Coming out Atheist

[FluffyMcDeath]

Guess who's an atheist and not afraid to say so.

Well, for one, the new PM of Australia.

I think she's taken a very principled stand.

Oh, and guess who else is an atheist.

Nate Phelps, one of the sons of Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist fame.

 

[Robert]

Good on her.

If only more politicians had the bollox....

she had been raised as a Baptist, before converting to Atheism.

Converting?

Strange choice of words but no more than I'd expect from that paper.

I suppose that means I 'converted' to not believing in Santa.

 

[Robert]

I just scanned the Phelps thing but didn't see him mention being atheist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I just scanned the Phelps thing but didn't see him mention being atheist.

Good grief. You are correct!!! How interesting. Maybe it's OK to bash the Westboro Baptist Church but it isn't OK to be atheist.
Well, so much for ABC News. Perhaps we need to point at a non-American news source.

Here's a story in Canada's National Post.
And here's a transcript of Nate's 2009 speech at the American Atheists Convention.

 

[Robert]

Thank you. The second one, especially, is excellent.

 

[cecilia]

Guess who's an atheist and not afraid to say so.

Well, for one, the new PM of Australia.

I think she's taken a very principled stand.

Oh, and guess who else is an atheist.

Nate Phelps, one of the sons of Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist fame.

wow, I'm impressed!

Julia Gillard told ABC radio in Melbourne that she was not prepared to go through ‘religious rituals’ for the sake of appearances.

how wonderfully rational!

one can only hope this trend continues

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

‘Obviously, that position will alienate some in the Christian community and some in the wider Australian community.’

And oh oh we need to respect that respectable religion.
Well I just don't.

 

[faethor]

Rules for a fair religious debate. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs

 

[Robert]

Rules for a fair religious debate. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs

Nice summary.

 

[cecilia]

Rules for a fair religious debate. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs

that was beautiful!!!!!

love the little yellow heads leaving one by one! :roflmao:

 

[cecilia]

I just wanted to put this somewhere in case it's not already here

 

[Kesa]

Begin rant

I dislike Atheists. It's not so much that they don't believe in god, i dislike them because them seem too smug to me. They believe all the answers in the universe can be explained through science which is utter crap (in my opinion). I've never met an Atheist that doesn't have an opinion (and supposedly an) answer about anything and everything which annoys me to hell. Also the smugness they seem to have reminds me of Apple zealots in that they look down on anyone who doesn't agree with them. They remind me of Scientologists.

Rant over

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I dislike Atheists. It's not so much that they don't believe in god, i dislike them because them seem too smug to me.

s' funny because I've heard atheists say that about Christians.

though I can see how people say that about atheists. Sometimes people interpret knowledge as smugness similar to the way the guy who passes the history exam can seem smug to all those who failed, or the mathematician who can dash off a fancy trigonometric integral as child's play can seem smug to someone who has difficulty adding two digit positive integers.

They believe all the answers in the universe can be explained through science which is utter crap (in my opinion).

As you say, that is a matter of opinion. I know from experience that many Christians (can't say so much about other religions because I don't meet so many of them) who are most into their religion know surprisingly little about what we do already know.

But the point you raise about having answers for everything reminds me of the people who complain that knowing the size and distance and age of the moon and the cause of the phases takes the wonder and mystery and romance out of the moon, but I can't agree because these things make the moon more wonderous and fascinating (though perhaps it's less mysterious but not necessarily because every know bit of knowledge only reveals more mystery. Every time you shine light on a new discovery you increase the length of the border with the unknown.)

The methods of science and the scientific way of knowing things has proven to be incredibly useful. In the dark ages the collapse of buildings such as churches was often blamed on the devil, or the towns people being insufficiently pious or some such similar theory. This didn't really help to build better churches. However, people who put such nonsense aside and concentrated on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of materials and studied the buildings that didn't fall down ended up making some amazing buildings.

Things science won't answer are questions like "why are we here?". Science does have an "answer" to the question but not the kind of answer most people want from such a question by which they usually mean "what should I do?" and they hope someone will tell them. That may be a human need but it's also a huge human weakness and allows good people to be used for bad purposes by unscrupulous con men.

 

[cecilia]

They believe all the answers in the universe can be explained through science

not true. Atheists just don't buy that believing in an invisible friend answers ANY questions.
Science is the SEARCHING for answers (and questions) and has actually been quite successful. Just look at the computer and the infrastructure we are using to discuss this. Religion can't find answers or make cool toys. Science got us to the Moon and beyond. Science cures ills, increases our knowledge, and makes many accomplishments possible.

Religion is a placebo. It makes some people feel good. I don't have a problem with that but I'm not going to depend on it myself. Atheists simply respect rational thinking.

And if you want to examine smugness, how about the Pope thinking he speaks for "god"?

 

[Kesa]

Religion is a placebo. It makes some people feel good. I don't have a problem with that but I'm not going to depend on it myself. Atheists simply respect rational thinking.

Define rational thinking? Would you really call the human condition rational? Trying to define "rational thinking" is like using the defense of "common sense" of which there is no such thing.

This is true but to what extent? It is true that science has accomplished a lot such as taking us to the moon but i disagree it cures ills. Science was always used by philosophy to justify itself which is true for the last 10000 years of civilization and only recently in the last 50-100 years has science come into its own. Sure science has cured diseases and has made our lives more comfortable but at what cost? Super-bugs on the rise will probably undo the good science has done. The consequences of increased global food because of science has caused other problems such as excessive processed foods which will undoubtedly cause genetic problems in future generations.

