The god of the atheists.

[Krion_Vark]

*SNIP

*facepalm*
Anyone who knows even the slightest about evolution can answer that one easy.

I think calling anything a god, is just us failing to or being unable to understand something.

You just nailed my belief on religion. If something cannot be explained then it was done by a God. Until science proves how it exists with the need for a God or Goddess then its done by some higher being. Gods are there to explain the unexplainable if you look at religion throughout history then you get an idea of how science has evolved our understanding of the world that we live.

And to the OP. For being an Atheist you certainly do believe in a god from your stand point. You aren't a militant atheist you are an Anti-history because you want to take out all religion and mythology. Well I have some news for you those are all part of HISTORY. You aren't against religion like you think you are you are against HISTORY itself which unless you can do a massive mind wipe will never go away. Have fun in your losing battle.

First of all, shouldn't this have gone in R&P?

Spoiler: Second of all,

That made me laugh so hard.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

For someone who is supposed to be an atheist that is heavily invested in science you seem to know very little about Scientific Method and the theories of which you have loosely based this on and even smaller knowledge of religion specifically Abrahamic religions and theistic views in general. Without even knowing where you are from I would bet good money that an Abrahamic religion is most prevalent in the country you reside and probably the one you were brought up with and ultimately rejected and I find your lack of knowledge of them amusing.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I'm going to do no such thing, because I support no such argument(nor did I say anything to indicate otherwise). There you go putting words in my mouth.

I will apologize as I took your post to be in defense of the original poster, and against my statement that Athesism is not scientific. If you are not making this argument then I will withdraw my request that you provide the testing that would prove your point. Misunderstanding likes these happen online, but should I put you down as in favor of atheism =/= scientific?

Oh look, ANOTHER thing I never mentioned, paired with something I did.

Well you where talking about Quantum theory at the time and pointed to the collider as if it was some evidence of experimentation that lived up to the scientific method. I think this part was a reasonable conclusion to make from your post and I felt the need to correct it because it was not accurate. We are still making the first steps into observing the quantum level which means it all is still philosophy as we still have a shit load of testing to go.

I was never talking about the LHC in direct relation to the Big Bang theory, but to quantum "stuff". You, sir, really need to stop seeing things that aren't there.

This time I could state that my post never claimed that you needed to prove the Big Bang theory, as I never claimed such things, but putting on a air of 'you misunderstood me, sir, so your point is irrelevant' is not an debate tactic I consider valid. Given that neither of us are talking about the Big Bang theory directly, but the colliders, we can consider this whole budding argument a moot point and just leave it to die.

You and I seem to be talking to two different people about two different subjects. You see, the way I recall the conversation going was you saying something along the lines of:
"This shit shouldn't be taught in schools, none of it follows scientific method."
To which I retorted,
"Whoa, slow down there slick, it most certainly does follow scientific method."
To which you now respond,
"WELL PROVE EVERYTHING PROPOSED ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS SINCE EVER IS TRUE."

Why on earth would I do something like that? I have no interest in doing such. I addressed your claim that they follow the scientific method, and as this was seemingly your only complaint as to why they shouldn't be taught in schools, I proposed they should thus be taught in school.

This one I can still point to my original argument with: If you want it taught in science class it has to withstand the scientific method. Provide me with the experiments using the scientific method that back up the theories you believe should be taught in the class room. I, personally, do not want religion taught in science classes simply because I have the view that something which has not been tested by the scientific method can NOT be considered science. If I am to take that mindset, and it is the only real argument against religion being taught in science that can be justly made (AKA: religion isn't science), I can not create a clause that reads 'unless I agree with the theory being put forth.' I try not to be hypocritical like that, so if I can't have religion in science class because it doesn't meet the scientific method then I can not have any other unproven theory either.

In my opinion, they provide valuable knowledge and still need heavy research, which is more effective when you have, oh, I don't know, students learning about it so they can study it in their careers.

I can't argue with the bases of this line, teaching students the next-generation stuff is vital to education, but if it is done incorrectly it will lead to more harm then good. Think about it this way: What if the theory is completely and utterly wrong and we are teaching a whole new bunch of scientist who take it as proven fact and base their further advancements on these errors?

