Uk Economy Is Headed For The Worst Of...
News2 mins ago
Atheists don't exist?
111 Answers
I haven't found a single scientific proof to prove that atheists exist. I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence but no solid proof. So all you argumentative no-God-loving types should stand up and show proof they exist. Bonus points for showing proof God doesn't exist.
Claiming you're an atheist is anecdotal. I want real, solid, and scientific proof sustainable in a laboratory environment.
Claiming you're an atheist is anecdotal. I want real, solid, and scientific proof sustainable in a laboratory environment.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Cowtipper. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kepler, Galileo and Newton are famous for their science not their theology. The accuracy of their science in no way lends the slightest weight to their theological beliefs.
That is a major difference between science and religion. Science analyses the information. Religion is built on personality cults with the presumption that one clever thought means everything they utter is gospel truth.
Anyone who believes science has barely touched the surface of reality is profoundly ignorant. If there were huge holes in our understanding of the world around us then it would be justified. Science is always open to new fields but there simply are no observations that demand such a step.
Theists aren't taken seriously now because they have not provided anything worthy of respect. I assume then that you comment acknowledges the theists have nothing to offer.
The steady state theory was the base hypothesis because we had no observations that conflicted with it. Hubble's observations led us to a better understanding. Science refines the theory as required. Theocrats deny the observation and insist their foundational myths are the immutable truth as they did with Galileo.
That is a major difference between science and religion. Science analyses the information. Religion is built on personality cults with the presumption that one clever thought means everything they utter is gospel truth.
Anyone who believes science has barely touched the surface of reality is profoundly ignorant. If there were huge holes in our understanding of the world around us then it would be justified. Science is always open to new fields but there simply are no observations that demand such a step.
Theists aren't taken seriously now because they have not provided anything worthy of respect. I assume then that you comment acknowledges the theists have nothing to offer.
The steady state theory was the base hypothesis because we had no observations that conflicted with it. Hubble's observations led us to a better understanding. Science refines the theory as required. Theocrats deny the observation and insist their foundational myths are the immutable truth as they did with Galileo.
"Insert tongue in cheek- POSSIBLE IRONY AHEAD -> "
7 billion people in the world...
3.7 Billion follow the God of Abraham
2.3% of 7 billion - 1.6 million atheists.
By show of hands am I in the minority (I don't really need an answer).
invio: Beso and I are having an adult conversation. The kids philosophical argument section is over there somewhere ->
:D
7 billion people in the world...
3.7 Billion follow the God of Abraham
2.3% of 7 billion - 1.6 million atheists.
By show of hands am I in the minority (I don't really need an answer).
invio: Beso and I are having an adult conversation. The kids philosophical argument section is over there somewhere ->
:D
The precise details of how life actually formed have not yet been pinpointed. However a leading hypothesis has demonstrated that the chemical reactions in certain hydrothermal vents on the bottom of the ocean are identical to the fundamental energy gathering processes common to all forms of life. These reaction occur in pockets in the minerals that are very similar in size to Archean organisms.
Life is nothing more than the culmination of highly advanced self replicating crystal structures.
Life is nothing more than the culmination of highly advanced self replicating crystal structures.
-- answer removed --
Where did you get the figure for 1.3 million atheists? Far more than that indicated "no religion" in the 2005 Australian census with nearly one third of the population either indicating no religion or a response that could not be interpreted as a religion.
We are about to have another census and I have no doubt this proportion will be higher still. Australia's current population is about 22.6 million
Besides popularity of opinion does not confer veracity.
We are about to have another census and I have no doubt this proportion will be higher still. Australia's current population is about 22.6 million
Besides popularity of opinion does not confer veracity.
-- answer removed --
"Anyone who believes science has barely touched the surface of reality is profoundly ignorant." I don't call you ignorant, just uninformed; please don't misquote.
//Cowtipper
"To pretend that we've even touched the surface of what exists"
"That is a major difference between science and religion. Science analyses the information. Religion is built on personality cults with the presumption that one clever thought means everything they utter is gospel truth."
