, which is believing without proof"
aren't most scientific discovery came from someone idea having the faith or whatever to believe on it enough to spend every waking moment trying to show it true?
don't feel the need to point out similarities/
Science is different due to the whole testable part to. How can we tell how old a tree is? Well counting rings on a stump can be a good way. You can grow a tree, wait 5 years, and then cut the tree down and sure enough, 5 rings.
While that is overly simplified, that is true for all science that is widely accepted. We can drill cores into ice, and measure co2 concentrations in the bubbles trapped in the ice. Those give clues that supports a broader theory that co2 levels are abnormally high in such a short time period today. And if you do not want to take that on faith, you can make an expedition to a pole, get the equipment and verify it for yourself. You do not have to take a book's word on it. If you find an error or flaw, the science community will love you for it and award you for it. Science embraces new findings that allows it to be more correct.
@ curious
"How understanding the complexity of the universe help us or in the near term future?, What is the point of gaining knowledge share it with a groups of peers only understood by a few?"
Simple example; knowing that infectious disease are not coming from "evil eye" or the punishment from some
god, allow us to devise ways to stop their propagation (quarantines) and cure them, ( vaccines and antibiotics).
This take care of your second question too. Although highly advanced science is usually fully understood by a few specialists, with time it goes into the culture and the general knowledge of populations. Easy example; Today high school children study relativity theory and genetics as a regular part of their curriculum, while some decades ago it was understood by a small group of investigators. Here I can give you another example of the use of science. Without relativity theory, the GPS system we all use to guide our planes, ships, and cars and "share you ubication" through Facebook would not be able to work well because of the effects of time dilation.
"I don't understand the comment "religious are base on faith, which is believing without proof" You do not understand that religion is based on faith?
Definition of Faith by Merriam-Webster Dictionary: (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God. (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
New ideas in science come from trying to explain unexplained observations and carrying out experiments and looking for objective evidence to support the new idea, not from faith in something without proof.
Wrong, I state clearly, that if you want to use an argument, such as god is energy, lets say for example, god is dark energy/matter.
Then this god would be testable, observable and verifiable.
Science simply proves that a god does not comport to anything observes in nature, nor our universe.
And the burden of proof is on 'you' to prove otherwise.
Science is a religious cult? What are you smoking Curious?
Science isn't a cult or a religion. Sure it makes mistakes and acknowledges those mistakes. Science has given man everything. Religion and god have given nothing but lip service and destruction.
Do you know what the scientific method is? If not then you don't understand how science is accurate.
And BTW "energy" is not a god in no way shape or form. Just because someone wants to call something that it isn't doesn't make it a fact.
Atheism is not a belief and science is not a god and energy is not a god.
@TheBlindWatchMaker
I'm a bit confused.
I thought that coming into a atheist forum will afford me the opportunity of listening to response that had already united in the believe that there is no God/deity (mute point).
That it's possible to move the conversation into more hypothetical reason on where or why the idea of God came into existence and for what reason, and why are you (plural) just as against that believe as the people that are against yours.
Curious, you wrote, “...that had already united in the believe that there is no God/deity (mute point).”
I think you will find that folk who are identified as atheist are not united in anything ;) Also, you’ll also likely find that most folks identified as atheist would not say they “believe there is no god/deity.” There is a big difference between not believing a deity exists and believing a deity does not exist.
Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god, or there is no evidence to support such a claim.
I would fall into the later if you wanted a truthful answer, however, I would consider myself more an naturalist.
We all call ourselves atheist or agnostic.
My personal atheist is: there is no god, and the possibility of a god is so incredibly remote I for all intent and purposes operate that there is no possibility for a god, as common definition for the word god states. I do believe in the possibility of some sort of greater being, but that greater being is very likely not aware of us, did not create us, and most certainly does not want or require our worship or involved in our daily lives.
I think the most likely scenario (and still unlikely) is that greater being is more like how a human regards a single cell organism. Aware that there are other living things, but certainly did not create them or demands worship from them or really interface them in any way other then that they may both occupy the same space or near proximity.
"I'm a bit confused.
I thought that coming into a atheist forum will afford me the opportunity of listening to response that had already united in the believe that there is no God/deity"
You are confused, not believing in something is not a belief for a start.
@ Curious
"unless God can show undeniable prove under strict scientific laws for testing?"
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
I said "That no god or gods have satisfied the burden of proof to demonstrate their existence."
It may be that some entity might be so far advanced from a human viewpoint that it will be indistinguishable from a god. .