There is already enough damage done by 'set in stone' scientists who refuse to accept new theories, even when new facts prove themselves, because... well scientists are humans too and humans don't like being told something they believed for 30-50 years is wrong. Sorry, scientists can be the worse people to try and change the thought patterns of, set almost as firmly as the priests. Most of our greatest advancements in science where dismissed by the established body that couldn't grasp the fact they where wrong for so long. I do NOT want students going into the field with anything but proven knowledge, and from there they can build theories and experiments of their own.

Besides, the solution isn't teaching non-proven theories as science but to have an 'advanced class' that deals with the 'spooky science' known as theoretical physics. More of a philosophy based class, it can focus on the scientists putting forth these quantum theories so we can get a firm understanding of where this theory is coming from, not just the theories themselves. It would give people a firm grasp of the next-generation theories while making it easy for the students to different between proven science and the theoretical stuff. If anything, it would encourage far more critical thinking as we can teach that these theories might be wrong and let the students come up with future ways to test theories, not just theories themselves.

I'm not against this stuff being taught... I am against it being taught in a science classroom. Leave untested theories out of the scientific classroom and make a classroom dedicated to these theories themselves. Hell, they are FAR more interesting and I would of loved such classrooms when I was going through school. Believe it or not: I LOVE these theories, I just respect that they need to be proven first before we teach them to student in classes dedicated to known scientific facts.

 

[InquisitorGeneral]

Misunderstanding likes these happen online, but should I put you down as in favor of atheism =/= scientific?[/quote]
I don't like being put down on lists, so no.

Well you where talking about Quantum theory at the time and pointed to the collider as if it was some evidence of experimentation that lived up to the scientific method. I think this part was a reasonable conclusion to make from your post and I felt the need to correct it because it was not accurate. We are still making the first steps into observing the quantum level which means it all is still philosophy as we still have a shit load of testing to go.

My objection was this silly notion that I believed that the LHC could provide for ALL theories. It most certainly was accurate. You are simply asserting that relatively primitive science isn't still science, which is a load of tripe.

This one I can still point to my original argument with: If you want it taught in science class it has to withstand the scientific method. Provide me with the experiments using the scientific method that back up the theories you believe should be taught in the class room.

I thought I already had?

I, personally, do not want religion taught in science classes simply because I have the view that something which has not been tested by the scientific method can NOT be considered science. If I am to take that mindset, and it is the only real argument against religion being taught in science that can be justly made (AKA: religion isn't science), I can not create a clause that reads 'unless I agree with the theory being put forth.' I try not to be hypocritical like that, so if I can't have religion in science class because it doesn't meet the scientific method then I can not have any other unproven theory either.

I'll assume by religion taught in science classes you mean creationism, intelligent design and the like(or, at least, I don't recall even the most fundamentalist folks attempting to get the sermon on the mount into Biology 101). There's a stark difference between pseudo-science, that begins with a conclusion and forms hypothesis trying to back it up as evidence arises contrary to their claims, and actual science meant to discover that doesn't shake away peer review and criticism from the rest of the community and is currently being tested/has been. How these subjects should be taught, I discuss below.

Think about it this way: What if the theory is completely and utterly wrong and we are teaching a whole new bunch of scientist who take it as proven fact and base their further advancements on these errors?

That's the issue here. There's a difference between, not teaching these theories in schools entirely and teaching them as the current questions facing the world and the answers being proposed by the researchers of our day. I'm not talking creed here, I'm talking possibility.

Besides, the solution isn't teaching non-proven theories as science but to have an 'advanced class' that deals with the 'spooky science' known as theoretical physics.

Why did we switch from, "Let's not teach it at all." to, "Let's teach it in a very specific way." Theoretical physics is still science. It's just science in the infant stages of the scientific method. Hypothesis and non-field mathematical testing. Your need to separate it seems entirely unnecessary.

I'm not against this stuff being taught...

Which is entirely different from the message you were putting out earlier...

Believe it or not: I LOVE these theories, I just respect that they need to be proven first before we teach them to student in classes dedicated to known scientific facts.

And I think classes dedicated to science should teach both theory and fact, and provide the students with the tools to work with and/or differentiate the two. I don't see a reason to split them at all.

 

[Magnicon]

I believe that people who believe in God, or follow a religion, are suffering from some kind of "mental disease". Much like alcoholism.