You're confusing churches with people. Admittedly churches are social groups made up of people, but if you're a Tory or a Whig you're also in a social group with funny ideas about how things are/should be with individual's ideals differing from party lines. I do like to think I'm clever on occasion.
"Theists aren't taken seriously now because they have not provided anything worthy of respect. I assume then that you comment acknowledges the theists have nothing to offer." Your moral code is a direct result of religion. If I don't have an answer for how to prove God is there then I don't. Its an old question and I don't have an answer for you. If you think that wins a point I'm good with that.
"Theocrats deny the observation and insist their foundational myths are the immutable truth as they did with Galileo."
How many theocrats do you know? Islam is the closest I know of to get their own "ideal" state. We don't have state sponsored religion here. My only personal experience is in Yemen and the people I met there had many different ideas of what Islam is and should be.
http://en.wikipedia.o...ajor_religious_groups was where I quoted the numbers from, but really that was just pestering. I wasn't tying to give it a
//Cowtipper
"To pretend that we've even touched the surface of what exists"
"That is a major difference between science and religion. Science analyses the information. Religion is built on personality cults with the presumption that one clever thought means everything they utter is gospel truth."
You're confusing churches with people. Admittedly churches are social groups made up of people, but if you're a Tory or a Whig you're also in a social group with funny ideas about how things are/should be with individual's ideals differing from party lines. I do like to think I'm clever on occasion.
"Theists aren't taken seriously now because they have not provided anything worthy of respect. I assume then that you comment acknowledges the theists have nothing to offer." Your moral code is a direct result of religion. If I don't have an answer for how to prove God is there then I don't. Its an old question and I don't have an answer for you. If you think that wins a point I'm good with that.
"Theocrats deny the observation and insist their foundational myths are the immutable truth as they did with Galileo."
How many theocrats do you know? Islam is the closest I know of to get their own "ideal" state. We don't have state sponsored religion here. My only personal experience is in Yemen and the people I met there had many different ideas of what Islam is and should be.
http://en.wikipedia.o...ajor_religious_groups was where I quoted the numbers from, but really that was just pestering. I wasn't tying to give it a
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Cowtipper. You are ignorant of science in the precise meaning of the word. Anyone who had even a rudimentary understanding of Quantum Mechanic and General Relativity would not claim we have only touched the surface in our understanding of reality.
The difference in expression between "scratched" and "touched" is trivial. Those who reply with such pedantry are clearly unable to make intelligent comment.
My moral code conflicts starkly with religion. Religion has held back advancement in morality for centuries. Many of the morals promoted in the Bible disgust me.
Europe was in the control of the church for many centuries. Those who opposed it were killed as they threatened to do to Galileo. That is a theocracy. The church still thinks they should be in charge today.
Newton may well have considered his inspiration to be from God but that only reflects his predisposition and the time in which he lived. It does not mean a God actually helped him at all. Many other scientists have achieved comparable insight without any concept of God. Many famous modern physicists are openly atheist.
The difference in expression between "scratched" and "touched" is trivial. Those who reply with such pedantry are clearly unable to make intelligent comment.
My moral code conflicts starkly with religion. Religion has held back advancement in morality for centuries. Many of the morals promoted in the Bible disgust me.
Europe was in the control of the church for many centuries. Those who opposed it were killed as they threatened to do to Galileo. That is a theocracy. The church still thinks they should be in charge today.
Newton may well have considered his inspiration to be from God but that only reflects his predisposition and the time in which he lived. It does not mean a God actually helped him at all. Many other scientists have achieved comparable insight without any concept of God. Many famous modern physicists are openly atheist.
Easy on the personal attacks Beso. "exists" is the key word. We barely know what's inside our solar system let alone in the universe. As we discussed theories are constantly being updated and systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation is evolving- but they are all theories just waiting to be proven wrong.