More gods have disappeared as humankind progresses than exist now. Because we have examined the workings of the world and deduced what thunder is, how to make crops grow, how to exploit the power of the wind and the sun. How to illuminate our homes without naked flames. Our old gods have become redundant and have retired. The gaps for the monotheistic Abrahamic god to hide in are also getting smaller and smaller until it will no longer have any reason to exist and thus be consigned to the scrapyard of old clapped out superstitions.
"science is riddle with mistakes and correction" That is called the process of discovery. In science mistakes are expected, allowed and contribute to knowledge.
Gods are infallible, jealous, capricious,all knowing and will burn you forever if you argue or doubt their existence. Which would you rather have?
"science itself is a religious or cult if you ask the ousted ones." Ask any malcontent or maverick from any society or expert field. They say the same.
At least they don't get burned at the stake, dismembered, their families butchered for holding a different opinion as they do in religion.
@ Old Man Shout
I'll try to be as eloquent as you in my response.
"Science and/or entity can be so advance as to make it seem magic"
I agree that either thing or rather most things will have to demonstrate the magic at work.
"More god have died - human progress"
If it would have only been God that as you (plural) believe are\were fictional. Then the reality of how many
human are still expiring (no not god/s). wouldn't be so bad...then again is just my ex-peculation as I can't be certain that will be the case.
"Science is riddle with mistakes and correction"
Correct and science has made it very easy and pardonable for them to expire (well there is no actual public figures) of well there is no public list of what in total have been expired...so just like in science/religion as long as the members believe it's for the betterment of something they will willing it follow it. (not unusual case)
"gods are infallable"
If the share believe is that there is no gods, and all this science information available explaining almost anything and if not in hot debate. doing it best to debunk any thought of God yet the idea lingers and for whatever reason or believe people still turning to this ideal of a God.
"Science it self"
I have had the opportunity to talk to people on both side of this subjects.
see the consequences of going against a science subject that was already a common knowledge to those who study/discover them.
"Burn at the stake"
I will have to research when was the last time someone was burn at the stake.
Unfortunately for me I have seen and heard many stories of "Burnt by the B*mb"
In conclusion I can see a lot of, pardon my choice of word "pain" for the things that are still happening due to religion among other things. The bigger question is when will the beings that lived in this earth just group up/evolve to the knowledge that humans don't have to have opinions on everything. Respect can go very far in learning to share space/world.
P.S hope I made sense.
@ Curious
"More god have died - human progress"
If it would have only been God that as you (plural) believe are\were fictional. Then the reality of how many
human are still expiring (no not god/s). wouldn't be so bad...then again is just my ex-peculation as I can't be certain that will be the case.
I'm sorry but I cant really understand this answer, perhaps if you rephrase it it will become clear to my aged brain.
"Burn at the stake"
I will have to research when was the last time someone was burn at the stake.
Unfortunately for me I have seen and heard many stories of "Burnt by the B*mb"
"burnt at the stake" is a colloquialism for all tortures, deaths injuries caused by religious intolerance including,but not limited to being hurled off rooftops because of your sexuality, being beheaded for your faith, shot, raped, enslaved, for being born in the wrong religion...the list goes on. Don't bother researching it is happening every day.
"Science it self"
I have had the opportunity to talk to people on both side of this subjects.
see the consequences of going against a science subject that was already a common knowledge to those who study/discover them.
Yep people in cliques can be cruel and vindictive but so far science and scientists have managed to correct their errors and the originators of the ideas have been vindicated I can think of several off the top of my head.
Religion on the other hand will massacre and torture populations wholesale if its dogma are questioned..again if you want examples I can quote many where the truth is gruesome and millions have died.
"The bigger question is when will the beings that lived in this earth just group up/evolve to the knowledge that humans don't have to have opinions on everything."
Getting rid of unevidenced religious practice would be a good start wouldn't it? You seem to be hoping for a rational norm to be established. That would logically preclude any notion of an unverifiable god or gods being accepted or tolerated in society. I am all for that.
@Curious
"why in your sign up page you only have the option of athiest or non yet no option for neutral\neither?"
There is no "neutral or neither." There is a single answer to a single proposition. Do you believe in a God. The answer is "Yes" or "No." You may inquire as to how that god is defined but the question is general enough to include any definition of a god, even if you call it a controlling force or a higher power.