I try not be harsh on forums, but this is literally the least fair thing I have ever seen on a forum. If you are an atheist, how can you even pretend to know what is going through theists minds? By definition, you have written off anything to do with religion in the first place.

Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hard_Townes#Science_and_religion

Nobel prize winner, and Christian. Mental disease?

In fact, look at this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

And this is just Christians. Consider other religions, and their inputs to science.

I was not implying that people with a "mental disease" are unable to function at any particular level. I simply believe that people who believe in "God" or follow a religion are suffering from a form of mental disease. I think it parallels nicely with alcoholism. There have certainly been many high functioning alcoholics.

Both things are a result of certain genetic predispositions combined with a certain childhood environment.

Both things typically afflict people for life.

Rarely someone beats the affliction to various negative effects, up to and including suicide.

snip

Thank you kindly for your response. I think I'll just stick with "its complicated" when asked in general and only explain it to people I actually intend to spend time with in life.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Before I begin: This is a side post that is running away from the original topic, we should consider the matter over with as we are far from the original topic now.

I don't like being put down on lists, so no.

Smart move.

My objection was this silly notion that I believed that the LHC could provide for ALL theories. It most certainly was accurate. You are simply asserting that relatively primitive science isn't still science, which is a load of tripe.

My argument was, as you put forth the existence of the LHC as some sort of evidence in and of itself. All I have done is pointed out it is a tool and the fact we are using it to try and observe something is not 'experimentation.' Experimentation comes after you have a means to observe what you are testing... and given that it failed to observe the partials it was designed for we are FAR from using the LHC to test the theory it was built for. Other theories still need further testing as well.

That is my point when it comes to the LHC, it is a tool that we can and will be using but it alone isn't proof.

I thought I already had?

Don't see any links to proven quantum theory linked in this thread.

I'll assume by religion taught in science classes you mean creationism, intelligent design and the like(or, at least, I don't recall even the most fundamentalist folks attempting to get the sermon on the mount into Biology 101). There's a stark difference between pseudo-science, that begins with a conclusion and forms hypothesis trying to back it up as evidence arises contrary to their claims, and actual science meant to discover that doesn't shake away peer review and criticism from the rest of the community and is currently being tested/has been. How these subjects should be taught, I discuss below.

Yep, those hollow pointless theories put forth by priests who know nothing of science but use it as a backdoor to teaching kids about 'god' are the ones I don't want taught in school. Or any other that hasn't been tested by the scientific theory, if the church wants to create even more ridiculous 'theories.'

That's the issue here. There's a difference between, not teaching these theories in schools entirely and teaching them as the current questions facing the world and the answers being proposed by the researchers of our day. I'm not talking creed here, I'm talking possibility.

Still say that they should have their own class rooms instead of trying to jam them into one that already exists. Teach science that is proven by the method in one class and advanced class for those who want to go into theoretical physics. We already accept that science is far to great a subject to teach all at once and break it apart, so why not create more classes that dedicate themselves to science?

Why did we switch from, "Let's not teach it at all." to, "Let's teach it in a very specific way." Theoretical physics is still science. It's just science in the infant stages of the scientific method. Hypothesis and non-field mathematical testing. Your need to separate it seems entirely unnecessary.

Till it has completed the method it is not yet science. Worse, it is not yet proven fact. We should only be teaching students things which are considered to be fact, not stuff we are experimenting with that might be proven wrong.

And I think classes dedicated to science should teach both theory and fact, and provide the students with the tools to work with and/or differentiate the two. I don't see a reason to split them at all.

Maybe I don't put enough faith in humanity to believe they will be able to tell the difference. This distrust likely stems from the fact I took a good hard look at teachers themselves and found them to be lacking in first hand knowledge of what they are teaching. The majority of them simply read from a book, and seeing the teachers have no critical thinking on the subject I do have doubts as to their skills at teaching. I simply don't trust the teachers to be able to different between something that is still a theory being tested and one that is a proven theory, let alone able to teach their students the important differences.

More so when these teachers are no longer teach critical theory but instead how to 'pass a standardized test.' The non-proven theory needs critical thought to go with it, debate on why the theory has strength, why it could be flawed and even possible ways to test these theories. However, you and I both know this critical thinking will not be taught to our students because our educational systems are designed on answering standard tests.