Follow the path of Christianity from its beginnings in Israel and Palestine looking in front of and behind the path of expansion. Take a close look at what Herod was doing as representative of Rome. That's pretty typical of morals in a world without Christ. If you think that your morals didn't come from a direct result of Christianity then who made them? Its reasonable to assume you were taught them. If you didn't live in a Christian nation, with Christian politicians, Christian laws, and Christian people, a Christian heritage (I think you said your mom taught you and I'm sure she did. Somebody taught her morals too. Who was that?) Sure there have been negative results but that's a short term view. The lack of understanding of what a truly nasty world is part of the problem. Go spend a couple of years in prison in North Korea where morals barely exist and you'd be delighted to return to a Christian nation and her principles.
Your attacks on Christianity have a basis in fact. The inquisition and its similar events in the history of man have been a curse and a blessing. Society has cancers. The radical practitioners of Islam are a sort of cancer that we're trying to wipe out. I suppose your morals say leave them to their own devices. You might claim that "omg, its religion that's the problem" but its not. Its the ignorance of man hiding behind a pretext of righteousness. North Korea is a very real world where religion doesn't exist. Before the expansion of Christianity there were thousands of places that were like North Korea or even worse.
Follow the path of Christianity from its beginnings in Israel and Palestine looking in front of and behind the path of expansion. Take a close look at what Herod was doing as representative of Rome. That's pretty typical of morals in a world without Christ. If you think that your morals didn't come from a direct result of Christianity then who made them? Its reasonable to assume you were taught them. If you didn't live in a Christian nation, with Christian politicians, Christian laws, and Christian people, a Christian heritage (I think you said your mom taught you and I'm sure she did. Somebody taught her morals too. Who was that?) Sure there have been negative results but that's a short term view. The lack of understanding of what a truly nasty world is part of the problem. Go spend a couple of years in prison in North Korea where morals barely exist and you'd be delighted to return to a Christian nation and her principles.
Your attacks on Christianity have a basis in fact. The inquisition and its similar events in the history of man have been a curse and a blessing. Society has cancers. The radical practitioners of Islam are a sort of cancer that we're trying to wipe out. I suppose your morals say leave them to their own devices. You might claim that "omg, its religion that's the problem" but its not. Its the ignorance of man hiding behind a pretext of righteousness. North Korea is a very real world where religion doesn't exist. Before the expansion of Christianity there were thousands of places that were like North Korea or even worse.
cowtipper, it would be interesting to hear which morals you are referring to when you say that, essentially, we only live by them because of Christianity.
Is it the 10 commandments? Or any one of the long list that have been in place, and subsquently changed upon the decision of a leading figure within the church?
The development of religion surely can only go to show that religion is, and only is, an interpretation of these scriptures. You say it's arrogant for anyone to suggest we've more than scratched the surface of universal knowledge, that I'd tend to agree with, but how can you then tie your beliefs to a 2000 year old ideology that claims to know it all (apart from when it needs changing). Absolute faith in a single ideology is absolute arrogance, at least scientists are continually striving to be proven wrong.
Is it the 10 commandments? Or any one of the long list that have been in place, and subsquently changed upon the decision of a leading figure within the church?
The development of religion surely can only go to show that religion is, and only is, an interpretation of these scriptures. You say it's arrogant for anyone to suggest we've more than scratched the surface of universal knowledge, that I'd tend to agree with, but how can you then tie your beliefs to a 2000 year old ideology that claims to know it all (apart from when it needs changing). Absolute faith in a single ideology is absolute arrogance, at least scientists are continually striving to be proven wrong.
I'm a follower of Christ but we're talking about religion when we talk about atheism.
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " is a fairly decent definition. This encompasses every religion in the world, not just mine.
My personal choice is one of thousands. Christianity has expanded morals possibly more than most but that's subjective based on observation of what came ahead and what was left behind and its relative number of followers.
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" is a the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. Its also known as philosophy. I follow the tenants of a 2000 year old philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that. Loving wisdom doesn't conflict with the teachings of the Bible in any way and is encouraged and fostered there.
I'd like to think I'm a reasonable thinker and respecting other people and their opinion is part of that philosophy. Rational in these terms are subjective. I look at cause and effect as part of that rationality. Part of my conviction is based on rational thought and more than a few Christians doubt my salvation because of it. Because its a personal conviction I don't worry about what other people think but do my best to adhere to it.