Why is there only a "yes or no" response. No one is asking you if you "Disbelieve" in a God. This is where you are confused. Atheism IS THE NEUTRAL POSITION. Atheists do not believe in God or Gods. This does not mean that they BELIEVE gods do not exist. That is a separate claim.
If I tell you that a God does not exist, I have made a single claim and now you are justified in asking me to prove my claim. I must convince you that my claim is correct. Atheism does not make that claim. The Atheists claim that the Christians have not met their burden of proof. Atheists reject Christian as well as other religion;s god claims. We do not believe in the Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever God. This says nothing about whether or not the Gods actually exist. The religious assert "Our god is real" and the atheist responds, "we don't believe you." Atheism is the neutral position.
Anti-theism is the position taken when one asserts there is no God or Gods.
Imagine a jar of Jelly Beans. You tell me there are an even number of beans in the Jar. I tell you that I do not believe you. (I HAVE NOT ASSERTED THE NUMBER IS ODD.) I have only told you that I do not believe you. I am in the default (ATHEIST) position until someone demonstrates their claim.
This is not how Atheists see the world. It is basic logic 101. The question is about 'BELIEF' You either believe or you do not believe. If you believe you are a theist. If you do not believe you are an atheist. A - withot Theist - belief in God.
@congnostic
"Belief"
Thank you so much for taking the time to clear my mistaken observation by assuming you (Plural) did not believe in a God but more that you are against what religions have built around in such a way to have brainwashed their believer into whatever rules for whatever reason.
The question came to mind, isn't this the way it works for almost anything...getting people to believe in something for whatever reason?
Thanks to congnostic for explaining the difference and what is your point of view.
Why do you have such a negative reputation within religious group?
Are there more risk for someone that labels themselves atheist?
Thank you for your answers.
@ Curious
1) If you were truly "curious" you would believe in a god unless there was REAL proof of a god and there isn't.
2) Atheism is NOT a belief. It is the lack of a belief.
Until someone can actually prove a god I will not and do not believe in any god.
@mykcob4
"Truly curious"
Please explain what curiosity has to do with believe of a god?
"Atheism is not a belief. it is the lack of belief"
Yes, I am starting to comprehend a bit of your core belief and the reason on why you (plural) have it.
@Curious
If you are curious you would seek answers to questions not answered. If you were curious about a god and investigated, you'd find that there is no proof of a god, no one has REAL answers. They just say things like don't question god, or have faith. "Faith" is just an excuse for not having proof. So curiosity has everything to do about a god.
"curious seek answers"
I am curious and I seek answers from people instead of articles of books. I'm new here, let me get my bearings.
"investigate God"
you are right no one has Real answer just opinions factual or not.
"faith excuse for lack of proof"
faith is not an excuse and is even more powerful then the placebo effect.
so if anything it reinforces it.
@curious
Faith is only an excuse. It has no power. If it does PROVE IT! Please give evidence that faith has power. I call bullshit!
"faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
The key point here "Rather than PROOF"
@mykcob4 "Atheism is not a belief. it is the lack of belief"
Curious Yes, I am starting to comprehend a bit of your core belief"
----------------------------------------------
Sigh, was that deliberate? This kind of obvious duplicity on page 1 does not bode well. Theism is a belief, atheism is the absence of that belief.
@Sheldon,
I use "atheist" in a slightly different sense. When I use the word I'm talking about someone who rejects the god idea. Rejection might be based on: 1) A lack of a coherent definition for "God," meaning that there is no real "hypothesis" to start with; 2) A fatal lack of compelling evidence; 3) The existence of strong counterarguments; 4) personal choice lacking any justification. So, when I use the word "atheist" I'm referring to someone who consciously rejects the god concept in all its forms. There is no "correct" definition, so some of the other popular uses should be acknowledged.
As pointed out several times in this thread, saying that someone "..does not believe in God." is not the same as saying that someone rejects the concept of God. As mykcob4 has repeatedly pointed out, the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Saying that someone "..does not believe in God" assumes that we are dealing with a well defined concept. It can also be easily misread as a firm claim by the atheist that God doesn't exist, which would also carry a burden of proof. For that reason I understand that many atheists use the term "unbelief" or some such substitute to make it clear that the burden of proof is on the theist.
Speaking for myself, I reject the God idea on two grounds: 1) The lack of any compelling evidence; 2) Because of strong counterarguments. That is, I reject the God idea for the same reason that I reject the Easter-bunny idea.
neel is that you?
do you usually create/change account frequently?
somethings wrong here
not likely to be neel
Pages