If we had a better educational system that would teach students critical thinking instead memorizing facts the I would be able to agree with you on this matter. For now though, I still state that a philosophy type class is required for theoretical science to best educate on this topic.

 

[SilentCom]

First of all, shouldn't this have gone in R&P?

Spoiler: Second of all,

This has got to be one of the most awesome animated pics. Kind of matches how I'm feeling about this thread and the direction its probably going to go.

 

[Mau95]

Let me put it this way: if you were God, would you like confusing people?

 

[StrixMaxima]

Quite frankly, this is the same age-old rank debate that tries, somehow, to put a completely unscientific topic within the Scientific Method... something which is quite impossible.

For me, it is the same thing as trying to explain what would happen to England if Jane Eyre hed not married Mr. Rochester in the end: apparently it is a real question, but even the slightest scrutiny shows us that the subjects belong to completely different fields. Jane Eyre, like the concept of God, came from the creative mind of Men. England, and the Universe, belong to a reality that is historical, geological and physical.

Science does not contemplate God, just as Religion does not contemplate Science. Keep these two apart, and all is well (erm... sort of).

On a side note, I find it hysterical that theists are so eager to try to graft God within Science (not talking about you, OP), when they are clearly very defensive when scientists try to apply the Scientific Method regarding any religions dogma. Selective thinking FTW.

 

[Dismal purple]

Didn't Stephen Hawking say something a while ago about a god being unnessecary to create the universe?

 

[samuraiweasel]

The "God of Atheism" would probably be like "Humans? Meh. Dont believe in 'em. It was a mutual breakup...really!"

 

[Nudu]

The question I always want to ask deists is what disqualifies the big bang from being called God. Is there another link in the chain of causality? Maybe. Well, I'm not a physicist, so I comment on that. But I don't see why it has to be exactly one more link on the chain and why that would have any spiritual significance.

 

[Navvan]

Quoting the OP

The problem with this is that it adds nothing to our understanding. Speculation that is, not if we found evidence of such an event. There are an infinite (or so) amount of possible variations on an infinite (or so) amount of things; picking one out of a hat isn't a very good method for determining the most likely truth.

Religion does not... big bang theory does NOT... lot of the quantum stuff we are just starting to perceive does NOT. None of this stuff should be taught in the science class room, as it is not science.

I think you have a confused understanding of Quantum Mechanics (I say think as you left your understanding rather vague). While I realize you said "A lot of the quantum stuff" I'm not exactly sure what you mean there. There are of course some ideas that are not theory yet like String "theory", tachyons, Higgs boson and so forth which are currently rooted in math rather than experimentation. However most of what people call quantum mechanics has reached the realm of theory. Quantum Mechanics is an older idea that most people living today (began development in the early 1900's) and has been shown to be accurate descriptions (useful for prediction) of what occurs on the quantum level.

 

[Ruwrak]

I think any hypothesis of what happened pre our universe is meaningless speculation since it's like trying to remember before you where conceived.

I'd say this but then I'd be cautioned.
But it makes sense. We can never be sure unless a time machine is build.
... Right?

 

[DSK-]

There is only one God. Currency.

 

[michiehoward]

Even though I get the feeling of "Abandon all hope ye who enter in this thread!" I can't help but want to pimp out one of my favorite youtube channels. And their newest vid which is awesome


And anyone else catch that doc on Darwin last night?

 

[PurePareidolia]

Nothing stops it from being possible but you have to make millions of other assumptions to even get to the point of a being that is capable of constructing universes, so it'd take a lot to make that hypothesis plausible. I mean - you need an entire other universe for that being to live in just to have a causality for the creation of this universe to fit into. And then what created that?

Basically, it's a completely ridiculous claim unless we can get a lot of evidence indicating it.

 

[William Ossiss]

Hey! Do you know why talking about religion on the internet is like beating a dead horse? It's because it is a very futile thing to do.

My opinion on religion is that KEEP IT TO YOURSELF is probably the best thing to do. I shall believe what ever the fuck i want to, and i won't try and force it down your throat... but when people ***** and moan about their specific sect or newest cult or how other people won't think the way that said person thinks, they take to the introwebz and to shout their bullshit from their assumed soap boxes. Oi, newsflash! no one really cares. My religion is my own business. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't try and force your religious bullshit down my throat, thank you.