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " is a fairly decent definition. This encompasses every religion in the world, not just mine.
My personal choice is one of thousands. Christianity has expanded morals possibly more than most but that's subjective based on observation of what came ahead and what was left behind and its relative number of followers.
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" is a the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. Its also known as philosophy. I follow the tenants of a 2000 year old philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that. Loving wisdom doesn't conflict with the teachings of the Bible in any way and is encouraged and fostered there.
I'd like to think I'm a reasonable thinker and respecting other people and their opinion is part of that philosophy. Rational in these terms are subjective. I look at cause and effect as part of that rationality. Part of my conviction is based on rational thought and more than a few Christians doubt my salvation because of it. Because its a personal conviction I don't worry about what other people think but do my best to adhere to it.
Cowtipper // Easy on the personal attacks Beso. //
It is not intended as an insult. Being uninformed becomes ignorance is when the uninformed stick to their case despite the evidence.
// We barely know what's inside our solar system let alone in the universe.//
Rubbish. The Solar System and even the large scale Universe is basically quite simple. Sure we have not cataloged every last piece of rock but the physical mechanisms behind virtually everything we have observed are well understood.
Even phenomena that are not fully reconciled do not encourage any but the boldest to suggest our understanding of the underlying mechanics of the Universe need to be changed. The suggestions of those who do make these challenges have never prevailed.
The sequence from Big Bang to present has been tracked and observations are strongly consistent with theory. Indeed scientists are typically scouring the Universe for variations between theory and observation of fractions of one percent and they get very excited when they find one. For some considerable time they have found the inconsistencies almost invariably to be due to observational error while the Physics stands unscathed.
At present the small variations in the cosmic background radiation across the sky represents the largest unexplained discrepancy between theory and observation. I have no doubt that the solution to this will not throw out the existing science, simply add to the breadth of our knowledge.
//As we discussed theories are constantly being updated and systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation is evolving- but they are all theories just waiting to be proven wrong.//
The core theories of our reality have not changed even slightly in a very long time and certainly have not been proven wrong. Only or detailed understanding of how they produce what we see in
It is not intended as an insult. Being uninformed becomes ignorance is when the uninformed stick to their case despite the evidence.
// We barely know what's inside our solar system let alone in the universe.//
Rubbish. The Solar System and even the large scale Universe is basically quite simple. Sure we have not cataloged every last piece of rock but the physical mechanisms behind virtually everything we have observed are well understood.
Even phenomena that are not fully reconciled do not encourage any but the boldest to suggest our understanding of the underlying mechanics of the Universe need to be changed. The suggestions of those who do make these challenges have never prevailed.
The sequence from Big Bang to present has been tracked and observations are strongly consistent with theory. Indeed scientists are typically scouring the Universe for variations between theory and observation of fractions of one percent and they get very excited when they find one. For some considerable time they have found the inconsistencies almost invariably to be due to observational error while the Physics stands unscathed.
At present the small variations in the cosmic background radiation across the sky represents the largest unexplained discrepancy between theory and observation. I have no doubt that the solution to this will not throw out the existing science, simply add to the breadth of our knowledge.
//As we discussed theories are constantly being updated and systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation is evolving- but they are all theories just waiting to be proven wrong.//
The core theories of our reality have not changed even slightly in a very long time and certainly have not been proven wrong. Only or detailed understanding of how they produce what we see in
The core theories of our reality have not changed even slightly in a very long time and certainly have not been proven wrong. Only or detailed understanding of how they produce what we see are being refined.
The fundamental truth of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Evolution have withstood every challenge without the slightest modification
Newton's Laws still stand to this day. They can be derived as a special case from Einstein's Relativity which expanded the scope to cover the effects of relative motion that only become obvious at very high speeds.
The fundamental truth of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Evolution have withstood every challenge without the slightest modification
Newton's Laws still stand to this day. They can be derived as a special case from Einstein's Relativity which expanded the scope to cover the effects of relative motion that only become obvious at very high speeds.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
News25 mins ago