My take on religion is that it has a place in the future but will have a different role. I think at some point in the future technology and science will continue to evolve and expand constantly answering questions and providing explanations at the same time raising ever more questions that will need to be answered. I also believe that those questions will increase more than our futile attempts to solve them causing an ever ending paradox with no end. What happens then? What happens when all the science fails to answer all of the universes questions? I believe there will always be things science and mathematics will never be able to answer even if it is some insignificant. Especially true when all the answers of the universe have been solved and we still have questions that paradoxically need to be answered.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Define rational thinking? Would you really call the human condition rational? Trying to define "rational thinking" is like using the defense of "common sense" of which there is no such thing.

At the most basic, rational thinking means applying reason. Reasoning is difficult and error prone and human beings aren't innately very good at it. People tend to rely, for the most part, on instinct and simple heuristics. This is what is called common sense and is not particularly rational. For the most part humans have plenty to get on with to support their needs so simple rules are useful for getting things done even if they are quite often wrong. Getting on with things is frequently more important than getting things exactly right.

Rational thinking requires much more time and effort but is rewarding when it yields new usable rules than can be applied to doing things that previously couldn't be done by common sense alone. This is particularly true when reasoned discoveries are counter to our intuition.

Of course, all reasoning mental activities do not lead to better understanding of the universe. History is full of people expending enormous amounts of mental effort on "rationalizing" (i.e. trying to make that which is irrational appear rational by furnishing some explanation) their existing prejudices.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Science was always used by philosophy to justify itself which is true for the last 10000 years of civilization and only recently in the last 50-100 years has science come into its own.

Science, as we know it, has only been around for 500 or so years. Philosophy has been around much longer but was often a "thinking only" discipline without the need for practical confirmation (or exclusion).

Even so, the ancient Greeks did manage to deduce the existence of atoms, measure the circumference of the earth and radically expand the size of the universe compared to the rather paltry size that most cultures of the time attributed to it. Fortunately the Greeks were able to get a lot of this thinking written down and, despite the loss of enormous numbers of documents, those that remained were enough to spur the imagination and intellect of the European aristocracy after the church lost it's death grip on the minds of the continent. It's not that Europe had suddenly become atheist, but that the Catholic church's monopoly on thought had been broken and it was no longer blasphemous to ask how the universe worked (or, rather, it was a lot less blasphemous). The Greek philosophers were extinguished by the rising tide of an ignorance loving religion. The few sparks that remained of their intellectual fire kindled new flames in the tinder of new minds the instant that flood began to ebb.

 

[robert l. bentham]

oh no no no science wasnt used by philosophy to justify its own existence... where in the world did you come up with that? philosophy has always bent itself around science... adjusted itself to an ever changing scope of facts and ideas... people thought world was flat until someone changed that belief with fact... u r suggesting we started off with a round world and through belief we hammered it flat... stop watching fox news!!!

 

[cecilia]

It is true that science has accomplished a lot such as taking us to the moon but i disagree it cures ills. Science was always used by philosophy to justify itself which is true for the last 10000 years of civilization and only recently in the last 50-100 years has science come into its own. Sure science has cured diseases and has made our lives more comfortable but at what cost? Super-bugs on the rise will probably undo the good science has done. The consequences of increased global food because of science has caused other problems such as excessive processed foods which will undoubtedly cause genetic problems in future generations.

"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Isaac Asimov


It's not "science" that made big macs. It's people wanting to make a buck. And (some) people's eating habits have already changed BECAUSE of knowledge. They have realized that eating shit will ruin their health. And those people that Don't realize this? Well, I guess they win the Darwin Awards.

In any case I think you don't understand science. It's not magic. It's hard work. It's FACT-finding. It's PROVING what you suspect may be true and then getting others to test out your ideas. It's making predictions and when you can do THAT you might be on to something. Like reality. And reality is way more comforting than make believe.

 

[faethor]

Define rational thinking?

Rational thinking is using logic and deduction to demonstrate usable truths.

Would you really call the human condition rational?

Not sure if that's really a valid question with the level of knowledge we possess. Certainly claiming a Diety is why we're here is rationalizing the human condition.

Trying to define "rational thinking" is like using the defense of "common sense" of which there is no such thing.

The computer you type on evolved due to rationality not common sense. So, there is indeed useful things built on rational thinking that they themselves rationally think.

Sure science has cured diseases and has made our lives more comfortable but at what cost?

I think your question here is use of a rational system, science, versus morality. Rationality discovers things we can do but in no ways dictate we must do it. For example, man can now make bird flu in the lab. I'd argue the best moral choice is to not release the virus but to release a cure.

Super-bugs on the rise will probably undo the good science has done.

Evolution is nature's process to 'build a better mouse trap'. Even if we did nothing the 'super bugs' would happen.

The consequences of increased global food because of science has caused other problems such as excessive processed foods which will undoubtedly cause genetic problems in future generations.

I don't know if you can say 'undoubtedly' as man has been manipulating foot for centuries and our lifespan has increased from 20-30 years to about 70. The question is more likely specific to the type of modification.

My take on religion is that it has a place in the future but will have a different role.

Religion is a way to explain the unexplainable. It will likely have the same role. But, as in the past, the knowledge from science has caused religion to move the goal post to that which is God's Domain.

What happens when all the science fails to answer all of the universes questions? I believe there will always be things science and mathematics will never be able to answer even if it is some insignificant. Especially true when all the answers of the universe have been solved and we still have questions that paradoxically need to be answered.

Science is a rational analysis on the observable universe. There may be limits to our observations within the universe. For example: Planck's constant may possibly be our smallest observeable dimension. Or the universe may outstrip our ability to analyze. For example: Dogs don't understand and build telescopes. There may be something we could never understand or build and not even know it. One example of this would be if some unseen and undectable force is acting on the universe. If there is such a thing we can never really say anything about it.

Looking at what we know about the world now, if there is a God he's likely a unintelligent designer. Come on who puts a play ground in the same spot as the output of the waste factory?