The one question that deists (or is it theists) cannot fathom an answer to is, well if God created all this, who or what created God? The answer that she is so powerful that she created herself strikes as laughable. Why not simply say the universe always was and always will be. In fact, I think I would view time as essentially logarithmic (which is one way around the idea of the entropy death of the universe).
When I am asked about my religious beliefs, my answer is that by certain knowledge I am an agnostic, but by belief I am an atheist.
While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it makes you wonder. God, if she existed, could answer the question at any time, but hasn’t.
Interesting - I thought the phrase “toot sweet” was just the name of a candy on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. So I looked it up, and sure enough, it’s an English corruption of a French phrase. Is it common? I’d managed to go about 51 years without knowing about it.
I don’t think it’s any more common than the original. I shy away from using it because there’s always a chance people will think I just don’t know how to spell. Especially since the second T is silent.
[QUOTE=Human Action;15969754
What, exactly, would characterize “extreme” atheism? Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods, it’s much more binary than it is part of a spectrum of moderate-to-extreme.[/QUOTE]
If the scientific method of atheists works so well, then why isn’t it being used in other areas of life. And if it is being used in other areas of life then it starts becoming a spectrum from moderate to extreme.
What? The scientific method isn’t “the scientific method of atheists”; it’s just the scientific method. Why are you bringing the scientific method into this? Whether or not you find the scientific method “extreme” has zero to do with your statement regarding extreme atheism.
So, coming up with fair tests to see if your ideas match reality “starts becoming a spectrum from moderate to extreme” ? Could you expand on that, or possibly give us your personal definition of the “scientific method” so we can see where you are mistaken?
Indeed, there’s plenty of a-theistic woo out there. While plenty of adherents to chiropractic and homeopathy are religious, it’s definitely not a requirement.
The scientific method and atheism are two totally different things. Perhaps atheists in the aggregate put more stock in science than religious folk do, but just being an atheist doesn’t mean you value the scientific method. It means you do not believe in any gods, nothing more or less than that.
Yes, use of the scientific method could, I suppose, become extreme, if use of needless experiments become disruptive to your daily life. But atheism is a yes-or-no proposition.
Lastly, remember that science is a self-limiting system. It is a system to “build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” That is what it can be used for; not ethical questions.
Yes, it was. So was Lombroso’s Biological theory of criminality. So?
One of the neat things about Science is that it is self-correcting, so eventually theories (even theories of human behaviour) which do not prove to be useful are abandoned.
As said, plenty, including humanism. However morally religion is a net negative; having no morality is generally better than the twisted parody of morality that religion produces.
That’s because religion is intellectually parasitic; it contributes nothing original that’s useful. “The parts that are good are not original; the parts that are original aren’t any good” (to paraphrase something that was said about Freud, I think). “Murder and theft are bad” or the Golden Rule aren’t especially Christian concepts; “thou shalt have no other gods before me” and "Women are at fault for Original Sin is.
Also: I realize atheism is a big topic there is room in this thread to talk about ethics and other issues. But pchaos, stick with the original subject for a while before you start taking this in 12 other directions. You acknowledge you’ve had trouble figuring out what atheists actually think, so perhaps you could ask some questions about that and listen to the answers.
Right, which is science, not ethics. In keeping with Marley’s moderator note, I’ll refrain from broader discussion of ethics.
On the subject of atheism, I think it’s key that you understand what it is: the lack of belief in gods. That’s it. You’re associating it with science, as though science were the religion of the irreligious, or is some kind of counterpart to religion. That’s simply not true.
